Talk:Veganism/Archive07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "properly sourced criticism being removed"

Skinwalker, what criticism was removed? It looks like you just reverted a response to criticism. (Note that I'm not involved/invested in whatever's been going on in that section.) --Joehaer 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Skinwalker probably misunderstood the edit history, but ultimately the edit he made was correct in that it removed a unnecessary, poorly written, and uncited response. Kellen T 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] crit

further on that subject there doesn't seem to be much criticism of veganism in this page at all. just the ethical crit. portion and a few bits about how to avoid health problems. there are many more arguments against veganism that just a few paltry health concerns and some abstract ethical arguments. where the comprehensive criticism section that appears in almost every other article on these sorts of subjects? furthermore much of the information quoted in this article specifically refers to vegetarian diets, and does not necessarily carry over to a vegan diet. for example: vegetarian diets are linked to higher IQ, vegan diets however are linked to lower IQ. this fact is listed in the vegetarian article, but curiously omitted here. in short the article is poorly constructed and badly biased. its set up to say as few bad things about veganism as possible, as opposed to offering a balanced/objective look at the subject. 24.185.239.254 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article is lacking in criticism (I disagree), provide some sources to back this up. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Kellen T 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything on the vegetarian page linking veganism to low IQ test scores. Can 24.185.239.254 please provide a source for this alleged fact? Speaking purely from personal experience as a second generation vegan, I can say that I have never seen evidence of such a link between the diet and low IQ but would be very interested to see any research on the matter. - Hyperflux 12:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the original poster, although maybe for slightly different reasons. As someone who has no real view on the vegan lifestyle either way and was just reading out of interest, I got the impression that the article is very supportive of the notion. Not that this is a bad thing at all, but I can understand how it can be perceived as unbalanced. There is a large section that lists many many reasons why veganism is beneficial and I initially felt this was clearly not NPOV, until I noticed that the section is the 'Motivations' section, so of course it will be this way. However, this is not clear and is not mirrored by a 'Criticisms' section that most wiki articles have. IMO this is the source of the confusion. Just my 2 cents. 85.210.209.35 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's all very well to say that an article lacks criticism, but you have to take into account the possibility that certain subjects don't support the same amount of well cited, encyclopaedic criticism as others. I'm not saying that there's no more criticism to add to this article, but I am encouraging people to judge each case on it's on merits, rather than thinking along the lines of "This article has less criticism that some others, so it needs more!". Which I feel would be a mistake. Hyperflux 11:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not much crtisism of Veganism because there are very few things negative associated to being Vegan. It is good for the environment and one's health. What is there to critisize?

The point about vegan IQ has now been removed as it was based on a study of 9 people, which is obviously not enough to make a scientific evaluation. - Solar 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cattlemen's study should be removed

Scientific studies about the vegan diet are welcome, but the section on the study funded by the American Cattlemen's Association is very misleading. If one had read the study or even the critical articles in the news about it (no, not the ones where the Beatle comments - he's not a scientist), one would find that the study is an almost comically biased ploy to promote beef consumption and make meat eaters feel better about themselves. The children in the study had diets consisting mainly of corn and some beans - hardly what someone who chooses a vegan diet would eat. Some groups received mince, others milk, and others oil - and some of these already malnourished children received nothing - to supplement the "diet", all with the same caloric value, but without the other nutrients in the meat. Supplemented soya mince could have been used and compared to the beef; instead, there was a gaping hole in the diets of the "meat-free" groups. This does not apply to veganism in any way. The only thing this study suggests is that when starving, malnourished children get ANY food with vitamins they aren't already getting, they are healthier. Well, duh.

Instead of trying to hold a candle to the vegan movement, we should be questioning the ethics of those who would use impoverished children as tools to promote food products. They withheld food from groups of children in this study - living people - knowing it would stunt their physical and mental growths and perhaps deny them much-needed opportunities in life. These people have no right to call vegans "unethical."

That said, I'm a new wikipedia user (and a very long-time reader), so I would rather the section be removed by a more experienced user, so as not to appear I am vandalizing. I would very much appreciate input on this. Noxic 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. The point has been brought up before. Vert et Noirtalk 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the section after reading the talk page archives and seeing that the majority of users commenting feel it should be removed. I have, of course, left everything else in the section on B12, as they use neutral wording and make important points (b12 is not a vitamin to overlook). Noxic 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with mentioning the study, especially with the critique that was offered. I think anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If "anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed", it doesn't belong in there. The b12 section already cites 2 studies that are specifically about B12. The Cattlemen's study was not even about B12, as non-control groups other than the mince group were not given B12 supplements. Noxic 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
After reading the removed section, I would suggest replacing it. It is fairly well balanced, most of the questionable findings in the study are challenged and the section arguably promotes caution when planning to adopt a vegan diet, in order to avoid nutrient deficiencies. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I wont take any action myself, but I welcome any discussion here or on my talk page. - Hyperflux (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Criticism for the sake of criticism looks childishly argumentative. The B12 factor is commonly cited by opponents of veganism as though it is an insurmountable challenge, when in actuality it can be dealt with using a simple, affordable vitamin which is available in just about any health or "natural foods store", and widely available online (even at amazon.com), where anyone with the ability to read wikipedia could order it. It is a small problem, easily fixed, and deserves an equally small and rationally constructed section. In fact, the importance of B12 is mentioned multiple times in the article aside from the section in question. I have even link-ified "vitamin b12" in this section again, so that anyone skipping down to the criticism may read the full article on the vitamin and learn of its importance himself.
Although opponents of veganism seem to thoroughly enjoy reciting "vegans need to supplement and watch their diets", we ought to remember that every major dietary association recommends multivitamins for the general public (and especially A and C vitamins), as the "normal" American and western diets are also tend to be lacking in certain vital nutrients. Should a critique of meat-eating on wikipedia feature a disproportionately large section on the pitfalls of vitamins often missing in the American diet? How many average Americans keep track of their Vitamins A and C intake? Potassium? How many of them count grams of Fiber? How about Vitamin K, Magnesium, Zinc, and Selenium - how many people know which foods contain rich amounts of these? How many know Molybdenum even exists? Yes, the red-blooded barbeque chef may be missing out on a few - or many - of these nutrients, but we have the modern miracle of the vitamin pill. When the problem is so easily fixed in the vegan diet through reasonable eating and supplementation, there's no real reason for making a huge fuss and waving around irrelevant child-experimentation data. Simple education on the importance of the vitamin will do.Noxic 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well said. I agree. - Hyperflux (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the section because it was published by an author employed by a reputable institution; the study's backers were identified in our article; a reply to the study was offered by the BDA. Kellen T 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now done this. Kellen T 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ethical Man

Saw this on Newsnight last week ethical man kills turkey as he believes people should see the animals they eat being killed. then goes on a month long vegan diet to find out what difference cutting animal products from his diet would make to "carbon footprint".

carbon-guru Professor Tim Jackson calculates that 18% of the carbon emissions created by the average diet are from meat and a further 10% are from dairy products. only counting carbon dioxide would be a woeful underestimate no-one has calculated the contribution methane and nitrous oxide emissions make to the climate cost of the food meaties eat. he it is safe to double the figure for carbon dioxide which means 60% of the global warming potential of the average diet is from animal products.

