Talk:Veganism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Confusion about the debate of the use of insects

I was just wondering why there is a debate whether the use of insects are ethical or not amongst vegans. The definition of veganism is "the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products" and since insects fall under the category of animals, why is there a debate? Are there levels of vegans (like vegetarians)?--Nadine9!9 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Trophic levels study

@CSkills: Thanks for your efforts, but you can't add the "trophic levels" material in the form you've been trying to add it. As Diannaa explained on your talk page, we can't copy text directly; we have to put it into our own words first. However, I'm not sure the material is appropriate at all. Under the WP:Synthesis policy, we're not supposed to add material unless reliable sources have shown how this information should be contextualized with the broader topic of veganism, and that doesn't seem to have happened with this material. The paper itself doesn't mention veganism, or even vegetarianism. FourViolas (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Mental Health

For someone who has struggled a lot with mental health and have other vegan friends who also have mental problems(ADHD, bipolar, depression,..), a section about it was clearly missing.

I just created a section about it with a German study that investigated associations between vegetarian diets and mental disorders.

It is somewhat a stub, and I do wish it could grow from it. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed your addition of the study. If you have a review article that has similar conclusions, please add it, but per WP:MEDRS, primary sources should generally not be used for medical content.Dialectric (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

See also this article by Hal Herzog, which we could take for talk-page purposes to be something like a critical review of this research as of a year ago. The fact that it claims to identify substantive methodological flaws in these primary studies is reason enough for us to insist on a review. The closest I've found to such a review has been this article, which contains this paragraph:

An association between vegetarianism and disordered eating behaviour has repeatedly been described in adolescents [17, 35, 37]. There is, however, no proof that a vegetarian diet predisposes to eating disorders. In most patients, signs of an eating disorder are present before the change to a vegetarian or vegan diet [33]. As a consequence, it is important for the clinician to be alert and to explore the reasons for adopting a vegetarian diet in adolescents, as it can be a method of concealing disordered eating behaviour. The majority of vegetarian adolescents, however, do not have an eating disorder [24].

Not much to go on, and nothing pertaining specifically to veganism. FourViolas (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead vs. recent WP:RfC discussion

As seen here (followup edit here), I reverted edits by new account RoughDraft (who I can easily see is not a new editor). I reverted because of POV concerns and because the changes to the first sentence go against the WP:Consensus reached in the previous RfC. See Talk:Veganism/Archive 14#RfC: Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'? and Talk:Veganism/Archive 14#Lead sentence RfC closed.

Because of that RfC, the lead sentence was molded into the following: "Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." RoughDraft changed it to "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products as far as practicable, and the associated principle that rejects the commodity status of animals." The problem with RoughDraft's edit is that it does not recognize that some people simply follow the vegan diet without following the philosophy. Not all vegans abstain from the use of animal products. These people who follow the vegan diet but do not abstain from using all animal products are still referred to as vegans, no matter how much RoughDraft obviously dislikes this fact. Also, using "practice" and "as far as practicable" has a poor flow.

RoughDraft changed "A follower of either the diet or the philosophy is known as a vegan." to "An adherent to veganism is known as a vegan." The latter seems POV-ish. Veganism is not a religion. And the change excludes those who follow the diet.

RoughDraft changed "Distinctions are sometimes made between several categories of veganism." to "Distinctions are sometimes made between veganism and a vegan diet, and between the different principles behind each." This change tries to state that those who follow the vegan diet are not vegans. It also is not supported by any sources in the lead. RoughDraft removed "'Dietary vegans refrain from ingesting animal products." from that same paragraph.

RoughDraft changed "Some dietary vegans choose to wear clothing that includes animal products (for example, leather or wool)." to "Those who follow vegan diets for health reasons may choose to wear clothing that includes animal products (for example, leather or wool) and are sometimes called 'dietary vegans.'" Again, RoughDraft removed the term dietary vegans, and the "sometimes called 'dietary vegans'" piece is not supported by the source. The change can also confuse people since it can be interpreted as people wear clothing that includes animal products because of health concerns.

SlimVirgin, can I get your help on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"I reverted edits by new account RoughDraft (who I can easily see is not a new editor). I reverted because of POV concerns".

You reverted all of my edits because you have POV concerns with some of them, which is against wikipedia policy and consensus building, and disrespectful of my efforts. Most of my edits were unrelated to your POV concerns, and included bringing the lede in line with the style guide on basic issues (italics in place of quotation marks is simply incorrect punctuation. italics are for emphasis or for latin. the first use of "vegan" should be bold, because "vegan" redirects here etc), and bringing statements more in line with sources. I gave reasons in the edit description for all of the edits that I believed might be need an explanation. And yes, you are correct that I am an experienced editor, although I have barely edited for years and had never edited with an account on this computer, because I had edited so rarely. Some of your concerns have merit, especially the "flow" of practice and practicable, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and until a better flow can be found that flows better and is more accurate, accuracy is more important than flow.

"The changes to the first sentence go against the WP:Consensus reached in the previous RfC"

Not exactly. The discussion was not entirely fruitful and it's not clear how many of the people in the discussion would have disagreed with my edits, certainly not all, consensus did not seem convincingly reached, and NPOV principles were not followed and appear not to be understood.

"The problem with RoughDraft's edit is that it does not recognize that some people simply follow the vegan diet without following the philosophy".

It doesn't claim it, but neither does it deny it. That's what NPOV means. Some people claim "veganism" refers to the philosophy and "vegan diet" refers to the diet. Other people claim that a vegan diet "IS" veganism, and therefore would agree that veganism is abstinence from animal products "particularly in diet". The claim that veganism is "particular in diet" is disputed by many if not most vegans (and even many non-vegetarians would define it as beyond just diet) and therefore the claim "particularly in diet" is POV. The NPOV procedure is to use statements that all parties (or almost all) can agree on. This is a constant process of editing, fine tuning, and improvements that can't work by simple mass reversions. The statement I left may not be entirely NPOV, because not everybody agrees that it means "as far as practicable". So the solution is to say "either in diet or as far as practicable". That's the edit you should have made, instead of being disrespectful and reverting well-considered edits that overall constituted an improvement on previous version that had more POV (and a less common POV), just because the phrasing wasn't perfect yet.

"These people who follow the vegan diet but do not abstain from using all animal products are still referred to as vegans, no matter how much RoughDraft obviously dislikes this fact."

If I dislike it so much, why did I leave it in the second paragraph? There is a difference between saying "People who follow vegan diets are sometimes called vegans or dietary vegans", which is accurate and saying "People who follow vegan diets are vegan, even if they wear leather", which is an opinion, and one that most vegans and even many non-vegetarians would disagree with. I left the description of dietary veganism in there because I have a good understanding of NPOV policy and consensus building and follow it as closely as I can. Other statements like that a dietary vegan "is known as a vegan" are sublty POV because "known as a vegan" makes it sound like there is no controversy when there is, whereas "sometimes called a vegan or a dietary vegan" is accurate and does not falsely imply there is no controversy. I agree with you that "adherant" makes it sound like a religion, but so does "follower", so again this is a work in progress and it is much more constructive, respectful and in line with policy to try to think of something better instead of just reverting each other. "And the change excludes those who follow the diet."

