Talk:Veganism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Protein combining

Vgans are ppl who dont eat anything that come from animals The Vegan page should have a nutrition section or a link to one. Vegan diets lack essential proteins unless planned somewhat carefully. For example, corn and beans when eaten together combine to form a protein similar to meat protein. When eaten separately, that combination doesn't occur and the result is malnourishment unless you get the protein some other way. People who stay vegan for a long time have to know about things like this. I decided it was too much bother and chose not to become flat-out vegan partly for that reason. Could someone more knowledgeable than I am about this issue please add some material about it. --phr

Well, protein combining been has shown to be a faulty theory based on a biased study. In fact, Soy protein is equivalant to animal protein for all intents and purposes. You can find more info by going to this site: Vegan Society and scrolling down to Protein Combining. Maybe you can re-evaluate veganism as a personal choice for you? :) TheChin!

We (my partner & I) have been vegan since 1984, and our 4 kids since birth, and I don't think we've ever conciously combined a protien once in all that time but we're all healthy and fine. we just eat a good variety of stuff, lots of fresh veg, fruit, pulses and grains, etc. But a link to vegan nutrition might be of value all the same, it's just that i think it's a myth that vegans have to be any more careful what they eat than anyone else, apart of course from the vitamin B12 which can be deficient (but if you eat lots of marmite it's not a problem :-) quercus robur 19:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Protein combining is an idea that is half right and half wrong. The right part: Most plant foods do not have all of the amino acids (the chemicals that make up protiens) that your body needs. They do have some, however, so the "combining" idea is that you eat foods that compliment each other and provide all of the essential amino acids. Many of the world's traditonal eating schemes have figured this out on their own. The corn and beans or Latin America, the rice and lentils of India, the rice and soy of East Asia, etc, are all protein combination strategies that provide good nutrition. Essentailly you want to combine a legume (i.e. a bean, pea, lentil, or soy product) with a whole grain (brown rice, corn, wheat) The part that is wrong: You do not have to eat this food combination in the same meal. Just make sure that you are eating a wide variety of natural, minimally processed foods like beans, peas, lentils, soy, whole grains, corn, nuts, and seeds. If you are doing that you will get all the protien that you need, and have other benefits as well.--165.121.33.75 00:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Macrobiotics

Is macrobiotics more strict than vegan? I thought that macrobiotics ate fish. --mincus

There are more strict versions of veganism. One is the macrobiotic diet.

This is incorrect. Though the macrobiotic diet is very restrictive, it is not a vegetarian diet. See your own definition of macrobiotic for one...

Pronunciation

From Vegan:

"There is a bit of variety in the vegan community; Europeans and Americans not only pronounce it differently..."

So? How *do* they pronounce it?

taken from http://www.vegweb.com/glossary/docs/vegan.shtml

The word vegan was invented by Donald Watson in the 1940's. It is pronounced "vee-gun". This is the most common pronunciation in the UK today. No one can say this pronunciation in "wrong", so this is also the politically correct pronunciation.

In the US, common pronunciations are "vee-jan" and "vay-gn" in addition to "vee-gn", though the American Vegan Society says the correct pronunciation is as per the UK.

(as a side note, I am an American and have always pronunced vee-gun)

Thanks. Suggest this info be included on the Vegan page.

Vegetarianism stub

Regarding the creation of a Vegetarianism page which consists solely of a link to Vegan: I would prefer that such 'empty' stub pages not be created until there is some real content in the article. See Wikipedia commentary/Kill the Stub Pages for some different opinions on this issue.

Anyway, I'll have a first draft of a Vegetarianism article written up by this evening (Melbourne time), but feel free to jump in ahead of me. -- Claudine

Honey

As long time American vegan the statement "European vegans also generally won't eat honey, while American ones generally will" strikes me as false. The majority of people who claim to be vegans that I have met, in the US, do not consume honey nor would they consider it to be vegan.

It's a gray area in the US, at least amongst the vegans I know. Hardcore vegans will *never* eat honey. Most vegans I know try not to eat honey, but won't turn down food that is sweetened with some honey, especially sweets and breads (a lot of the "better" breads in my grocery store contain honey, for example). I agree that the wording of that phrase is terrible, because it hints that American Vegans don't consider honey to be an issue.

Breatharian

Finally, there are people who call themselves breatharians, which while not scientifically proven, on paper is a form of veganism. I removed this on the grounds that the article on Jasmuheen, apparently a primary advocate of breatharianism, suggests that she sometimes eats cheesecake...something not reknowned for being vegan. However, if anyone feels strongly that the 'paper definition' of breatharianism is vegan then please return the statement...but, by this token, breatharians are a sub-set of omnivores too! Mazzy

I guess it is vacuously true that Breatharianism is an instance of any kind of diet.

Rewrite

I rewrote this entry pretty substantially

• include pronunciation
• include distinction of dietary vegans
• make distinction between vegan products and practicing vegans
• some nutrition stuff with reference
• related diets, religions bit
• removed out of place bit on Eastern Orthodoxy
• add useful references and remove silly ones
• clarify passage on

Naive Vegetarian link

I'm all for 'balance' but much of

• The Naive Vegetarian http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

seems to be this person's personal prejudices against vegans & vegetarians, with 'evidence' of the 'harm' that 'extreme' vegetarian diets cause to children. Any bad diet, vegan or vegetarian or omnivorous can cause harm to children. Conversely, any 'good' diet, vegan, veggie or omnivorous, will ensure that childrens nutritional and health needs are met quercus robur 09:29 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Strive

I've restored the word 'strive' to this articel as it's agreed by most vegans I've met that it's virtually impossible to elimonate absolutely ALL animal products from the diet or lifestyle in today's world, eg, most fruit is grown on trees that have been grafted, often using beeswax to join the graft to the rootstock, most vegetable crops will have been grown on land that has been fertilised with animal manure that is a by-product of the farming industry, much commercial sugar has been refined using bone charcoal in it's production and so on... Thus most vegans will accept that they will never totally free themselves from all animal products, but do strive towards this as a goal. quercus robur 20:06 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

By that definition, if a child were raised in a vegan community, never coming into contact with any other way of life, it would not be considered a vegan since there'd be no conscious striving involved. Meanwhile, someone who strives to be vegan but every now and then succumbs to cravings and goes on a McDondald's binge would be considered a vegan.

That strikes me as incorrect; veganism is defined by actions, not intent. You don't re-define an ideal just because you deem it impractical or too difficult to attain. Mkweise 05:34 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if there is one single person on the planet who has been able to consciously eliminate all animal products or animal suffering from their lifestyle: even 100% vegan organically grown food involves some degree of pest control which inevitably will cause some mortality to an animal somewhere, even if it's only a slug or 2 falling in a beer trap [actually, vegan organic growers commonly delegate pest control to the local wildlife and don't interfere further. It's up to you whether you consider that vegan or not.]... Therefore the best any vegan can ever do is strive to eliminate animal products and suffering, as it is an unattaniable goal, for by the 'action not intent' criteria most vegans in fact would not be vegan if they were to consume such vegetables, or, indeed, consume fruit from a tree that has been grafted with bees wax, but most vegans would certainly do their best (strive) to elimnate animal products or suffering as far as possible or practical from their lives. This is not the same as popping down McDonalds when the urge takes your fancy, which wouldn't be striving at all... Therefore I would consider it a valid use of the word, but I'm not going to go to war over it :-) quercus robur 09:23 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

It struck to me when I read "strives", because it sounds so pejorative and unbalanced. That many so-called vegans only eliminate partially animal products doesn't change the fact that "a vegan is a person that avoids the use of animal products" (note the absence of "all", and maybe add "tries to" or "to a certain degree"). Not all vegans "strive", and I do know examples. So if you say "strives" you are going to leave out a lot of vegans from the definition, and also you are putting the stress in the wrong place, as the whole point to vegans is to "avoid", not to "strive to avoid".

I thought all that was obvious and that the "strives" thing had simply passed unnoticed, so I changed it. I didn't know there was discussion about it, sorry! Now I said my maybe-not-so-obvious reasons, I am very much for removing "strives", together with "all" and maybe explaining how difficult it is to be "vegan in a full degree". JBC May 20, 2003

No problem, I think with wiki we just have to be a bit careful that what is obvious to one person may not be to another... The edit you are proposing sounds fine to me, BTW, I've been vegan myself since 1984 so I hope you didn't take my comments as being pejorative towards vegans... quercus robur 16:53 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Not at all, it just sounded like that to me, I didn't think it was the intention anyway. And yes, I should be more careful. I'm quite a newbie here at wiki and, by the way, I do appreciate that a much more experienced one like you is taking care of these pages... thanks! JBC 17:25 May 20, 2003 (UTC)

The "as far as possible" clause is definitely preferable to saying "strives", which really bothered me. I still think it's completely redundant, as "avoids" already covers avoidance with partical success. It also weakens the definition, as one's definition of necessity may include e.g. a misinformed doctor's orders. Mkweise 17:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Secondhand vegan

How vegan is using second hand leather shoes and clothes? Not at all, or..?

Well, I wouldn't do it (except maybe in an emergency situation), partly because it might send the wrong signals, that it is ok to use leather.. This might encourage people to purchase new leather products. However, this is verging on the pedantic and is in danger of leading vegans to be labelled as cranks. IMHO.

I would say second hand leather shoes are totally vegan. Veganism is always moral/political, never entirely dietary, so vegans don't buy new leather because it pays for the slaughter of a cow and the toxic tanning of its hide, but the cow has already been killed if its second hand and buying used things is enviromentally friendly. IMHO. Hyacinth 16:57, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By the same argument then it is ok, indeed required, to purchase lampshades made from the skin of Auschwitz victims, rather than a new lampshade made from synthetic materials, if we have that choice. I know what my choice would be. Sorry to be so extreme, but these things are happening every day to animals.

TonyClarke 19:23, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There's also the economic side of things to consider. If you buy second-hand animal products then none of your money goes to fund further production of the same; however, the second-hand item you bought will then not be available for any omnivore who may come by later, and they may (or may not) decide to go off and buy an equivalent new animal-derived item. It's a bit abstract, but a valid point, I think. Karl Naylor 11:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CNN Poll

I wonder about the validity of the CNN poll quoted in this article: perhaps it rules out people who are vegan, but would not call themselves vegetarian? TonyClarke 13:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I truck some of the source about percentage of vegan. One of it say "We will again survey the U.S. adult population in a few years.". As normal for most survey, children are excluded. I left u.k. which claim in the page that it is 0.4 percent of u.k. population being vegan because it is what it say. however, i suspect they make the same error. FWBOarticle 12:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ethics of Motivation

I could said that veganism is in and of itself imoral, as plants are not considered able to "feel" by vegans dispite the lack of traits that make animals mentaly,or emotionaly distinctive from plants.Thus veganism is just as "Kingdomist" as vegans consider non-veganism specist.

