Talk:Veganism/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] World demographics

I've been scouring the other wikipedias and non-english websites for statistics relating to vegans. By and large, this has been a failure. There appear to be no/poor statistics for vegans (or even vegetarians) in Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Possibly useful:

[edit] Germany

Veganismus wikipedia article provides "between 250,000 and 460,500". This is cited to veganwelt.de, which itself cites no source. This number is repeated on a number of german vegan websites, but none of them (that I can understand) have an authoritative source linked or listed. This source appears to provide an estimate for vegetarians, but I could not glean any info regarding vegans. Perhaps someone with better German could do so.

[edit] Netherlands

Veganisme wikipedia article provides "16,000 vegans." Sourced to veganisme.org, which I cannot understand, but which appears to be an estimate from the Netherlands vegan society.

[edit] Russia

Веганизм wikipedia article provides a bunch of statistics, and although most of them appear to be the UK/US/Germany stats that I've listed above. But maybe someone who can read Russian would be able to find something better.

Yay. So in sum, the german citation is kind of crappy, and we might have a citation for the Netherlands. Anybody else have any luck? KellenT 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the Netherlands and Germany estimates, though they're not very good. I also added an intro paragraph stating that data is not available for most countries. The wording could probably be changed. KellenT 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of questions

Very informative article, congratulations. I've identified one minor point that needs correcting and have a question for experts.

The minor point is that under the sub-heading "calcium" there is a reference to a study "by Oxford" with a link that directs to the English city of that name. I suspect that "University of Oxford" was meant but even that is vague and it would be more satisfactory to say "a team of X-specialism researchers at the University of Oxford".

The question is whether vegans avoid beer and wine as fish products are frequently used to clarify these beverages? If so, are other alcoholic drinks acceptable?

Thanks.

Itsmejudith 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right about the Oxford ref, but I don't know enough about that particular statement to change it.
On the alcohol front, yes, vegans would avoid beers and wines (and ciders etc...) that contain or use animal products in their production. There are plenty of vegan friendly beers though, for example any that follow the German purity laws, and quite a few lagers are also. Also, many cheap wines are vegan (Blossom Hill in the UK is vegan AFAIK). And there are a few cider manufacturers which produce vegan ciders (Thatchers, Stowford Press, etc...).
If you are in the UK, this site is a good resource for finding out whether things are vegan or not.-Localzuk(talk) 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, pretty much any beer that follows Germany's Reinheitsgebot is vegan, as by law it can only contain water, hops, barley, and yeast. As for non-beer/wine/cider beverages, some distilled spirits are filtered through bone char, which obviously disqualifies it - there are some lists of hard alcohol at Localzuk's link. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Manx brewed beers from Bushy's are vegan as well (just thought I'd mention that as I'm from there :D), as they follow (and exceed) the old (now repealed) Manx purity laws (which were similar to the newer German laws).-Localzuk(talk) 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good Article Review

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I question the quality of this article based on the Good article criteria. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article review. Issues needing to be address are listed there and you are invited to comment. Regards, Tarret 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Review is here: Wikipedia:Good article review#Veganism KellenT 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am delisting the article based on the issues raised at GAR. However, as the discussion was not very well attended, I have added detailed comments of my own on what I perceive as points in which the article does not at present meet the good article criteria. These can be found at the archived discussion. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to achieve NPOV in articles on topics like this, but think it is a very important criterion for good articles, since the GA process is here endorsing compliance not just with a guideline, but policy. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the intensive pig farm

Hello, my English is not really good but i have some qestions about this picture. Has this Picture ,in this article an effect like a propaganda? Is it licensed to take it over, with the same text to the german veganism article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.211.12 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That;s exactly what it is. Propaganda. Why not show a photo of sustenance hunting? 59.167.144.15 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits must be justified

Byproducts are part of avoidance, animal right issues are moral issues and the nutritional statement is corrected now from a medical point of view. Please don't edit without justification.JennyLen☤ 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, everyone here edits with justification, so I don't understand what that means. I restored the sentence in the intro about supplementation after thinking it over. It more carefully summarizes the content of the rest of the article about supplementation, and does not take sides on the contentious issue of the relative health of vegans vs. vegetarians vs. omnivores. We do, however, need to have a better cite at the end of this sentence, and I will look for one in the near future. Cheers, Skinwalker 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I sourced the supplementation sentence to this[1] position paper by the American Dietetic Association. The paper specifically lists each nutrient mentioned in the sentence in the context of veganism, not vegetarianism, and says that vegans should supplement. Comments? Skinwalker 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Good. KellenT 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; just read this after the fact. I made an informative edit about veganism in French which caused a lot of confusion amongst some of us in Canada when it came to dietary needs. Just trying to avoid international confusion. This is, however, common knowledge, so if we feel we need to link to a translation page let me know. I believe the French "vegetalien" page is accurate. Cpt ricard 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UICW-report moved to Environmental vegetarianism

Sorry about my mistake. I wrongfully placed the report due to my confusion between veganism and vegetarianism. I moved it to environmental vegetarianism; so note that if you see its removal, it wasn't banditry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.165.22 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraphs needing work

Here are some sections I think could use some attention:

  • The Jarvis bit should be rewritten to give more context if his is indeed a notable viewpoint, and the part about Singer after it should be properly cited, if there at all.
  • The Davis/Matheny paragraphs should be condensed into a single paragraph. The Davis part has undue weight in my opinion, since it's a discussion of a hypothetical agricultural model.
  • Both intro paragraphs in "Health" seem like fragments and the second one makes no direct connection to veganism.
  • The whole "Benefits" section is fragmented and could use a rewrite to make a coherent statement
  • The child abuse/deaths section of "pregnancies and children" should choose between giving the facts of each case or making only more general statements, not giving a general description then a very specific fact then back to a general description.
  • The UN paragraph and Systems Analysis paragraphs of "Environmentalism" do not make assertions tied to veganism.