On my NPOV point on distinctions between veganism and vegan diets you claim: "This change tries to state that those who follow the vegan diet are not vegans".

No, it doesn't. Instead it removes the POV claim that they are vegans, while also avoiding the POV claim that they are not vegans. It uses languages that carefully avoids both of the POV claims, which is how NPOV consensus building works.

You also claim this change is "not supported by any sources in the lead."

I believe it is. Some of the sources define veganism such that it means ethical veganism, whereas the term "vegan diet" clearly does refer to a diet and not to ethical clothing choices. Some ethical vegans and even some dietary vegans object to even term "vegan diet" and prefer terms like "plant-based" and "strict vegetarians", but since "vegan diet" at least has a clear meaning, it can be left in there, whereas whether dietary vegans are "real vegans" is dispute. This edit, like most of my edits, did not take sides in that dispute, but your reversion does.

"RoughDraft removed the term dietary vegans, and the "sometimes called 'dietary vegans'" piece is not supported by the source. The change can also confuse people since it can be interpreted as people wear clothing that includes animal products because of health concerns."

It's getting harder to assume good faith, since I did not remove the term 'dietary vegans" completely from the sentence but instead left it to the end of the sentence for the same NPOV reasons discussed above. I'm repeating myself now, but again some of the sources use the term "dietary vegans" while other sources including the most authoritative definitions in use) define veganism as going beyond diet. Therefore, both of these claims are POV, and my language presents opinion as opinion instead of the claim you reverted to, which assumes opinion as fact.

"RoughDraft removed "'Dietary vegans refrain from ingesting animal products." from that same paragraph."

Again, hard to assume good faith. I didn't remove it, I edited that POV statement to something NPOV. Accepting the term "dietary vegans" as being uncontroversial and commonly in use (it is neither) is more POV than simply changing it to "Vegan diets involve refraining from ingesting animal products" as I did. The latter statement is less controversial and uses more normal language. The term "vegan diet" is used more often than "dietary vegan" precisely because it is less controversial and more pragmatic. The term "vegan diet" neither asserts nor denies that adherents to this diet are vegans, which is what NPOV means: it means don't assert or deny or assume something controversial that is debated between sources. I don't think anyone would read that and think it is saying adherents of vegan diets wear leather for health reasons. I think it was clearly saying that they don't necessarily avoid leather. But of course, if you can think of a better way to phrase it, you should do that without a mass reversion of a range on NPOV improvements, just because they aren't perfect or because they are different to the POV that was arrived at earlier when few participants were earnestly trying to develop NPOV statements. RoughDraft (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not easy to assume good faith when not only are you clearly not a newbie...but have made the type of edits to this article that have been rejected time and time again. We've had a number of past disgruntled editors, whether IPs or registered editors, come back to this article under new accounts to make the same contested changes. I reverted your edits because of WP:NPOV and sourcing issues, and the reverts are not at all "against wikipedia policy and consensus building." Most of your edits are not unrelated to the POV concerns I expressed. Look at the revert here. I'm not counting minor edits.

As for your minor edits, such as quotation marks in place of italics, I could not care less about that as long as the changes adhere to the style guides such as WP:WORDSASWORDS. I am aware of MOS:BOLD. "Vegan" was bolded before. I don't know who came in and changed that. I'll change it back.

I have no issue with any minor change you made, but I think it's obvious that the changes I took issue with are POV issues.

You state that accuracy is more important than flow; the sources in the article, including in the lead, show that the lead sentence is accurate. So not only is that initial lead sentence accurate, it has a better flow.

You stated that WP:NPOV principles were not followed in that previous RfC. How are you defining WP:NPOV? On Wikipedia, WP:NPOV is about WP:Due weight. Looking at the literature on veganism, it's clear that veganism is not always or mostly defined as strictly as your changes made it out to be.

In response to my statement that "The problem with RoughDraft's edit is that it does not recognize that some people simply follow the vegan diet without following the philosophy.", you replied, "It doesn't claim it, but neither does it deny it. That's what NPOV means." No, that's not what NPOV means on Wikipedia. Your edit failed to acknowledge a significant aspect of what veganism is: Commonly, it is just the diet. You stated that "The claim that veganism is 'particular in diet' is disputed by many if not most vegans (and even many non-vegetarians would define it as beyond just diet) and therefore the claim 'particularly in diet' is POV." What WP:Reliable sources support you on that?

