Talk:Veganism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

omnivores

You know, there should be a page on Wikipedia that shows the benefits of eating meats. You know, there is a lot of POV in this article, as stated above. It makes me sick. In this article, there is only a list of the benefits of a vegan intake, and it says nothing about the benefits of an omnivorous intake. People want to know the benefits of eating meat, not just the benefits of eating vegetables. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an NPOV web page, then it should show both sides of this issue, not just the vegan's POV. Scorpionman 18:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

If you can write a readable article on the benefits of eating meat, you should write one. What does meat have to do with veganism? Pedant 23:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Meat has plenty to do with veganism! Veganists abstain from all meats! They think that it's unhealthy. That may be true for most commercial meats, as they are usually chalked full of pesticides, herbicides and substances harmful if ingested, but that doesn't count for ALL meats. We don't need a whole page dedicated to the benefits of eating meat, but they should be listed on this article. Scorpionman 16:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pedant somewhat. The benefits of meat doesn't have to be on the veganism page. I then disagree with Scorpionman about that point and the claim about vegans opinion. I don't think that meat is unhealthy as is. Maybe some parts that doesn't seem true can be excluded, but I see no need for the benefits of meat on the page.

If you want to understand the benefits of eating meat you should visit the websites of the American Dietetic Association, the World Health Organization, or the American Cancer Society. Poisonoman 1:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I just can't understand how misinformed these anti vegan peoples views are, have you yourself ever looked at these sites you claim to support your views? How about the site Eating too much red meat linked to colon cancer from the American Cancer Society, or the American Dietetic Associations discussion on vegetarianism. Your views on vegetarianism and veganism are unscientific, and they do not belong on the wikipedia.

Overall this page is radically better than it was a few days ago, when it had been vandalized with stupid grammatical errors. I don't think there's much harm in a page on veganism primarily representing the vegan POV - that, primarily, needs to be understood in order to understand the practice/philosophy itself. Criticisms are OK to be separate as long as they're legit and not vandalized. 18:00 PDT 27 Oct 2005

If you ask me, vegans are the ones who are misinformed. Just because the American Cancer Society says something doesn't mean that it's true. More intelligent people have linked consuming vegetable oils to colon cancer, and that red meat had nothing to do with it! Of course, seeing as how we can't discuss that on THIS article, I'll get right down to the point. Why doesn't a section on the benefits of eating meat belong on this article, huh? At least a section on the cons of eating only plants then! There should be a page somewhere that includes a list of the benefits of eating meat! Seeing as how you can't find anything wrong with having a page that displays only vegan POV, then you shouldn't find anything wrong with a page that displays only omnivores' POV! Scorpionman 01:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Murder

Bottom line, murder is murder, regardless of species. What was done in the past to survive is completely inconsequential today. We are an advanced society that is in no way forced to eat murdered animals to survive. I'm not starving, and I know no one who is. If I were on the brink of death and my only food source was meat, I would eat it gladly and give thanks, but that is not the case, therefore I abstain. If we do not require meat to survive, and to eat meat is to pay others to commit murder for us, then it is wrong. Period. To pointlessly muder animals, simply because we can, is neither moral nor healthy.

Animals aren't people so it doesn't count. Also, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not pontificating on how superior your diet is to everyone else's.

"neither moral nor healthy" - how is that even remotely immportant as long as it is tasty?

I'm not even going to get into how incredibly offensive I find this attitude. --Mumblingmynah 17:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"neither moral nor ethical" - how is it even remotely important as long as rape feels good to the perpetrator?--Equal 19:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with how good something tastes. Rape and taste of food are two totally different things! Also, I find the top comment completely predjudiced. Animals may be alive, but they can't talk and they don't have feelings! Killing animals for food is not "pointless". When you kill an animal and just let the carcass lie there without using it at all, that's pointless. I don't really approve of killing animals for sport, but even then it's not murder! There are certain things you can get from meat that you can't get from plants alone! Besides, if you think that killing animals is murder, than isn't it murder when they kill humans? Scorpionman 16:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

^ You are ignorant. There's absolutely nothing special about meat whatsoever that you can't get from plants; food wise. And even for non-food items, there are plenty of substitutes (think you're right? try me!).

I'm aware of the substitutes; none of them taste anything like meat! Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If veganism is so unhealthy, then how come vegans/vegetarians live longer than meat-eaters, have fourth the rate of cancer, and ninth the rate of heart disease? Bottom line is, it IS healthier; and very much so.

Dude, the idea that meat causes cancer is a myth! Studies have shown that it is vegetable oils, particularily soybean oil, that are the leading causes of many kinds of cancer! Same with heart disease! It's mainly vegetable oils! You want to know something? The chemical that gives popcorn a buttery flavor, as well as shortening, causes lung cancer, and it comes from a PLANT! Also, you say that vegetarians live longer than meat-eaters. WRONG! Actually, the opposite is true! If you eat meat that is shovelled from the floor of a factory, yes, it is bad for you! If you eat meat that is grain-fed and raised in a commercial farm, yes, it is bad for you! Grass-fed beef, among other meats, is not bad for you. In fact, people who eat this kind of meat actually live longer than those who eat no meat at all! Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Your profile claims you're a "Christian". Do you think Jesus, if he were alive today, would advocate factory farming, the number one pollutant of our Earth? Do you think your God would advocate the needless slaughter of millions of animals every year? VEGETARIANISM WAS GOD'S ORIGINAL PLAN. READ THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE. "The lion laid down with the lamb..."

I'm perfectly aware of this. It was indeed God's original plan for the world. But because of man's sin, animals now eat each other! Also, after the Flood, God gave man permission to eat meat! Genesis 9:3 reads: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." God said that we could eat meat! It's no longer murder. Genesis 9:4 says: "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." That means that you don't eat the blood. It doesn't mean that you don't eat the meat! Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And lastly, who do you think you are, presuming animals don't have feelings? Obviously, you have never really owned or spent enough time with an animal, or you would know better. I think my cat and dog have more feelings (and intelligence!) than some people. And if you have perhaps owned an animal, and maybe even loved one as a pet, how can you say that it is ok to slaughter one animal and not the other? Pigs are the fourth smartest animal out there, besides humans, primates, and dolphins. Those people who claim it's ok to kill 'dumb' animals should learn that fact.

I'm aware of the intelligence of some animals; and I have had and do have pets. I had a gerbil once. I did love it as a pet, but not as a human. Animals can't know God the way we do. Remember, God gave us permission to eat meat! Back before the Fall, it would've been murder to kill anything that had sentience. Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Bottom line is, I'm NOT trying to insult you, just trying to give you some insight. I think it is common for most people to be ignorant about veganism/vegetarianism (most are; maybe even me to a little extent... I learn new facts about it all the time...). Just don't let myths confuse you.

And you'd better not let myths confuse you either! As I said, one myth is that meat causes cancer! But thank you for your politeness, and I'm not trying to insult you either. I don't like the idea of killing for sport, especially if it's a very rare animal. Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion on the topic of improving the article, and remember that personal attacks are not allowed here. Rhobite 05:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not making any personal attacks! We're simply debating this fact; not sweating and swearing over it! Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you please quit having this argument here? Talk about the article. --Mumblingmynah 01:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Why can't we hold a debate on this page? Isn't that what discussion pages are for? Scorpionman 16:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not the pros and cons of veganism. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, then where can we discuss this? Scorpionman 01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Somewhere off of Wikipedia. Michaelbluejay 08:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My 2¢ on veganism

I saw a post on somebody's page today about veganism, and figured I'd put in my two cents worth and weigh in: First, the problem with vitamin B-12 deficiencies is due to the fact that we over-work the soil, instead of giving it time to rest. Both humans and land need time to rebuild, and this principle (letting the land rest once every seven years and then some) was once mentioned in the Bible, but that is informational (not preaching down your throat) information. If we let the land rest up well, then the fruits and veggies would have sufficient B-12 when grown on that land. That being said, The four traditional reasons to become vegan are:

  1. More efficient (saves money, since calories aren't wasted in making un-edible things like bone and gristle)
  2. More humane (to our animal brothers)
  3. Tastes better (subjective opinion, but I buy it!)
  4. Healthier (Objective fact. Period.)