Removed the above from main article, many vegans use the basis of sentience as the line upon which to draw their ethical objections to the use of animal products. Most plants aren't demonstrably sentient in the way that most animals are, and even if vegans are mistaken in their ethics regarding this issue, it doesn't make them 'immoral'quercus robur 16:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Vegan & vegetarian food

Some people consider the usage "vegan food" to be synonymous with "vegetarian food", however a necessary distinction due to the strange but popular notion that dairy and eggs (and sometimes even fish or fowl) to be "vegetarian foods".

Removed the above from the main article. The existence of the market for "vegetarian eggs" shows that, indeed, eggs are believed to be vegetarian. A vegetarian egg is one where the chicken is fed corn and not bone meal. It's silly to be splitting hairs on the old "how vegetarian is vegetarian" debate and it doesn't really belong on the vegan page anyway, because vegan was a term created just to avoid hair splitting like this. If text like the above were included (to get rid of any true confusion) it shouldn't call the notion "strange". MShonle 07:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mshonle,

I would appreciate this being (partially) reverted, as I can argue the term "vegan product" is unnecessary, as it should be synonomous with "vegetarian product". However, many corporations are involved in deceptive practices and label foods "100% Vegetarian!" or "Suitable for Vegetarians" which contain animal products. This is should be addressed in the article.

The word "vegetarian" (person) is a synonym for herbivore, meaning, eating only plants. Now I realize that many people who call themselves vegetarian consume dairy and eggs. This does not make dairy and eggs "vegetarian".

A vegetarian diet is "Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products". (refer) Eggs and dairy ARE NOT VEGETABLE PRODUCTS. There is nothing at all "vegetarian" about a cheese omlet, for example.

I would consent to removal of "strange" if this controversy was covered.

MShonle 23:10, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) replies: First, vegan product is not synonmous with vegetarian product. Lip balm could be made of beeswax, which is vegetarian. Also, a vegetarian product could be tested on an animal, a vegan product never can be tested. Further more, vegetarian to refer to people is not a synonym for herbivore. The word vegetarian did not derive from the word vegetable, it derived from the latin vegitus, which means lively, energetic (think of vegetation).

Also, wether you like it or not, the word vegetarian refers to people who do not eat meat but who possibly eat eggs and dairy. In fact, the wiki entry for vegetarian even begins saying this is so. Language is dictated by usage, not by fiat. The majority of the literature today says vegetarian means, for example, that cheese is ok, just as long as it doesn't have rennet. I challenge you to go to any vegetarian restaurant in America and order any random menu item to give to a vegan: odds are they would not find that policy acceptable. Either case, you do not seem impartial on this controversy. If it was one or two companies messing up and claiming rennet is vegetarian, that's one thing. You should post something discussing the confusion in meaning, but please be impartial and don't say that one is "the correct" one. A put it on the vegetarian page. You are confusing "strict vegetarian" with "vegetarian."

Sublingual

What is a sublingual vitamin? Rmhermen 16:16, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

It's one that's placed under the tongue and allowed to absorb rather than being swallowed. Polymath69 18:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Norm?

Also, a 'vegan' diet is the norm in most parts of the world, partly for economic reasons, but a clear outcome is the absence of the diseases of the developed world such as cancer, heart and other obesity-related illnesses.

(1) You're saying that cancer and heart disease are absent in vegan societies? I'm sure that's not true. (2) Is obesity less common in parts of the world because of veganism or because of a lack of abundance of available food? (3) What exactly does "the norm in most parts of the world" mean? I can believe that most of the world follows a mostly vegan diet (whether from ideology or necessity), but I doubt that most of the world follows a purely vegan diet.

I think this sentence needs some NPOV-ing.

These facts are quoted by those who feel that 'veganism' is a modern localised and reactionary movement, rather than a movement which advocates a return to what is seen as a healthier and simpler lifestyle.

Uh, this is backwards isn't it? These facts would be quoted by people who think that veganism is a return to what is seen as a healthier and simpler lifestyle, no?

Axlrosen 15:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - I would have guessed people ate whatever they could get - insects, bushmeat, etc. I don't think this common veganism will stand scrutiny. Rmhermen 15:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hi OK hands up, I'll look at what I wrote again, with your valued comments in mind.

TonyClarke 23:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's improved. Still some concerns:

* I'm not convinced that in most parts of the world, people follow a mainly vegan diet. Do you have a (relatively unbiased) reference for this?

* The whole flow of the "reaction or return to nature" section still seems out of whack to me. I'm not sure what it's getting at. Does it really say what it's supposed to say? The first two paragraphs, and the last paragraph, seem to be saying that veganism is NOT a return to nature, while the 3rd and 4th paragraphs seem to be saying that it is. Yet there are now "however"s or "on the other hands"s as I would expect. I'm confused.

Axlrosen 15:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

Well as regards point one, googling produced some statistics on two countries chosen at random, Zimbabwe and Pakistan, info from the Food and Agricultural Organisation, admittedly there is not good nutrition in these countries, to put it mildly:

"Cereals and green vegetbles form the main part of the Zimbabwean diet...table shows 2 1/2 per cent on average of daily energy supply obtained from animal sources. (1997 ) info from http://www.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/zim-e.stm Pakistan: the consumption of meat and fish is very low, providing 2% of daily energy Cereals are the main source of dietary energy(62%)"

`I suspect more than 2% of our supermarkets are given over to animal based foods?

Point two, I'll have another look at the flow.

TonyClarke 18:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

www.fao.org is an interesting resource, thanks for pointing that out. Wherever you Googled that from, they're reading it wrong. They seem to be looking at the percentage of "meat & offal", but ignoring "fish & seafood", "animal fats", and "milk & eggs". Here are the total numbers for a few different countries:

China: 16%

India: 7.5%

Pakistan: 14%

Zimbabwe: 8%

Granted, I'm sure the numbers for the US and Europe are higher than this - but I'd hardly call this "mainly vegan". (Even for a low number like India's - I know that milk products are a regular part of most Indian diets.) Since China + India + US + Europe is over half the world's population, I think we can safely conclude that the majority of the world is NOT vegan or "mainly vegan". (What does "mainly vegan" even mean? If I eat 49% animal products then am I "mainly vegan"?)

So, I think this stat has to go.

Axlrosen 19:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi The figures I looked at did not seem so high, and seemed to include fish, dairy etc. Statistics can be deceiving. I've reworded it to refer to vegetarian or vegan, and made some other changes to try to make clear what I meant. I changed the financial reason for widespread veganism, it suggested the amusing picture of people waiting thousands of years for affordable hamburgers to come along (!), hope you don't mind. TonyClarke 23:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nutrition References

Secretlondon: you've moved the "References" section from nutrition to the end of the document. Those references apply specifically to nutrition and not to veganism in general - should they not therefore stay in the nutrition section? If not, we should probably add a note like "see references below" in that section, and change the heading "References" to a == instead of a === KarlNaylor 09:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, as it's been 7 days since I posted this (I wrote the above on the 5th, but only added a signature on the 7th when I'd made a username for myself), and there's been no reply, I'm gonna go ahead and attempt to fix the situation myself. Feel free to change it if you don't like it. -- Karl Naylor 14:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have deleted POV which say that you may not need to take B12 supplement. I have come across this comment.

"I recently attended a talk at the London Vegan Society where a wealth of scientific research was used to demonstrate the serious health risks of B12 deficiency in the Vegan diet. The UK Vegan society have now changed their advice on their website and now strongly recommend all Vegans to supplement with B12 vitamins or fortified foods regularly. It is vital that the myth that the issue of B12 deficiency is not a problem for Vegans is challenged. Did you know for example that Vegans who do not take regular supplements or fortified foods have a lower life expectancy than meat eaters!. Of course if people are sensible and use supplements/fortified foods the risks are removed and the Vegan diet comes out as excellent for health and longevity.

On the issue of pregnant women/breast feeding mothers: their babies or children can die due to the Mother's B12 deficiency as the effects of B12 deficiency are far more dramatic for a foetus or young developing child relying totally on breast milk for nourishment. For vegans themselves the risks of long term deficiency are nerve damage, and anaemia. I don't want to be over dramatic but I think this is the most important piece of information a Vegan needs to know. I cannot think of anything more tragic than a woman losing a child after adopting a diet to express compassion to all life. "

Though there is nothing wrong with stating POV as long as attribution is made, I think in this case, listing this POV may be morally irresponsible. We might as well state that "some people think smoking harm fetus while other think not." FWBOarticle 03:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most __ sugar

User:Mshonle, User:Mkweise, "most" what?Hyacinth 03:14, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See [1] in the edit history. Most (if not all) vegans avoid sugar that has been filtered through bone char, etc. You'll find lots of info on the web (and in books predating the web) about which brands of various products are known to be suitable for vegans and which aren't. Mkweise 04:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Some vegans replace white table sugar with unbleached cane sugar or dehydrated and granulated cane juice, both of which are available in natural food stores. Most of these products can replace white sugar measure for measure for general use (such as on cereal or in beverages) and in recipes." [2] Given that some "vegans" choose to consume honey, the sugar issue shouldn't be so absolute. Even though I don't think honey is vegan, people who consume it but are otherwise vegan should still be identified as such. It's in product labeling of something being vegan that it's important that no rules are broken.

Tipu's Tiger of Missoula, Montana, uses possibly bone-char filtered, probably partially bone-char filtered sugar in their 'vegan' items. PETA is okay with this as they featured Tipu's: [3] or [4] (which are essentially the same).Hyacinth 08:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Remember: PETA is an animal rights advocacy group, not a vegan advocacy group. I see no reason for PETA to oppose the use of bone char, since no animal was ever harmed in its making. Mkweise 13:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually PETA advocates veganism, though they rarely use the term (they do use it more frequently on PETA2.com) and, since bone char requires that an animal be killed so as to remove its bones...Hyacinth 18:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the purposes of building an encyclopedia, please don't go merrily redefining words according to how you think they ought to be used. A vegan who chooses to consume honey and/or milk thereby ceases to be a vegan and becomes a strict vegetarian (that's what I am, BTW, though I have been a vegan in the past.) Mkweise 13:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ahem, the definition of vegan on this page includes "as far as is possible and practical". A literal interpretation would imply practically no one but the most staunch isolationist could ever be vegan. That's not what veganism is about... it's about doing what you can. If a pan had meat in it before, and that's the only pan you have, a person no longer stops being a vegan by using it. (For what it's worth, strict vegetarians do not consume milk.) MShonle 17:03, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the purposes of building an encyclopedia, please don't go merrily redefining words against common usage according to fiat. Hyacinth 18:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

Occasionally veganism is criticized as a prejudiced position, in that plants are alive and that not killing should also extend to plants. Although this argument is used to suggest an absurdity of veganism by people with less stringent diets, it also forms the basis of fruitarianism for some people.