You asked, "If [you] dislike it so much, why did [you] leave it in the second paragraph?" Because, with the exception of "are sometimes called 'dietary vegans", you had removed any mention that dietary vegans are also vegans. You made it seem like there are vegans and then there are those simply following the vegan diet. Many sources do not support that interpretation. Stating that those who simply follow the diet are vegans is not a WP:NPOV violation whatsoever. I don't think your understanding of the WP:NPOV policy is as strong as you think it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to put that stuff in bold. I already understood your position. I then responded to your position with my own arguments, which you ignored. I still believe that my own arguments are valid, and the fact you have failed to understand, not to mention refute them, re-enforces. If you don't care about my other edits, you should not have reverted all of my edits. Nor should you have reverted any of my edits without considering whether they could be improved further in a way that builds consensus. The fact you have been reverting stuff for a long time just proves that you are not good at consensus building and exercise reversion too freely and contructive collaborative contribution too rarely. You are required to assume good faith for newbie and experienced editors alike. My edits are not identical to any previous edits. You have instead reverted everything I did as a knee-jerk reaction to perceived "POV", just because some the NPOV edits I made remove the POV that you prefer, and replace it with a more NPOV (though not perfect) position. I have already made strong arguments for this and you have failed to even show you understand them, not to mention refute them. NPOV does mean that you don't state opinion as fact. The policy on due weight clearly explains that you must give due weight to opinions, but you still have to present them as opinions, not as fact which is what my edits did. It would be good to get someone in with a RfC who is not biased by your confessed history of reverting in place of collaboration. For what it's worth, this is not a sock puppet account, and I am fairly new to this article. RoughDraft (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not ignore your arguments. I clearly addressed them. We won't be agreeing on this issue. For now, it's best to let others weigh in. As for WP:Assume good faith, it is a guideline, not a policy and it does not require that I assume good faith where I have strong reason to suspect otherwise. As for reverting stuff for a long time, I am a WP:Patroller; I revert a lot of unconstructive edits using WP:STiki and similar. Doing so says nothing about my cooperative and consensus-building skills, which are fine, as many others can attest to. Your edits may not be identical to any previous edits, which no one could know unless they look at many different versions of this article, but your edits are similar to changes that have been contested more than once. And, yes, your understanding of the WP:NPOV policy is faulty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your "strong reason" to assume bad faith is because you find it easier to revert than think critically so you have reverted many other accounts before me and assume that all of the edits you have chosen to revert are equally bad faith, which is circular reasoning, and you believe some of them may be sock puppets. RoughDraft (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Think critically? My record on matters such as these shows that I think critically plenty. I reverted you for valid reasons. That you are clearly not a newbie is not one of those reasons. I do like to identify editors as non-new when I see that they are, however...for valid reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you show me where reverting someone on the assumption of bad faith because you think they have made different edits to the article that you also reverted because you assumed those were also in bad faith (possibly based on the same circular reasoning?) is considered a "valid reason" in Wikipedia policy? I hope it's not considered valid because it's not; it's circular. RoughDraft (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry your "01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)" comment does not apply to me. My valid reasons for reverting you are noted above. Stop wasting my time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, responding to your ping. I haven't edited this article for about a year, and haven't followed recent discussions. But I agree with your edits. RoughDraft, these issues have been extensively debated, including in an RfC. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at those debates and nobody in those debates suggested the kinds of edits I made, so they aren't relevant. The idea that you can revert edits on the basis that "there was already a debate" doesn't make sense. Wikipedia doesn't just stop editing articles once there has been a debate. My edits mostly had nothing to do with the dabate, and those that did were not a direct contradiction of the result of the debate. "particularly in diet" as far as I can tell, has not been discussed much. The suggestion I offer in the section below is a new suggestion one that improves upon that POV language and makes in more NPOV. Why reject a suggestion merely on the basis that nobody though to suggest it earlier? RoughDraft (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh? There have been a number of discussions that subscribe to the viewpoint that those who simply follow the vegan diet are not vegans. Given your edits to this article and your arguments on this topic, those past discussions are relevant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The conclusion of the discussion was not that veganism is just as diet. The conclusions is that it can refer to just a diet. But saying that veganism is particularly is diet is claiming that it is always particular to diet. "At least in diet" is more accurate. The discussion you linked to discussed mainly the "commodity status of animals" part and there was certainly no debate about whether "particularly in diet" or "at least in diet" or "as far as practicable" is more accurate. RoughDraft (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Roughdraft, this has been discussed many times. See the FAQ at the top of the page and at Talk:Veganism/FAQ. "Particularly in diet" simply means that diet is the focus of veganism. Your additions introduced several inaccuracies—for example, that dietary vegans are those who follow a vegan diet for health reasons, but this isn't always true. Please make yourself familiar with the sources, and if you've edited this article under another user name, please use the same account. Otherwise editors here are repeating themselves to the same people, which isn't fair. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but diet is not the focus of ethical veganism, and ethical vegans (who are the majority) would not agree that veganism means "avoiding animal products, particularly in diet", so this is POV. A fair compromoise would be something like "at least in diet". The source given says that "pure vegetarians" or "dietary vegans" are "usually" motivated by health reasons. Nowhere did I claim they always do, as you imply. But those who follow a vegan diet for health reasons are more likely to wear leather than those who follow one for ethical reasons. RoughDraft (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, by agreeing with the reversions of all of my edits, you are claiming that all of my edits were bad, which is clearly not assuming good faith, since the reverter has admitted they weren't assuming good faith, and since some of my edits were fixing problems with punctuation, most were minor non-controversial improvements, and others actually removed POV statements and replaced them with NPOV statements, yet all were reverted by someone not assuming good faith who clearly was not objectively assessing each edit on its merits. You are following the same faulty logic that the reversion of all my edits was an improvement of the article because some of my edits weren't perfect. RoughDraft (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Someone [...] who clearly was not objectively assessing each edit on its merits"? False. My focus was not on minor edits that can easily be reinstated. Most of what I reverted was POV wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You haven't reinstated all of my NPOV improvements. It's no wonder this article is so inaccurate and poorly written when you are deliberately reverting as many improvements as you can whenever you think you can claim they are POV. Overall I made the lede less POV while improving punctuation. If you went through and assessed each edit individual, you could have come up with a constructive compromise, but you didn't even try. And then you call in your friend to agree with you, who says that the huge effort of clicking a revert button to revert my hard work and prevent collaborative improvement is unfair on you. What a joke. Now I remember why I left this website years ago. RoughDraft (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You made a few minor edits. I reinstated one. You were clearly free to reinstate the others. When it comes to reverting you, reverting the POV changes was more important than retaining minor edits. It was not worth it to work through the intermediate edits. Like I noted below, SlimVirgin (who has responded to your arguments below as well) is very familiar with the veganism literature and wrote the vast majority of this article. Of course I'm going to ping her on this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your friend has shown that she isn't even that familiar with literature that has been cherry-picked to support her POV. You clearly both have a history of excluding certain views from the article while cherry picking and emphasising others. RoughDraft (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

LHow is she not familiar? And what history are you referring to as far as it concerns me? Whatever your claim, it's false. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Updating

I'm about to post an update/copy edit because there has been deterioration. Sentences were removed so that the surrounding text made no sense. Text and refs already in the article were added again. New refs were added but not accurately summarized. I've also expanded the origins section, added an image of one of the attendees of the first Vegan Society meeting (but we badly need a free image of Donald Watson), and swapped the Singer image for one of Val Plumwood.

The new demographics section should probably be reverted to the shorter version. The expansion took place between March and October 2016. [1][2][3] I started trying to tidy it, but it was too time-consuming, so I've mostly left it in place, but I removed the sections with the poorest sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Steven Davis paragraphs

I'm about to remove the last two paragraphs of the environmental veganism section about the Steven Davis thought experiment. They've been there for over 10 years in one form or another. I haven't removed them before because it's an interesting argument, but it's massively UNDUE, based on figures of unclear provenance, and 14 years old, so it needs to go. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

New suggestion for definition of veganism

As discussed above, the current definition of veganism given in the first sentence of the lede is not perfect. I would like to suggest the following improvement and get your comment:

"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from animal products, at least in diet, usually in clothing and other products where feasible, and often including an underlying principle rejecting the commodity status of animals."

This is not exactly how it is defined by most vegans and the most authoritative definitions, which often simply say "as far as practicable" but I think it is a good NPOV compromise between different positions. The only debate point I can see is whether we should use "usually" or "often" for clothing etc and "usually", "often", "sometimes" or neither for the principle. I think the way I have written it is the most consensus-building, but either way I would prefer it to the the current phrasing which includes two controversial statements, one that veganism is "particularly in diet", which is ambiguous and would certainly be hotly contested by many vegans, and even many non-vegetarians think it goes beyond diet. The second statement that some would argue is POV is that veganism refers to the underlying philosophy, without using the word "usually" or often, ie that it is always ethical. As such we are contradicting ourselves in the lede, simultaneously claiming that it is "particularly in diet" (non-ethical) and in the same sentence claiming it [always] includes an underlying ethical philosophy. NPOV doesn't mean presenting two opposing opinions as fact in the same sentence. It means finding language that everyone can agree on. I think the definition I give above does this much better, even if it is not perfect. Please give your comments below not on whether you think it is perfect, but on whether you think it is better or worse than the current opening sentence. If you have suggestions to improve the definition further, please give them here. RoughDraft (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources for your definition that EXPLICITLY use your proposed definition? If not, it's Original Research. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Can you provide reliable sources for your definition that EXPLICITLY use your proposed definition? If not, it's Original Research."