For more information, you might see my research on the subject:

--GordonWatts 13:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I object to that. Animals are not our brothers, they are our subordinates. We must care for them, but not treat them as equals. Second, I disagree with the statement that a vegan diet tastes better. I think it tastes like crap. Third, it is not healthier. It may provide more fiber, but you still need meat. Also, there is some bias that cheese and butter are highly unhealthy. That's BS! Your body needs the so-called "cancer-causing cholesterol raising" cow fats! You should do some more research! Scorpionman 17:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

--Michichael--

I know a vegan, she's very healthy, but quite frankly from what I see it's all economics. Feel free to be a vegan, but don't expect half of the stores that sell "vegan" foodstuffs, are actually vegan. The vegan lifestyle is considerably more expensive. Also note the plant growing seasons etc. Human's can only consume a comparitivly limited range of non-animal foodstuffs, as compared to the animals that CAN eat them. If the entire population where to switch vegan, even better if 1/4 of america's population were vegan, there would not be enough food to go around. Fact of the matter is, that we evolved as hunters and gatherers because we don't migrate with the growing seasons. Our society is at the point where we can support a limited amount of veganism (no more than maybe 5% of the populace) without inducing starvation unto them. However econimically speaking, the animals that can eat the plants are a more effecient route towards feeding our bodies needs. The methods are brutal, I agree, and should be changed. But I personally don't see the overall benifity of veganism. It's only a personal benifit, the fact that it's in protest to the conditions animals are in really shouldn't even BE in this article, as it is really irrelevant. A multibillion dollar industry doesn't care about a few hundred thousand nonconsumers, it's just another point of view...

Vegan diets are not neccessarily either more expensive or less expensive than Omnivorous diets. It depends on where you live, what you eat, and who how you obtain your food. If I were to subsist on nothing but processed soy (all those fake meats out there made of tofu and the like) a few veggies, and tons of junk food, then yes, my diet would be more expensive than that of someone who ate lots of fruits and veggies from a Farmers' Market, and a small bit of meat. However, if I were to exclude tofu and all those fake meats, or at least make them a rareity in my diet, or make them myself, and buy my produce from Farmers' Markets rather than large chain sotres, then my grocery bill would be extremely cheap. And no, we don't need tofu to live. You could get enough protein if you all you ate was potatoes. A normal, healthy, 100% plant-based diet, is generally cheaper than the average Columbian (U.S. National) animal-based diet. Canaen 04:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article is bias, the point of view statements should either be removed or balanced with an opposing viewpoint...

-Michichael Folf-Sunè

I've noticed that a lot of what many seem to be claiming as bias is just fact that you and others either haven't heard, or don't agree with for various reasons. If you want to attack something, make it specific. Canaen 04:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


What are you talking about? Our bodies aren't even built for meat. And if veganism/vegetarianism is so unhealthy, why do the facts speak otherwise?! We don't get cancer nearly as often; We only have ninth the rate of heart disease; and we live longer!! MAYBE YOU SHOULD DO SOME RESEARCH?

I reiterate, please keep the discussion on the topic of the article. Make suggestions and back them up with hard data. This is not a discussion forum. Rhobite 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

How is flamers treated on wikipedia?

in the future, please use the talk page to discuss the article. if you're just looking for a venue to give your opinion i would suggest you look into blogspot or some similar service. frymaster 03:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources needed

Could we have some sources for this section, please, as it looks a little like original research? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Another difficulty for the vegan is that almost all drugs are the result of animal testing. Further, since some vegans reside in countries where the supply of non-animal gelatin capsules is almost non-existent they often have to intake capsules containing animal byproducts. Many vegans throughout the world use many animal products with or without their knowledge. Examples are Catgut which is still used in sutures as well as in other materials. Veganism is often seen as a cumbersome, impractical and financially costly lifestyle.

It's not original research. I tried to re-write it so I will attempt to find some sources. What exactly do you want sources on?
  1. Drugs are a result of animal testing
  2. Drugs are delivered in gelatin capsules
These should be relatively easy to back up. The catgut/suture thing might need expert searching.
I do find troubling that your reverting the paragraph and replacing it with invisible commentary. [1] that says

"Another argument is that almost all drugs sold today were the result of animal testing." Another argument against what? Also, I removed capsule point as vegans don't eat capsules made of gelatine.

First problem here, is that the text you are reverting doesn't say "Another argument". To then make the rhetorical question "another argument against what" is a strawman for text that isn't even there.
Second "capsules" is exactly what is written: medicine is often delivered in gelatin capsules. Which is why it's difficult for a vegan to take medicine without also eating an animal byproduct. Which is why it is seen as a cumbersome and impractical lifestyle. SchmuckyTheCat 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Schmucky, okay, here are the problems, as I see them: (1) Why is the drug issue a problem or difficulty for vegans? Vegans don't eat or use animal flesh or byproducts. They do their best to avoid using products that have been tested on animals, of course, but that doesn't affect their veganism. (2) This sentence: "[S]ince some vegans reside in countries where the supply of non-animal gelatin capsules is almost non-existent they often have to intake capsules containing animal byproducts." I'm guessing, but I'd say in countries where non-animal capsules are non-existent, capsules of any kind might be in short supply, so I think this sentence needs to be sourced. If it really is a difficulty for vegans, there will be a source somewhere. But any medicine that comes in capsules will come in tablet form too, so I can't see there would ever be a need to take gelatine capsules. (3) This sentence needs a source: "Many vegans throughout the world use many animal products with or without their knowledge." First, you need a source showing that "many" vegans use animal products with their knowledge (which would be bizarre), and secondly showing that, again, "many" use them without their knowledge, and if so what kind of byproducts? And (4) a source for this: "Examples are Catgut which is still used in sutures as well as in other materials." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Many life saving or life saving drugs comes in capsule form which cannot be substituted by taking it in tablet form. The reason for that is tablets are digested in the stomach which would reduce the efficiency of the drug whilst a capsule is fully digested only in the intestine. So your assumption that capsules can easily be bypassed is false to start. And you'd assume anyone knows that animals are used for testing medicines, so there'd be no need for citations here.
In countries like India there is little shortage of drugs even for the poor (unless someone is a destitute or very poor), so while drugs are available and not in short supply exactly, asking for their vegan replacements in the developing world would be considered either as a joke at best or arrogance at worst.
The third sentence "many vegans..." while I admit is a bit vague (and needs copyedit), is partly answered by your own following statement. Please read what and where catgut is used for (the internal link should be some start). And no, it's not from the gut of a cat fyi. Chances are few know what goes into their body in the form of medical treatment.
What the para might need is some pruning, since nearly everything is based on facts. Remember the world is not just the west. Many vegans live outside Europe/USA. Idleguy 17:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
What he said about tablets versus capsules. Even in the US, plenty of pharmacists will just look at you funny if you ask for your pre-packaged prescription drug in some new form. The pharmacists may not even know if there is gelatin, or even if the pharmacist knows, probably does not know whether it's animal or non-animal based. Prescription drugs are often singularly manufactured in one format. Gelatin is a popular coating even on non-capsules. Patents prevent "generic" replacement drugs. So you take what you get or you don't take it at all.
""many" vegans use animal products with their knowledge (which would be bizarre)" No, this isn't bizarre at all. Realistically, every vegan uses animal byproducts every single day. It's pretty much impossible in our modern society to know the contents and chemical basis of everything you purchase on a single day. Some food additives may be labeled, but the source is not, and it may have both animal and non-animal sources. You can't know. Animal byproducts end up everywhere. For example a vegan decides to forgo film cameras (because film has animal by-products as does the negative processing) and go digital, only to find out the manufacture of the battery requires a process that uses a chemical with origins at a rendering plant. Vegan's can't be 100%, so everyday it's a matter for them to make the "least evil" choice and keep pushing and waiting for new choices. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of your personal views, you have to edit in accordance with our policies, and the applicable ones here are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These say that if an edit is challenged, the editor wanting to keep it has to provide credible sources. I've asked for these, so please provide them and stop putting unsourced personal opinions on the page. It's clear that neither of you is a vegan! ;-) Vegans go to great lengths to be sure they're not eating or using animal byproducts, and they know all about the different products that use this or that ingredient. As for non-Western countries, it's probably easier to avoid animal byproducts there: they're everywhere here because of factory farming, and the mass production of food and other consumer goods. And what you say about generic drugs just isn't right. However, regardless of who is right or wrong here, we need sources so that your edits can be verified by other editors and readers. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
With sources having been provided, I think the criticism should stay. Remember this is not an article to promote veganism despite Slim's love for veganism. It has to be objective and balanced with criticism which frankly is still pretty small considering reality. And no, it's not easy for ppl. in non-western countries to avoid animal byproducts even though factory farming is quite abundant in developing world. Idleguy 04:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Heads up: I don't know about Cat Gut (meow...), but as a struggling vegan myself, yes, I certify that I absolutely HATE gelatin caps, and I fixed the damage, but I explained it in plain English -and cited my sources. With all due respect to the Idle Guy, whose conclusion was right -you missed both points, and I certainly give proper respect to Viriditas and SlimVirgin, even though their conclusions were wrong. (As a side note, I think you are a vegan, no, SlimVirgin? If so, then why did you not catch this error that gelatin indeed is yucky!! And Viriditas, you too are bright and intelligent; Plus, as one who lives in that liberal and vegetable-loving Hawaii, you should be in the environment which has expertise in these matters. Did I pull a Forest Gump and miss something?)--GordonWatts 06:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Would a vegan eat a