Just something interesting to chew over for Veganism meet daisy the cow Whackorobin 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your link refers to the recent UN report "Livestock's long shadow" which is cited in this article. Kellen T 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One sided.

This is rather one sided. Just from reading the opening paragraph, it seems like everyone who is a vegan is automatically a card carrying PETA supporter. Vegan doesn't nessicerily mean someone who avoids animal products all together, although some might, just one who doesn't have any animal products *in their food*. Unless someone can support the original view, i'm going to change this -- febtalk 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This topic has been well discussed, please view the achieve for the debate on whether Veganism is purely a diet or a wider philosophy, the Vegan Society for example don't agree with your definition, they define Veganism as "ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Thanks - Solar 12:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This article, however, is not about what the Vegan Society thinks, it is about the term in general. At the very least, the use of it solely as a diet should be mentioned -- febtalk 12:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you, then, find a source as reputable in the vegan community as the Vegan Society which defines vegans as people who remove animal products from their diet alone? The Vegan Society, as a group of vegans, make the most commonly agreed upon definition public. Your view that vegans may abstain from animal products in the area of diet alone is an opinion, and not one that is common in the vegan community. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Further - Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, who created the word "vegan" would certainly not share the view that vegans may include animal products in areas other than diet. They created the word "vegan" after becoming frustrated that the definition of "vegetarian" had become too lax. And as a vegan myself, I am deeply opposed to the word "vegan" going the same way and becoming a looser term. By all means, dietary vegans may call themselves "dietary vegans" but they are not true adherents of veganism as a philosophy, as defined by it's adherents and it's founders. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only is it the Vegan Societies definition, but they invented the word. While the meaning of words change, when you invent a word your original meaning is going to carry a lot of weight. I have yet to see a reputable sight discuss the non-dietary use of animals as still being vegan. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that the definition of vegan should not be modified to include "dietary vegans" or other non-vegans (though I do applaud anybody who reduces their use of animal products). The intentions of those who coined the word are well-documented and used throughout the movement. But I would also like to point out that many vegans (including myself) would never join or support PETA (see Gary Francione's blog for details) -- Trent 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree 100% that "dietary veganism" should not be mentioned. Veganism is a way of life more than a "diet". The word "vegetarian", however, once meant something close to "dietary vegan" (with terms like ovo-lacto-vegetarian covering what vegetarian has come to mean). If anything, it should only be mentioned that someone who eats a vegan diet but contributes economically to animal husbandry through purchases of items like fur, leather, down, etc is a "vegetarian" in the traditional sense.
The word was invented with a specific group of people in mind because the def. of "vegetarian" was getting too lax. Even now, I see many people my age on dating/networking sites saying "I'm vegan but I eat dairy/sushi/whatever I want" and these myths need to end. Noxic 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This has all been discussed previously in the archives. While you or I might disagree that someone who calls themselves a "dietary vegan" has any claim to the word, it is used and therefore is encylopedic. Here's an example on the International Vegetarian Union webpage. Kellen T 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I seems to me that "dietary vegan" is a different term, the original point I replied to referred simply to "Veganism", which is more than a diet without qualifying words attached to it. So the definition of Vegan should not include other forms, that should be in a sub-section showing deviations from the original meaning and purpose of the word. - Solar 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. - Hyperflux (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There used to be a sentence about "dietary veganism" in the intro, but it appears to have been removed. This dealt with the issue right off the bat, and it did not need to be mentioned again. It doesn't need a whole section; just a short to the point definition of the term. Kellen T 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to make a seperate article for Dietary Veganism? Avoids debate over the meaning of the word, and still allows for info on just the food products and such. Would be easy to add a For the practice of exluding animals from food products only, see Dietary Veganism, although that line sounds slightly off -- febtalk 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think there's any need for a "Dietary Veganism" page. It would probably end up being little more than a dictionary entry with a link to the main veganism page. If anything, it should be mentioned here that people who abstain in the area of diet alone sometimes self-title themselves "dietary vegans" and leave it at that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperflux (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Not necessary. I am going to re-add the sentence about "dietary veganism" to the intro or definition section as appropriate to do away with this matter once again. Kellen T 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan IQ

I am rather reluctant to bring this issue up, but the issue of vegan IQ is misrepresented in the article. Vegans actually scored the lowest in the paper IQ in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood: 1970 British cohort study. There are of course numerous problems with this study, firstly vegans were actually only 0.1% of the study sample, which in my view is far too low to get an accurate average, and secondly there are numerous problems with the cultural biasing of IQ tests. In my opinion it is unfortunate that many vegetarian groups feel it is useful to draw on this kind of study as a piece of propaganda. I will change the entry to reflect the issues with the sample size and the actual vegan IQ levels reported. - Solar 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire section about IQ scores should be removed, as the study was specifically about vegetarians, not vegans. And also, comments such as "Vegans were shown to have low IQ scores but vegans only made up 0.1% of the test group so this probably needs more research" do not belong in an encyclopaedia. - Hyperflux (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There were 8170 people included in the study. 0.1% suggests that there were only 8 vegans in the study. This isn't anywhere near enough to produce meaningful statistics, so it should be removed from the article.--Michig 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it should be removed, I did consider removing it but thought it might be better to clarify as this study has been quoted quite a bit, but as others think it should go I think that is best. - Solar 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I checked with the authors of the study and only 9 vegans were in the study, hardly enough to be scientifically relevant or be included in this article. - Solar 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This study shouldn't be included here. Kellen T 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unshellaced fruits

I'm sorry, but the statement that "all unshellaced fruits are vegan" is untrue, and ridiculous. A fruit that had been covered with whale oil is no more vegan than a fruit covered in insect lac. Further, materials not made from insect lac, are often referred to as shellac, anyway, despite not fitting the exact definition of shellac. Can't we just have a picture of fruit and say "fruit is vegan?" Huh? this is ridiculous the way it is, and sound like something a non-vegan would say to try and convince people that vegans are obsessed with minutia and are petty.--Nomenclator 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change it then.--Nomenclator 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known As, or Is?

yes, veganism is sometimes described as strict vegetarianism. But that is NOT precisely what veganism is. The claim that it is is a popular myth, not a fact. To be accurate, an encyclopedia should tell us what something is not what something is known as. The later sentences in the article even acknowledge that veganism is much more than strict veganism. And that fact should be emphasised, not obscured. I propose we drop the part about "known as." And change the first sentence to something more like "Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle that involves the avoidence of using animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes." In that sentence I've also fixed a grammatical problem of subject predicate agreement in number. Further down, we should add that "veganism is more than strict vegetarianism..." Do we want to tell the facts or do we simply want to propogate popular myths?