No, that's not what original research means. I'm describing what is in the sources currently provided. Neither the current definition given in the article, nor the one I am providing, is a word for word quotation of a single source. This is because there are many sources that contradict each other, so we can't include just one source. That would be POV. Instead we have to combine the sources to create a consensus. The suggestion I have given is based on the definitions in the sources that we are already using, but unlike the current definition used in the article, it doesn't contradict itself or the source. Instead I have used language that acknowledged three things contained in the sources. Firstly, all of the sources say veganism requires avoiding animal products in your diet. Secondly, most of the sources including the Vegan Society definition given say that veganism requires avoiding animal products as far as practicable, but because not all the sources agree I have added the word "usually". This is not original research, just description of the sources. Thirdly, most of the sources imply veganism has an underlying principle that rejects using animals and their body parts as commodities, but not all of the sources agree with this, so I have added the word "often". Again, this is not original research. I don't think you have read carefully the definition I have given above, or the definition that is currently leading the article, or my explanation, or the sources in the article, or Wikipedia's policy against original research. Please do so and provide and informed, well considered comment that addresses the relation of my proposal and the current defintion to each other, themselves and to the sources.RoughDraft (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it, and you - for some reason - have chosen to undo my reversion. That's an odd thing for a new editor to do. Would you care to explain? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Did I accidentally revert something? What? RoughDraft (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh OK, I see it now. I didn't revert it. I just quoted you and responded before you reverted. I can delete it now. RoughDraft (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not this again RoughDraft is clearly acting in good faith (as far as I can tell), but as Exemplo suggests, I can't see this getting anywhere useful unless there are game-changing new sources. we're trying to describe a complicated situation: "veganism" is sometimes used to mean boycotting animal products in diet, sometimes to mean boycotting them completely, and sometimes to refer to the idea that they should be boycotted completely on principle. Different authors use different versions, due to all kinds of variations in their motivations or interests or agendas, and we'll never be able to come up with a "perfect" definition which matches every way the term is used. The current lede accurately conveys the fact that the term is used in different ways, but does not clearly endorse any particular meaning. Unless we can find some authoritative tertiary source covering all aspects of veganism, I don't see any benefit to trying to relitigate the best way to craft a necessarily imperfect definition. FourViolas (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my good faith. I don't think we need new sources. What we need is to accurately represent the sources we have without presenting POV statements as fact. Do you see how my statement avoids stating the POV statements as fact? In the long term, something like this will help to build consensus, rather than having angry people making edits based on disagreeing with one of the two POV statements in the lead. By using NPOV statements like "often" and "usually" I think we can overcome this problem. Of course a perfect definition is impossible, but I would still like your honest opinion on whether you think this is a better or worse definition and why. Trying to avoid any changes just to avoid controversy will not resolve the controversy; it will merely prolong the controversy and prevent the article from being improved. RoughDraft (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're not quoting directly from one source, but instead you're creating a statement based on multiple sources, then that's still original research. See WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia editors are meant to go with the reliable sources say, we aren't meant to cherry-pick things that support our own views. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"We aren't meant to cherry-pick things that support our own views" I'm not! That's what the current definition does. My suggestion brings the definition more in line with all of the sources, to replace the cherry picking. It doesn't seem like you have read anything here. RoughDraft (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've read everything you've written here - have you read WP:SYNTH? Exemplo347 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes! WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I'm not! Everything I've given is in line with the sources. The current definition states opinions from the sources as fact. I have merely changed the wording so that they are shown to be opinions. It really doesn't seem like you have read and compared them.RoughDraft (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that I'm disagreeing with you does not mean I haven't read and compared. I've told you that I have, and I'll remind you that you should Assume Good Faith. I've stated my objection based on Wikipedia's policies. Find a reliable source that explicitly says what you want to include - don't combine things from a number of sources (that you haven't referenced) and change the wording like you have - it's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The current wording directly contradicts the sources. My wording is based on the sources and doesn't contradict them. I have explained why. RoughDraft (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I will present a basic logical argument to show how consensus is reached. If some of the sources claim "V=A [particularly]" and all of the other sources claim "V=A+B [and not A particularly]" then both of these are POV claims, but there is a consensus between the sources that "V= at least A". So "Veganism = at least a vegan diet" is NPOV, while "Veganism is a vegan diet in particular" is POV. RoughDraft (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but as you've said you're a new editor I don't think your opinion about "consensus" is based on Wikipedia's norms. Perhaps when you're more experienced you'll realise that for Wikipedia's purposes, "consensus" is reached following a reasoned discussion regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - for example, WP:SYNTH. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor acknowledged that they are not new; see the section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

True, I had quite a lot of experience editing completely different articles several years ago, and I studied the policy more carefully than most editors have. Of course, that shouldn't really matter, since my suggestion above is better than the current definition and no one has ever tried to show that it's not. Everyone so far has avoided a real comparison of the two definitions of their merits. RoughDraft (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like I noted to RoughDraft, numerous WP:Reliable sources view following the vegan diet as veganism. Veganism is often defined simply by the diet, meaning without the philosophy being included. So it cannot merely be considered an opinion to state that one who follows the vegan diet is a vegan; the statement is supported by the general literature on veganism. Stating that one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan is a POV issue. Furthermore, what WP:Reliable source state that "one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan", or state something similar? Present them here. Then compare such sources to the general literature on veganism.

SlimVirgin, who is very familiar with the literature on veganism, wrote the vast majority of this article; she wrote it with care. I am waiting for her to weigh in on RoughDraft's objections.

SlimVirgin, I just saw your comment above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You yourself just acknowledged that veganism is "often" defined as just the diet, which is what I say in my suggestion above with "at least in diet". It is not supported by the general literature that a vegan diet is always accepted as veganism. The Vegan Society definition and others given say that vegans avoid animal products "as far as practicable" which contradicts "particularly in diet". There are clearly two POVs in the sources, those of the Vegan Society that veganism is more than a diet and goes "as a far as practicable" and those who also consider veganism to be a diet. The NPOV thing is to do what I did above: "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from animal products, at least in diet, usually in clothing and other products where feasible, and often including an underlying principle rejecting the commodity status of animals." Have you even read my new suggestion? It actually conforms to exactly what you are asking for. It acknowledges that "commodity status of animals" is POV by saying that veganism "often" includes this instead of implying that it always does. RoughDraft (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The Vegan Society has been brought up time and time again, and it has been shown time and time again that the general literature on veganism does not define it as strictly as that society does. Again, what WP:Reliable sources state that "one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan", or state something similar? Your suggestion is still POV, with its "at least in diet" assertion. And "usually in clothing and other products where feasible" is especially POV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is "at least in diet" POV? "at least in diet" means "sometimes just in diet and sometimes also in other areas" so I am building consensus with you, whereas "particularly in diet" implies that diet is always the most important aspect, which is POV. Secondly, I accept I can't prove "Usually in clothing". Would you accept that "often in clothing" is a fact? Where it's obvious you're not reading closely (and it's disresepctful) you make up a false quotation "one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan" and you ignore that this is closer to the current definition that to my suggestion. The current definition implies that veganism always involves a philosophy (because that was the result of the back-and-forth POV debate). In my suggestion, in an attempt to build consensus, I have changed that to "often" involves that philosophy. RoughDraft (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I am open to changing "particularly in diet," but I don't think that "at least in diet" is much better. I can accept "often in clothing." As for stating that I'm not reading closely, that is disrespectful. I asked you what WP:Reliable sources state that "one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan", or state something similar, because you have been arguing that many or most vegans believe that following the diet without following the philosophy is not veganism. It can be argued that the current definition does not imply that veganism always involves the philosophy. The RfC was certainly about presenting both viewpoints as valid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave the commodity status part as it is, since that was the result and focus of the RfC. If you don't have any objection to "at least in diet" and "often in clothing" then I will go ahead and make those edits alone. The sources already given, including Francione, argue that veganism is ethical is basis. I was just suggesting that we add "often" to build consensus with you, but I am happy not to make any edits concerning that to respect the conclusion of RfC, which was on that topic specifically.RoughDraft (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