Mshonle, you removed this on the grounds that 'veganism is not specifically criticized by fruitarians'. I wasn't intending to imply that it was; I added this as an argument used by omnivores and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and thought I should also point out the link to fruitarianism. This is based on the edits by User:205.188.116.79 that you previously removed as vandalism. Maybe this issue could be better integrated with the existing reference to f'ism, but since the main point is to show that veganism has been criticized as prejudicial or as a kind of half measure, it seemed better under ==Backlash==. Does anyone have any ideas how this can be better integrated? -- Karl Naylor 12:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We've been removing that "kingdomism" guy for many months now; we don't need to bend over backward to satify a troll. Omnivores and lacto-ovos don't criticize vegans for eating plants. And while Fruitarians may criticise people who do eat plants, their main target is not veganism. There's a good discussion about the Inuit on the vegetarian page, and maybe we should copy that content. If we are to say anything under "backlash" we should have some evidence it actually exists. MShonle 16:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, your point about evidence is well received. I've personally had the argument thrown at me a couple of times (by omnivores) that if I'm giving up milk and eggs, then 'surely' I should avoid hurting plants too, and this led me to accept the argument as a common one without checking for evidence that it was. -- Karl Naylor 18:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed that the ==Similar diets= section mentions 'the aforementioned fructarian diet', but I can't find any other references in the article. Perhaps something was deleted? -- Karl Naylor 13:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ethical criticism

"Some would say that veganism itself is prejudiced, hypocritical, and nonsensical for the following reasons:"

• "it is prejudiced aganst plants, bacteria etc. and thus constitutes speciesism. This viewpoint is related to fructarianism;"
• "it does not take into acount that simply by living a human being is killing many bacteria by the involuntary actions of ones immune system."

"However, the latter criticism does not take into account the point (above) that veganism means making whatever effort one feels is reasonable to avoid causing harm to animals—in most societies today, avoiding all harm even to the most apparently sentient animals is practically impossible. Many vegans feel that causing their biological functions to cease in order to avoid killing bacteria is not reasonable."

I removed the above. "Prejudice" against plants and bacteria would not be speciesism, as neither are species. "Prejudice" against bacteria would be "domainism", and "prejudice" against plants would be kingdomism. I'm not aware of serious sources which make these criticisms (or their accurate versions). Hyacinth 19:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

In the Criticism section it says, "Others argue that, given that animals are killed in vegetable production or any other economic activities, the question over how much of indirect killing is acceptable is ultimately a matter of personal preference and lifestyle choice." But I'm wondering, other than bees, how are animals killed in vegetable production? Milk 20:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Try going to a farm during harvesting season. Ask if you can ride along with harvester. Field animal get flushed through the machine and they will go through agonising death if they fail to die instantly. Also, here is a joke based on it. http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html FWBOarticle 04:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Of course, though unprovable, it is entirely possible, that vegans are morally superior: it has been asserted that no serial murderers in the U.S. have been consumers of a vegan diet."

Could somebody please edit or delete the above mentioned sentence! The moral fabric of a society has little to do with the psychological illnesses of some mass murderers (which make up for not even a fraction of one percent of the total population). The above mentioned sentence thus leads to false conclusions (namely that there were scientific proof that vegans are morally superior, which is by no means the case). As a side note: Adolf Hitler, in his final years was an ethic vegetarian, yet he was responsible for approx. 50.000.000 deaths. We shouldn't be lead down the slippery slope of equating one form of diet with madness, yet this is exactly what the above mentioned sentence implies. It is a biased statement that holds no informationals value. A better version / deletion would be much appreciated. User:84.135.154.52 00:44, 1 Oct 2004

Done. Thanks for pointing that out! --Conti|✉ 22:58, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

"Hitler was an ethical vegetarian" is false. Hitler was a vegetarian due to intestinal stress. To his last days, he took delight in hunting doves and other fowl.

Trans Fats

Recently there has been a bit of deleting and reverting on the trans fats section. What does everyone think, should we leave it in, revise it, or delete it? I think it should be left in, but perhaps make it more clear that this is a nutritional issue not just for vegans but for anyone who eats processed food. Rosemary Amey 20:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is my base on deleting/rewriting the Trans Fat section.

• First, Trans-fat (hydrogenated oils) is found in all types of food, not just Vegan. In fact it is mostly found in junk food, fast food, or any highly processed food and not vegan food. Companies that make vegan food know how bad hydrogenated oil is and usually do not included it in their products.
• Secondly, the paragraph states it's "found in some popular vegan products such as veggie-burgers, french fries, and almost all baked goods." This is a huge over generalization. People who love french fries are most likely non-vegan and most likely get their fries from fast food restaurants, which certainly do use hydrogenated oils when making them.
• Any health conscious vegan knows to avoid hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils. I think this paragraph was written with "lazy" vegans in mind. Yes there are many vegans and even more vegetarians who eat a lot of junk food and do not practice good nutrition, but that's a whole other article. Which is why I don't think this short paragraph should be included in the Vegan-Nutrition section. I have also read many Vegan Nutrition guides and none have ever mentioned to watch out for trans-fats. I discovered them on my own.

So I think this section should either be deleted or re-wrote to expand it and include some of the points I made. Milk 27 May 2004

I know lots of vegans who love french fries and other vegan junk foods, so I think this should be left in but reworded so that it doesn't look like this is a special vegan issue, since most non-vegans probably consume way more trans fats. (By the way, you can quickly add your name and the date and time to your comment by typing four tildes (~) together.) Rosemary Amey 17:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should be re-written then. I will go ahead and then you can see if it's ok. Milk 15:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

There is nothing particularly alternative about veganism. Veganism is supported by mainstream medical science and these days most opposition to the vegan diet comes from alternative practitioners (such as the blood type diet, Atkins, etc). I do not like seeing veganism associated with "alternative" medicine. Many vegans (myself included, obviously) are skeptical about alternative medicine. I would like to remove that text box at the bottowm, but what do others think? Rosemary Amey 16:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. While veganism is considered an "alternative diet or lifestyle" it should not be associated with "alternative medicine". Milk 01:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Every article can be classsified more than one way. So, it is with a lot of mainstream activities like exercise and diet. They are part of natural approaches to health such as Natural hygiene which is classified alternative medicine. I have replaced the orange box with one that doesn't even look like a box. -- John Gohde 07:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now it just looks out of place. This article already has a see also section Which you are free to place alturnaive medcine link if you feel they are relivant. There are a number of other places the role of vegaism in alt med could be better covered.12:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Modern veganism in context

I have corrected minor factual error about Buddhism and vegan. Chinese buddhist practice vegetarianism but not veganism. The rest of buddhist schools don't. Jain monks practice much stricter form of veganism. Also, in developing countries, they didn't eat much meat or daily product simply because they were poor and lack of protein intake were genuine and serious health problem. That obviously change once these people become wealthy enough to be able to pay for imported food and supplement.

yes, all over the world "developing" countries are becoming Westernized and adopting the western traditions of heavy meat and dairy intake, and so they are also developing our common health problems. Japan is a prime example of this. More and more fast food restaurants are opening up, and now many Japanese children are becoming overweight. Milk 20:36, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that increase in intake of suger, cereal, meat and eggs ought to be described as sign of increased affuluence and labelling it as "Westernization" is a POV given that these type of foods are common in most culture. On the other hand, popularisation of dairy product is certainly part of "Westernization" as many culture did not always consume milk of other mammals. Plus the extent in which dairy product contribute to the problem of obesity is bit debatable IMO. FWBOarticle

More information on this can be found in the book "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins, and his more recent book "The Food Revolution". He describes how countries with the highest intake of meat and diary have the highest rates of osteoperosis, heart disease, etc. But many factors could go into that as well. More info on the link between meat/diary and obesity/health problems can be found at: www.goveg.com, www.milksucks.com, www.pcrm.org Milk 00:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or you might find that people who eat right type of food for the right amount have the best health. If those lazy fat arse switch to vegan, do you really think they look after their diet. Surely we would be switching one health problem with others. Best and easiest diet to follow is to eat the right type of food (including meat) with right amount. Trying to promote vegan diet as "healthier" diet is dishonest in my view. More accurate representation is to say vegan diet can be as healthy as others thought some medical research seems to disagree. The case for vegan is in ethics, not health.

The China Study found that the optimum amount of animal products in the diet is zero. Meat is never "the right type of food" in any amount for humans, even ignoring issues of ethics. Rosemary Amey 18:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, given that there is no reliable source of vitamine B12 from vegetables, the logic of research is highly questionable or someone took the research out of context. Either way, can you state the source of "The China Study"? Anyway, when one's main argument is matter of ethics, why bother with redhearing. Sound like a Jehovah's witness I talked to. He was telling me that blood transfusion is unnecessary. I told him he won't do it even (hypothetically) it is necessary. So why bother.

Wikipedia has a short article about the China Study at China project. Rosemary Amey 06:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chinese cooking is famous for using anything it move. Are Westernisation of Chinese diet suppose to mean eating more type of meat? :-)

Anyway, the research doesn't say anyting new. You overeat fat and carb, you become fat and get illness/disease related to being fat. Am I supposed to be enlightened by this?

Whoever wrote the above, please take more time in contributing thoughts by spelling correctly and writing coherently. Milk 20:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ah, sorry. I was told that engrish is about the point where people can understand what i'm trying to say but with some difficulty. I will TRY. (^_^). FWBOarticle 19:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Human hair?