I will eventually work on some of these myself, but perhaps other editors can get to them first. KellenT 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not touch the ethical concerns section, especially the material concerning Davis and Matheny. You originally eliminated the criticism section and merged this material into ethical concerns, only to now make the claim that it is "undue weight" and "hypotethical", obviously clearing the way for the elimination of all criticism of veganism. Ethics is, by its very nature theoretical, so your argument doesn't hold any weight. Davis gives an example of applied ethics in the field of environmental ethics, and as an animal scientist he has the authority to make these statements; Davis' opinions were not only published in a scholarly journal by were also presented at a conference. Matheny doesn't have the qualifications that Davis does, nor is he a scientist, but we've allowed him to stay in the article as a good faith effort to represent a minority POV; in the discipline of nutrition, veganism is the minority POV. It is not undue weight to quote an animal scientist about the agricultural ramifications of veganism. More importantly, the recent GA review recommended delisting this article due to the absence of criticism; please don't prove them correct. There is a plethora of criticism that does not appear in this article, such as that made by food writer Nina Planck in her controversial "Death by Veganism" piece in the New York Times, as well as the criticism of veganism by sports nutritionists as found in Wolinsky et al. If you think this article would be better served by a separate Criticism of veganism article, with the appropriate "Criticism" header and summary subsection, I'll go ahead and create it. —Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
No comment on the Davis/Matheny issue, but the "Death by Veganism" article is referenced, and there is a large paragraph on vegan parents starving their children. Someone at GAR also mentioned incorporating Anthony Bourdain's criticism of vegans into the article, which I think is possible if we avoid some of his more inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. comparing vegans to Hezbollah). Cheers, Skinwalker 13:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Kellen, I noticed that you reverted almost all of User:Jennylen's contributions, a scientist who has expertise in the field of medicine and ethics. Is there a particular reason that you feel her edits are not up to par, or does one have to be a practicing vegan in good membership standing with PETA in order to edit this article? There appears to be a bit of WP:OWN going on here. —Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I edit the article, and I've expressed fairly strong anti-vegan sentiment on this talk page in the past. Per your comment about JennyLen's expertise, and after the Essjay mess, I would really, really prefer that we don't appeal to editor's "real-life authority" unless that editor is willing to post a verifiable CV. Which I would never ask someone to do. This article will (rightly) stand or fall on the strength of its references. As far as I'm concerned, her contributions are welcome if they're properly sourced and conform to policy, which most (but not all) of them have. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Pinpointing exactly where sources are needed will help, comments on my contributuions requesting sources I missed are very welcome, if you let me know I will either source or delete or rephrase as needed JennyLen☤ 13:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The bits I removed/reverted/reworded:
  1. "moral" vs. "ethical" -> perhaps this is just stylistic, but vegan orgs seem to use "ethics" over "morals", also "moral" to me has a more religious, there-is-one-truth-alone tone.
  2. I reverted a change to a quote. It should be obvious that you shouldn't change quotes.
  3. I removed a totally unnecessary parenthetical "laco-vegetarianism". This is also an incorrect interpretation of "dairy products," which includes eggs, as they are historically also produced on dairies. Also reverted "products resulting from insect labor" back to "insect products" which actually accurately represents the issue as being that of products made from animals rather than strictly from the work of animals. And finally reverted the header from "Some statistics" back to "Demographics" which accurately represents the content of that paragraph.
  4. I reverted another changed quote. It's a quote. Don't change it.
  5. I removed the addition of an "arguments for and against" header. This mischaracterized the content.
  6. I reverted changes to the original line of "animal products" section, to which a bunch of unnecessary qualifications had been added. "Human use" covers all of the more detailed specifications, in a clearer way.
  7. I reworked some changes made to the "eating disorders" section, keeping a more condensed form rather than reverting to the previous version.
  8. I reverted removal of the crate picture as consensus seems to have been to keep it, plus it was removed in a sloppy way which broke references in the article.
  9. I reverted poorly written changes to the "specific nutrients" section. You choose which is better: "A vegan diet must, however, be well planned for containing all necessary nutritional elements, a subject which is not less true in any other type of diet. Lack of planning in a vegan diet may lead to nutritional defficiencies as i. e. vitamin B12" or "Poorly planned vegan diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency in nutrients such vitamin B12"
  10. I reverted the addition of "through extremism examples," which honestly just made no sense.
  11. I reverted a change to the introductory sentence. The intro sentence is based upon the Vegan Society's definition of veganism (I'd prefer it to be a quote, but others in the past did not), which is pretty clear about the aim of veganism. The changes were helpful only in obfuscating this. "excludes the use of animals for ___ or any other purpose" is better than "excludes the use of animals or animals derived products for ___ or any other similar purpose" in my reckoning.
There you go. My justifications for changes are also included in the edit summaries, if you take the time to read them. KellenT 13:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical and moral

It seems that the source says ethical related with commitment in page 2 and moral related with convictions in page 17 so both should be under the same citation. Thank you for calling my attention to that JennyLen☤ 12:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to say both ethical and moral, I think. My reasoning was that this article discusses Peter Singer's views on utilitarianism at length, which is based on how to make "correct" decisions (e.g. ethics) and not the decisions themselves (e.g. morals). Cheers, Skinwalker 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, sorry I didn't see that. Anyhow, like this we cover it I think . Thanks for the explanation, it helps JennyLen☤ 13:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove picture of suffering farm animals?