Also, adherent is too formal a word for someone who simply practices veganism. Yes, veganism has its adherents. But the word is still too formal. Beubg a vegan doesn't require any kind of announcement or proposal of adherence. So it has adherence to it, but saying it has adherents is too formal. The term should not be part of its definition.

I am going to persist on the subject of testing on animals, too. Find be a good citation for this being a fact, and I'll let it stay. Otherwise, I want it changed. --Nomenclator 13:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Veganism referred to as "strict vegetarianism": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
In other places, strict vegetarianism is differentiated from veganism, but we can at least say that veganism is "sometimes" referred to as strict vegetarianism without any doubt. Kellen T 13:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The vegan society defines a criteria for something to be vegan [7]:
"NO ANIMAL TESTING
The development and/or manufacture of the product, and where applicable its ingredients, must not involve, or have involved, testing of any sort on animals conducted at the initiative of the manufacturer or on its behalf, or by parties over whom the manufacturer has effective control."
Kellen T 14:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
One could adhere to the philosophy of veganism without any contradiction (the philosophy itself need not have some dogmatic authority). However, the term "practices" is simpler and clearer, so I've changed it. Kellen T 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Item number 8 is not the definition of what is required about a product, for it to be used by vegan, but rather refers only to the stricter standard of what products may be licensed by them to be called vegan, by commerical enterprises. While you cannot get their approval to call your product vegan if it has been tested on animals, the definition of a vegan, and of what you are required to do to meet the definition, is on other pages, such as http://www.vegansociety.com/html/people/lifestyle/. In additon Vegan Outreach has spoken out against requirng such minutia of someone, ie, the avoidence of animal-tested products, in order to justifiably call themselves a vegan, and someone here has even pointed that out with a citation somewhere here.
Veganism referred to as "strict vegetarianism." Yes, it is not incorrect to describe veganism as strict vegetarianism, among other things, but it is not correct to put this in the first defining sentence. As to reference 2, that supports my position. It says "veganism can aslo be called strict vegetarianism." Emphasis mine. As an informal alternative description, lacking precision, that works fine. But it does not belong in the very first sentence, in the subject of that sentence. Rather it should be stressed that veganism is much more than strict vegetarianism, even tho popularly, informally, and without trying to be precise, people may truthfully describe it as strict vegetarianism. This is why I say vegans should be writing the article, not people who have an axe to grind against veganism. They report the popular mythology, instead of the facts. As does the general press.In any case, reference 2 does not say veganism is called strict vegetarianism, it says vegan diet is called strict vegetarianism.
Ref 3 doesn't support your contention either. It merely uses the phrase strict vegetarianism parenthetically. It does not purport to be defining veganism, merely reporting on the not-for-profit status of vegan outreach. We should not expect it to be exactly accurate as to such details. Go to the source, Vegan Outreach. Ref 3 I'm sorry but in order of primary meaning and secondary meaning, Merriam Webster has the definitions reversed. The American Heritage dictionary is more highly regarded than Webster's, and their definiion http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/V0043200.html is different. Even so, a better source is the Vegan Society, whose founder's coined the word, and the American Vegan Society.
Ref 5 fully supports MY contention. They say "Veganism is a way of life for some people, you can call it strict vegetarianism. The definition of vegan is simple. They will not eat or wear any animal product or use any product that is derived from or tested on animals."
You can call it strict vegetarianism. If you want. But that is not precisely what it is. Then they give the definition, which says "they will not use any product that is derived from or tested on animals." Emphasis mine. Despite the fact that they support my view on the issue of whether strict vegetarianism is a precise definition, they refute my view about testing. They clearly have made an error here. And they appear to be an individual, and not a citable group. Please site definitive sources, not sources comparing veganism to strict vegetarianism in passing. Again, it is not wrong or mistaken to say this. It just is not encyclopedic to put it in the first sentence and imply it is definitive. --Nomenclator 14:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps one reason people equate veganism with diet is because for all practical purposes, changing your diet has more of an effect than anything else. The page http://shakahara.com/donreq2.html gives some statistics. If you just give up animal foods, you prevent much more suffering than if you give up fur, animals killed in animal shelters, and animals killed in research or testing laboratories - combined. By an order of 980 to 4. Fur is EASY to give up. Avoiding prescription medicines tested on animals -- that could easily harm humans. So almost all vegans, even if they themselves avoid tested products, are willing to accept people who buy products tested on animals, as being vegans, as long as they eat vegan and avoid fur. Almost all vegans are also willing to accept someone as being vegan, if they say, well, I'm a firefighter, and I need leather shoes to comply with company policy for fire retardence, or because I have an allergy to the synthetic leather used in water resistant shoes I need for winter wear. If someone wore a leather belt and said "I like the way it looks better" it would be hard for most any vegan to agree that they are vegan. Vegans have a bit of commonsense and tolerance even tho some non-vegans would like to characterize us as (added later) petty and obcessed with minutia. --Nomenclator 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This section is rather confusing to read. I wish people would use the indent feature properly, in order to create a properly flowing dialogue. Anyway, I have no problem with veganism being referred to as strict or pure vegetarianism. I have frequently encountered people who use those terms in order to explain veganism to non-vegetarians more easily. And after all, the word "vegetarian" originally meant what the word "vegan" means today, so, in a way, it's taking it back to it's roots. Nomenclator, I agree with you that not all vegans are 100% strict or anal about removing ALL animal products from their lives... But I'm sure you agree that pursuit of veganism would ideally lead one to a totally animal-free life, and I believe that "pure" vegans have to exist, in order to prove the viability of the animal-free lifestyle model. - Hyperflux (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was using the indent properly. Hyperflux wrote "I have frequently encountered people who use those terms in order to explain veganism to non-vegetarians more easily." That suggests that the terms are oversimplifications. Vegans are strict vegetarians, but they are much more than that. All vegans are strict vegetarians, but not all strict vegetarians are vegan. Period. That is why the terms should not be interchanged without further explanation. A vegan is a kind of strict vegetarian who 1. is a vegetarian for reasons of avoiding harm to animals (as opposed to primarily for his/her own better health or primarily for any other reason), and 2. Carries their avoidance of harm to animals to all aspects of their life, as far as they themselves evaluate as reasonably possible. Which brings us to the subject of "pure" vegans. Equating pure vegans with all vegans gives people the impression that we are obcessed with minutia. Indeed, this is a frequent characteristic of vegans, including myself. However it is not part of the definition of vegan. It also makes us seem petty. Frankly, I am trying to avoid being "penny wise and pound foolish" even though my natural tendency is to be penny wise and pound foolish - searching for every drop of gelatin, or inquiring of one manufacturer after another whether the stearic acid at the end of an ingredient list, is animal or vegetable in origin. It we spend so much time on details like this - which I admit I personally love to do, even tho I am improving in this regard and doing it less - we miss the big picture, and we have less time for presenting the big picture to others. For example if in the past I had worried about the fraction of a millimeter of gelatin covering my photographic film, I could not have shown dozens of people photos of my wonderful vegan garden, and impress them with how impressive it was. I tended to obsess about it, but I eventually made a decision for just myself, personally, that it wasn't worth obsessing about the few milligrams of gelatin, and that showing the pictures would do more good. That is not the same as saying I buy Jell-o - which I estimate contains 100 if not thousands of times as much gelatin as a roll of 35 mm film.--Nomenclator 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency

I think it's very important for this page to examine the environmental implications of vegan farming. I have been writing a personal examination of "Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency" which looks at aspects such as energy transference in food chains and land area required to support vegan diets compared to animal based diets, but it is currently nowhere near encyclopaedia standard.