I agree with User:ContiE that products using human hair are still vegan, but I'm wondering what User:Heegoop has to say on the matter. Heegoop, are you a vegan who avoids human hair, or do you know vegans who do? And if so, why? Rosemary Amey 18:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(copied from user talk:rosemaryamey)

Human hair is not vegan

Human hair from salons is not vegan because human hair is techinally an animal product. Vegans do use the human hair they grow but not other human's hair. You see humans are actually animals because they are in the kingdom Animalia. Vegans also avoid other human products such as keratin. Get the picture, vegans do not use human products. Now I am not vegan but I thought about being vegan. - Heegoop, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have never heard of any vegan avoiding human hair. Vegans avoid animal products because of the suffering and exploitation involved, neither of which apply to freely given human hair. Rosemary Amey 23:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this issue is very weird and getting too technical. Yes humans are technically animals but thats taken it to the extreme. I have never heard any vegan mention human products as part of their veganism. Use of human hair is not very common anyways. Wigs are mostly made with horse hair, right? I also have a problem with mentioning human mother's milk. The way it's written seems as if adult vegans drink milk from lactating women, which is wrong. It should be written in way to describe the "milk" vegans avoid as not including human milk, only cow-milk, goat-milk, etc. Milk 00:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not unusual for lactating mothers to let their adult partners have a sip. I have also heard of a woman giving her milk to her husband in the hopes that it would treat his cancer. Rosemary Amey 02:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be forgetting the motivation that more accurately characterizes veganism than any dietary prohibition. There are at least two important differenes:

• Humans may consent to the use of their hair, non-human animals can not.
• Human hair, from barber shops, is removed in a usually cruelty-free manner.

This is simply another "What if...?" question. "What if you were trapped on a lifeboat, just you and a chicken, would you eat the chicken?" Hyacinth 03:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about, "Vegans generally do not eat human hair, but in extremis, their cravings for animal-derived products may lead them to break their principles. Human hair is preferred to other products because it can be given with the consent of the animal. Human hair should be from an vegan and organically-fed human who also does not use shampoo or any other nasty chemicals in their hair. It must be chopped up into small pieces to avoid the puking problem cats tend to have, and then boiled for a minimum of three hours, preferably with some vegetable stock, and used to make soup. Yum! Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

TTBOMK, human hair is vegan, as long as consent is given or implied. --Viriditas | Talk 13:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page needs a total rewrite!

I used to like this page, it was succinct and to the point- now it is a complete mess, badly written with mashed up grammar and worse than useless beyond the first couple of paragraphs IMHO. The 'backlash' section is particularly bad, by no stretch of the imagination NPOV. The whole page needs a total rewrite, leaving in the useful, factual stuff but stripping out all the opinionated POV, preferably chucking 'backlash' in the dustbin. I'm no the one to do it, nt enough time plus I'm biased (vegan for 20 years) so anyone sensible fancy having a crack??? quercus robur 19:03, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate if you can make correction on grammer. The fact that you are vegan should not be a problem for this. Secondly, the purpose of this site is to present different POV with proper attribution. You said opinionated POV should be stripped. But is there a such thing as point of view which is not an opinion? The section is about criticism and backlash against vegan. Surely, such section ought present views which criticise vegan rationale.

FWBOarticle 19:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say that the NPOV is exactly that point of view which is not an opinion. I'm going to take a swing at it now. Pjrich 04:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Criticism and Backlash section

"Another criticism is that the ethical principle behind veganism is arbitrary."

Since when is there only one ethical principle behind veganism? Some people have a vegan diet just because they think it is healthier to eat no animal products. It should be made clear that these arguments only deal with the ethic principle of harming no animal at all. Most vegans do know that they can't stop all animal suffering with their diet, they do what they can to minimize it tho.

I never met vegan who practice veganism for health but not for animal right. If someone say "the ethical principle behind veganism", everyone recognise what this refer to. I accept that other justification can be made. But we all know what is the driving force behind veganism. Another thing I'm also refering to is the way the vegan logic is applied, that is it's extention of moral responsibility to indirect consequene of the action. This apply to environment as well as animal right. This issue is discussed below.

"However, critics point out that most vegan are not prepared to go as far as cultivating crops by themselves or stop having children to minimize animal suffering."

I don't get it. Do you mean that the children may eat meat in the future and therefore increase animal suffering..? If yes, that is a rather ridiculous argument IMO.

--Conti|✉ 21:08, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, this is actually raised in the debate (philosophical and very academic I might add) over the ethics of vegan/vegetarian diet. Obviously, main idea of not eating meat is that this amount to indirect killing of animal. Then it logically follow that one should look into ALL action which involve indirect killing. In this debate, it was pointed out that one single act which involve the most indirect killing of animal is human reproduction. By reproducing offspring, you will be indirectly responsible of (indirect) killing committed by your childrent as well as all of their decendants. The potential number would be massive, possibly nearly infenite. Now, as you pointed out, vegan do accept that animal do get killed in other activities. And if certain activities are necessaly, they allow it. This include use of medicine or not growing crop by yourself or not being fruitarian. However, this defence can not be raised for copulation. Unlike in developing country, you don't need child to surive in your old age. And contraception is quite easy thing to practice not to mention about abortion. In fact, sterlisation is one off thing which gurantee this result. So, it naturally follow that it is moral duty of animal right advocate to sterlise themselves. If you want kid, go for adoption. Anyway, this argument is raised to point out that moral responsiblity of "indirect consequence" is a pandora's box. Another pandora's box is to extending animal right to non human. Anyway, Jain and Buddhist dealt with this problem 2000 years ago, each side taking two opposite position. Jain decided to avoid all indirect killing while Buddhah made distinction between direct killing and eating of already dead meat. He declared it as karmatically neutral.

I met vegans who told me they do it for health reasons, but I admit that they are in the minority. The problem I see here is that you assume that vegans force their will on others (i.e. their own children). Technically spoken, vegans may kill more animals indirectly when they have children, but I think most of the vegans think higher of their own children than of their own lifestyle and do not have a problem at all with this. It seems that many critics think that vegans try to avoid all killings of animals by all means, which is simply not true. They try to reduce suffering of animals, and the most logical step is not to use any animals products. I think we should not mention "A vegan would eat an animal if he will die otherwise" types of criticisms, and "vegans shouldn't have children then" is pretty much the same level IMHO. --Conti|✉ 23:11, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether kids are vegan or not because vegan diet is not bloodless. In fact it is preferable to indoctrinate your children for veganism but still it raise the question of why you had children in the first place. The point is that you can reduce "potentially" near infnite amount of indirect killing by having children while there is no practical need to have kid. FWBOarticle 23:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, would you not agree that those vegan for health group aren't strictly vegan because they fall into the same category as people who practice atkin diet and they slip invariably. Anyway, I will change it to something like "primarly moral case for vegan" or something like that. FWBOarticle 23:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph, because I think it is extremy exaggerated. You can't seriously tell someone that he's wrong because he's doing it not consequently enough, where the most consequently action would be the death of mankind... --Conti|✉ 23:33, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I intend to avoid edit war so I will wait for your response before reverting your delet. You appear to be online. The purpose of this site is to present different view with proper attribution. Therefore POV should not be censored as long as proper attribution is made though extremly minor view can be ommitted. Pandora's box in the case of human reproduction is often raised argument. It is even mentioned in Maddox's Guiltless grill page. And once you take this logic to natural conclusion, then the ideal state is indeed "peaceful" death of mankind. Yes, it sound proposterous/outrageous. And that is the whole point. The critics use it to argue that the "logical" implication is proposterous/outrageous hence it ought to be discarded.FWBOarticle 23:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In this kind of logic is indeed a logical step. The problem is that this is not the vegan logic. Vegans do not try to be 100% consequently in their actions, because that is simply impossible. They try to be more consequently in their actions than others, which led to some people saying that they should be 100% consequently for whatever reason. It is simply illogical to say this in my opinion. I'd like to stay with the more "reasonable" arguments against veganism (veganism being unhealthy etc.). You can put the paragraph back in the article if you want, but I do disagree with it the way it is at the moment. --Conti|✉ 00:02, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I accept that vegan actually make allowance for practicality and necessity. Critics is simply asserting that reproduction cannot be justified on this ground as contraception is easy and no argument of necessity can be made and the harm is indeed massive. Another point the critics are making is that when allowance are made for convenience and practicality, there is no cohesive moral ground for vegan practice, hence accusation of being arbitarary. Anyway, this is just one POV. Some people are trying to resolve this conflict. Anyway, there should be a place in Wikepedia where these debates are more comprehensively presented. FWBOarticle 01:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even this allowance of practicality can be argued against. Here is the economic multiplier argument as opoosed to population multiplier argument. If you buy something/anything, you are indirectly paying someone's wage, which they will use to buy something including meat which in turn let someone else to buy meat and the process of multiplier will continute infinitely. Hence it follow that you should not buy anything unless it is practical necessity for you. Moreover, this could further point to this revelation. The idea that diet consisting meat harm more animal than vegan/vegetarian is true only if one limit the scope of connection to "production" process. Once the scope is widen to economic connection (and there is no reason why it shouldn't) then because mathematically time line is set to infinity, then the difference in death toll will disappear. Then whether one eat meat or not only has "symbolic" significance, a token gesture to the idea of respect to whelfare of animal. Practically it is irrelevant. Now you can counter this argument a bit. You could assert that for each step of connection, the karma/guilt can be discounted, the rate of discount being arbitaraly decided. In this case, it is indeed possible to assert that vegan has less karma/guilt. But notice that discount rate is totally subjective. It is possible to set discount rate to 100% totally absolving people who eat meat by buying from the third party. And there is no way to critise that the rate of 100% as inappropriate no more than to critise that rate of 0% or 70% as inappropriate. My god, my head hurt now. :D FWBOarticle 02:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Err, what exactly do you want to tell the world with these obsucre theories? With this kind of argumentation you can argue against pretty much any lifestyle etc., but there is a reason that the critics section usually does not have such argumentations.. --Conti|✉ 15:54, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hehehe, this isn't an obscure argument. It is vegan/vegetarian who invoke this line of arguments that is animal right and indirect moral responsiblity. Meat eaters don't. Pointing out that invoking such argument open unlimited channel of blame is a classic counter argument. Meat eater are not bothered because they haven't invoked this moral logic in the first place. This is also an ancient debate between Buddhism and Jainism. Both accepted aniaml right. Jainism further accepted indirect moral responsibility so Jain monks indeed disengage themselves from the world. Buddhism rejected indirect moral responsibility, so buddhist can buy meat from the third party but they can't kill animals by themselves. May be, the presentation of the arguments are poor due to my Engrish. However, this argumentation is the major criticism of vegan moral logic. Also in jurisprudence, the issue regarding the conspiracy also raise the same problem.

Agreed, it is not obscure, it is just as impractical as you purpot veganism to be.