It suited well with the article and subject. This page is in desperate need of at least one of those pictures that illustrates animal suffering due to human neglect. More people than vegans are aware of animal cruelty, so a realistic picture can hardly be considered propaganda. Whoever removed it, put it back where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.226.96 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment result

This article has lost its GA status. The article itself hasn't changed much since the original granting of GA, but issues were raised about its content. Here is the GA reassessment discussion, which includes specific concerns. KellenT 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. I have faith in your editorial abilities, and I'm sure you'll have this up to FA in no time. Give it another go. —Viriditas | Talk 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I closed the discussion and tried to add some specific concerns; I commented further above. For FA, the main additional challenge is probably comprehensiveness, since the article is quite well cited. Apart from more history, I could imagine FA might require more on non-dietary aspects of veganism, such as cultural aspects. Again, good luck. Geometry guy 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Veganism and food Supplement advertisement wiki

almost non of the vitamins in supplements are absorbed, vegans also have an increased risk of kidney/liver damage, also a increased risk of Thrombosis which can lead to strokes. before you change about the way you eat you should talk to any "real" Nutritionist with masters or a PhD degree, as without any professional help you can kill yourself (as the internet isn't a reliable enough a way to find these things out.)Markthemac 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the assertions without citations; the vegan advocacy organizations have doctors and nutritionists who are making the recommendations which are cited here. KellenT 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

but not health concerns, which should be displayed. Markthemac 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Claims of vitamins not being absorbed when you take them using competing method X are a common canard of questionable nutrition statements. If you can provide a reliable source, preferably from an aforementioned nutritionist, that documents this we can talk about including it, but I'm skeptical that one exists. Cheers, Skinwalker 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] remove French bit?

This part was recently added to the article:

In the French language a végétalien is someone who practices a vegan diet, while a vegan is someone who practices a vegan lifestyle, specifically referring to the use of animal products in a non-dietary form (i.e. leather, wool, etc.).

While this is moderately interesting, it seems like a bit of trivia rather than something that fits well within the article. I am leaning towards removing it unless a better place can be found for it. Opinions? KellenT 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this. KellenT 12:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intro change

I have a problem with this edit, which changes:

Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.

to:

Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animal derived products for food, clothing, or any other purpose.

I previously reverted this change, but it has been added back. The previous version was derived from the Vegan Society definition of veganism (although a direct quote would be better, imo). The problem with the change is (a) "use of animals" includes animal products (b) "use of animals" is clearer than "use of animal derived products" as it more directly locates the reason for veganism. The added citation does nothing for me, and doesn't really support a distinction between "use of animals" and "animal products." Finally, I object to the edit summary of "corrected definition and sourced" because the definition was blatantly not wrong to begin with. KellenT 05:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be changing this back unless anybody else cares to comment. KellenT 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm, well if I wanted to be churlish about it, I'd say the second definition would allow a vegan to consume whole animals, but not any "product" (ill-defined term) made from them. Please change it back to the correct definition, by all means. This user had a habit of making smug edit summaries, IMO. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrient Deficiencies

Please excuse my previous changes (repeated changes) as I am brand new to Wikipedia. This is my first attempt to edit an article and I may have broken protocol. My intent is to alter slightly the way in which the potential for vitamin/nutrient deficiencies in a vegan diet is worded. Currently, by saying that "vegan diets can be deficient...," the implication is that there is some diet (the assumption being the standard American diet, or the diet of the majority) that is not deficient in vitamins/nutrients. That means that a vegan diet, when compared with the standard American diet, can also deficient in cholesterol, saturated fat, among other undesirable things. It is true that a person on a vegan diet should be aware of vitamin B12, iodine and other nutrients...as should everyone. I propose that where worded: "However, a vegan diet can be deficient..." it should be changed to "Just as any diet can be deficient in nutrients, an unplanned vegan diet may be deficient in..." (CraigWenner 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