So what is your new proposed wording for the lead sentence? Also, I think we should give others a chance to weigh in and that the wording shouldn't be changed simply because you and I have agreed on it. If after a day or two, no one objects to what you and I have agreed on, then making the changes should be okay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we start just by changing "particularly in diet" to "at Least in diet". The former is more ambiguous because it could mean "only in diet", while the latter is more clear and representative of the sources. RoughDraft (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Given SlimVirgin's comment above, I'm going to wait to see if she or anyone else states anything more on the matter. I'm going to log off soon, and may be away from Wikipedia for a day or two. I will get back to this, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That comment was on a separate issue, your reversions. Nobody has given any objection to "at least in diet". "at least in diet" is clearly less POV than "particularly in diet". RoughDraft (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's comment is indeed about "particularly in diet." You speak of objections, but this discussion clearly shows that you lack support for your changes. Lack of support for your changes is why you proposed changes. Proposing them and then going ahead and making them without waiting for others to weigh in is not really consensus building. I objected to "at least in diet", and you offered no alternative wording for it. SlimVirgin argued for retaining "particularly in diet". Despite this, you went ahead and made the change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin did not mention "at least in diet". What's your objection? You said it's not "much better". That's not an objection. An objection means giving a reason why it's worse. Consensus building on Wikipedia works by making edits that no one objects to. It doesn't work getting support for every edit on the talk page first. Surely you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know this. RoughDraft (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• proposed edits are not an improvement over the long-standing version which is the product itself of long discussions and an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What has happened at this article for several years is that ethical vegans and people opposed to veganism have both objected to Wikipedia's presentation of moderate vegan positions. In fact, we have seen them join up during the same discussion and knowingly support each other: one side because they want to limit the practice to its most committed supporters, and the other to ridicule it.

But Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. The reliable sources, including academic sources, identify dietary veganism as veganism.

Given that dietary vegans (for health, ethical, religious and environmental reasons) focus on diet entirely, and that ethical vegans focus on diet too, although not entirely, "particularly in diet" is a good summary for the first sentence. The second lead paragraph unpacks it, although the previous version (below, minus the notes and refs) was better than the current:

Distinctions are sometimes made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans (or strict vegetarians) refrain from consuming animal products, not only meat but also eggs, dairy products and other animal-derived substances. The term ethical vegan is often applied to those who not only follow a vegan diet but extend the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and oppose the use of animals for any purpose. Another term is environmental veganism, which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the harvesting or industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable.

SarahSV ^(talk) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Perfect summary. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually no it's not a perfect summary. It's a misrepresentation of the sources and of my own edits and suggestions. Ethical veganism is also veganism, and that term belongs to Colombia Press. Therefore "at least in diet" is more accurate than "particularly in diet". The Vegan Society is an authoritative source and they define veganism the way that most vegans do. Most people who identify as vegans accept the vegan society definition. But my edits and suggestion did not take sides in this, they just removed POV claims. "particularly in diet" is POV. "at least in diet" is not. RoughDraft (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not going to adopt the definition of the British Vegan Society. We reflect the definitions used by reliable sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, that's even more illogical than saying "we can't take official Wikipedia policy statements as a reliable source on Wikipedia policy". Secondly, even the "reliable sources" don't consistently agree with you. The nutritionist book introduces the terms "dietary vegans" as the same thing as "pure vegetarian" because they need to divert from the standard definition for nutritional academic reasons. If they weren't diverting to from the standard definition, they would simply have used "vegans" and not felt the need to say "dietary vegans". The word "ethical vegan" is not used that often, because vegan is generally taken to mean what most vegans and the vegan society say it does. When both vegans and non-vegans use the word vegan, they are usually excluding people who wear leather in public. If your "reliable sources" don't recognise this then they are probably cherry picked and not reliable. Thirdly, you are misrepresenting my argument again. I'm not even arguing that we adopt the Vegan Society position completely, as I clearly stated. I'm simply asking for better, more accurate, more neutral language on the topic. But clearly you have a commitment to not using neutral language. RoughDraft (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we are not allowed to use the Cambridge English Dictionary either: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vegan RoughDraft (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dictionaries_as_sources explains that we can and should use dictionary definitions from reliable dictionaries like the Cambridge, but I guess since the Cambridge English Dictionary, the Vegan Society, The International Vegan Association, and the inventor of word "vegan" Don Watson all agree that leather is not vegan and vegans avoid it, they are all unreliable sources now, and we must continue to pretend that people who buy leather, use it and show it off in public are always accepted as vegans by everyone. Congratulations on keeping the article absurdly inaccurate by cherry-picking sources and reverting NPOV improvements. RoughDraft (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You are accurately summarizing ethical veganism, which is just one kind. Per the reliable sources. You are pounding your head against the brick wall of policy-based edits. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No, my edits were policy based. There is undue weight given to the rare and esoteric concept of "dietary veganism" in the lede and in the definition of veganism in the first clause of the article, and the claim that people who buy and wear fur and leather but eat are vegan diet are "vegans" is an extremely rare POV opinion relevant only in nutritional science, not generally relevant to what veganism means in everyday language, currently stated as part of the common definition of veganism, which it quite simply is not, and the current definition effectively excludes the eschewing of animal products like leather from the definition, effectively denying that ethical veganism is veganism. My edits and suggestions have been moderate attempt to build consensus by rephrasing to make article more accurate and NPOV. And even my improvements of punctuation according to the style guide were reverted. Excluding authoratiative sources from the Cambridge English Dictionary to the International Vegan Association, reverting and ignoring suggestions instead of collaborative consensus building is not policy based. But then Wikipedia policy is often violated by dominant editors. I've been banging my head against thuggery, not policy. RoughDraft (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of people, including vegans and non-vegans, including the Cambridge English Dictionary and the Vegan Society, believe that ethical veganism is veganism, and that leather is not vegan, and that vegans do not buy leather or condone the buying of it. Not only is this fact not stated in the lead, but it is actively denied, while all of these sources are omitted, while the rare esoteric concept of "dietary veganism" is made the centre of the definition and given a huge amount of space and is the first form of veganism to be defined, on the basis of a lie, that only these esoteric uses in esoteric sources are reliable. None of this is policy based. RoughDraft (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please write shorter posts, and please don't make assertions like "The vast majority of people...believe X". They are not useful arguments in Wikipedia. Thanks

No one is arguing that those sources don't say that. The article deals with those, and others that define it more broadly. Those sources cannot be ignored; ignoring them makes the article less NPOV, not more NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Following a plant based diet free of meat and dairy doesn't make one a vegan, end of story.Wikiinfomation (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that's your opinion but without a reliable source, it's pretty meaningless. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I bless on adding new images to the article

I support addition of the current new photos (from last 3 months) to the article. We need a few more images - Of Vegan junk food, and of vegan demonstrations. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben-Yeudith, what new images? Also keep in mind that we have discussed image changes and suggestions by you before. My main concern is not adding too many images, especially in a way that will sandwich the text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Why No Criticism Section?