I am especially interested in the food chain angle. The transference of energy from one level of a food chain to the next involves a 90% loss of energy, according to the ecological pyramid.

It makes far greater sense (in terms of logic, efficiency and productivity) for humans to be the primary consumer in their food chain than to massively reduce efficiency by adding cattle or other animals into the food chain and consequently become secondary consumers.

If anyone has any ideas on how to bring this angle to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to discuss it in detail.

Hyperflux 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw a lot of mention of that when researching world hunger last summer. Info on that isn't too hard to find, even in mainstream examinations of hunger issues. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confusing details that don't belong in encylopedia article

I removed the section about some vegans avoiding toothpaste with calcium from bone sources and whatever. This are minutia that may be interest to vegans having a discussion with each other about exactly how far to go, in being vegan, but is not of interest to the general public and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Nomenclator 01:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excess Soy

I removed the part about excess soy being harmful. It is totally irrelevant. Many vegans use very little soy. Some use absolutely none. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I replaced the soy content - soy is a very common ingredient in vegan cuisine. Can you provide a reputable source that states otherwise? Cheers, Skinwalker 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The section about the dangers of soy would be far better placed on the wiki page about soy itself, rather than on a page about a philosophy who's adherents may or may not eat it in quantities worthy of a warning. I support it's deletion from this page. - Hyperflux (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"soy is a very common ingredient in vegan cuisine"

There is no single "vegan cuisine." Vegans in different parts of the world often tend to eat what is available in their part of the world, and may have extremely different diets in various parts of the world.
Personally, I have been a vegan for 40 years, and only occasionally use soy ingredients. Probably whole years have gone by where I ate none. Not even soy oil.
Avoiding products tested on animals is NOT typical of most vegans. It seems we have some non-vegans here, who are doing their best to try and lump all vegans together with those vegans who go to certain extremes, in order to try and characterize all vegans as extremists. I say we hang 'em. And then eat their livers with fava beans and chianti.
Your edits are really not helping the article. It seems like you are using this "most vegans don't do X" argument as a straw man to eliminate properly sourced material that conflicts with your personal experience as a vegan. If you provide reliable sources that support your claims, we can talk, but your isolated anecdotes do not meet encyclopedic standards for a source for or against the inclusion of material in the article. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Soy is a very common ingredient used in Western vegan dishes. However, the highly processed forms of soy's proteins and fats, as well as GM soy, are more likely to be found in omni foods - in fact, it's hard to find any fast food or prepackaged item without highly processed (and probably low-quality) soy ingredients. I think that the "some people say soy is maybe sorta dangerous so veganism is invalid" argument is just grasping at straws, but a short mention and a link to the article on soy dangers shouldn't be a problem, provided it is also mentioned that soy products are in most processed omni foods anyway.
As far as the comment "Avoiding products tested on animals is NOT typical of most vegans", uh, yes, it is typical of every vegan I know. The vegans/vegetarians who make convenient exceptions, on the other hand, tend to be the ones who need something interesting to say about themselves on Myspace, until they tire of their newfound trend in a year or so. Then again, this is just my 10 years of experience, which I guess is not an encyclopedia-worthy source. Noxic
I am not sure that the soy entry is worth including either. As pointed out already, soy is prevalent in the typical Western omni diet, but it is in no way descriptive of the way all vegans eat. It was requested for a source showing that Skinwalker vegans don't necessarily eat a lot of soy... but shouldn't it be the other way around as well? There is no reliable source indicating the significant amounts of soy are eaten by vegans. The anti-soy argument seems to me to be a red herring -- if it is popular in both omnivorous and vegan diets, it is not a "special" warning for vegans, nor is there any proof that vegans consume more (or less) soy than omnivores. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs)
The Soy entry is just chaff. At worst, it exists in this article only to tar vegans as somehow defective. It belongs in a Soy article. Abe Froman 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed the soy entry, skinwalker seemed to be the only person who thinks it's appropriate for this article. Soy is not a requirement of a vegan diet and therefore any issues with soy should be kept to a seperate soy article. Muleattack 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahimsa and Veganism

Sorry English is not my native language but I am trying my best to correct myths about veganism that are not true. I hope you will please correct my english but leave the facts that are true the way I said they are to be true.

I also like to note that The American Vegan Society was founded in 1960 and has been in continuous power since then and is the most important vegan org in the united states and probably in the whole all the americas. It has publishes a quarterly magazine, Ahimsa, for about 44 of those years that it is now renamed the American Vegan since the last few years. The connection between ahimsa in the east and veganism has been mentioned by writers such Albert Sweitzer and Leo Tolstoy.

Whiel Vegan Outreach has been very influential, it owes much to those that have gone before. Jay and Freya Dinshah and the American Vegan Society are really the founding parents of the vegan movement in the US. there is absolutely no doubt about that. The people at Vegan Outreach will themselves tell you that. --Tonguebutcher 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, tonguebutcher, that the article contains popular myths about veganism, rather than the facts. There appears to be a conspiracy to erase attempts at any changes, no matter how small, toward the facts. With regard to the 3-revert rule, if one person goes up against a group of 2, they one person has no chance, as the group of 2 can each do one revert for every 2 reverts done by the group of one. This is rule by the majority, rather than rule by the truth. The truth is the truth; the truth is not whatever the majority thinks is the truth. The 3-revert system does not work well.
I made 2 small changes, to the second sentence. Changed commits abstention to abstains. If you want to change it back to commits to abstention, I suggest you please cite a reputable source that says vegans commit to going vegan, rather than just do it, go vegan. I am not aware of any. Everything suggests the opposite. Many vegans just gradually change from ordinary vegetarianism, to veganism, without even giving it much thought, much less "committing" to veganism. I also corrected a gramattical error. In most cases, adhere takes the preposition to, not of. So does its noun (and adjective) derivative, adherant of.

--Nomenclator 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You have completed a useful edit. Good job. Kellen T 13:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegan majority or vegan leadership: which defines the truth about veganism?

While veganism has always been an informal development, it has also always had a strong leadership. People are not adherants to what the leadership says. They are simply educated by the leadership, and perhaps also gently guided by the leadership. Thus, comes the question is a vegan what the majority of people who say they are vegan, is; or is a vegan what the leadership says veganism is; or is it somewhere inbetween. It is certainly not the first choice. Because many people who claim to be vegan, are clearly not. There are 1000's of people who say they don't use dairy or eggs - but in actuality really use them.