There allready was a debate and this version is the result of the compromise. The fact is that potential deficiency in nutrients is a characteristic of a vegan diet. If you follow the Standard American Diet, you are not at risk for this particular problem; You are however at risk from e.g. excessive cholesterol.CyrilleDunant 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. You'll have to excuse me for not being present during the first debate, but the potential for a deficiency in nutrients is a characteristic of all diets. The potential deficiency in certain nutrients is characteristic of unplanned vegan diets (for example if all you're eating is bagels with peanut butter), but not of a well balanced or educated vegan diet. If by "particular problem" you mean that on the Standard American Diet you are not at risk for nutrient deficiencies, then I have to disagree. Americans on the standard diet may be prone to certain deficiencies as well (e.g. calcium, iodine, vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, magnesium). Nutritional deficiencies have nothing to do with being vegan or otherwise, they have to do with eating well. The way the article is presently written, ("vegan diets can be deficient...therefore encouraged to take supplements") it implies that if you are not deficient and not taking supplements, then you most likely are not a vegan. This is bogus! If anyone is deficient in anything, they need to eat better (barring extenuating circumstances where supplements may be needed). (CraigWenner 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Your proposal weasels around the fact that vegans have a higher likelyhood of being deficient in these nutrients than other groups. Vegans are more likely to be deficient in B12 than omnivores, vegans in certain countries are more likely to be deficient in iodine, vegans are more likely to be deficient in calcium, vegans in northern latitudes are more likely to be deficient in vitamin D, vegans are more likely to be deficient in omega-3's. Pointing out that other diets are deficient in other things is actually irrelevant to this article. KellenT 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Point well taken with regard to weasel words in my proposed change. But I do still feel that the statement "However, vegan diets can be low in levels of calcium, iodine, and vitamins B12 and D. Vegans are encouraged to take dietary supplements to remedy this" found in the very beginning of the article is misleading. It implies that the remedy to a particular deficiency cannot be to alter the diet appropriately rather than having to resort to a supplement. I feel that saying something like: "Vegans are encouraged to plan their diet appropriately or to take dietary supplements to remedy this" would more accurately express the options for avoiding deficiencies. Supplements are useful, but they are not necessary. (CraigWenner 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

any vegan who eats properly with the vegan food groups and goes to a doctor for a blood analysis test can verify that the doctors are always impressed by the high levels of calcium, iron, b12, and iodine. The last time I got a blood analysis test my calcium levels exceeded the average levels. When you intake enough calcium, healthy bone structure is maintained through weight-bearing exercises that shoot electrical impulses through the bone tissues adhering the calcium to the osteoblasts. I have been vegan for 9 years and it disturbs me that the best advice you give to people seeking out how vegans get calcium is to eat fortified soy products??? what about broccoli?? vegetarians who drink milk are usually calcium deficient because of the protein-induced hypocalciurea - where excessive protein causes a pH imbalance that binds the sulfur bonds from milk proteins with unstable calcium cations from the milk and then the acid excess takes calcium from the blood which gets replaced by the osteoblasts in the bones. After milk consumption, the body urinates out more calcium than it tried to digest. Why cant we tell people to eat leafy greens or broccoli or lentils? or brown rice or grain? how do other herbivorous mammals get their calcium? this veganism site needs accurate information. and fortified foods are never recommended over natural sources.

The recommendations you are criticizing are made by vegan advocacy organizations. KellenT 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles worth discussing

This article lost GA status (unfairly, IMO - drive-by reviewing is bad) due in part to a lack of criticism. Today I ran across a few articles[2] [3] that I want to suggest we include in the "Resources and the Environment" section.

The basic gist is that a diet with a limited meat and/or dairy intake (still far less that the standard American diet, FWIW) may actually be more environmentally friendly than a diet restricted only to vegetables. This is due to land-use concerns - it is more efficient (on a calorie-per-area basis) to use marginally fertile land for livestock than vegetables. The conclusion that the Slate article then draws is that if you live around poor farming land, then it is better to eat locally rather than import large quantities of vegetables - the transportation of which leads to higher CO2 emissions. I'd like to see about integrating these references into the environment section and adding a short paragraph, but since this could be a contentious change I thought I'd bring it to the talk page first. Cheers, Skinwalker 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting and should be added. Unfortunately, neither of these are ideal sources; better would be the article referenced by both, which unfortunately, is not freely available. KellenT 13:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove globalize template

It would be nice to come to consensus about whether or not the 'demographics' section indeed needs to be tagged with the "globalize" template. There simply isn't any data which we can cite to fulfill the ideal requirements for removing the "globalize" template. As such, it's not a failing of this article or wikipedia in general that we can't provide a wider view, and the template is therefore meaningless in this context. I would suggest we remove it and point to this decision in the future if the template is added. KellenT 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think you've exhausted all avenues of research into global statistics, and the article summarizes all the data that's out there. Perhaps we should out a "commented out" comment at the start of the demographics section pointing to the numerous discussions of this topic and stating that there just isn't data about veganism prevalence in most of the world. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vitamin B12

"In April 2007 MIT biologists claimed that they had found a symbiotic relationship between soil and roots, with B12 being present in soil attached to roots (which includes the soil around root vegetables, such as parsnips or carrots) [4]."