Would a vegan eat a salad made by a chimpanzee? (One that wasn't getting paid to do it or forced to do it) How about a steak from a human who had killed himself and willed his body to a restaurant?Pedant 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

These are pretty ridiculous questions that don't have a basis in the reality of an informative article -- similar to the question I am commonly asked, "Would you eat an animal if you were stranded on a desert island?" Who cares? I'm a vegan in the real world, which is what Wikipedia articles should concern themselves with. Dylan 03:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It would very much depend on the opinion of the particular Vegan. It's not as if we were all blind, simply repeating someone else's ideas. No, a Vegan who truly cared, and was informed of its production process, would not eat said sandwich. Though I myself would not eat said steak (I doubt I'd be able to stomach it, and I doubt that my body would accept it), I wouldn't neccessarily object to it's being eaten by another Vegan, granted that the human had truly killed themself of their own free will, and truly wanted to be eaten. That said, I would have to agree with Dylan above; it doesn't really matter. Canaen 04:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
If a person killed himself and really wanted to be eaten, then you most certainly shouldn't eat it! Suicide is against the law in most countries (including the US), and cannibalism is also against the law in most countries (with the exception of underdeveloped countries), and eating a person who commited suicide should be a double crime! Scorpionman 01:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
If you meant that comment to come my direction, read this. If not, ignore it, or read it anyway. The State has no right to tell someone that they can't kill themselves if that's what they really want to do. For Samurai (or anyone following the Bushido code), for instance, Sebuku (ritual suicide) is the only way that one can atone for certain acts, and to restrict that person from balancing their soul and losing all honor would be far worse than death, in their eyes. You simply cannot apply your standards to all. I personally wouldn't eat any animal's flesh, be they human or otherwise, whether they'd been tortured all their lives, lived on a 2 or 3 foot chain all their lives, crammed into a cage where they couldn't move their whole life, got hit by a car after years of running free, or commited suicide. Canaen 07:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Please, the talk page is not a forum for general debating of ideas, it's a space to discuss improvements to *the article*. Please take debates like those above off of Wikipedia. Michaelbluejay 08:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Writing

Could editors adding material please watch the quality of the writing? An intro should give a succinct overview of the subject, not just be two sentences. Also, when you add something, please check the overall flow and that the material you've added doesn't exist already elsewhere. After banging on at great length about animal suffering, animal rights and how vegans care about these, halfway through the article, I found this: "Vegans cite a variety of reasons for adopting their diet. A desire to reduce animal suffering is another possible motivation." Also, please source material, and cite it correctly. Don't add name of book, author, ISBN number etc in brackets after a sentence: that material goes at the end in the references section. After the sentence, just write (Smith 2005) and page number if you want to. Readers can then look at the references section to find out what Smith 2005 refers to. Though having said that, it's always better to add too much citation material than too little, and anything is better than nothing. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, good points, SlimVirgin. Now, I note that you removed the taste reason, saying that you can't tell the differences in some non-vegan things. (Your hidden comments and/or edit comments.) True, but I am trying to be a complete vegan, and I think that vegan things taste better in some cases: Taste is in the mouth of the beholder. That notwithstanding, someone who appears to be a newbie (?) attempted to revert the edits of an anon here, and in the process erased all your edits and those of many others, while removing the funny and true (but POV) McDonald's statement. While I disagree with your one edit on taste, I let it alone and reverted back to your last version -just a friendly heads up, you know.--GordonWatts 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The controversial edits of the AOL proxy

Just now, I see an anon from an AOL IP address, User:172.212.104.94, editing here. I was about to revert and suggest that this is a criticism section and that you don't need "pros" in the "con" section, and also suggest use of a spell-checker.

I thought that reverts took precedence, but apparently not: I got an edit conflict.

However, before I could suggest these changes, the anon changed the heading to "spurious" criticism, and fixed at least one spelling error. I would suggest no one revert but, instead, go through carefully and maybe separate the criticism from the "spurious" new additions and make a "rebuttal" section or something. Some of the edits seem true, but it looks like Rhobite reverted to Jengod's last version here before I could either revert (my original attempt, which had edit conflict) or maybe leave it alone and suggest a closer look (this attempt).

Good luck folks!--GordonWatts 22:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw that, they fixed their own spelling error. In every case the AOL user's edits were inaccurate or opinionated. It is not neutral for the article to state that it is "liberating" not to wear wool or leather, or that health supplements are "unnecessary". Do you really think that this sentence is worth saving? "there is a body of criticism and disinformation originating in animal abuse industries and their proxies".
This article is constantly being rewritten by vegans who want to downplay the health effects of poor nutrition and the inherent difficulties of maintaining a healthy vegan diet. Rhobite 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I personally do my best to be a vegan, but I do admit it is sometimes as hard as hell to get all the vitamins, minerals, and protein I would like or need by vegan methods alone. (I am, however, constrained a little by the fact that I don't have time to go to the store and by what I need, plus I am sometimes limited on refrig space due "personal problems" -and lack of money doesn't help either.) Some of the editors views were not inaccurate, but they needed to( 1) put them in the right place; (2) cite a source; and (3) be balanced. I think they missed these criteria in many if not most instances.--GordonWatts 06:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not that hard... I started inputting what I ate into a nutrition program and realized I didn't have any need to take a multi (I do drink b-12 fortified soymilk). I just eat a variety of veggies, fruits, legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains and do fine- health-wise, I'm a successful cyclist and have won 3 state medals this year. It's more about planning. People may ask, "where do you get your protein", to I answer: (1)Where do you think your "meat" got theirs? and (2)Beef and milk are not complete proteins (chicken and fish are); plant foods like chia seeds, wheat germ, and soy can be complete proteins. Meat has no fiber, carbohydrates, or all the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only that, but if you're familiar with Bioaccumulation, animal flesh collects poisons in much greater amounts than you will ever find on vegetables. Animal protein has also been linked to cancer (search any peer-reviewed medical/nutrition journal and you'll see). Read the China Study, where researchers analyzed how diet affects health (and found that a meat-free diet is linked with many, many health benefits). A recent study in Japan linked egg consumption to an increased risk of breast cancer. Countries with the highest rates of milk consumption have the highest risk of osteoperosis. And as for the "Professor Lindsey Allen of the U.S. Agricultural Research Service declared: 'There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans.'"- this was based off a study funded by the Cattleman's Association where starving villagers in Africa who lived off of rice and beans were given a meat vitamin stick and OF COURSE they improved in health (anything you fed them would make them healtheir). And just to interest you, practicioners of shaolin Kung-fu up in the mountains of China live off a vegan diet (and you should see the shape they're in).