There appears to be plenty of criticism of the diet, with which the reader should definitely be aware - from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Veganism

Criticisms

Methylcobalamin (vitamin B12): Better living through chemistry!

While it is accepted that vegan diets can have some health benefits, vegans can be at risk for certain nutritional deficiencies even though these deficiencies are shared with non-vegans (except vitamin B12). Furthermore, the latter have 5 more deficiencies(ie. fiber, folate, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin E)[41]. Vegan deficiencies risk are:

Vitamin B12 deficiency leading to anemia and/or neurological problems[42]

Iodine deficiency, shared with non-vegans, leading to thyroid problems.[43] This is not often an issue due to the iodization of table salt. Vegans can also get adequate iodine from consuming sea vegetables.

Calcium deficiency also shared with non-vegans.[44] The calcium in plant like kales and broccoli is better absorbed than milk.

It is essential that vegans include a vitamin B12 supplement, B12-fortified foods in their diets (e.g., B12-fortified nutritional yeast), or the algae Chlorella pyrenoidosa[45] to prevent deficiency.[46] This is particularly true for women in early pregnancy because B12-deficiency is known to increase the likelihood of neural tube defects, such as spina bifida, by 5-fold in babies.[47]

In 1926, Minot and Murphy found that a man was cured of pernicious anemia with liver extracts, a discovery for which they received the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1934. Ricke and Smith isolated crystalline vitamin B12 in liver extracts in 1948. Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) is a vitamin that is synthesized in nature only by microorganisms. It is necessary for animals and is present in every animal tissue at very low concentrations (1 ppm in the liver). A B12 deficiency causes pernicious anemia. The need for vitamin B12 in some animals is covered by taking or absorption of vitamin B12 produced by gut microorganisms. But humans only get vitamin B12 from food or supplements, since vitamin B12 synthesized by microorganisms in the intestine cannot be assimilated.

Vegan death

No, we're not talking about the latest heavy metal band. Unfortunately, there are a few vegans who, insisting they can survive on only kale and sunlight, give the rest a bad name. There have been several court cases regarding vegan parents killing their children through their diets.

In 2001, Garabet and Hazmik Manuelyan from Surrey, England were placed under a 3-year community rehabilitation order (though they could have potentially faced prison) for the death of their undernourished 9-month old daughter. The daughter had been fed a fruit-based diet and died from a chest infection brought on by malnutrition. The parents were vegans but switched to a diet of raw vegetables fruit and nuts in 1996.[48] In 2002, Roby Jan Moorhead and Deborah Anne Moorhead from New Zealand were sentenced to 5 years in jail for the death of their infant son. The son died from bronchopneumonia associated with anaemia and brain damage, which was brought on from vitamin B12 deficiency.[49]

In 2011, Joel and Sergine Le Moaligou of Amiens, France were sentenced to 5 years in jail for the death of their undernourished 11-month old daughter. The daughter, who was fed only on breast milk, was suffering from pneumonia, but the parents refused to take her to the hospital despite a doctor's advice; the parents only used alternative medicine. An autopsy revealed severe deficiencies of albumin, protein and vitamins A and B12, which led to susceptibility to bronchial infection.[50]

In 2011, Jade Sanders and Lamont Thomas of Atlanta, Georgia were sentenced to life in prison for the death of their 6-week old son, Crown Shakur. The baby died from extreme malnourishment from being fed only soy milk (not modern soy-based infant formula, which is safe[51]) and apple juice. The parents did not seek medical attention as the baby wasted away.[52]

In 2014, Jennifer and Jeromie Clark of Canada are being tried for the death of their 14-month old son in 2013 from a treatable Staphylococcus infection that was brought about by malnutrition. The 'radical Christian' family followed a strict vegan diet and shunned medical attention.[53][54]

In 2015, Sean and Maria Hosannah of Canada were sentenced to 30 months in jail for the 2011 death of their daughter who died from "chronic malnutrition from a vegan diet devoid of Vitamin D, B12" and sufficient protein.[55]

In 2016, Elizabeth Hawk is facing criminal charges over the malnutrition of her 11-month old son. Hawk allegedly only fed her son fruits and nuts, and the son suffered from a severe rash as well as loss of control of his motor skills.[56]

Besides death, a B12-deficient diet in mothers and/or their infants can cause in infants "a cluster of neurological symptoms, including irritability, failure to thrive, apathy, anorexia, and developmental regression."[57] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.142.130.89 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Vegan Idiocy

I concur with the above. This article looks like some promo for this sanctimonius lifestyle. The truth of the matter is that most people become vegans because they want to lord it over everyone else. Their "ethics" only extend to animals b/c they're willing to screw the next guy as readily (or more) as any member of the general public. I agree with a bumper sticker I once read. "Save a cow, eat a vegan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.94.57 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

New article: Banana island (diet)

Just letting you know in case anyone wants to edit it.

Banana island (diet)

Bk33725681 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Defenition of Veganism (and the misconception of "dietary veganism")

According to The Vegan Society, vegans seek to exclude all forms of exploitation and cruelty to animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "dietary vegan", which may refer to a person following a plant-based diet, or a strict-vegetarian diet.185.113.97.153 (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The Vegan Society is not the sole arbiter of how veganism is defined. Deli nk (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Then who decides the definition? If the fundamental definition of veganism is to exclude all animal products, doesn't the term "dietary vegan" create a contradiction? 185.113.97.153 (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what reliable, authoratative sources say. In this case, there are a variety of opinions and definitions which are covered in the article. Please see, for example, footnote [c]. Deli nk (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Consensus required on deletion of info re Physicians Committee for responsible medicine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After a potential edit warring situation, we are looking for people's opinion on the deletion of information on the work of the organisation Physicians Committee for responsible medicine. Alexbrn deleted information on the orgisation and its work, saying that 'rmv. fringe stuff from dodgy advocacy group; see discussion at WP:RS/N)'.

My view is the the organisation is a respectable group of over 12 000 qualified, professional and regulated healthcare workers, so cannot be described as 'dodgy'. Also it has had real achievements on policy, the American Medical Association now accepts the health claims of veganism. So the message of the organisation cannot be described as 'fringe stuff'.