MUCH MORE importantly, what has this all to do with the article? If you have a source to cite please add the info to the article, if you don't please don't. Hyacinth 00:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is the quote in the begining of the article. "The word 'veganism' denotes a philosophy and way of living". Vegan make great deal about ethics. So that is exactly what you get. Philosophical response on logic of vegan ethical argument. So I presented a philosophical criticism. And do google search with "vegan" and "consequentialism". You realised that it is nearly THE debate on vegan from philosophical perspective. This section is supposed to be about critics and backlash against vegan. I think I done fair job for explaining the context of vegan backlash (aside from my English that is). FWBOarticle 04:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That may all be the case, but Wikipedia:Cite sources. Hyacinth 02:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, facts have to be cited, argument just have to be attributed. Hmmm, would you be much happier if I discuss the critics in much more general reference to "consequentialism" of vegan philosophy. FWBOarticle 05:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My problem with the argument is that it seems naive, it is a consideration that any serious or long term vegan, and thus any longterm or serious critic of veganism, has moved past (for example, vegans commonly debate or differ opinions over refined-sugar and honey, but, more than possible, it is necessary as a vegan or good-willed non-vegan to make choices "impractical" under a strict consequentialist argument). Any such arguments are based on specifics, as with any ethical or moral choice, all choices, and are arguments that could be and often are made against any and every ethical or moral choice. I think this general factor in moral and ethic debates, noted as such, may be quickly summarized, followed by specific arguments. Vegans, exactly as non-vegans, choose or not a moral line and stick to it or not, to act as if this is a common persuasive argument against any and all forms of veganism is to state the obvious, especially if it is given as much space in the article as I have given it hear. Hyacinth 06:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My revert.

I reverted FWBOarticle's last edit because I think the argumentation he uses is simply ridiculous. Stating that the vegan lifestyle is not "real" or whatever simply because you can't save every single soul in the universe is simply illogical. Please stop adding such kinds of argumentation to the article. --Conti|✉ 18:51, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I assume that 130.88.243.185 is FWBOarticle not logged in. I reverted again because the edit the anon (FWBOarticle) made is essentially expanding the first paragraph of the "Moral/ethical" section into two big paragraphs, just with alot more POV/silliness in it:

"When we drive car, purchase books, switch the light on, we indirectly contribute to the destruction of environment hence taking of life." (emphasis mine)

Sure we can state "if you breathe, some bacterias die!" as an argument on the article (which is technically true), but we can also show this argument in a more serious way, and I think the paragraph is very fine the way it is at the moment. Therefore I think that I do not "censor" anything here, and there is nothing to "counter" any arguments, I just think they are prestented in a very weird way, and that the current paragraph does this in a way better way. --Conti|✉ 16:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

ahh, When you switch the light on, you are using electricity and where do you think that come from. On top of that, you do need to eat to survive while you don't need to read or use paper to wipe your bottom. And once talking about use of car or using airplane for holiday (which you don't need.) I certainly do not advocate stop breathing (which you need) but next time you wipe your bottom or read newspaper, you have (unnecessarily) blood on your hand. Do you think it is stupid. I do. Anyway, obviously, you are bias toward veganism and that is why you fail to see the difference. Stay away from criticism part. A pro vegan is not appropriate person to judge what is an approrpiate criticism

Opps, one IE was loged in while the other wasn't. Yep, it's me. Sorry.

The point of veganism is to reduce animal suffering, not to nullify it (which is completely impossible, as you point out). Again, I do not oppose this kind of argumentation. While I think that it is quite weird, it is an argument that is used often and I think the current paragraph on it is quite ok. I do see no point in expanding it with detailed arguments as yours tho. So, why is the paragraph not enough and why do we need to make such specific examples?

Also, I'm biased in favour of veganism (while I'm not one myself) as you're biased against it, telling other wikipedians to stay out of some section because of that is quite unfriendly. We could put this on RfC and see what others think about this discussion. --Conti|✉ 17:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well, but are you a vegetarian? Anyway, the title of section is "criticism". So I'm voicing my opinion in the right place. While you appear trying to make "criticism" section to "apologist" section. As of your argument by appealing to "utilitarianism" logic, read the last section. It state that "veganism is not exactly wrong but misguided". IMO, utilitarianims doen't offer excuse for misguided effort (which obvious depends on everyone's POV). FWBOarticle

Oh, here is also why I don't dig veganism. http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-ng.asp?id=46295-veggies-good-for I prefer to consume in moderation including eating meat in moderation. Veganism appear to me like misguided symbolism. FWBOarticle

I'm not a vegetarian. And while the "criticism" section is for criticism (obviously), you still can't write "All vegans suck!" in there. Your additions don't do any favour to that section IMO, maybe it's just my POV, but I think that the additions make the arguments seem rather ridiculous. I'm fine with your opinion on veganism and the likes, but you shouldn't put too much of your POV into the article, even when it's a "criticism" section. --Conti|✉ 00:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I do accept that my "presentation" may not adequate. However, I should state that "reductio ad absurdum" was not inserted by me. All I did was to present few absurd implication of animal right consequentialism, especially when it manifest into veganism. If you think that one should not procreate sounds ridiculous, that is exactly what "reduction ad absurdum" supposed to do. The implication that one should eradicate all consumptio is indeed ridiculous. And certainly unfair criticism against utilitarian consequantialism itself. But it is not so against veganism because it insist on eradication of entire meat and daily product consumption. Why is it o.k. to consume other bloody products in moderation but when it come to dairy product, total eradication is aimed? And let not forget that vegan do worse than meat eater in term of longivity in number of study. Infering from these that veganims is merely chasing symbolic appearance of consequential utilitarianism is not at all ridiculous criticism IMO. FWBOarticle

Protection

For the past couple of days, this article has been vandalized by an anonymous user who is removing external links and spamming his own links. I think protection is warranted, so I've protected it due to vandalism. Rhobite 19:53, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking sections out

I haven't really worked on this article, but I noticed some concern about the quality of the article starting to slip and that the article is getting long. It seems like the sections on vegan nutrition and critisms probably justify their own articles. Moving that content out would also shorten this article significantly and make it easier to edit it well. --Ahc 04:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree regarding the length. Hyacinth 17:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since no one said no in over 2 weeks, I've gone a head and created Vegan nutrition, and the main text of that section to the new article. I'll look for other sections to move soon, unless I hear negative feedback to the move. --Ahc 05:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've now moved the criticisms section to it's own article. --Ahc 21:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When you move out a section, you need to leave a more detailed summary of what you removed. A point which is a paragraph or section on the new page deserves at least a quick mention on the main one. The reader shouldn't be forced to detour to the second article if he's just seeking a quick understanding, only if he actually wants to know a great deal about the topic in that section.Kaz 02:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vegan noun/adjective offensive???

As a noun, a vegan is a person who follows a vegan lifestyle (i.e. avoiding animal products). Some vegans see this usage as offensive, and prefer to be referred to using the adjective form.

• I don't think I understand this comment. Is it saying that 'some' vegans (whoever they are) find it offensive to be decribed as a vegan, and would instead prefer to be refered to as a vegan? I'd ask for clarification but it would probably mean the article getting even more convulted and messy. Maybe the comment should just be removed in the interests of creating a decent descriptive encyclopdia article on the subject rather than every tom, dick and harriet's (aka the ubiquitous 'many people') objection and counter objection to the word??? Or am I being naive quercus robur 11:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's political correctness taken to the point of insanity...if that's not redundant. They mean people should have to take the overtly euphamistic path of saying "He or she is a vegan person", instead of "He's a vegan". The word vegan, in their mind, must be used to modify a noun, not as the noun itself. Like "Zhe's a vegan offendocrat".Kaz 16:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is some reason behind it: it's the difference between saying someone is a Jew and saying someone is Jewish. The reason the noun form feels abrupt is, I think, that it implies that that is all there is to the person. Mark¹ 00:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • Actually, the reason people say Jewish instead of Jew is that so many people have wrongfully used Jew as a pejorative. The problem is that therefore switching to "Jewish" to avoid seeming anti-Jew can be taken as implying that there's something wrong with being a Jew. Therefore there are probably as many people offended by avoiding the word Jewish as there are people offended by use of the word "Jew". Oversensitivility is its own vicious little trap. Kaz 01:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it's far more widespread. Compare "he's a Frenchman" with "he's French". They have totally different connotations. Mark¹ 04:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Granted there may be some kind of PC reasoning here, but it doesn't beolong in the opening summary paragraph of the article. I'm going to hack it out. If anyone strongly believes it's a point that really needs to be made they can re-insert it somewhere in the main text and make it even more messy and convoluted than it is. Or they could spend their time better doing some much needed cleanup herequercus robur 01:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For determining use on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity:

• "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." Hyacinth 22:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't apply here, any more than we write "vegetarian people". One might, on the other hand, surmise that there are more PC vegans, demanding more euphamistic and special-treatment language than vegetarians with those traits. Kaz 02:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kaz- I've been vegan (sorry, person who chooses to follow a vegan diet) for 21 years and think all this PC language treatment is plain silly and unencyclopedic ;-) quercus robur 17:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: this discussion, as far as I can see, was prompted by a mention in the article of the fact that some people consider the noun to be offensive. Assuming that this is true, it should be mentioned, regardless of whether their opinion is silly. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the artice be rewritten to avoid the noun. Mark¹ 01:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My objection was to the 'some people find the noun vegan offensive' comment being in the opening summary bit, partly because I didn't even understand it until it was explained to me. I cut it out, someone re-inserted it in the main body text, which I dont really have a problem with, but still think it unnecesarily cluttering TBH. My 'silly' comment was intended as a reply to Kaz, in all my 21 yeasr of following a vegan diet I've never met one single vegan (and I have met a hell of alot of vegans) who has found the noun 'vegan' offensive, contrary to what some may think we arn't all overly sensitive politically correct members of the Vegan Police. Some of us even have a sense of humour! quercus robur 18:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we need to check out the assumption, like others here I have never found the word in eithrer form offensive, nor have I seen an reference anywhere to others finding it offensive. Could the person who inserted it provide evidence, otherwise I vote we leave i out as being needlessly PC, detracting from the credibility of veganism, and just plain silly as well.

TonyClarke 12:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we step away from the mythic spectre of a secret and ruthless PC vegan police force, and get back to reality. Especially a shadowy figure conjured up by third hand original research (I've heard that some...). I'm sure there are vegans who are offended by being called "vegans", just as there are people who are "offended" by the improper use of "can" when one means "may". Perhaps instead of arguing against these people, who appear not to be present or speaking up, we should get back to the article.