This goes to my claim that vegans only occasionally avoid products that are "tested on animals." My claim keeps getting erased, but without any citation to back it up. The fact is, while a few vegans eschew products tested on animals, the vegan leadership does not require that one do so, in order to define the person as a vegan. I have already cited the american vegan society re this. Yet my claim keeps getting reverted. Also my claim that veganism sprouts from ahimsa and eastern thought or owes a debt to eastern thought, keeps getting erased, despite the fact that I have provided citation for my claim, and there has been no citation for the obverse claim other than that Vegan Outreach better represents veganims than the Am erican Vegan Society. But they did not cite source for this claim, and I cited the much longer existence and history of publications of the Am Vegan Society. Even so, Vegan outreach does not say my claim is untrue. And vegan outreach acknowledges the work done by the Am VEgan Society.

I think we have a conspiracy here to promote popular myths about veganism, rather than the truth, about veganism. --Nomenclator 13:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You will do much better in convincing other editors of the superiority of your changes if you don't accuse them of particpating in a "conspiracy." The giant rants are not particularly helpful, either. Cite some reliable sources, discuss the appropriate changes with the other editors, then everything will be okay. Don't engage in a revert war, and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Kellen T 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All, most, many, or some

All, most, many, or some. At first it was claimed all. Now the article says most. In my opinion, unless you can cite specif reliable source that indicates that more than 50% avoid products that have been tested, it is best to say that "some" vegans avoid products that have been tested on animals. Indeed, some take veganism to this extreme. I might myself, if I had more time and money to spend on tedious research. But I don't think most do. I have heard many vegans say they simply can't afford the higher prices that are usually charged for products labeled as being not being tested on animals. And again, if you are going to eschew products that have been tested on animals, you are going to be eschewing most prescription drugs, and many non-prescription drugs, and all of the new drugs developed in the last 25 to 50 years, since which time governments have required testing, by law. This includes ibuprofen, humulin, Nexium, Lyrica, gabapentin, diphenhydramine, oxycodone (but not morhpine), hydrocodone (but not codeine), birth control pills, synthetic steroids (to relieve asthma, allergies), drugs used to relieve too much urine, too little urine, drugs used to relieve sore eyes, to control herpes, all antibiotics, drugs used to anesthesize people for surgery. Or are you going to avoid just cosmetics that have been tested on animals, but be willing to take prescription drugs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Every single vegan I know (and that's dozens) tries to eliminate using products that were tested on animals. Obviously this isn't always possible, especially in terms of medical drugs etc. However, many cosmetic/household products are marked as not having been tested on animals. (at least, this is the case in the UK) and every vegan I know chooses those over products that do not make such claims. As a vegan, I admit I have probably used products that were been tested on animals. However, it is my opinion that animal testing should be abolished, and I think that everyone calling themselves vegan should feel the same way. So I think the page should say "although vegans are against animal testing, most/many realise/feel that boycotting all animal tested products is currently impractical or impossible.". - Hyperflux (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest possibly replacing;

Most vegans refrain from supporting industries that use animals directly or indirectly, such as circuses and zoos, and will not use products that are tested on animals.

With something like;

Although vegans are against animal testing, some feel that boycotting all animal tested products is currently impractical or impossible, especially in medical areas, where many life-saving drugs are tested on animals. Vegans refrain from supporting industries that use animals directly, such as circuses and zoos.

- Hyperflux (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You will need some citation to back this up. Something from Vegan Outreach might fit the bill as they tend to be pragmatic. Kellen T 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vitamin A, Carotene and retinol

Please present a citation that shows that vegans are more susceptible to vitamin A deficiency, or remove the sentence or sentences that makes this claim. There is no support of this idea anywhere, as far as I know. It is mere speculation.

I am trying to bring this article out of the swamp of repetition of absurd rumors, and popular mythology. --Nomenclator 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the part about vegans being in danger of a vitamin A deficiency. The source cited for this, http://www.purifymind.com/NutritionalVege.htm, is not a reliable source. This is someone at a company, Nutrition International Company, perhaps selling vitamin supplements, not someone you would rely on to have a neutral point of view. Please find a peer-reviewed study if you want to return this claim. All the info I have seen shows that beta-carotene, the chemical most frequently found, and found in abundance, in plant material, is easily converted into retinol, except by a few people with rare metabolic disorders. Further, beta-carotene is in such huge abundance in yellow and green vegetables that anyone who eats even a fraction of the recommended number of servings is sure to get much more carotene than they need. Vegans tend to eat more vegetables than many non vegans. Also, once converted to retinol, retinol is stored for long periods of time, so you do not need to eat vegetables every day to get sufficient retinol into storage. That source was just ridiculous. In any case the article cited does not say that vegans are at risk of vit a deficiency. It says that "Some individuals with adequate intake of beta-carotene [emphasis mine] experienced vitamin A deficiency because consumption of insufficient amount of fat together with carotene-rich vegetables, and dietary deficiencies in iron and zinc. Thus, vegetarians are urged to consume dark colored leafy vegetables with some fat, also inactivated yeasts, spices, peas..." Vegetarians and vegans are likely to be consuming leafy greens, and fat. In re to leafy greens, more so than average.--Nomenclator 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vitamin A, carotene, citation

Acc to Dr. William Harris, from The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism, on the web here, http://www.vegsource.com/harris/sci_basis/CHAP1.pdf avail from page here http://www.vegsource.com/harris/book_contents.htm

"Beta-carotene is usually called pro-vitamin A and retinol is called "Vitamin A". I believe this is an error on the part of the nutritional establishment. Two molecules of retinol, an essential hormone-like metabolite required for skin, vision, and reproduction, are formed in the body by enzymatically splitting one molecule of beta-Carotene, a photosynthetic plant pigment interacting with chlorophyll and found in green leafy vegetables. This being so retinol fails the definition of vitamin. Beta-carotene should be called the true Vitamin A. It is synthesized only by plants. Retinol is synthesized only by animals, but there can be no retinol in the animal kingdom unless somewhere in the food chain there is an animal eating plant beta-Carotene.