Further Comment:

Here, User:Idleguy removes (among other things) this sentence, that looks like one of those the Anon put in: "Indeed, as awareness of the impact that our lifestyles have on ourselves, others and our environment becomes greater, more people are shifting to healthier diets and eco-friendly and ethical purchasing, all of which require some attention to detail and research." My comment: Actually, I don't know if we are becoming healthier; America has INCREASING rates of obesity and such. I TRY to be a vegan, and I THINK we should be healthier, but, oh well ...a pipe dream in the wind...--GordonWatts 06:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that sentence shouldn't have been removed? To me the sentence says nothing, it's just vague pro-vegan speculation. The unwritten implication of that sentence is that veganism is healthier, more eco-friendly, and more ethical than a traditional human diet. I don't have to tell you that many people disagree with these assumptions. It's POV, we can't use it in an article. Rhobite 04:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

recent POV

I can't work on this right now but I added a POV tag due to someone who repeatedly adds sentences like these:

  • "Indeed, as awareness of the impact that our lifestyles have on ourselves, others and our environment becomes greater, more people are shifting to healthier diets and eco-friendly and ethical purchasing, all of which require some attention to detail and research."
  • "Sadly, however, "organic" and "free-range" labels may not mean that animals were raised humanely."

Very annoying when people continue to use words like "sadly" in a supposedly neutral article. For this and other reasons I've added the POV tag. Rhobite 20:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the POV tag should stay, because vegans are fighting tooth and nail for every genuine point/concern added by non-vegans. But they on the other hand don't want to remove silly statements like "the family that fed their children wallpaper and plaster". It looks very POV. Idleguy 03:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is just annoying. Anon continues to rename the criticism section, complain about "ethnocentrism", and that "Commercial exploiters of animals have established propaganda programs to encourage the incorrect belief that animal products are necessary and it is not easy or safe to be a vegan." Also claims that vegans have health-care "choices" as opposed to the difficulties they actually have. Rhobite 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi didn't promote veganism

There's a load of tosh going on in here. Gandhi never promoted veganism. Infact he even promoted the use of table eggs and his quotes on eating sterile eggs are well known to open minded people in India.

Gandhi wrote in a 1948 leaflet, "Nowadays sterile eggs are also produced. The hen is not allowed to see the cock and yet it lays eggs. A sterile egg never develops into a chick. Therefore, he who can take milk should have no objection to taking sterile eggs."

This issue surfaced recently in India where Gandhi was used as the brand ambassador for eggs by NECC. The news report [2] would tell you that they did their research carefully as this quote has been known to fairly educated people who have read Mahatma's teachings.

Gandhi was vegan for 6 years. He relented and consented to drinking goat's milk (but not cow milk) on his wife's insistence when he was seriously ill. Gandhi's point was that if one takes milk, eggs are not any worse in terms of violence. He changed his opinion later on to include milk in the diet. [3] -- Satya Oct 22 06:52:20 UTC


Even Buddha is known to have eaten meat though he didn't actively promote its use. Idleguy 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Vegan opinions on eating road kill

Whats the general vegan line on eating road kill? (My personal opinion is that eating roadkill is quite an ethical choice but I'd be interested in hearing other peoples views). I've eaten road kill pheasant and rabbit before. - FrancisTyers 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, since no one has answered you, most vegans probably wouldn't eat it, because having not eaten meat in a while, they would probably become very sick from eating it, even if it were the cleanest roadkill in creation. Dan Carkner 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I am a vegan and I would avoid the roadkill, mostly for the reasons mentioned by Dan Carkner above, rather than any ethical reasons. However, I would imagine that eating roadkill would go against the tennant of avoiding animal products. Clearly, eating roadkill provides no suffering to the animal at hand. Alternatively, most vegans would also avoid it simply because it is meat, and ergo many vegans would consider it simply unhealthy. Shawn M. O'Hare 16:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think even most meat-eaters wouldn't eat roadkill, just out of hygienic considerations, although there is apparently a "Roadkill cookbook" out there somewhere. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

some POV issues

I was on vandal patrol and happened upon this article. I'm not immersed in the topic, but a quick reading of the article shows a number of places where the pro-vegan point-of-view is being reported in a way that implies wrong-doing on the part of non-vegans, but the point of view of non-vegans defending themselves is missing. That's a bit of a wordy explanation. Here are the examples I found in the article. FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

animal rights

People become vegans for a number of reasons, primarily out of concern for animal rights,...

therefore, meat-eaters have no concern for animal rights? FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is an argument that meat-eaters don't truly care for animal rights. Sure one could keep a pet and look after it better than one's best friend. Sure one could send money every month to the World Wildlife Fund or the RSPCA. Sure one could eat meat from only the lowest density free-range farm with the best organic feed and animal care possible, but at the end of the day the animal will be killed. So people do question how kind are we really being to animals? --nirvana2013 16:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the issue I'm trying to point out. There is a topic for discussion here: eating meat/eating vegan-style. There are at least two Points of view to report on this topic: (1) the point of view of vegans and (2) the point of view of people who eat meat. NPOV policy requires that you report all the main points of view around a topic. The vegan point of view is that they are vegan "primarily out of concern for animal rights, etc". The meat eating point of view might be something along the lines that they believe animals are treated humanely on farms, or whatever. If you are vegan and editing this article, the guideline to look up here is "writing for the enemy". What is the American Beef Association (I'm just making that name up) say about animal rights and eating meat? There is a point of view here, namely that of people who eat meat, who are being attacked by the vegan point of view, but the meat-eating point of view is not represented, is not given a chance to defend themselves. FuelWagon 21:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a nice long Criticism section at the end. Can the meat-eaters not add their comments there? It could be divided into sub-sections, if required. --nirvana2013 13:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
So long as the article makes it clear that it is the vegans' own definition of concern for animal rights, and so long as the article does not seem to be endorsing this view, then I think the sentence is okay. Saying something like "Many people become vegan because they feel that eating or using animal products is a violation of animal rights" seems acceptably NPOV to me. It does not imply that non-vegans perceive themselves to be indifferent to animal rights, nor does it imply that the writer of the sentence shares the vegans' view. The "criticism" section is for criticism of veganism; it's not the place for non-vegans to defend themselves. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the intro should at least touch on the major points of view regarding veganism, meaning it should report both vegans and non-vegans. Since its an article about veganism, it doesn't have to be in proportion to the population, but rather can focus mainly on the vegan point of view, with a few statements that express the non-vegan point of view at the end. Other than that, I think that any vegan point of view that implies wrong-doing on the part of non-vegans (i.e. pretty much the statements I've pointed out here) should be balanced by a non-vegan point of view. So if the article says something like vegans are vegans "primarily out of concern for animal rights", then that implies that non-vegans are not concerned about animal rights, and if there is a non-vegan view that counters this, it should be reported. The department of agriculture or some such place might be a good source to report the non-vegan point of view on animal rights. but any source that qualifies as a notable individual or organization representing a non-vegan point of view could be reported in the article by quoting them and providing a URL to verify. FuelWagon 02:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Get out of here. If the intro says that vegans become vegans because they feel it shows a concern for animal rights, that is in no way a comment on people who do not, and there is no requirement for a right of reply. What you could include, if it exists, is any discussion from meateaters of vegans' decision, because that is the issue in hand. This notion of "balance", that every point of view must be "balanced" by an opposing one of any sort whatsoever is the death of many Wikipedia articles. The article is about "veganism", not about "eating choices", so it should only include material about veganism, not about different eating choices and their implications for animal rights.


explotation and cruelty

[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 ...

therefore, eating meat is exploitation and cruel? FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Does it say that? If I was an advocate of nonviolence, and sought to exclude all forms of punching in the face, is that an implied comment on any other mode of being? No. It simply says that that is what I try to avoid.

zoos and circuses

some vegans refrain from supporting industries that use animals, such as circuses featuring animals, and zoos.

circuses and zoos might have a point of view to report here FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


If you can find material on circuses' views about veganism, you should present it. Otherwise, what would be the relevance? Are you suggesting that zoos don't use animals?