For these reasons, i think the information deleted by Alexbrn and Yobol (although there appears no such page on Wikipedia). should be reverted. I would appreciate if people give their opinion on this, either for restoration or against. Many thanks. TonyClarke (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Why post here when there's an active thread at WP:RS/N? Looks a bit WP:FORUMSHOPish. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Valluvar as the earliest of vegans

This is about the addition of Valluvar as the earliest of vegans. Although researchers are uncertain about his exact year, they consider him to have lived between the 4th and 1st centuries BCE (the latest of the proposed dates being c. 31 BCE). I just happened to learn from his famous work, the Tirukkural (see <http://www.projectmadurai.org/pm_etexts/pdf/pm0153.pdf> for an English translation), that there is a separate chapter on vegetarianism/veganism (there wasn't any major difference between the two in ancient India for the ancient Indian people, including saints and sages, were known for their strict vegetarian [or vegan, in today’s terms] diet habits). See the chapter on "The Renunciation of Flesh" in page 31 of the PDF (couplets 251 to 260). Additionally, there are many chapters emphasizing ahimsa or vegan concepts, such as chapters “Not doing evil” (couplets 311 to 320), “Not killing” (couplets 321 to 330), etc. Should we not consider this since Valluvar lived more than a millennium before Al-Maʿarri? Thanks for reviewing. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

He's currently listed in the article as an early "strict vegetarian". In order to say more, we would need a WP:Reliable source (e.g. a book on Indian religions) describing the relationship between Valluvar's ideas and veganism. The sources I can find only talk about the Tirukkural's advocacy of vegetarianism (e.g. [4] [5]); given that the book only discusses flesh, not eggs or dairy, and given how little we know of Thiruvalluvar's life, I doubt we'll be able to find a source claiming he was vegan, let alone "the earliest".

In general, though, I think we should add more information on veganism in India and other Eastern countries. I can find a few more or less reliable academic sources [6] and [7] (which copies extensively from this article), and some more informal news sources [8] [9], including one testifying to ongoing confusion on the topic [10]. FourViolas (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vegan symbolism

There does not appear to be any reason for a separate article on symbols. This article represents a content fork, and should be merged into Veganism. KDS4444 (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Compare:

Fascist symbolism

Anarchist symbolism

Communist symbolism

As a political movement with political goals, veganism and its associated movements (such as veganarchism) should have a separate page for vegan symbolism, unless you want to merge these pages with their respective ideologies.--Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dearchived per outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/The Vegan flag. I did a preliminary selective merge, but as I mentioned there this seems excessively detailed for this page; there have been hundreds of books published about Veganism#Vegan_diet and Veganism#Philosophy, compared with a few blog mentions of most (supposedly) vegan-associated symbols. I think it would be better to move this to Vegetarian and vegan symbolism, leaving only a "See also" link. I made a draft, including a lede section with a new scholarly source about vegetarian labeling (I can WP:RX PDFs to interested parties); you can see it at Vegan/Vegetarian and vegan symbolism. Pinging User:KDS4444, User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, User:Randy Kryn. FourViolas (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

(I separate this in another section, not to mix themes) And connecting with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, in the lead the criticisms for NPOV are lacking .

And also, you are right, some (but only some) "criticism and contradictions" are integrated at the end of "Into the mainstream (2010s), but to comply with Wikipedia:Criticism there should be more, integrated into the respective sections, as for example Ethical veganism and Environmental veganism. We cite "The Abolition of Animal Exploitation, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation?" but we do not cite for example this text The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? reviewed by Ben Mepham, which presents a good summary of the main points of controversy:

The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? reviewed by Ben Mepham

(i) The resources allocated to concern for animals as opposed to those employed to address human survival, suffering or wellbeing—which may entail substantial opportunity costs for vegans. For example, the energy and time expended in ensuring dietary integrity, and promoting the vegan cause, is necessarily denied to efforts to ease the suffering of humans, of whom about one billion suffer from malnutrition in less-economically developed countries, while many, world-wide, are victims of abuse and exploitation. (ii) The rights and interests of humans at the level of personal health and wellbeing, in societies whose economies, cultures and, in some cases survival, depend on a symbiotic relationship with animals. The discussion in the book seems dominated by attitudes and conditions in western ‘developed’ countries. (iii) The fate of prey, and more generally of adverse effects on ecological sustainability in the wild (including animal and plant species in managed wildlife reserves), of permitting predators, and wild species in general, to satisfy their biological needs. If sentience is the sole relevant characteristic in granting animals rights, what could be the ethical basis of showing partiality to domesticated rather than wild animals? (iv) The adverse effects on wild animals (at individual, group and species levels) of practices employed in arable farming, on which most vegan diets are necessarily dependent. For example, pest control, not only of insects but also of indisputably sentient mammals like rabbits and mice, is crucial for efficient arable farming. Is it really valid to argue that since the adverse effects on wild animals are ‘accidental’ they are beyond vegans' ethical concern? (v) The basis of the distinction assigned to the meaning of ‘property’ in the cases of farmed animals (especially when kept in organic, and particularly permacultural, systems) and ‘rescued’ companion animals. Indeed, it is pertinent that there is a real sense in which human children are, when young, their parents' ‘property’—without this being considered remotely problematical from an ethical perspective. The rigour with which vegans attempt to lead lives according to the strict observance of ethical principles is often regarded as exemplary, and vegan philosophy certainly represents a significant challenge to long-established norms of behaviour. But if the aim of ethics is to choose the right, or best, course of action in specific circumstances ‘all things considered’, it is arguable that adherence to such an absolutist agenda is simplistic and open to serious self-contradictions. Or, as Farlie puts it, with characteristic panache: ‘to conclude that veganism is the ‘only ethical response’ is to take a big leap into a very muddy pond’ (p. 2)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misread Mepham's review. Those are not "the main points of controversy" in vegan-related ethics by a long shot: he prefaces that list with "The Farncione [sic]/Garner book [...] seems rather abstract, omitting consideration of several critical issues. So in conclusion it is perhaps appropriate to identify some of these." In other words, these are points which Prof. Mepham thinks should be discussed more, but are not discussed in the book he's reviewing (nor very much elsewhere). Mepham may be right, but for the time being he's telling us that discussing these points would be out of proportion to the prominence of these viewpoints in the published, reliable sources. FourViolas (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

And what are "the main points of controversy" in vegan-related ethics?

Anyway, Mepham's opinion is as valid as that of other authors currently cited on the Veganism page (philosophers, protectionists, etc.) and this article is published in a specialized journal, peer-reviewed and indexed in PubMed Central. Ben Mepham was a founder member of the Food Ethics Council and its Executive Director for the first five years; Director of the Centre for Applied Bioethics, at the University of Nottingham; a founder member, in the role of bioethicist, of both the Government’s Biotechnology Commission (AEBC, 2000-2003) and the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE); he has also served on several EU policy committees, and continues to publish in the academic literature.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 08:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A classic practical debate concerns "humane meat", addressing the question of whether animal suffering might be morally wrong but not animal death (e.g. McMahan 2008), or sometimes whether it could be possible or practical to obtain non-flesh animal products like honey or eggs ethically (e.g. Zamir 2004). Another concerns whether efforts to decrease the suffering of animals used by humans ("welfarism") are counterproductive (because they supposedly retrench the systems of exploitation); e.g. Chiesa 2017. Feminist ethicists argue over whether the sexual exploitation of women can be meaningfully compared to the "sexual exploitation" of animals (artificial insemination, milking, etc), e.g. Hamilton 2016.

Some of Prof. Mepham's points are addressed in animal ethics literature more generally, including the moral status of undomesticated animals (e.g McMahan 2015) and the (property) status of companion animals (e.g. Bok 2011). That literature, however, is dominated by meta-ethical debates (utilitarianism vs rights theory vs virtue ethics vs care ethics vs Kantianism) which are out of the scope of this page.