--Nomenclator 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nomenclator, the article currently implies that vitamin A is only found in animal products. That is simply untrue. Palm oil, for example, is an excellent vegan source of vitamin A... There are plenty of vegan sources of vitamin A, as shown here -- [8] - Hyperflux (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me but that's not what I said.--Nomenclator 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading and incorrect to say that retinol is the "true" form of vitamin a. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is controversial. It is better to avoid using the misleading term "vitamin" altogether and use organic micronutrient, co-enzyme. --Nomenclator 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is also incorrect to say that plants do not contain vitamin A, as the link I provided earlier explains. Retinol may be easier to absorb, but it's not "the true form" of vitamin A. The whole section about vitamin A is erroneous. I am going to remove it. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Again, which is the "true" form is more a matter of semantics, than fact. More a matter of ascription, than description. It is best to avoid the term vitamin. --Nomenclator 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the section said "despite consumption of such provitamin A rich foods there might be vitamin deficiencies", which is un-encyclopeadic. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) You are not making any sense. --Nomenclator 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the last reference to vitamin A on the page as [9][10][11] all note that needs can be met by plant foods. Kellen T 12:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reword of B12 study

"In a recent laboratory study, 60% of the strict vegan participants' B12 and iron levels were compromised, as compared with the lacto- or lacto-ovo-vegetarian participants (who were able to acquire vitamin B12 from these animal sources).[46]"

This sentence was missing to what the 60% was being compared. I've removed the "60%" it and the parenthetical comment. If someone has access to the article, perhaps they can fill out the values, but I wasn't able to find specific numbers in the abstract. Kellen T 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I put in a link to Nutritional Yeast, and now I can't find it. I know that my choice of words may have not been the best, but doesn't anyone think that with all this talk about B12 in the article, nutritional yeast should be mentioned at least once? When I read the article I felt that everything relating to B12 was so negative, and as a vegan I know how hard it is to get B12, so maybe it is negative, but I think there should at least be one positive link in there. Heck, maybe even adding in an external link would be good, to Red Star Nutritional Yeast Vegetarian Support Formula...
Yes, it does say in the internal yeast link I added that not all Nutritional Yeast contains B12. So, maybe that was a downfall for that comment. Doesn't anybody think though, that if a new vegan was wandering around these parts reading this article to try and become a healthier, smarter vegan, that there should be a mention of Nutritional Yeast, as it may not be as good as a B12 supplement, sometimes it's the closest that someone can afford, and it tastes pretty damn great too.Eddie mars 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Nutritional yeast which contains B12 is covered by "fortified foods" as is any soymilk or cereal which contains B12. Nutritional yeast hardly deserves singling out. Fortified soymilk is likely a more important source of B12 than nutritional yeast. Kellen T 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "impact of vegetarianism" study

I'm removing this from the article:

In addition, lower counts of lymphocytes (the white blood cells responsible for immune system responses) and platelets (responsible for blood coagulation) and alterations in the iron metabolism and transport, were demonstrated.

Because my reading of the abstract seems to indicate that these counts were used to diagnose B12 deficiency, which has already been mentioned and cited by this study. If this is wrong, somebody can add the sentence back in; it uses the "vegparameters" reference. Kellen T 06:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sketchy bit

This part of the article is suspect:

Some studies show that vegetarian women are much more likely to have female babies. A study of 6,000 pregnant women in 1998 "found that while the national average in Britain is 106 boys born to every 100 girls, for vegetarian mothers the ratio was just 85 boys to 100 girls."[78] The high amount of oestrogen balancing chemicals (the majority of which are soya ‘isoflavones’) contributes to this effect, as well as to stimulate early pubescence among females, and delay male pubescence.[79]

The first sentence cites a BBC news source, but even inside that article the study is criticized as being flawed (by not including what men ate, since men determine the gender of a child). The second sentence cites the weston a. price foundation, which has been criticized (notorious?) for railing against vegetarian diets, without the WAP foundation citing any other source. Kellen T 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a bit sketchy! Eddie mars 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is sketcy too. One study. And it didn't even postulate anything about the sex of the fathers, even tho we know that sex is largely determined by sperm characteristics and not egg characteristics. Are veg mothers more likely to get knocked up by veg men than non-veg mothers? Or do veg mothers have a prediliction for flesh-eating fathers? Maybe it is the diet of the fathers that affected the outcome? Too much conjecture and not enough fact. Drop the whole thing.

--Nomenclator 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypospadias

I think the section on hypospadias should be removed. The citation isn't very convincing. Diet was based on answers to survey, not observation. The comment "As vegetarians have a greater exposure to phytoestrogens than do omnivores" is not supported with citation. Vegetarians often consume more dairy products than people with a "standard" diet. We don't know that it isn't hormones in dairy products that caused hypospadias. Vegan diet is often different than a typical vegetarian diet. The article has too many assumptions to be at all useful. Even if it wasn't, I would need to see more than one study. The cited study should suggest further reasearch. It does not produce enough resulte to draw any conclusions. I should add that the grammar is wrong in, and affects the meaning of, the following sentence fragment: "...phytoestrogens, found in soya products, nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues." The fragment tells us that phytoestrogens are found in nutrient deficiencies and found in exposure to pesticde residues. The error could be fixed by changing the punctuation, but I recommend that the entire sentence simply be removed. Uness someone can point to additional studies that produce the same results.

--Nomenclator 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support removal of this section. The findings of the research relate to a vegetarian diet rather than a vegan diet, so this would be more suitably included in the vegetarianism article if anywhere - I can find no mention of 'vegan' anywhere in the paper. Also, the conclusions are based on a relatively small number of cases, so further research would be helpful. If I am reading the results correctly, the authors are basing their conclusions regarding a vegetarian diet on only 7 cases, which seems rather dubious to me. --Michig 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The results were statistically significant:
Significant differences were detected for some aspects of the maternal diet, i.e. vegetarianism and iron supplementation in the first half of pregnancy. ... The only other statistically significant association for hypospadias was with influenza in the first 3 months of pregnancy
As for the grammar; it's different than Nomenclator quoted, with correct puntuation, but it's still slightly ambiguous due to the way english functions. Deal with it or write a clearer sentence. And I don't understand how people can honestly claim that things which apply to "vegetarians" can't possibly be relevant here as vegans are a subset of vegetarians. Kellen T 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No Kellen, I quoted it precisely. Someone later removed a comma after "phytoestrogens." Did a copy and paste as a matter of fact. Geez. The sentence, the way it is, is still ambiguous, even with the comma removed. --Nomenclator 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for a better phrasing, if the sentence is kept in the article? Kellen T 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclator, do not edit your comments after you have posted them. This is doubly important when it changes the meaning of your post (as in this case), and triply important when someone has already replied to it. As mentioned on your talk page, this is considered unacceptable behaviour. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
In response to Kellen's "And I don't understand how people can honestly claim that things which apply to "vegetarians" can't possibly be relevant here as vegans are a subset of vegetarians", at the risk of stating the obvious, many who describe themselves as 'vegetarians' have diets containing high amounts of dairy products, eggs, and even fish or chicken, so it's very unsafe to say that research based on subjects who are 'vegetarians' also applies to vegans. My personal opinion is that a larger number of subjects needs to be studied somewhat more rigorously to determine whether there is a link. I don't feel that a study based on 7 cases of children of vegetarians is sufficient, although as the research was published in a reputable journal it's reasonable to include this study. I feel that best approach, however, would be for studies which do not relate specifically to vegans to be included in the vegetarianism article only, with a 'see also' in this article. Otherwise, we're just going to get a lot of duplication. --Michig 09:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My comment was less directed at you and your comment specifically than an attitude I've observed here for some time, which is that people don't want information that seems critical of veganism and will use the fact that something doesn't explicitly study vegans or mention vegans to exclude it. In my opinion this is disingenuous as there is good reason to believe that many things which afflict vegetarians also afflict vegans.
I agree that the numbers are small, but the study included 7000 people and the defect is rare, and given that the researchers suggest the link is to soya, nutrient deficiencies or pesticides, it's probable that the risk is higher for vegans. Kellen T 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Probable schmobable. This is one study. It is based on filling out a questionaire about diet rather than observing diet. Until there are at least 3 studies, I don't think it deserves any place anywhere, in any encyclopedia article. The same goes for studies that show positive effects for vegetarianism. The fact that the authors postulate three possible reasons for their findings, suggests that they really don't know what is going on here. Is it soy, pesticides, or nutrient deficiencies? The particular 3 suggested - and it may be something else entirely - suggest that we don't even know if the hypospadias is due to something the vegetarian mothers ate, or something they "neglected" to eat. I think we are overwhelming readers with minutia, by including this study. Perhaps there are some studies on subjects that have had dozens or 100's of studies, that we could include. The overwhelming majority of editors seems to want to remove this particular study. --Nomenclator 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The researchers suggest a link to soya, nutrient deficiencies or pesticides, as an explanation of the results, but there doesn't appear to be evidence to support this. Vegans could be more, or less, susceptible and the only way to determine this is through further research - I don't think we, as editors, should make assumptions on issues like this. I would argue that information showing vegetarianism in a good light should also not be included here unless vegans were also studied, or unless there is a clear link to the exclusion of animal products from the diet, since such effects may also be due to elements of a vegetarian diet not present in a vegan diet. --Michig 11:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we could safely remove some of the unproven "positive" info about veganism such as " Vegans note additional health benefits are gained by not consuming artificial substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to farmed animals." I don't think this has been proven, and the citations given to support it are not regarded as scientific. This includes Robert Cohens rather flaky "not milk" site.