Regardless of offensiveness, it is preferable to describe people using terms such as black or vegan as adjectives that modify nouns which more accurately describe the topic. It just sounds better. Hyacinth 04:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much like how people always say "he is an American person" rather than simply "he is American"? -anon.

External links

Okay, what is up with all of these external links? How does this page get away with having so many links? (See vegetarianism for comparison.) Are all of these links good references? Is there any way someone could maybe weed out some of the less useful links so as to make the list a little more manageable? Please remember that an overabundance of links makes each individual link seem less important -- better to have a few high quality links than a list of every possible reference on the web. I would prefer someone who's actually into veganism to go in and cut down this list on the basis of quality; but if no one gets around to it soon, I'll cut it down myself on the basis of google ranking. I'm thinking twenty links or so at the most, so someone get to it. - Eric Herboso 04:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

Literally minutes before it was recombined with the Vegan page, I had updated the criticisms section. Now I'm not so sure I did the right thing. Does it subvert the purpose of criticism to insert counterpoints, like I've done, or should I have put the counter-points into the discussion section so that the criticisms could be removed entirely? I suspect that critics could start an editing battle. Which might be the history of that section to begin with. So, should I revert and start a discussion or just let the edit alone and wait for revisions?TheChin! 20:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The one sure thing: There is no need for quick decisions. All earlier version of the criticism article are still available at the old link http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_veganism&action=history

Not further, that having a "pro" article except one "contra" section, is also an inferior implemention of Wikipedia's core principle of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. It is only a temporary step in (re-)merging the articles.

In fact, it would be best to use the "Criticism" chapter to describe who are the critics, whereas the specific arguments should be integrated into the main article.

Pjacobi 20:38, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Criticism at Wikipedia talk:Criticism. Thanks. Hyacinth 23:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External link abundance

IMHO the spectacular number of external links is in direct contradiction to our main doctrine of writing an encyclopedia. This is not all a web directory. Are there any volunteers to do a critical sighting? --Pjacobi 20:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

I just removed two; the Vegetarian Soc's nutrition pages (we already have the Vegan Soc's pages) and veganvillage.co.uk, which is low traffic and isn't really a "Vegan Organization" anyway. I don't think the number of links previously was anything close to a "spectacular number" or "abundance". Zach 00:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When Pjacobi first posted, there was a glut of links, it has been pared down since then.--TheChin! 12:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Sorry about that. I hadn't noticed anything about links on my watchlist since then, so I assumed it hadn't been done. Ironically, I think we could use a couple more links, specifically to vegan recipe- and community-type sites, e.g. vegweb.com or vegsource.com. Or veganvillage.co.uk for that matter, altho I think the other two are more major players. Zach 16:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality re: nutrition.

I'm a little concerned with the coverage of Vitamin B-12, especially in regards to expectant mothers and very young children. Perhaps someone should look into this further? --130.194.13.103 11:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. In what way do you think it's not neutral? (Or is that what you're saying?) Zach 00:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The concern of vitamin B-12 deficiency are understated, with the deleterious developmental effects of such a deficiency unmentioned; the issue of dietary iron is entirely omitted, and the means for controlling both of these deficiencies are poorly covered. Additionally the general slant of the section reads as a flawless nutritional solution, which it is not. --130.194.13.103 11:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to amend the section in the light of 130.194's comments, which seem valid to me. It is easy to gloss over the difficulties when personally you have overcome them, but to become vegan without proper advice or precautions could be highly dangerous, which was the point being made. I hope the article, or the section , is more balanced now? If not, please edit and we'll be tolerant:)

TonyClarke

latex

This article lists latex as being non-vegan (specifically in condoms). Is there some sort of source on this? The wikipedia article on latex has no information about this, and a quick google search also came up with nothing too credible.

apparently the latex used in condoms contains some sort of milk protien. Vegan latex alternatives are available from the UK vegan Society however. Cheers quercus robur 17:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Check out the article on Condomi condoms. Most mainstream condoms are produced using casein. - Milk 08:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Why Was My Article Removed?

I started an article on Vegan food at restaurants last night, and linked it to this article. It was by no means done. Why was it removed? --Doc Holliday 13:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why it was deleted. It was called Vegan Food At Restaurants, and User:Cimon avaro deleted it with the reason "restaurant menu, complete with phone-number after each item". Perhaps he misunderstood the list. Personally I'm not sure if the article should exist, since Wikipedia doesn't usually carry "guide" or "how to" articles. I have to warn you that people will probably try to delete it - but this should be discussed on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. Cimon shouldn't have acted unilaterally. If it gets deleted again without notice, please post a note on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Rhobite 23:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sushi question; "See also" question

1. Is vegetable sushi really an example of "imaginative" vegan cooking? I was pretty sure that sushi is sometimes vegetable based anyway (of course sometimes fish too), and that the whole "sushi equals raw fish" thing was a myth. Maybe I'm wrong tho.

Well, "real" sushi is always primarily rice, raw fish, and vinegar. The California roll isn't exactly real sushi. AlbertCahalan 00:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Raw fish is sashimi. Sushi is rice, seaweed and vinegar, with any of a variety of extra ingredients. — Chameleon 01:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sushi was developed as a way to pickle raw fish. Rather than full immersion in a liquid, vinegar-soaked rice was used. Plain raw fish is thus not sushi; you are correct that it is sashimi. So-called "sushi" that is lacking in any of the three basic ingredients (raw fish, rice, vinegar) is in some sense not really sushi. Of course, raw fish may be a little disturbing, and the California roll (using cooked crab) is rather popular. Seaweed is definitely not required; sometimes a very thin omelet is used instead of seaweed. AlbertCahalan 03:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. Does anyone else think there are too many links in the "See also" section? Many of the radical activist links could be removed; there should be a few to the main ALF/AR pages from here, but most of the links seem like they should be on the "See also" section of those two pages. E.g., GANDALF trial seems like it could easily go to the ALF page. Zach (t) 22:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You are right. The word "imaginative" is silly and should go. — Chameleon 22:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No one has disagreed, so I just removed the following "See also" links. Zach ([://www.wikiveg.org/s wv]) (t) 15:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group -- just the ALF link is enough
Vegetarianism -- several links in the article
SHAC -- links to animal testing and Animal Liberation Front are enough
GANDALF trial -- plenty of links from ALF/AR pages
Barry Horne -- ditto
Linda McCartney -- vegetarian
Christian Vegetarian Society -- vegetarian

Criticism section

I've made the last paragraph invisible — the one beginning: "Sometimes vegans can be perceived as believing themselves to be morally superior to non-vegans ..." — because it amounted to a personal essay, but the previous paragraphs are also problematic. For example, is it true that some vegans, qua vegans, either have no sex, or have decided not to reproduce? This whole section needs to be firmed up with sources, rather than some critics say X, but some supporters say Y. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. However, although unsourced, that paragraph was quite balanced. — Chameleon 21:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're getting way too carried away in demanding sources. For example, one place has "author Joanne Stepaniak argues that". Well, there you go. That's the source. Similarly, "Joanne Stepaniak (author of The Vegan Sourcebook)" is a fine source. I can only guess wildly at what you might be expecting, perhaps the ISBN number and page number? Relax. The text becomes less readable if it gets filled with wordy references. Nobody is making new and off-the-wall claims that appear to be false. AlbertCahalan 01:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't clear where she had said it. Did she say it in The Vegan Sourcebook? If so, the text should make that clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's not just a question of sources; it wasn't encyclopedic in the way it was written, and nor is the rest of the criticism section. First sentence: "Sometimes vegans can be perceived as believing themselves to be morally superior to non-vegans; this is sometimes genuinely the case, and often not." Sometimes? Perceived by whom? What does 'genuinely the case' refer to, and what does 'genuinely' add to 'the case'? In what sense is it only sometimes the case, but often not the case? And who's claiming this?

Perceived by just about every vegan-hater that I have come across, and there are a lot of them. "Genuinely the case" means that some vegans are arrogant (we'd be a rather saintly group if none of us were). Of course, all this stuff should have citations, but as it stands it's a fairly good summary. — Chameleon 23:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll second this. My limited sampling of vegan behavior does show what appears to be an arrogant holier-than-thou attitude. I would be surprised if someone would recognize this in himself or in others with similar feelings. If you are not a vegan for health or religious reasons, how can you be sure that you don't have this attitude yourself? You can not be an unbiased observer of yourself. You might argue that such an attitude is necessary and good, but then you should expect resentment from those you look down upon. AlbertCahalan 01:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, be surprised then, because in the above para I say that some vegans are arrogant. — Chameleon 01:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem with the article, Albert. It shouldn't be written on the basis of individual samplings of vegan behavior. It should be encyclopedic, and that means sticking to WP policies, particularly Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Are we saying that some vegans are arrogant in the sense that they believe the vegan lifestyle is better than others? Maybe it's just me, but resenting those around one for causing terrible suffering and leaving less for the rest of the world (i.e. leading an arrogant lifestyle) hardly makes one arrogant. Of course there are some who call themselves vegan and believe that they as individuals are better than others - that is true of some members of any group; ipso facto, the mention of this in the veganism article alone arbitrarily picks on veganism particularly and should therefore be excluded. And by the way, being a vegan for religious or health reasons does not exempt one from being arrogant; on the contrary, these reasons expressly utilize arrogance (to believe in a particular extra-worldly religion is to pick one arbitrary view over another in accordance with nothing but the desires of one's self, and being vegan for health reasons is obviously primarily self-interested). It is less arrogant to be a vegan for reasons primarily concerning the world through an attempt at objective experience of that world; pardon me for seeming arrogant in my doctrine of removing greater degrees of arrogance, but I'm sure you'll see the inability of anybody asserting anything to avoid that kind of arrogance. Daniel 11:32, 26 Aug 2005

It's anecdotal, and written as though it's just one person's observation. There are published criticisms out there that would be more interesting and informative; for example, I've often read that veganism is perceived by the British intelligence community, among others, as an ideology that almost necessarily leads to animal-rights activism (i.e. terrorism in their terms). It's nonsense, but it's a view that's often repeated, and if that kind of article could be tracked down, it would make for a good criticism section. I'm currently doing a copy edit, and don't have time to look again until next week, but I'll try to find something then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's anecdotal, but it reflects a commonly-expressed opinion. It's tolerable until we have full citations. — Chameleon 01:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And "Some of the most violent incidents in the history of social protest have in fact been instigated by those seeking to disseminate ostensibly vegan principles." That's a bizarre claim, which needs to be attributed to a credible source; and it couldn't be attributed, because it's demonstrably false. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wo, that's pretty wacky. I don't think it was there the last time I looked at the article, or I would have removed it. — Chameleon 23:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be removing true facts. AlbertCahalan 00:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then back it up with examples and references. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I hate being the one to break the news to you, but this is real. There is a long history of pro-animal (and thus vegan) groups supporting violence. Google will tell you more, but anyway... PETA donated $1500 to Earth Liberation Front after ELF had commited violent crimes. PETA gave $70000 to Rodney Coronado, an arsonist who attacked a university research lab. PETA speakers have encouraged violent acts toward fast-food places and laboratories. More details: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2339 AlbertCahalan 00:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but animal rights types are rather fluffy and nonviolent on the whole. Their frequent pacifism contrasts sharply with the general population's frequent support for violence. Also, hatred for animal rights leads people to expand the usual definition of violence to include damage to inanimate objects, which obscures the matter somewhat. On the other side, huge violence is commited against animals daily (and you can't criticise extending "violence" to cover hurting and killing animals if you are willing to let it be extended to damaging objects) with relatively few reprisals from animal rights people.