violence and cruelty

Vegans generally oppose what they see as the violence and cruelty involved in the meat, [6] and non-vegan cosmetics, clothing, and other industries.

there is a point of view clearly missing here.FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
No, there isn't. That's what vegans oppose. It says "what they see as" to give you a clue. The opposite POV would not be that those things do not involve cruelty, but that vegans do not oppose those things. Describing someone's views does not require the statement of the negation of the substance of those views. That's plain wrong. If you wrote "Hitler believed that Jews should be extinguished" for instance, you would not "balance" that by writing "but the ADL says that..." etc. If you said that "Flat Earthers believe the earth is flat", that is not "balanced" by saying "hollow earthers believe we live on the inside of the earth" or "but scientists say the earth is in fact round", because, clearly, the article is about what these people believe and not what in fact is the case.

land needed to raise meat

vegans may be motivated by the alleged high environmental costs of producing animal products. Often cited are the pollution of local environments by animal waste, as well as the resources used to care for livestock. [13] A commonly cited (and contested) statistic is that it takes 14 times more land area to support a meat eater than a vegetarian. This is due in part to the fact that caring for livestock requires resources to produce many inedible products (e.g., bone), although a conscientious non-vegan can sometimes find uses for these by-products. In fact, only about 10% of the energy used in livestock is available for human consumption

Is this claim disputed by the department of agriculture or anyone notable? FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

logical conclusion

The word starts and ends with the first three and last two letters of vegetarian, representing that veganism begins with vegetarianism, then takes it to its logical conclusion.

"logical conclusion"? Therefore eating meat is illogical? FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the implication is that being ovo-lacto-vegetarian is illogical. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

All we need to solve this is a quotation or citation - I've seen this exact phrase before in a book talking about vegan history, and it's an appropriate addtion to an encyclopedia entry...just needs a citation. (19:55 PDT 27 Oct 2005)

convenience

The lifestyle choices can be somewhat inconvenient as well. Avoiding clothing and shoes containing wool or leather, most brands of latex condoms (as latex is often produced with the milk protein casein), hygienic products such as soap, to name a few, requires serious research. Many vegans would argue that "convenience" is not a good basis for a lifestyle.

But "convenience" would not be the only argument by people who eat meat or wear leather.

some possible sources for non-vegan pov

I did some googling and found a few examples of possible sources for the non-vegan point of view for this article. FuelWagon 03:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002 [4]

The Justice Department Report on Animal Terrorism 1993 [5]

Animal "Snuff films" have been faked [6] The 2001 entry mentions some interesting behaviour by a vegan student.

Non-vegans support "animal welfare" as opposed to "animal rights" [7]. (also includes some interesting quotes by PETA, with sources)

Johns Hopkins enters suit over lab animal regulations [8]

Federal report highlights animal rights terrorism 1989 [9]

National Cattleman's Beef Association [10]

Relevance?

What is the relevance of this to an article about Veganism? "Some non-vegans support the notion of "animal welfare" as opposed to the "animal rights" proposed by vegans." [11] Some non-vegans support animals rights too, but what's the point of mentioning it? Also, this looks like some kind of personal website, which we're not allowed to use as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The relevance is that the intro explains that vegans become vegans in part because of their concern for animal rights. This comes with the implication that non-vegans are not concerned for animal rights. The sentence clarifies the non-vegan point of view that they support animal welfare. As mentioned above, there are several instances of the vegan point of view being explained that imply wrong doing on the part of non-vegans, and the non-vegan point of view needs to be present to balance the article. FuelWagon 14:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
"This comes with the implication that non-vegans are not concerned for animal rights." No, it does not. It is simply stating the beliefs of vegans. You are insisting on showing those beliefs to be wrong, which to me stinks of advocacy. Wikipedia should not spend its articles refuting the beliefs it documents. In fact, this is specifically forbidden for very good reason.
I changed it to a quote from the National Cattleman's Beef Association. FuelWagon 14:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

kilo of rice

The article says:

The cultivation of paddy requires far greater quantity of water than most crops grown in Europe/America. Cultivating a single kilo of rice requires 5,000 litres of water [12]

A kilo... gram of rice takes 5,000 liters of water? I checked the URL, and unfortunately it is equally lacking in units. Does this mean kilo-ton, perhaps? The word "kilo" simply means "thousand", but unfortunately, the sentence doesn't say a thousand of what of rice, grams, tonnes, whatever. Can someone clarify this in the article? FuelWagon 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's the confusion with Metrification! (recently Featured Article). A kilo in normal usage means kilogram. fyi, ppl using metrics seldom say kilo ton but directly ton (meaning kiloton). Idleguy 04:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
A kilogram takes 5,000 liters of water? I'm having trouble making sense of this by the conservation of mass alone. How is it that 5,000 liters of water yield but a kilogram of rice? I assumed the article meant to say kilotonne. But a kilogram? I don't understand at all. FuelWagon 05:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually it's not a surprise since paddy is a water loving plant. Here's another one and another source [13]. Idleguy 05:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't confuse metric ton (also spelled tonne) with kiloton(ne). A metric ton is 1000 kg; a kiloton is 1000 metric tons. When the source says "a single kilo of rice" it means a kilogram. To imagine 5000 liters of water, imagine a cube 171 cm (5 feet 7 inches) on each side. If that cube were filled with water, it would be 5000 liters. Now imagine a one-kilo (2.2 lb) bag of rice, and think how many plants all those grains must have come from. 5000 liters of water for one kilo of rice doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
a liter of water weigh one kilogram, yes? Which means that a kilogram of rice takes 5,000 kilograms of water to produce, yes? I'm just a little flabbergasted by mass ratio of 5,000 to 1. I mean, an internal combustion engine is around 20% efficient. This is basically saying that rice is .02% efficient in converting mass of water to mass of rice, which is, well, flabbergastingly bad. FuelWagon 03:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I seem vaguely to remember hearing somewhere (don't ask me to provide a source) that the reason rice is grown submerged in water is because while rice plants will grow under water, weeds won't, so it's an effective way of keeping weeds out of the rice paddies. Rice could be grown using much less water, as I understand it, but then other ways of eliminating weeds would have to be found. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 04:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
you are both right fuel and angr. Rice is one of the most "water guzzling" plants. In countries like India, it is estimated that despite a healthy water ratio per person, the per capita availability of drinking water is lower than should be. Paddy cultivation is currently seen as the reason for this. Few farmers use effective ways of using minimal water to cultivate rice. As a result many such countries export water through the form of rice leaving little to drink. Keeping weeds out is also true, but that's not the main reason for paddy cultivation; it has more to do with the fact that it is the staple diet in most of Asia irrespective of weed/pest infestations. The fact that it is good in keeping the weeds out is an added bonus. Idleguy 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't get the connection. The fact that rice is the staple diet in most of Asia isn't the reason why rice is cultivated in fields (arable true to definition) flooded with water; there's no connection between the two statements. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide terminology

Could we have a citation, please, for the Stepaniak claim? -- Those who avoid eating animal products, but who otherwise use products containing animal derivatives, describe themselves as "dietary vegans". Vegan author Joanne Stepaniak argues that this term is inappropriate, because, she argues, veganism is about avoiding all animal abuses, not just food-related ones. For this reason, she says, a term such as "total vegetarian," or "strict vegetarian," would be more appropriate for those who avoid eating meat and dairy products, but continue to buy leather shoes.

There seems to be some debate as to how to differentiate those people who eliminate all animal products from their diets and those who eliminate all animal products from all areas of their lives. I have heard suggestions of: strict vegetarianism and veganism; dietary veganism and veganism. However I propose a third alternative. In 1944 Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson originally came up with the word veganism after they had become frustrated that the term vegetarianism had come to include the eating of dairy products. Therefore the term vegan was originally coined to describe vegetarians who eliminate all animal products in their diet. It was only over successive years following this time that the UK Vegan Society expanded the term to mean those who eliminate all animal products from all areas of their lives. Therefore my suggestion would be to have veganism and strict veganism. The background to this is that many people are now becoming vegan primarily for personal health and wellbeing reasons rather than the sole motive over the last few decades which has been ethical reasons.
This being an encyclopedia, it is not the place to propose new definitions. All we can do is report on what definitions for what terms are verifiably used by various organizations. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
That's kind of the problem. In America veganism is commonly used in reference to diet but in the UK it refers to the stricter practice. --nirvana2013 13:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many external links

would someone like to cull them?