--Nomenclator 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I also want to remove "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, although there was no significant difference in blood pressure rates." as vegans are a subset of vegetarians with probably lower blood pressure than either vegetarians in general or the general pop of heavily meat-eating countries.--Nomenclator 13:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to object so I am going to make the above changes.--Nomenclator 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No controversy over leather and wool

The person was right to add leather and wool. I think the details he-she included were too much for the introductory paragraph. There is no controvery among vegans as to the idea that, ideally, products such as leather and wool should not be used, and to the idea that sometimes, in order to be pragmatic, and live well, things can't go precisely according to ideals, and leather and wool may be acceptable where alternatives are much more expensive, difficult to find, or even non-existant. Fur is usually considered totally off limits, as are ostentatious leather garments. --Nomenclator 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Their edits were not acceptable where they were placed, and indeed, are mentioned later in the article. Kellen T 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So is meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products, mentioned later in the article. Why repeat some things, and not others, such as pearls, and nacre? Why go into so much detail re different kinds of meat in the former sentence (meat, fish, poultry) when you can use the latter sentence to add these details. --Nomenclator 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Because these are the notable things, as specified. Pearls and nacre are hardly as notable as meat and dairy. Later, everything is listed. Kellen T 15:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings and subheadings are confusing

Similar topics are found in the "health claims," and in the "nutrition" section. Probably these 2 sections should be made into one section with perhspa 2 subsections, and the sentences re-organized. The way the markup code and text is, this is going to be difficult to do. It is hard to find what you are looking for, in the editing screens. --Nomenclator 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

there is a "health" subsection under the motivations section. Then, there is another section, a main section, called health effects. Some way to merge these into one, should be found. Perhaps the motivations section should be limited to just listing the motivations, then separate sections for going into pros and cons of health, environment, etc, should be made.--Nomenclator 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved things around to try and get better organization of topics. I did not remove anything during these list few edits.--Nomenclator 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they were sloppy and among other things messed up the meaning of the subsections. I agree things should be merged, however. See my earlier post on Reorganization. If you want to give this another try, please have the patience and care to do it correctly; our work is potentially seen by many people. Kellen T 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you found some problems can't you just fix them, instead of reverting the whole thing? I don't see where the problems are. It looked good to me. I made a separate section for what were previously subsections of Motivations. Then I made a small motivations section that just listed the motivations, instead of going into detail. I don't see the problem. Organization of topics can never be perfect. I think my changes, tho not perfect, were an improvement, rather than something that made the article worse. --Nomenclator 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Skinwalker can you please wait till i'm finished re-ordering the sections, before you revert them? I'm having trouble doing it all in one edit. So I am moving one section at a time, since it is hard to see how the format looks, when looking at the editing window. Then I am checking to see if things turn up in the place I expected, or not. Sometimes this will make the order temporarily worse. --Nomenclator 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not perfect, but I think it is better than it was before. I've got all the b12 risks in one unbroken segment. I've separated vegan benefits from vegan risks. I removed a sentence about veganism and pregnancy that duplicates information abt veganism pregnancy mentioned earlier. If I bungled some stuff, can you please try to improve it, rather than revert it? --Nomenclator 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Your edits are again rather sloppy. The B12 info does not need to be all together; for one thing, you've destroyed the grouping of subsections for "pregnancy" which is a logical and helpful distinction since it is all related information. Instead, you've spread this into a bunch of different subsections without a common header. Your additions to the intro are again unwelcome and unnecessary. I specifically removed the giant list of things from the intro and added the word "notably" to show this. Finally, your motivations section is not an improvement over the current version.
The reason you get reverted is that you have taken an ordered, if imperfect, article and turned it into a mess. It's not my (or anybody else's) responsibility to figure out what you meant to do over a series of 10 changes and sort out what you left behind. Kellen T 07:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the article was not ordered and I turned a mess into a document ordered by topic. If by "left behind" you mean "removed," I removed nothing behind except one sentence, "The American Dietetic Association says that a well-planned vegan diet is appropriate in all stages of life, but "individual assessment of dietary intakes of vegetarians is required."[26]" because it simply repeated the facts mentioned in the sentence: "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada state that "well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." If you wanted you could have added the pregnancy sentence footnote to this sentence. I'm sorry, but the b12 info belongs all together.--Nomenclator 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ethics and ethical criticisms

Perhaps the ethical criticisms section should be moved up near to, or sub to, ethics, with an added section for ethical pros. In other words and ethics section with ethical pro subsection and ethical con subjection. Or better choice of words for pro and con.--Nomenclator 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally there would be one "Ethics" section which integrates both. The ethical foundation for veganism and criticisms of this standpoint. However, the current "Ethical criticism" section is more of a "health criticism" section than anything. Kellen T 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] soy products and genital teratogenicity

I would suggest changing this to

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect. The authors of the study hypothesized that perhaps this is a result of maternal diet, specifically, consumption of soy products (which contain substantial levels of phytoestrogens), or that it may be due to nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues.