Also, the sentence in the article doesn't say that animal rights people use violence in their protests, but that "violent incidents in [...] social protest have [...] been instigated by those [...] disseminat[ing] [...] vegan principles." The most violent incidents in social protest are clearly those that occur when the police charge at demonstrations. I've been hit by a truncheon myself for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think the police are mostly vegan. — Chameleon 01:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"There is a long history of pro-animal (and thus vegan) groups supporting violence." - intertesting progression... and assumption. The ALF's own guidelines states that members do not have to be vegan, or even vegetarian to be members. Also, many pro-animal activists, such as Linda McCartney, are vegetarian, not vegan.

"PETA gave $70000 to Rodney Coronado, an arsonist who attacked a university research lab." - should more acurately read PETA paid the legal fees of Rodney (or Rod) Coronado, convicted arsonist who in 1992 set fire to and/or damaged two Michigan State university research labs, specializing in animal toxicology and fur farming research. If paying his legal fees was a criminal act, as implied by AlbertCahalan, then why haven't PETA been shutdown and convicted of providing material support for terrorism? Simon - 12:15, 15 Aug 2005

The Center for Consumer Freedom, referred to above, is a disinformation organization, and its "reports" should be treated accordingly. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom. — JC 01:34, 3 Sept 2005

Whoa there. I don't think we can say that vegans are inherently violent, pacifist or arrogant. Speaking as a vegan I can attest that becoming a vegan takes a certain amount of open-mindedness but I wouldn't say that every vegan is open minded. I don't think most vegans are in general any more arrogant in their moral positions than anyone else with a strong belief, rational or not. I don't see anything a section of the christianity article that says how stubborn and arrogant christians are, but I've met a lot of stubborn christians. I agree with talking about how SOME groups that advocate veganism ALSO advocate violence but keep anecdotes and generalizations out. Wesman83

Photograph

I'd like to find a factory-farming photograph to illustrate the page with, to show why vegans become vegans. Before I put one up, will anyone object to this as POV? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good photograph. Others available here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I object for at least two reasons:

• Such photos belong on the factory farming page. After all, if you merely object to factory farming, you will gladly go hunting and bring home a deer for your freezer. Add a link to factory farming if it isn't already here.
• Many of these photos show accidents and illegal factory farming. It's a major POV problem to suggest that such farming is normal. If the photo shows something for which the farm operators could get arrested or fined, you're misleading the reader. The same goes for rare accidents. (note: "thousands" is still rare when dealing with "billions")

I guess I can sum this up by saying that we don't put photos of baseball bat murder victims on the baseball bat page, and certainly not on the sport page.

AlbertCahalan 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baseball doesn't necessarily entail the murder of people with baseball bats, whereas farming for food necessarily involves the killing of captive animals.

I was expecting something like a picture of a diseased and bleeding cow being beaten with a 2x4 while being dragged into a dumpster. There are a few photos like that floating around and being misrepresented as common animal treatment. AlbertCahalan 03:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how do you know that this isn't common treatment? Do you work in a slaughterhouse? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Economically, especially when you consider public relations and worker retention, it makes more sense to do otherwise. AlbertCahalan 05:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Worker turnover is notoriously high in slaughterhouses, and economically, it makes more sense to treat the animals badly. You either have evidence that these photographs are not representative, or you don't. You might want to ask yourself why you've never seen photographs of animals in slaughterhouses being treated well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Suppose a place is really rough with the animals. Fines and higher than average worker turnover will raise the cost of doing business. Customers (fast food places for example) will be complaining about protesters and refusing to pay the higher costs. If the workers aren't leaving and the customers aren't complaining about protesters, then maybe the conditions aren't so offensive after all. Ok, you might still be bothered, but most people are fine with the situation. As for the photos being representative: Not a lot of interest in photos of normal everyday goings on, is there? See your regular nightly news program, none of which is about normal stuff. AlbertCahalan 16:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The place doesn't get fined if the Government doesn't know about it. As was mentioned before, slaughterhouses have one of the highest worker turnover rates in the nation. Fast food places do have protestors, just not enough, because most people are ignorant. Most people are only "fine" with the situation because they are ignorant.Canaen 08:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the argument that the photographs are examples of illegal abuse or accidents, farmers don't accidentally put sows in farrowing crates to give birth; or accidentally place thousands of chickens in dark sheds; or accidentally lock calves into boxes shortly after birth so that they see no sunlight and produce pale meat. These practices are not illegal in most countries.

I'm pretty sure most places don't allow calves not being able to move. As for the sunlight, you are describing a typical office cube farm full of human employees. Also note that pigs can get sunburns. AlbertCahalan 03:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL! You're joking, surely. And most countries do allow such treatment of calves. This is how veal is produced. The calves can move but not much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

On an activist site which you'd expect to give the most negative view of things, take a look at bits of the UK law. The whole EU is similar. I can't find a US law specific to veal, but the USDA description doesn't sound all that harsh. According to the USDA, "the calves can stand, stretch, groom themselves and lay down in a natural position". AlbertCahalan 05:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

USDA law isn't always followed, which is why factory farms always have animal cruelty lawsuits against them. I've seen veal crates with my own eyes, and the calves can not stretch, lay down naturally, and often can't stand upright. Get your facts straight.Canaen 08:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Very few people in Western countries obtain the bulk or even a significant proportion of their meat diet from deers they have personally shot, so the issue of hunting is something of a red herring. The overwhelming majority of people in the West get all their meat and dairy products from factory-farmed sources, and photographs of factory-farmed animals are factually representative of the practises vegans want to avoid financing. That and animal testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think that lots of photos of filling vegan meals would make far more sense. Besides being more on-topic for this article, you'd have an opportunity to show something beyond beans, salad, tofu (beans), fruit, miso (beans), rice cakes, and beans. Find some foods with lots of balanced protein, moderatly high fat, and no gas-causing bahavior. (that is, something other than beans) Find something well-suited to the Atkins diet. Take pictures. AlbertCahalan 03:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the article with you, Albert, if you're willing to be serious and well-informed, but not if you're being facetious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite serious in general. Try to ignore any humor if you dislike mixing serious discussions with humor. I find that humor makes an otherwise dry argument much more readable. AlbertCahalan 05:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Albert, your analogy is not good. That photo is from the United States Department of Agriculture. It was not taken by some ALF militant breaking into an illegal farm at night and taking pics. There is no reason to think that the situation depicted in the photo is in any way atypical of modern farming. It is a good example of what vegans are against. — Chameleon 01:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The analogy is good; it just doesn't apply to the picture you chose. I hadn't seen your choice yet. BTW, the most disturbing thing about the photo is that the worker does not have a face mask to protect against dust. The second most disturbing thing is that the low light levels may discriminate against older workers. I still think the photo belongs on the factory farming page though. The chickens aren't vegans, are they? Pictures of vegan meals would be more appropriate here. AlbertCahalan 02:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see personal opinions getting us anywhere. That photo is of one of the better factory farms, apparently. I've seen far worse.Canaen 08:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could show a non-leather shoe or someone being kind to an animal to illistrate veganism?

I do not think that most vegan food illistrates veganism well, as vegan food is eaten by everyone and would not flash VEGAN to non-vegans (I think its funny when people ask what I eat saying 'nothing is vegan'...have they ever had, say, an apple?).

On the other hand, a picture of an amazing vegan pastry would be a great illustration!

I don't think animal torture is a good picture because that is what veganism is NOT about. Veganism is NOT about being critical, anti-, negative, ascetic, self-denying, restricting, and limiting. It is about celebrating life and loving food, caring for animals and oneself, and finding out about new and different foods and increasing the variety of caring and ingredients in one's life. Hyacinth 05:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great, but I challenge you to find things that are more meat-like than an apple. You can use beans only once. AlbertCahalan 05:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I said. Hyacinth 22:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tofu (beans - 1) Tempeh (Nuts and other nifty things) Seitan ("wheat-meat") are all meat substitutes widely-used. Seitan's much better than tofu, and doesn't give you gas (of course, it varies by body...).Canaen 08:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

***To those of you who think such photos depict a small handful of "illegal" farms-- take it from someone with a degree in animal science (the science of animal production for food and fiber), these practices are TYPICAL and LEGAL. There are very few protections in place for the treatment of farm animals. In fact, I can tell you from personal experience with LEGITIMATE large, well-known farms that such pictures only scratch the surface of the horrors that actually occur, on a daily basis, on these farms. It is par for the course--not an anomoly.

Unsigned comment from 65.24.246.99 4:00 pm C August 23, 2005

I'll second what the anonymous user wrote.Canaen 08:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the photos on this page need to be changed. A picture of fruit is one-dimensional and uninformative. What about one of these or something along these lines? They both show a whole range of different foods, and could possibly even surprise a lot of people. --Mumblingmynah 21:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I used to be a Vegan...

...But then I sold my Chevy Vega and bought a Honda Civic.

There will be a slight pause for the laughter to subside. :) Wahkeenah 30 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)

information about health consequences

I came here looking for some information about health consequences of this life style and found nothing of value. This article is filled with faulty argumentation. The band wagon fallacy seems especially popular...or so say many. Clearly a lack of meat consumption dulls the mind. After all, Einstein was a veggie and a dumb ass. Maybe I could add that informal observation after Dr. Astrand's.

"Dr. Per-Olaf Astrand conducted an informal study of diet and endurance using nine highly trained athletes, changing their diet every three days" Informal as they were all equipped with party hats? Changing the diets every three days? Should that translate to me tripling my stamina if I change to a vegan diet for three days?