I would, and did, and did before, its a flourishing section.

TonyClarke 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality tag

I've read the comments, and gone over the article in detail. I've tried to eliminate POV issues where I see them, does anybody see any remaining? If not, we can remove the disputed tag, it doesn't do Wikipedia any good to have these hanging around too long. Please comment!

TonyClarke 23:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Strange addition to intro

Someone added this to the intro: " The National Cattleman's Beef Association defines "animal welfare" as taking reasonable care of all animals, and good animal husbandry practices.(it may be idleguy, idleguy shows edits on the environmental vegetarianism page and there are two "animal husbandry" references) The NCBA also defines "animal rights" as the position that animals as having legal and moral rights similar to humans. The NCBA supports the position of animal welfare." [14]

I've deleted it because the writing is odd, because it's irrelevant to the article, and particularly the intro, and because the NCBA (and national as in which nation?) is a bizarre source to use for definitions of animal welfare and animal rights. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably the poster was trying to point out that there other, equally valid, conceptions of animal welfare, apart from the vegan rights approach? Perhaps we need to put in a more effective and apt reference to this elsewhere in the article to preserve NPOV?

TonyClarke 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't strange at all. The intro states that vegans become vegans "primarily" because of "animal rights". This brings up the topic of animal rights in the intro and reports the vegan point of view. The non-vegan point of view regarding "animal welfare" needs to be added to balance the introduction. If "animal rights" is introduced, then "animal welfare" needs to be introduced to maintain the opposing point of view. FuelWagon 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is very strange. (1) It's badly written, and I'd have rewritten it, but it's such a weird thing to stick in the intro, it seemed pointless to tidy it. (2) This isn't about animal rights. It's about veganism. If you're going to define animal rights in the intro (just because it's one of the reasons people go vegan), then you'll have to define the other reasons too: you'll need to define "health" and "environmental reasons," and give each of them their own paragraph. Why define only one? (3) Then there's the issue of the source: why choose such a bizarre non-specialist source to define the difference between animal rights and welfare? (4) Why even mention animal welfare? The welfarist position isn't one normally adopted by vegans. (5) And why have it in the intro? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want to define animal welfare to oppose animal rights, you ought to define the opposite of the health and environmental reasons too, and anyway, there are more than two animal-rights/welfare positions. Why aren't you defining the other positions? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
You can't bring up that vegans support "animal rights" in the intro without bringing up at least some mention that non-vegans generally support "animal welfare". If you don't want animal welfare mentioned in teh intro, then you can't mention "animal rights". If you only have one point of view, then it is not neutral. Either report both POV's or none. But you can't report one and qualify as neutral. I'll reinsert. If you remove, be sure to remove both. FuelWagon 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that makes no sense. This isn't about non-vegans, and animal rights aren't being promoted. We say "people often go vegan to support animal rights," just as we say "vegans eat carrots." We don't have to supply other animal-related points of view, just as we don't have to mention that some people prefer parsnsips. Please don't reinsert. You appear to have misunderstood WP:NPOV and it really is very badly written. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I completely understand NPOV, and it's clear you are ignoring it. If you say vegans are vegans to support animal rights, the non-vegan point of view around animal rights needs to be mentioned otherwise it leaves the reader with the impression that non-vegans have no regards to animal welfare at all. It would be the same if the intro said "vegans are vegans because they view eating meat as murder". That then accuses non-vegans of murder, and the non-vegan point of view deserves to be reported that they support animal welfare. If you take out the animal welfare POV from the intro, then you will have to take out mention of animal rights, and any other pro-vegan statements that you won't allow to be counter-balanced by a non-vegan poitn of view inthe intro. FuelWagon 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I've never seen you edit in way that shows you understand it, and this particular example is just silly. Just because group A expresses support for animal rights by doing X, it does not follow that group B, which does not do X, does not support animal rights. It's a fallacy, and you've misunderstood. And anyway, why do you think there are only two views: animal rights and animal welfare? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say there were only two views. But if you report one point of view in the intro, it means that at least one of the major countering points of view deserve reporting in the intro. Otherwise, the intro is just a pro-vegan piece of advertising, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. NPOV policy requires views be reported "in proportion" to those who hold them, so I listed one of the major views that is different from the vegan point of view. FuelWagon 03:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Now you're compounding it with original research by adding your own argument to the intro with the nutrition addition. Please review WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The intro is not pro-vegan advertising at all. It is an entirely factual description of what veganism is. It doesn't say it's good or bad. It simply describes it. YOU are the one who is introducing your opinion, and you're violating NPOV and NOR, and in addition the writing is ungrammatical, and the source is absurd. Yet you're revert warring to maintain it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Current POV

I think we have moved on from the many POV issues which were posted here several weks ago. At present, it is not perfect, but we seem to be co-operatively moving forward. Are there any objections to removing the disputed neutrality tag? If anyone has any significant doubts about POV issues, please state them and let's get them resolved. Otherwise I vote we remove the neutrality tag in several days time.

TonyClarke 21:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's much, much better. Hopefully the militant pro-vegan guy has moved on so we don't have to continue fighting over the criticism section. Rhobite 22:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it does not do wikipedia much good to have these tags hanging around indefinately. The same could be said for the vegetarianism article regarding the worldview tag. --nirvana2013 11:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

this article is about veganism, not any other group

SlimVirgin claims that "this article is about veganism, not any other group" [15], which apparently allows her to delete the point of view of any source that is different from the pro-vegan point of view. I'm not sure how SlimVirgin defines how an article would satisfy the requirement to be "neutral" if it can only report the point of view of one group, and exclude the poitn of view of any group that has a different view. FuelWagon 03:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There is certainly room for us to describe the conflict over the rights of animals in this article, as well as nutritional objections to veganism. Sure, the article is about veganism, but we should describe how non-vegan groups view veganism. Rhobite 04:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above: SlimVirgin has a point that it's a bit obtrusive, and it looks odd, to put the alternative view of a specific organisation in the introduction. However, I agree that the non-vegan approach to animal welfare is appropriate to put in somewhere, in a less high profile place, and less specific or inflammatory than using word such as Beef? I'll try to put in something along these lines, comments welcome. We don't want a war between two well-meaning posters to hold up the removal of that neutrality disputed tag.

TonyClarke 12:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The intro should be balanced, reporting the big picture points of views of veganism, and it should also report at least some of the more prominent counter-views to balance any statements contained in the vegan point of view. That the intro brings in "animal rights" as the reason for most vegans being vegans means that at the very least, the intro should also mention the point of view of "animal welfare" that is supported by most non-vegans. Otherwise, the intro leaves the reader with the impression that non-vegans have absolutely no concern for animal welfare at all. The alternative is to remove any mention of "animal rights" and "animal welfare" from the intro, and leave it to the article where both main points of view can be reported in a balanced and neutral way. FuelWagon 17:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
IMO it's preferable to leave out all mention of animal rights or animal welfare from the introductory paragraph than to have this artificial contrast laid out there. But what is your source for the claim that most non-vegans support "animal welfare"? "Animal welfare" as defined in the article is an invention of the beef industry to counter propaganda by groups like PETA. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

soybean consumption and veganism

the increased demand for soybeans has very little to do with veganism. most of the soy grown goes to feeding animals. Quote from the article from the WWF that's linked to in the article: "The growing demand for animal feed – and finally for meat – drives the production of soybean."

True. The increase of soy products offered to humans is a by-product of the meat industry's need to find something to do with excess soy.

"Anti-vegan Propaganda and Criticism"?

Anybody else agree with me that this should just read 'Criticism'? Modular. (Talk.) 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been changed. Modular. (Talk.) 12:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity, and my view on the state of this article.

I think it's time we remember what objectivity means, before anyone fights any further.