Unfortunately, since philosophers usually consider the obligation to be vegan to depend more or less entirely on the moral status of animals more generally, I don't know of a secondary philosophical source specifically surveying these different arguments about vegan praxis. You might start with Jones 2016, who looks at different motivations and unpackings of ethical veganism, although he's arguing that one in particular is correct (incidentally, that book looks like a useful source for this page). FourViolas (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation 25

"As a result of the elimination of all animal products, vegan diets can lead to significant nutritional deficiencies, most importantly vitamin B12 deficiency, that can nullify their beneficial effects for health and cause serious health consequences.[20][23][24][25]"

"Infants and children consuming atypical diets: Vegetarianism and macrobiotics." The citation is about minors. I would reduce it to three sources while removing citation 25 from the lede. It may be possible to add more content using citation 25 to the body about minors. See Veganism#Pregnancy.2C infants and children. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the idea was that B12 deficiency is especially concerning in children, due to the potential for irreversible neurological damage; this is implied in that source (e.g. "lack of cobalamin may lead to long-term neurological disorders in infants and toddlers fed vegetarian diets"). However, the other three citations, which (like our article) are focused on veganism in general, don't emphasize this aspect above others (see extended content below), so I agree that inclusion of citation 25 in the lede is UNDUE. FourViolas (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed the extra citation. Content from here can be summarised regarding children and infants for Veganism#Pregnancy.2C infants and children. I will try to work on that later. QuackGuru (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Craig 2009: in the B12 subsection, it says that children may experience apathy and failure to thrive, and macrocytic anemia is a common feature at all ages in cases of B12 deficiency, but does not mention this problem anywhere else, including in the abstract. ADA 2009 mentions the problem in the body three times: in §Pregnant and lactating women Key nutrients in pregnancy include vitamin B-12, vitamin D, iron, and folate whereas key nutrients in lactation include vitamin B-12, vitamin D, calcium, and zinc. Diets of pregnant and lactating vegetarians should contain reliable sources of vitamin B-12 daily, in §Infants Breastfed infants whose mothers do not have an adequate intake of vitamin B-12 should receive a vitamin B-12 supplement, and in §Adolescents Key nutrients of concern for adolescent vegetarians include calcium, vitamin D, iron, zinc, and vitamin B-12. Similar prominence is given to zinc (mentioned in §Pregnant, §Infants and §Adolescents), vitamin D (§Pregnant and §Adolescents), and calcium (§Pregnant and §Adolescents). Rizzo 2016, specifically about b12, mentions children and infants at several points, but chooses not to do so in the abstract: Cobalamin is an essential molecule for humans. It acts as a cofactor in one-carbon transfers through methylation and molecular rearrangement. These functions take place in fatty acid, amino acid and nucleic acid metabolic pathways. The deficiency of vitamin B12 is clinically manifested in the blood and nervous system where the cobalamin plays a key role in cell replication and in fatty acid metabolism. Hypovitaminosis arises from inadequate absorption, from genetic defects that alter transport through the body, or from inadequate intake as a result of diet. With the growing adoption of vegetarian eating styles in Western countries, there is growing focus on whether diets that exclude animal foods are adequate. Since food availability in these countries is not a problem, and therefore plant foods are sufficiently adequate, the most delicate issue remains the contribution of cobalamin, which is poorly represented in plants. In this review, we will discuss the status of vitamin B12 among vegetarians, the diagnostic markers for the detection of cobalamin deficiency and appropriate sources for sufficient intake, through the description of the features and functions of vitamin B12 and its absorption mechanism.

Sorry but I do not understand the reason for removing a reference because it deals with children [11].

It talks about the serious health consequences of a poorly planned diet, so do supports the accompanying text.

But it is also focused on the parents (we see numerous mentions in the text). If children do vegan diets, it is because their parents make that decision: "Most significantly, it is important to recognize that although it is the 21st century, children may still die as a consequence of being placed on these atypical diets by their parents without appropriate care and supervision. Because these deleterious affects can be avoided, it is highly recommended that child health practitioners carefully review dietary intake, including all supplements, when interviewing parents who provide these atypical diets (especially during infancy and early childhood) and make the appropriate interventions."

And also talks about deficiencies in children derived from vegan mothers: "In addition, seven infants exclusively breastfed by vegan mothers developed nutritional vitamin B12 deficiency."

So I do not agree to remove the reference from the lede.

Best. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought four citations were too many and decreased readability. I am fine either way. QuackGuru (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, QuackGuru.

What is indisputable is that all guides on vegetarianism stress the importance of a good information, appropriate care and supervision to make a healthy diet and eliminate the risk of avoidable nutritional deficiencies, and this reference is focused on this topic.

If four references are too many, we can replace one of them.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Vegan Flag

The Symbols chapter was cut to one summary paragraph, because "cut to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE per outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/The Vegan flag and WP:SILENT consensus on talk page".

The consensus in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Vegan_flag is not to delete the Vegan Flag but to merge it into the Symbols chapter. FourViolas, please explain or restore it. Thank you. PelicanTwo (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right that that was a confusing explanation. See #Proposed merge with Vegan symbolism above. Essentially, a whole section on this page based on a few barely-WP:RS blogs is WP:UNDUE, and those who had opposed a standalone page for The Vegan flag before raised no objections above when I pinged them. FourViolas (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn’t pinged :-). Anyway the vegan flag is different from the other symbols because there was a separate article about it, and a discussion whether to delete the article or merge it – Articles_for_deletion/The_Vegan_flag. All aspects were discussed including WP:RS. The majority was for merging and not for deletion. A decision was made, and following it Vegan Flag was merged into Vegansim. So with your permission, I will comply and put back the vegan flag paragraph that was removed. Thank you, PelicanTwo (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, there was a decision to merge the article Vegan flag into Veganism, please read the discussion here: Articles_for_deletion/The_Vegan_flag.

Following this decision the flag was merge into Veganism on 6 August 2017. Today somehow it was deleted and I re-merged it. It was never agreed that the vegan flag will be will be completely eliminated, only that it merged into Veganism. Note that that Vegan flag redirects to Veganism#Vegan flag (that you just deleted). Please restore my last version. PelicanTwo (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah merge. Then eliminate the duff sourcing per the WP:PAGs in the usual way. Doesn't leave much. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please explain, I am not familiar with the abbreviations. But first restore it please and then we'll see. Thanks PelicanTwo (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn I saw what you changed, thank you. But I don't think that means merging. All aspects of WP where already discussed in the deletion discussion and it was decided to merge. With your permission I will reinsert the paragraph, Please discuss your reservations here. PelicanTwo (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to get familiar with our policies and guidelines. Things have moved on. The bulk of the content has ended up at Vegetarian and vegan symbolism. We merely summarize it here, according to the principle of WP:SYNC. Do NOT duplicate it here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know it moved. Need to change the redirection in the article Vegan flag, can you do it? Thanks PelicanTwo (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for my misunderstanding :-) PelicanTwo (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Zinc status of vegetarians during pregnancy

References

It says "This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)."[12] Editors can cut and paste content into the article. Wow. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)