Whaddayathink? --Nomenclator 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh. It would be better to have it all in one sentence so we can eventually merge all of the bits on pregnancy into a single section with a concise summary of health concerns. Kellen T 07:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? How would having it in multiple sentences preven merging "all of the bits on pregnancy into a single section." ?? That just doesn't make sense. I could easily put the same meainng into a single sentence, but it should be easier for readers to understand my meaning if I use a couple of sentences. For example I could have said it in one sentence like this:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect, and the authors of the study hypothesized that perhaps this is a result of maternal diet, specifically, consumption of soy products (which contain substantial levels of phytoestrogens), or that it may be due to nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues.

Or like this:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect hypothesized by the authors of the study as perhaps being the result of maternal diet, specifically, consumption of soy products (which contain substantial levels of phytoestrogens), or as perhaps being the consequence of nutrient deficiencies, or of exposure to pesticide residues.

There is always more than one way to say something. I generally try to do my best to find the way of saying something that I think will make it easiest for readers to grasp. It is often easiest to grasp things when they are presented in small steps, rather than dumped on you all at once. Hence, several smaller sentences instead of one sentence with dependent clauses.

--Nomenclator 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would take it a little further:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect. While a specific cause has not been isolated, the authors of the study hypothesized that perhaps this is a result of maternal diet, specifically, consumption of soy products (which contain substantial levels of phytoestrogens), or that it may be due to nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues. Further research into the exact causes is necessary.

--Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Do it! Although saying "a specific cause has not been found" is sort of redundant, since the fact that the authors were busy hypothesising causes instead of proving them, already implies that. Nevertheless, I find your change to be acceptable.--Nomenclator 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weston A. Price Foundation

Weston A. Price has a well known bias against vegetarianism. It is a less than ideal source. Much like quoting from notmilk.com.

Perhaps we should be quoting the references used by the Weston A. Price foundation to make their statements? I am thinking specifically wrt the article on soy and puberty. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, that part of their article was not backed up with a source. But you should look again. Kellen T 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I will double check that. If there is no scientific source, then I think we should consider removing the section that relies on it as a source. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There is indeed no reference given on the Weston A. Price foundation website wrt this subject. I am going to tag that entry as requiring a source, and if no one can find one in the next week or so, I am going to remove it. I will try to dig through the universities library on my break, but I can't promise anything. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abstinance

Many, if not most, vegans, do not view the fact that they do not eat flesh, dairy products, or eggs, as "abstaining" from them. The term abstain implies some kind of innate desire or need that is voluntarily being thwarted. In actuality, vegans, especially long-time vegans, and life-long vegans, don't even think about the things that are missing. Would you say that most people in North America "abstain" from eating insects, or would you simply say that they just don't usually eat insects? Do various Chinese nationalities abstain from dairy products, or are such products simply not part of their culture?

This includes my own point of view. I don't abstain from animal products. It just doesn't generally occur to me to buy any. I have little need to read ingredient labels and "abstain" from products with animal ingredients as I make most of my food from scratch. I buy single-ingredient items, not prepared foods. I make my own "frozen dinners." This means I barely have to think of having to "avoid" anything. I buy dry legumes, not canned. I don't obsess over the source of things present in minute amounts, like the vitamins added to flour or rice.

For example make almost all my food from things I buy such as dry legumes, wheat flour, rye flour, fresh or frozen vegetables and fruits. When I had land, I also grew many of my own fruits and vegetables. It simply does not occur to me to buy the flesh, bones, or organs, eggs, or secretions of vertebrate or invertebrate animals. I don't "abstain" from these. I barely even think about them, much less abstain from them.

--Nomenclator 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, in short: Vegans do not abstain from animal products. They just don't consume them. I agree with this 100%. I have had similar arguments with omnivores before, where my position is that I will eat any food -- we just define food differently. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with both of you about the meaning of "abstain":
to hold oneself back voluntarily, esp. from something regarded as improper or unhealthy (usually fol. by from): to abstain from eating meat. [12]
a word like "avoid" is fine. If we cut down on the essay-writing here, we could maybe make some progress. Kellen T 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"to hold oneself back" Exactly. And many if not most of us are not doing any "holding back." We don't have cravings for animal products and we aren't holding ourselves back against some innate tendency to buy or consume them. "Avoid" is only a slight improvement. Both terms have denotations that are not necessarily accurate for many vegans. The correct word is the simplest: we "do not use" animal products.
--Nomenclator 17:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I "hold myself back" from eating meat about as much as I hold myself back from eating glass or rocks. There is no "holding back", because I wouldn't consume those things anyway.
And yes, we should be holding back on the essay-writing. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
'Avoid' is a much better word to use than 'Abstain', good job! And to Cpoupart, "we just define food differently", I love that as a conclusion to your statement. While I feel it is the absolute truth for myself, it is a sentence which at first seems so docile but could be so very offensive to many people. As if we're saying what they eat is not food at all. It gives me a great tingling sensation, like I'm giving 'them' a 'one over'. Eddie mars 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stearic Acid and Soap

While stearic acid and other fatty acids are a possible "ingredient" in soap, fatty acids are also used to make soap, which can be made by chemically reacting a fatty acid with lye. There are 2 ways to make soap, the traditional method of saponifying a fat with a strong alkalai, to produce soap and glycerine, or the modern factory method of first separating a fat into individual fatty acids, then saponifying each fatty acid with an alkalai, one at time, to produce soap and glycernine, then blending various soaps, glycerine, fats, and fatty acids, back together, to precisely adjust the properties of a "soap product." It is explained here http://shakahara.com/soap3.html Instead of saying "soap with ingredients which may have been extracted from animal fat (e.g. stearic acid) is avoided" it would be better to day, soap made from animal fats rather than vegetable fats, may be avoided." Although soap products made from vegetable fat may have added animal ingredients, such as glycerine produced from animal fat, or unsaponified animal fats or fatty acids added (added in small amounts). --Nomenclator 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Better would just be to say "some soaps" and not get overly held up with the details; let a reference do that work for you. Having a huge list of animal products and the things which includes them in this article (as we do now) verges on the idiotic, in my opinion. Kellen T 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sayin it verges on "idiotic" is a thinly disguised way of calling me an idiot; it is name-calling. And you are mistaken. And people are entitled to have a difference of opinion from you, without being called idiots. --Nomenclator 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it has nothing to do with you. The listing of ingredients existed before you started editing this article, and you didn't contribute to it, except for to replace things previously taken out of the intro. If you want a complete list of dogmatic non-vegan ingredients, these are plentiful on the web. Having a list here is not only redundant, but confusing, unnecessary, and an invitation to every last vegan newbie on the planet to add their own ingredients. Kellen T 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A small sample list of common ingredients is one thing, providing that it is labelled as such. But this isn't the place for a comprehensive list. If one is really desired, perhaps it should go in it's own article? It could then be linked to from this article. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
And I never provided a comprehensive list. In fact, I shortened the actual length of the list. Go an take a look. And since I created the list that you said was "idiotic" it has "everything to do with me."--Nomenclator 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)