Objectivity

1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

(M-W.Com)

So let's think about how the idea of objectivity would apply to this article:

It doesn't matter whether you can boast about going to more college classes (independent of evidence), and it doesn't matter if you personally think (or "know" as the case may be with you pompous monkeys out there) that veganism is healthy or unhealthy. Too bad, your view has no effect here. Ergo: You can't say things like "veganism has been proven to have had many health benefits, and lots of people have yet to realize it which is problem considering blah blah blah blah" if it isn't absolutely proven, acknowledged, and accepted from all educated points of view. All you can say is something along the lines of: "The supposed effects of a vegan diet on one's health are controversial." And if you decide to go deeper into the argument and present one side, you must also present the other side. These articles are to simply provide an understanding of the subject and about the issues surrounding it, not to indoctrinate users into one view or another based on your idea of what's fact.

However, that said, at this point, I see little if any subjectivity in this article, this may be the result of recent changes, but this article, as of now, seems to be simply stating the facts about what vegans are and why they follow veganism, along with the different facets of the practice. I see little that glorifies the vegan lifestyle, and little that regards it as hippie-bullshit. This is good. I find nothing wrong with this article, the only thing which it might need is some restructuring to be a little more categorized, and include a little more on history, but I'm really too tired to do anything about that right now.

All I can say is, that this article right now seems well-written and in 'fine' to 'good' shape (on the 'horrible', 'poor', 'fine', 'good', and 'excellent' shape).

Monk of the highest order 00:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I want to ask everyone to refrain from debating veganism itself on this page and instead focus on discussing how to improve *the article*. I know it may be hard to separate those concepts, but please try.
Second, I have to disagree with Monk if he's suggesting that each side has to be presented equally, if the sides are truly unequal. We don't give equal weight to those who think the earth is flat, for example. When the preponderence of evidence supports a conclusion, then it's encyclopaedic to inform the public of the consensus. That doesn't mean that the opposition is censored out, just that minority viewpoints aren't given the same degree of attention, and they're identified as being minority.
Finally, I have to strongly disagree with FuelWagon's claims of POV, in suggesting that phrases such as "People become vegans for a number of reasons, primarily out of concern for animal rights" is POV because it suggests that meat-eaters have no concern for animal rights. The quoted phrase is *factual*. It's descriptive, and it's a *good description*. That's the whole point. The phrase isn't *trying* to describe meat-eaters, it's *trying* to describe *vegans*. Even non-vegans should be readily, readily able to identify that phrase as accurate. Do vegans choose their path primarily because of concern for animals? Absolutely. To avoid saying so would be incredibly non-encyclopaedic.
By the way, considering how politically charged this topic is, this article is surprisingly good, without too much bias in either direction. Yeah, some sure exists, but it could be worse. A lot worse. Michaelbluejay 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
In general, it's true that fringe theories don't and shouldn't get as much room at Wikipedia as mainstream theories. However, I don't think there's any view corresponding to the flat-earthers' at this article. For one thing, we're not dealing with differing theories, we're dealing simply with different opinions. But I do agree that the statement "People become vegans for a number of reasons, primarily out of concern for animal rights", and especially its current form "People become vegans for a number of reasons, primarily because they see it as supporting animal rights" is NPOV and makes no judgment about nonvegans' concern for animal rights or lack thereof. A counterargument from the beef industry is not necessary to "balance" this statement, least of all in the introduction. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You guys are arguing about "facts", when facts is only half of NPOV. NPOV requires that both sides of any story be reported. And while it is undisputed fact that some vegans became vegans because of their support for "animal rights", that introduces a topic of animal rights that indicates a hole, a lack of information, about the non-vegan point of view. If vegans became vegans because they support "animal rights", that implies that not supporting "animal rights" is insufficient, wrong, or otherwise not cool. People don't do things because they think they're doing the wrong thing. They do things because they think they're doing the right thing. By reporting the fact that vegans became vegans because they support animal rights, leaves a hole that allows non-vegans to explain their poitn of view.

Alice could accuse Bob of murder in a court of law. That could be an undisputed fact. But that fact brings with it the hole, the lack of information, as to Bob's side of the story. Did he plead guilty or claim he was innocent? Alice's accusation is a fact, the way vegans became vegans because of animal rights is a fact. BOth are facts, and both imply some wrong doing on teh part of the other side of the story, and both create a "hole" of missing information as to what the other side's point of view is.

So, you can either add the non-vegan point of views regarding "animal welfare", "health", and "environment", or you can delete the vegan point of view about "animal rights", health and the environment from the introduction to keep it neutral and balanced. but introducing one sides point of view, without reporting teh other side, at least in brief, makes the intro biased. FuelWagon 05:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more strongly with this. I absolutely do not see any "hole" created by making an objective statement about why vegans become vegans. By removing that statement you've done nothing but weakened the article. I think you have a perverse interpretation of NPOV. It's not encyclopaedic to put a full rebuttal in the *intro*! If you absolutely feel it necessary then I think a single sentence would be sufficient (I don't know, something like "Non-vegans frequently take umbrage at what they feel is vegans' self-righteousness and promotion of misinformation..."), and then this criticism can be expanded in the body of the article. (Not the intro.) I reverted the edits. Michaelbluejay 05:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
So, if a section like Abortion#The_abortion_debate says that people are pro-life because they believe that "abortion is murder", you don't see any need to introduce the pro-choice point of view? The vegan definition says "[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". And you don't see that as introducing one side of the definition, making implied accusations that non-vegans must neccessarily commit "exploitation" and "cruelty" against animals for being non-vegan, and you see no need for the non-vegan poitn of view to present it's side in response to these charges? How much more POV can the article get? Just let one side make accusations of wrongdoing on the part of people who don't follow their philosophy, and refuse to allow the accused any voice at all to respond? FuelWagon 16:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy

from WP:NPOV

"the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page"

"not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct"

Once "animal rights" are introduced, once accusations of animal "exploitation" and "cruelty" are made, the topic expands to include "care of animals". It is no longer simply an article about eating vegatables and avoiding use of animal products. As soon as veganism insinuates that non-vegans commit "exploitation" and "cruelty" against animals, the article insinuates that the vegan "side" is the correct side. If no other POV is presented, this directly violates NPOV policy. Once the article introduces the topic of "animal care", NPOV requires that "competing approaches of the same topic" be reported on the same page. Once the topic of "animal care" is breeched, once accusations of "exploitation" and "cruelty" are leveled, the only way to maintain neutrality is to bring in competing approaches on the topic fo "animal care". And the biggest competition to "animal rights" is the point of view of "animal welfare". There is no way "animal rights" can be discussed, there is no way that accusations of "cruelty" and "exploitation" can be leveled, and maintain any sort of neutral article unless competing points of view are brought into the article. FuelWagon 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Just let one side make accusations of wrongdoing on the part of people who don't follow their philosophy..." Good lord, could you miss the point any more completely? Saying why vegans choose their path is not an accusation, it's an accurate descriptor. I won't have this conversation with you any more. Your interpretation of NPOV is bizarre, and frankly, frightening. Have you not noticed that other people are saying the same thing? Michaelbluejay 17:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think FuelWagon has a valid point of view. I think (we) vegans can have a tendency to unconscious self -righteousness. I admire FuelWagon for sticking to his/her position in the face of enormous pressure. But I think Fuelwagon's position was recognised when the motivation for veganism was moved from the intro to the motivation section, and a NPOV was clearly spelt out there, Was Fuel Wagon unhappy with this? If not, why re-insert direct information from the Beef industry? To persist in insisting on POV issues afer major concessions is farcical, imho. TonyClarke 20:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The intro used to state the reasons why vegans become vegans, and many of those reasons had ethical implications that to be non-vegan had some unethical issue. i.e. non-vegans did not support any sense of animal rights, did not support the environment, and ate unhealthily. I tried to balance these implicationsin teh intro, but kept getting reverted. So I removed the ethical reasons from the intro, which is another way to maintain a balanced intro. So the intro is fine by me, because it no longer introduces ethical implications.
The definition by the British vegan society, however, begins with yet another ethical implication that to be non-vegan is to support "exploitation" of and "cruelty" to animals. This would clearly be disputed by the majority of non-vegans. I have inserted a non-vegan rebuttal to this a couple of times and it has been deleted by Tony on the grounds that it is redundant to the "ethical" section that occurs later on in the article. That does not fly. It is the definition itself, with its implication of "cruelty" and "exploitation" that is disputed, so the non-vegan point of view needs to be reported in response to that definition. FuelWagon 14:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Your logic is faulty. "If A, then B" is not equivalent to "If not A, then not B". Consider "If Socrates is human, then he is mortal". This is not equivalent to "If Socrates is not human, then he is not mortal" (he could be a mortal non-human like a dog, after all). Put into to terms of this page, the BVS claims "If you're vegan, then you reject exploitation of and cruelty to animals." This is not equivalent to saying "If you're not vegan, then you do not reject exploitation of and cruelty to animals". This is why the BVS's statement is not POV and doesn't need to be balanced by anything: the BVS's statement makes no claim or implication at all about the attitude of non-vegans. Crucially, it does not say "If you reject exploitation of and cruelty to animals, you are (or should be) vegan" (a statement which would be POV and would need balancing). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify some syntax to logic. You are correct that "if A, then B" is not equivalent to "if not A, then not B" (which you know since you wrote it ;-). However, it is equivalent to "if not B, then not A" ... if Socrates is not mortal he is not human. I think here we need to be careful in general that we have A and B in the right places (huh?). I mean, the statement that someone becomes vegan to not be cruel to animals, is a statement vegans agree with generally, i.e. Do A (become Vegan) because otherwise B (being cruel to animals) is true. This is a "not B to A implication". So if you do not become vegan you are cruel to animals. I think vegans, in fact, do believe this. Having said that, I think Vegans should be able to define themselves so long as it is expressed as their belief that animal usage is not right (rather than stating it as a matter of fact). Anywhere a firm statement of morality is made, NPOV requires it to be rebutted as such (whether an alternate point of view is used or not). Superclear 23:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