This paragraph has been deleted. One can obtain vitamin B12 from "dirty"/lightly washed raw organic carrots? Seems highly relevant to me. nirvana2013 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted because the article cited has nothing to do with veganism. It discusses a discovery around B12 synthesis, but says nothing about human absorbtion of that B12. Further, the "dirty"/lightly washed B12 absorption theory isn't supported by any research. An older revision of this page had this section (which I intend to replace):
Tempeh, seaweed, spirulina, organic produce, soil on unwashed vegetables, and intestinal bacteria have not been shown to be reliable sources of B12 for the dietary needs of vegans.[1][2]
The references cite a Vegan Outreach page, which concludes:
Unless uncleaned, organic produce is shown to lower MMA levels, it is unjustified to claim that B12 can be obtained in such a manner, or to claim with certainty that humans have ever relied on it as a source of B12.
Only until organic foods are chosen randomly from markets and grocery stores throughout the country (or world) and are consistently shown to decrease MMA levels will someone not be taking a considerable risk in relying on organic foods for B12. This article documents many vegans suffering from B12 deficiency, and it is safe to assume that many of them consumed significant amounts of organic foods.
So basically, there's no justification for including such a paragraph in this article, though it is relevant to Vitamin B12. KellenT 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I wish to re-arrange the sentence found under the heading 'Vitamin B12': "Vegetarians who were previously meat eaters may preserve, up to 30 years, stores of Vit B12 in their bodies." to "Vegetarians who were previously meat eaters may preserve stores of Vit B12 in their bodies for up to 30 years." which I feel flows better gramatically. I have two questions about this change: 1) Is it considered a 'minor edit' to re-arrange a grammatically poor sentence without (I believe) altering the message/content? Yes I have read Help:Minor edit, but I'd like some more clarity. 2) I edited this sentence and previewed it (without changing the subsequent tag), but the reference changed from 69 to 1. Why? Thanks for your time stscross 11:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and rearrange the sentence. I feel this would qualify as a minor edit. The reference number shown in the preview of a section of an article is often different to that seen when the whole article is viewed - don't worry about this, it's just a consequence of the section being previewed in isolation from the rest of the document.--Michig 11:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much on vegetarianism

I found the article focused too much on the practice of not eating meat, not the practice of not consuming or using any animal products. For eg. the ethics section focuses on why vegans may choose not to eat meat. I would like to know why vegans choose not to eat any animal product.

220.245.158.49 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan nutrition

Really, do we need 18 paragraphs, 9 sections, to talk about Vegan nutrition, outside of the Vegan nutrition article? I dare say this section of Veganism is almost as long as the main article itself! When people constantly complain about the length of this article, is there any excuse to have so much information here? A line along the lines of "Certain vitamins and minerals, such as Iodine, B12, and Calcium, may be lacking in a Vegan diet," or a line talking about nutrients and mention those three specifically as examples. Honestly, this is just a waste of space, all this information clearly goes on the Vegan nutrition page. Vert et Noirtalk 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The vegan nutrition article should be nuked. It was split off of this article as an attempt at cleanup. KellenT 09:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soy Consumption

I added a paragraph stating, as succinctly as I knew how to put it, that many vegans rely on soy as their main source of protein. A user called Keller removed it, saying that it was not appropriate for this article. I disagree, and have therefore restored the paragraph. Web-sites that evangelize for vegan diets almost always push people toward tofu and other soy meat substitutes, and I cited one, chooseveg.com, as a reference. If vegan diets often rely on soy, then the debate about the safety of soy consumption deserves to be noted on this page. I also cited a video by a nutrition author, which Keller seems to feel is an inappropriate source. I don't understand why a video by an author is a less authoritative reference than the author's book, which I just as easily could have cited. If Keller feels this is an inappropriate source, then I suggest he/she improve my contribution by finding another source. If he/she is, like many vegans, eager to downplay the risks of soy because it's a vegan staple, then I suggest he/she pound sand.--ManicBrit 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Many people on non vegan diets eat soy too, should we have paragraphs in every diet article that can possibly include soy? Many vegans do not eat soy at all, it's not a requirement of the diet and therefore this section is inappropriate. You also appear to be using the word 'many' as if it was 'most'. The place to mention the health concerns of soy is on the soy article page itself. Muleattack 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Your sources are poor at best and the dangers of soy consumption belong in the article on soy, not here. KellenT 08:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kellen:

I don't expect an ideologue to adhere to NPOV perfectly, but you've failed to defend your position. My sources are quite clear - chooseveg.com is a resource for vegans planning their diets, and it advocates tofu and other soy products as three of the five main protein sources vegans should use. The other source is a lecture from an MD who authored a book about healthy eating. You can consider these sources "poor" because they don't conform to your point of view, and you can attempt to police this page and others associated with it in order to give a more pro-vegan slant, but I don't see how you can call these sources "poor." I am going to restore a section to the "Precautions" section that refers readers to the "Soy Controversy" article. --ManicBrit (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Attacking me as an ideologue with no basis is unnecessary. Just citing the front page of a vegetarian advocacy site isn't enough to establish that "some vegan and vegetarian diets recommend eating soy-based meat substitutes such as tofu and textured vegetable protein as primary protein sources." For example, it's easy to cite the vegan society page on protein in which they recommend peas, beans, lentils, wheat, oats, rice, barley, buckwheat, millet, pasta, bread, brazils, hazels, almonds, cashews, sunflower, pumpkin, sesame in addition to soya products as sources of protein. Your sources doesn't directly support the statement you added to the article; and this is what I mean by "poor." KellenT 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

MuleAttack:

The contribution never said that all vegans eat soy, just that many do, which was supported by a link to a vegan website. The paragraph itself also noted that soy has been added to many food products in the US, and is not unique to a vegan diet. However, the prevalence of soy in vegan diets is well-established, and someone researching veganism should know that information before they log on to some site like chooseveg.com and start downing tofu in the same quantity as they previously downed meat. You are quite free to add a counterpoint that some vegan diets do not include soy and that lentils and nuts can suffice. That would be a valid contribution that would enhance the article. Removing the soy information detracts for the article. --ManicBrit (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Other editors, please weigh in on this subject. If there are no other responses, I'm going to remove the section. KellenT 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the section regarding the risks of soy consumption is appropriate in this article. I am for removing it. Djk3 (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This canard about Soy damaging "the brain" or "sexual health" comes up frequently. Specific to manic's edit, it is unsourced. On that alone it should be excluded from the article. If soy damages health, someone please tell this to the 2 billion asians who eat it daily. Abe Froman (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harris Poll