cruelty and exploitation

So tell me, Viriditas, do I have to find a source who specifically disputes the definition of Veganism by the British Veganism Society in order to report that non-vegans dispute the BVS implication that non-vegans support cruelty to animals and exploitaiton of animals? That is an interesting interpretation of original research. Are you telling me that non-vegans support the idea of cruelty to animals and exploitation of animals? FuelWagon 15:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As I explained above, the BVS makes no such implication. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
re: this edit, the BVS defines veganism as 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. This reports why vegans are vegans: that people are exploiting animals and are cruel to them by eating meat and wearing leather. If you can eat meat and wear leather without being cruel, then the BVS definition needs clarification in the wikipedia article. But I think it is abundantly clear that the BVS definition is saying that the non-vegan way of life must neccessarily involve exploitation of animals and cruelty towards animals, and that the only way to avoid such exploitation/cruelty is to become vegan. By all means, if the definition does not imply this, please show me where the BVS view on veganism explains how one can avoid cruelty/exploitation while eating meat and wearing leather. Otherwise, the insinuation stands, and NPOV policy applies. FuelWagon 18:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The BVS's definition is "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...", not "the only way of living that excludes exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals". It does not eliminate the possibility of other philosophies and ways of living that also exclude exploitation and cruelty. Granted, it doesn't explain what those could be, but it doesn't rule them out. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
"doesn't rule them out"? And you accuse me of original research? Please see the pro-life example I submitted above. The term "pro-life" does not "exclude" the possibility that abortion supporters are also supportive of life, but the term "pro-life" is sufficiently biased that the article mentions the opposing point of view i.e. that "pro-choice" is not the opposite of "pro-life" and therefore is "pro-death". Implications of "cruelty" and "exploitation" are sufficiently biased to demand the non-vegan point of view to report themselves as not cruel/exploitive. It is not enough that the definition does not rule them out. The terms are sufficiently biased that the definition must either explicitely say how non-vegans are not cruel/exploitive, or the non-vegan point of view must be reorted. Anything else is biased, emotionally loaded words, and bifurcation of the issues. FuelWagon 19:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
As long as you cite good, reputable sources for such claims, there shouldn't be a problem. The source that you have cited does not discuss the issues that you raise, and as such, your edits amount to original research. FWIW, it shouldn't be too hard to find such sources, if they exist. Good hunting. --Viriditas | Talk 07:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

perhaps mistaken implication

No, that doesn't work, either. The BVS definition means that non-vegan behaviour is cruel and exploitive. Vegans are vegans because they believe to be non-vegan is to exploit animals and be cruel to them. The wording of the BVS definition can be read no other way. Find me a pure vegan, a notable source, who fits that BVS definition of veganism, and who comes out and specificaly states that to eat meat or wear leather is not cruel or exploitive treatment. Without that source, the "perhaps mistaken" has no notable source to support it, and the "implication" of the definition stands as it reads. FuelWagon 22:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This edit will be going back in. FuelWagon 05:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:No original research. --Viriditas | Talk 07:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[16] The definittion implies guilt on the part of non-vegans, in the form of accusations "exploitation" and "cruelty to animals". balance requires that the dispute report opposing views. The beef association directly disputes the notion that their practices of "animal welfare" support "exploitation" of and "cruelty" to animals. This is not original research. The Beef Association does not have to dispute the British Vegan Society definition, they simply have to dispute the implication that to eat beef is to exploit or be cruel to animals, and they clearly dispute that view. FuelWagon 16:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It is original research as the content is based on: "...untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts [that amount to a] novel narrative or historical interpretation..." The only source for this content is yourself. The link you provide as a source [17] says nothing about veganism, yet you claim, "Many non-vegans reject the part of the British Vegan Society's definition of veganism that implies that to be non-vegan is to support exploitation and cruelty to animal." FWIW, you may be able to rephrase this so it is not original research. --Viriditas 08:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, since Michaelbluejay moved the "ethics" piece of teh cattle association to the "ethics" section of the article, the only way to maintain a balanced and neutral article is to move the British Vegan Societies definition of the "ethics" of veganism. If the article reports the ethics of veganism, it must be balanced with the POV of non-vegans. So I've moved the BVS definition that explains the ethics of veganism to the "ethics" subsection, as shown by the diff here. Now all the points of view around the ethics of veganism are reported fairly and with neutrality in one subsection. FuelWagon 23:23, 14 November 2005 FuelWagon 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)(UTC)
And I've removed this original research, again. --Viriditas 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
And I am going to join you in removing it if he tries to put it in again.
Personally, by his own definition, I don't think that putting a metal bolt in the head of the press officer of The Beef Association or slitting his throat and hanging upside down is cruel at all. That's what we call non-exploitative welfare around here!

Physics??

As a physicist I was a bit bothered by the sentence discussing efficiency of raising livestock in terms of the first law of thermodynamics. I don't object to the sentiment expressed (about useable output from farming livestock). I think saying that no energy is truly lost, so it can all be capitalized on with a little smarts isn't quite relevent in this case. The complexity of energy lost and reused in such a large biological study is difficult to assess in terms of thermodynamics, and utilizing all the energy or a large percentage is beyond our abilities (for either livestock or plant farming). We can't even get all the energy back from a "simple" system like fuel powered engines. Just a wording change, no content change. Good page for such a political topic! Superclear 22:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Defining Yourself

I really think groups should be allowed to define themselves without necessarily needing to include an alternate point of view. But we really need to remember that implications of morality whether here or on any page, should be prefaced by a belief clause. The line edited by Canaen (not picking on you either :-) to read "Vegans generally oppose the violence and cruelty involved in the meat ..." is POV. All we need to do is to change to "... oppose what they see as ... " then everyone can be satisfied (yeah, right) since it is fact independent of who thinks what about animal welfare. Agreed? For any morality judgement (e.g. Societies consider murder of innocent people wrong/taboo/ ..., NOT Murder of innocent people is wrong. I hope I've made a decent point. I will change the statement if there is no objection. Superclear 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

in other languages

Hello! For a new line...

hu:Veganizmus