The following seems to be a rather useless indicator:

A 2006 poll conducted by Harris Interactive in the United States listed specific foods and asked respondents to indicate which items they never eat, rather than asking respondents to self-identify. The survey found that of the 1,000 adults polled 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs and were therefore essentially vegan in their eating habits. The survey also found that about 1.4% of men and 1.3% of women have vegan diets.[6]

The problem there is that unless you are actively seeking to avoid certain things, you probably pay very little attention to whether eggs or butter were used in the bread you ate, or whether the soup you had was based in Chicken or Beef stock, or whether the Caesar Salad you had used an anchovy-based salad dressing. I find it quite implausible to infer from the data that 1.4% of all Americans make an effort to avoid eating bread and crackers. The poll isn't an effective way to determine the real numbers for vegans, because most people don't read labels as closely as vegetarians, vegans, or people with food allergies do. The passage seems misleading and suited for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.172.224 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The inference is made by the researchers. I agree that it's not an ideal poll, but it's one of very few polls done about vegans. As such, it belongs in this article. KellenT 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar, syntax, usage, thought

The first sentence, "Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose," is incorrect. A philosophy cannot "seek" anything. Nor can a lifestyle. A person who holds a philosophy, or practices a lifestyle, can seek. But a philosophy itself, cannot. Veganism is a way of life (never use a "big word," or fancy schmancy word, such as philosphy, or lifestyle, when a "small word," such as way of life, will do. Following this rule makes for better communication, with more people. Veganism is a way of life that involves not using animals, or animal products, for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or any other purpose, as far as is reasonably possible; and vegans hold that in this day and age, in the industrialized world, food, clothing and shelter can easily be acquired without relying on animals or animal products. The first sentence needs to be changed. Nomenclator (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

"Usually" pronounced IPA: /ˈviːgən/?

This is the way I personally heard Jay Dinshah, the founder of the American Vegan Society, pronounce the word, in 1967, and he remarked about it being the correct pronunciation. He personally corrected me when I pronounced the word incorrectly. The correctness of pronunciation is determined by authoritative declaration, and not by repeated experimentation, repeated observation, and accumulation of empirical evidence, which is the way the correctness of scientific facts are determined. If Jay Dinshah said oranges had more sugar than grapefruits, I might want to measure sugar levels. If Jay Dinshah said vegan was pronounced IPA: /ˈviːgən/, then IPA: /ˈviːgən/ is the correct pronunciation. The sentence should be changed to read that "correct pronunciation is IPA: /ˈviːgən/. --Nomenclator (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed more or less, and changed. KellenT 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health section cleanup

I cleaned up the B12 section, and removed one sentence which read:

Clinical evidence of Vitamin B12 deficiency is uncommon given to the fact that the human body preserves B12, using it without destroying the substance.

This is false. This had the following two references, which are themselves useful, but which contradict the statement. Perhaps they will be useful to someone else.

  • Herrmann W, Schorr H, Obeid R, Geisel J (2003). "Vitamin B-12 status, particularly holotranscobalamin II and methylmalonic acid concentrations, and hyperhomocysteinemia in vegetarians". Am J Clin Nutr 78: 131-6.  (found here)
  • Antony AC (2003). "Vegetarianism and vitamin B-12 (cobalamin) deficiency". Am J Clin Nutr 78: 3-6.  (found here)
This is a quote that comes from another source [5], but was probably removed in a prior bout of editing. I have a problem removing it, because the sources used to do so are primary sources. Not all Wikipedians are Doctors. Abe Froman (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I believed this to be false based on misunderstanding "clinical" versus "sub-clinical" deficiency as noted below. I support re-introducing some text about this in the article, with an appropriate source. The above two sources do not support the statement as-is. The vegan society B12 page here could also be used as a source. KellenT 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Woops, here. KellenT 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed:

A study, published in the June 1, 2007 issue of Cancer Research, suggests that while higher dietary intakes of B6, B9, and B12 are associated with reduced rates of pancreatic cancer for people at or below normal body weight, some people who received these nutrients from multivitamin pills had an increased risk of developing the disease.[3]

Which is interesting, but only tangentially relevant to the health of vegans.

Later, I also reworded, but then decided on removing the part about Dr. Spock from the "pregnancies and children section". This read:

Dr. Benjamin Spock advocated a plant-based diet for children, writing that "children who grow up getting nutrition from plant foods rather than meats have a tremendous health advantage. They are less likely to develop weight problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and some forms of cancer."[4]

The previously cited source was not very good, and didn't actually indicate that he "said" something (which the original text said he did). The new source above is from the NY Times, but the quote actually comes from this AP article, not the NY times one. I removed this section because it was improperly under the "precautions" header and I didn't have a good place for it at the time. Please re-add it in an appropriate place if you're feeling toasty. KellenT 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says:

The latest edition of Dr. Benjamin Spocks Baby and Child Care was released last month, and it contained a surprising turnaround. Dr. Spock, who died at the age of 94 just before the new version of his book was published, advised no cows milk or any other dairy products for children. Mothers milk, not cows milk, is natures perfect food for babies under one year, according to Dr. Spock. And once a child is over the age of two years, he advised a vegetarian dieteliminating meat and poultry and cutting down on fish. We now know that there are harmful effects of a meaty diet, Dr. Spock wrote with his co-author Stephen J. Parker, M.D. Children can get plenty of protein and iron from vegetables, beans, and other plant foods that avoid the fat and cholesterol that are in animal products.

This supports the quote as is.

Abe Froman (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it supports my re-written version. My main objection is that it was in the wrong place in the article, and I didn't have a good place for it. Perhaps it fits in the 'benefits' section, but that's marginal. KellenT 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed:

Public Health specialists have been increasingly alerting about the importance of diet in the prevention of chronic disease. Advice obtained from the Committee On Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) in the UK, specifies that to increase the intake of fruits and vegetables while avoiding high intakes of red and processed meat may reduce the risk markers for chronic diseases such as cancer.[5]

As this has no direct connection to veganism. KellenT 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of this organization's mission is promoting a vegetarian diet, so claiming it is "tangentially" related to veganism is like saying Santa Claus is tangentially related to Christmas. Abe Froman (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed:

Some vegans feel additional health benefits are gained by eating food with minimal levels of substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to intensively farmed animals in countries where this is legal.[6] Because they are similar to human hormones, growth-promoters such as anabolic steroids that are used in cattle farming in America may affect fetal and childhood development.[7][8][9] Due to this uncertainty, the use of such growth promoters is illegal in the European community.[10]

As nothing cited actually shows a connection to veganism. There's a page of links about BGH, 3 citations about how hormones may affect human health, and one citation about legality. There are links to vegan pages on the BGH page, but nothing more. KellenT 02:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vegan athletics

I removed:

Athletic achievements are also used as an argument about the nutritional benefits of a vegan diet. Vegan athletes compete in a variety of sports, including powerlifting, bodybuilding, martial arts, and long distance running.[11][12] Multiple Olympic gold medallist Carl Lewis has stated that he became vegan in 1990 and achieved his "best year of track competition" in 1991 when he ate a vegan diet.[13]

I think this section is rather poor. Yes, there are vegan athletes. There are two sources; one lists very few vegans (though many vegetarians) and the second lists around 20 athletes. Neither of these sources make claims about veganism leading to greater athletic achievement. Yes, Carl Lewis is/was vegan. So what? Without similar claims, by vegan advocacy organizations or a larger number of vegan athletes, I count this as anecdotal evidence. KellenT 01:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Tom Regan and veganism

If anybody has copies of Tom Regan's books, could someone please add a paragraph about his views on veganism in the "ethics" section, including some quotes. Alternatively paste links here to text available online (i've not yet found any that mentions veganism). KellenT 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Veganism by Kellen

Kellen goes on an editing binge [6], and the Vegan article suddenly has little to no positive information in it. I reverted to 12.28 until his edits are discussed. Abe Froman (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What really caught my eye was the wholesale removal of the sections on Athletics, BGH, and Benjamin Spock. [7] Not only were these cited to books or medical publications, they also contained information that could portray veganism positively. Why these were removed, while negative information, using similar sources, was retained, I can only guess. Abe Froman (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That was rather unhelpful. You didn't bother to check and see that I fixed up a number of citations and grammar in addition to removing sections which I moved here for the very purpose of discussing them. I was very blatantly not trying to be sneaky in my edits and I justified all of them in edit summaries and here on the talk page. Just because you view something as being 'positive' or 'negative' doesn't warrant that it's actually relevant to the article.
Here's a summary justification of my removals:
  • I removed the Spock paragraph because it didn't have a good home in the article. I noted this above.
  • I removed the Cancer research paragraph because none of the sources connected it to veganism. WP:SYN
  • I removed the COMA paragraph because none of the sources have connected it to veganism. WP:SYN
  • I removed the BGH paragraph because none of the sources connected it to veganism. WP:SYN
  • I removed the athletics paragraph because (1) the main text was not supported by the sources; in particular there was no example of athletics being used an "argument about the nutritional benefits of a vegan diet" (2) that Carl Lewis is vegan is essentially anecdotal evidence.
  • I removed the ADA statement that veganism is appropriate for all stages of life because this text is mentioned elsewhere in the article, and is therefore redundant.
  • I removed the "clinical B12 deficiency is uncommon" because I believed it to be false, due to a misunderstanding about "clinical" versus "sub-clinical" deficiency ("clinical" deficiency being the point where the deficiency manifests physically to the point of ill health, as opposed to having more general negative effects). In any case, the citations provided didn't back up the statement as it stood. I have no issue with this in the article at this point.
  • I condensed the malnutrition deaths section to remove some of the sensationalism. (Why aren't you complaining about that, btw?)
Just because I've focused on one section of the article doesn't mean I'm promoting the opposite POV. In the past, I've significantly culled and cited the so-called "negative" health section (that is, the "precautions"). Did you accuse me of promoting a pro-vegan POV then? No. I've edited the "anti" arguments in the "ethics" section and been accused of a pro-vegan POV, but not by you. I'd like to avoid getting into a back and forth between just you and me, so other editors, please comment. KellenT 13:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Anybody? KellenT 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at your changes, Kellen, and some of them could be seen as pro, some anti: Overall, it would take a bit of work to establish any case against your npov. Why don't you re do your edits one at a time, not all in one session, and each edit can be considered in its own right? Hopefully by more than one or two people! HTh TonyClarke (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Anybody else out there? If there are no other comments in the next day or two, I'm going to re-do most of my edits. KellenT 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
By all means, do. But please, one § at a time. CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, they were predominately one at a time in the first place. At least, they mostly done in single edits with individual edit summaries. If you instead meant that I should do one edit, wait a day, another edit, wait another, I think that's unreasonable (but I don't think that's what you meant). KellenT 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No of course not, that would be painful :) Just edit one § at a time: this way in case of conflicts, those can be (more) easily solved, or at least circumscribed. It also makes it easier to go through the history later on.CyrilleDunant (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've re-done most of my edits, one by one. If you have a critique of a specific edit, please bring it up rather than reverting everything I've done just on the basis of it looking "positive" or "negative." KellenT 12:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that veganism is pure vegetarianism? While vegans are pure vegitarians, in that they do not eat animal products, the DEFINITION of veganism is a lifestyle that excludes animal products from all facets of life. So there is no reason why pure vegetarians cannot wear fur coats while riding a bull to the circus; whereas a vegan would object to these other uses of animals. This definition has been posted with references in this article, including the wiki link. While it's nice to discuss changes, continually reverting erroneous changes to suit your beliefs, does little to improve the article. I am again reverting your change. If you look at the first reference cited for this, it clearly refutes your edits:
"the word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Bob98133 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest that the terms 'pure vegetarian'/'strict vegetarian' be reinstated but in the last paragraph of the opening section, where vegan diets are discussed.--Michig (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, sure, that makes sense.Bob98133 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry, I think you misunderstood what was going on. The wording "also strict or pure vegetarianism" has been in the article a long, long time. I wasn't the one who originally added it, but if you google for these terms, you'll see veganism discussed. I agree that veganism is a lifestyle, but it's also a diet, and the "pure/strict" terms are related to this. These are in no way "new" edits by me, I was just reverting an anon IP that also vandalized the article. KellenT 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Where the text has been moved to now works fine for me. Cheers. KellenT 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green Leafy Vegetable Edits

Kellen could be correct that a huge amount of these would be required to meet the RDA for calcium, but rephrasing it to say fortified soy milk or supplements amkes it appear that a vegan diet cannot in itself provide sufficient calcium without being supplemented. It also goes against some vegans who prefer to get their RDA's though "real" foods instead of supplements. Maybe there is a compromise that can indicate that while it might be difficult to get all the calcium needed without supplements, it is possible. For example, a cup of soybeans (180mg) has more calcium than a cup of cottage cheese (160mg)[8]Bob98133 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you check out the calcium recommendations from vegan outreach, it is suggested that a vegan eat between 700 and 1000mg of calcium/day. This means, even with 180mg calcium coming from a cup of soybeans, you'd have to eat 3.5 - 5 cups of soybeans per day. This is probably why Vegan Outreach recommends eating fortified foods in addition to high calcium vegetables. Obviously you should eat these vegetables, but you probably have to supplement/eat fortified foods as well. KellenT 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I always believe that the RDA's are a bit exagerated but there's certainly no harm taking supplements. I don't know if Vegan Outreach are experts in nutrition but if a vegan really has to eat such huge amounts of veggies to get the RDA then the supplement text should stay as you suggest. Bob98133 (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The vegan outreach founder has educated as a dietician if i recall correctly. KellenT 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken links

The links supporting this sentence are broken:

  • The EPIC-Oxford study showed that vegans have an increased risk of bone fractures over both meat eaters and vegetarians, likely due to lower dietary calcium intake, but that vegans consuming more than the UK's estimated average requirements for calcium of 525 mg/day had risk of bone fractures similar to other groups.

Michael H 34 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've fixed the link, but unfortunately a fee is now required for the full text of the article. KellenT 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benefits of veganism to decrease risk of new emerging epidemics

Hey,

Is it possible to describe that veganism has benefits to stopping emerging epidemics ? See the Epidemic-article where I added the info and reference (reference being this WHO-document ).

Thanks. KVDP (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the material you added to epidemic is directly supported or related. In that article, under the heading of "Pre-emptive measures", you wrote" "To protect us against the emergence of new epidemics, several preemptive measures have been proposed by professor Nina Marano and Andy Dobson. These include...To eat less food containing animal protein (eg meat, milk, milk-derivates)". Now, I understand that you are trying to summarize the study in your own words, but I just looked over it and don't see where it says that anywhere. It does say that "anthropogenic factors such as agricultural expansion and intensification to meet the increasing demand for animal protein, global travel, trade in domestic or exotic animals, urbanization, and habitat destruction comprise some of the major drivers of zoonotic disease emergence." It also attributes "increased demand for animal protein" as risk factors for the spread of avian influenza and "protein consumption" as a risk factor for SARS. It does not say that we should "eat less food containing animal protein" nor does it say anything about vegetarianism or veganism. —Viriditas | Talk 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barcelona Picture

How does the picture of a fruit/vegetable market in Barcelona contribute to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.163.100 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It adds beauty! It also represents the major food sources of the vegan diet. Djk3 (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree actually; both the fruit stand picture and the one of soy beans strike me as 'filler' rather than images directly relating to the text presented. KellenT 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way about either of those images. The fruit one is actually sort of ugly, looking back at it. The soy bean image looks nice, whether or not it is appropriate. Djk3 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)