"The health consequence of consuming the white blood cells of other species suffering breast infections is not known, but many argue that it cannot be a positive one."

"Many people contend that these substances are dangerous, but their effect on human health has not been investigated, and no-one reliably knows what the long-term effects of consuming these artificial substances are."

"Vegans enjoy almost as wide a range of foods as animal product–eaters do" If that is true then the range of products that can be derived from animal sources must be small or substitutes can be created artificially in which case I like to draw attention to the previous paragraph.

--TheBigD 8 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

For such vehement protest to goodness, what does that make you?

Eating Disorders

I'd like to add a (referenced, of course) paragraph about the connection between veganism and eating disorders such as anorexia and orthorexia nervosa, especially among young women. Any objections? 68.21.180.106 15:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Veganism does not CAUSE eating disorders. Some people use veganism to try to mask the fact that they already have an eating disorder. Please understand the difference between correlation and causation. Unsigned comment from 65.24.246.99 3:43 pm C August 23, 2005

In reality, any unbalanced diet can lead to problems, and there is certainly evidence of dietary deficiencies related to veganism in the medical literature. I think a neutral, referenced section would be helpful, as well as delineate the differences between a proper and unbalanced vegan diet. --Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that a vegan diet causes eating disorders. I know from personal experience as well as medical literature (do a search on Medline) that anorexia sufferers often use a vegan diet to support and justify low caloric intake. Anorexia and politically/socially motivated diets are also correlated with an obsession about the correctness of one's diet [5], known as orthorexia. This information needs to be addressed in order to fully inform a reader about the costs and benefits of a vegan lifestyle. I am not saying that a nutritionally adequate vegan diet is impossible. Indeed, I think that more information should be added about balancing a vegan diet. Skinwalker 21:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is heavily biased in favor of a vegan lifestyle. It does not adequately present the nutritional dangers of veganism, including the promotion of eating disorders among young women. The article uses outdated and misrepresented scientific articles to promote it's point of view, especially in the vegan vs. omnivore diet section.

(Is there a specific study backing eating disorders to veganism or are you just pulling that from your ass?)

Additionally, the criticism section is plagued with quotes such as:

"Many vegans find themselves struggling with anger at being misrepresented, or with having to be consistently nice to people who are rude, or even aggressively hostile to them; it can be hard to maintain a compassionate outlook under such circumstances..."

Quotes such as this indicate a clear "call-and-response"-sort of bickering, which does nothing to enlighten (and probably repels) a disinterested reader. I will submit several incremental updates to this article, and I of course invite criticism and (logical!) revision of the points I make. 68.21.1.203 06:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So why didn't you just get rid of that stuff you quote? Anyway, I got rid of it, because you're right, it was un-encyclopaedic (not to mention a bit strange). I cannot comment on that issue about eating disorders because I've never heard of that being a problem related to veganism, perhaps you could put some info in the entry with references? Anything else you can be specific about that needs to be changed because it's biased? As much as I am probably biased myself, being vegan, I can see that it doesn't help if this entry is biased because it interferes with the facts. I believe that the facts are more than capable of doing the arguing for me. --Qirex 02:24:04, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

If you could provide real evidence, this might be considered. There are no real nutritional dangers regarding veganism - only the same nutritional dangers anyone faces if they choose to eat an unbalanced diet. Every nutrient needed for a healthy human life can be obtained from easily-obtainable plant-foods. There is absolutely no nutritional or medical evidence that supports the consumption of animal-derived products. Feel free to email me at alex@sometimes.org if you have specific questions or require sources for my information. --Sometimes 00:46:00, 2005-08-15 (EST)

Lest I be accused of sockpuppetry, I have edited this page under 128.138.44.xxx and 68.21.xxx.xxx addresses, and have created an account now. I appended the NPOV tag several weeks ago, and I don't think the page is ready to have it removed, though Qirex's edits have helped. Nutritional disorders that are unique to vegitarianism and veganism certainly do exist, and are a problem particularly in the developing world. Specifically, unbalanced vegan diets can lead to vitamin D and B12 deficiencies, among others. The lack of vitamin B12 is especially pernicious to infants, who suffer long-term neurological damage if they do not obtain enough B12 from breastmilk if the mother is adhering to a strict vegan diet. There are few if any vegetable sources for B12, and supplements are of course animal-derived. Yeast-based sources are usually inadequate unless consumed in large and impractical amounts. Can anyone comment on bacterially derived B12 supplements?

To begin moving towards a consensus, I suggest we strengthen the sections regarding the balancing of a vegan diet to give more specific recommendations on nutritional adequacy, and to discuss possible dangers of nutritional adequacy. Someone more knowledgeable than I should write the adequacy section. I will write the section on dangers. As discussed above, I intend to submit a section on the correlation between vegan diets and eating disorders. Also, there are many baseless and unreferenced statements on the health benefits of a vegan diet, and they often confuse vegan and vegitarian diets. Finally, there are two sections that I will delete outright: quotations and cycling stamina. The quotations section is tantamount to propaganda, and does not illuminate a disinterested reader. The quotes should be, if at all, on the quoted person's wiki. The cycling stamina study simply shows that carbohydrates are better utilized for rapid energy production than fats and proteins, is quite outdated, and does not follow the subjets for any length of time that is long enough to establish dietary efficacy.

I hope we can avoid any histrionics from either side. I'll admit, this talk page has some fairly obnoxious entries from meat-eaters, which really don't help. My goal is to provide an NPOV entry that honestly addresses both the pros and cons of a vegan lifestyle, and the page is far from that at the moment. Skinwalker 22:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the quotes have nothing to do with veganism in particular, the removal was appropriate. However, whenever you remove content, it is helpful to include the content (if its brief) on talk, in the edit summary, or as a link to the history. That way, people can go back and add it to another page. I have moved the quotes to the Wikiquote entry on Vegetarianism. I suggest that others follow this link to take a look at the history. And yes, we need information about B12 supplements derived from cyanocobalamin. Regarding yeast-based sources, products like "Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula" appear to be sufficient, as one serving provides twice the recommended intake for the average adult. [6][7].--Viriditas | Talk 04:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I very much appreciate this sentiment. As a vegan, I checked out this article at least in part to keep abreast of what seem to be legitimate (albeit contentious) health concerns related to my diet. A more encyclopaedic, ie. evidence-based, treatment of these concerns will help this entry by replacing some of the guesswork and moralizing from both 'sides' with facts, at least to the degree that facts are available. Two2the8 10:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"A vegan is a person who avoids the ingestion or use of animal products"

That leaves a vegan free to kill animals as long as he doesn't use it afterwards. So as long as all you are doing is satisfying your blood lust you're in the clear?

"A vegan is a person who avoids the ingestion or use of animal products, or the use of animals for any purpose that benefits humans to the detriment of animals, such as in a rodeo or circus, sport hunting, or in laboratory testing."

Something like that. I didn't post it because it didn't seem concise enough to me, especially not for the first sentence of the article. I wanted to throw the word "exploitation" in there somewhere, but trying to stick to NPOV. --Mumblingmynah 06:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't "satisfying your bloodlust" be using the animal? --Equal 19:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

comments...

I'm a proud omnivoire, with some vegan friends and family, and I'd say that as of right now this article is pretty damn NPOV and also very good. Kudos to those responsible. ZacharyS 16:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of Omnivore is a wrong term

I find that omnivore is used almost regularly without realising its meaning. omnivore, herbivore or carnivore refers to the species' ability or inability to eat a specific food. it does not talk about one particular or a bunch of animals (be it humans or dogs) deviating from the pattern. if a pet dog does eat rice it does not make the whole species of dogs as herbivorous. and if a cow is somehow made to eat flesh the bovine family does not become carnivore or omnivore. similarly even if a majority of humans do eat vegetables/meat alone they don't become herbivores/carnivores respectively. the human species still remains omnivore irrespective of personal preferences. i find the use of omnivore to refer to non-vegetarians totally wrong here and in other articles. A better term would be "non-vegetarian". Idleguy 04:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well put. I agree with you. --Mumblingmynah 04:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. If eating both animal and plant products involved a deviation from the norm or a massive lifestyle choice, then I could see coining a word (or even appropriating an analogous one from biology) for non-vegans and non-vegetarians, but quite frankly, we "omnivores" 'are' normal people... if vegans are insulted with the idea that they are outside the norm, that's on them... but they manifestly are. That's not a value judgement, any more than there's a value judgement in statistics. Somebody of above average intelligence is outside the norm. Somebody of above average anything is outside the norm.

The human body contains adaptations that enable us to digest both meat and plant produce... we are neither fully optimized for either, thus, we are omnivores. Starkly and simply put, it's like using the word "humanoid" to distinguish the rest of us from amputees. I could see a mention of the term as being slang, if it's something that many vegans use... perhaps including it in context, in quotes, for an example of usage... but using it within the body of the encyclopedia article strikes me as wrong. I have moved to replace mentions of "omnivore" with other terms that preserve the meaning of the sentence, though I left one mention that seemed to be a direct quote by a researcher.Alexandra Erin 02:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

...or "normal people"

Your comments aren't helping anyone, you know. --Mumblingmynah 21:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on ThrBigD's other (unsigned) comments on this page, I believe he was trying to be insulting. That's why I'm insulted. --Mumblingmynah 03:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As much as I admire your courage to deviate from the opinions of the majority I find your propensity to see the worst in peoples' actions depressing. "Normal" just means not deviating very much from the average. There is no value judgement in that. So you go on deviating from the norm with a clear conscience and I will too.

Cholesterols

I removed this humbug: "The high levels of cholesterol found in dairy and egg products are now accepted by the majority of the medical community to be dangerous. Cholesterol is only found in animal products; a vegan diet has zero cholesterol. Less traditional, low fat milks, which are becoming more and more popular, do not contain very much cholesterol, but there are very few cheeses which can make the same claim." From Low density lipoprotein article: "It is not the cholesterol that is bad; it is instead how and where it is being transported, and in what amounts over time." If you are gong to write something sensible about this subject, start with saturated fats instead. -Hapsiainen 09:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Pound for pound, the highest amount of fat (100%) cholestrol is found in ghee a form of clarified butter. If anything practically veg includes cheese and butter which are x times more harmful than any meat products. Idleguy 11:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is about veganism, not vegetarianism, so dairy products are not part of their diet. My point was that you can't measure healthyness of a food by its amount of cholesterol. You should look instead at the amount of saturated and trans fats. And that you don't get too much fats as a whole, of course. -Hapsiainen 12:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Made some harsh cuts

I nixed the following paragraph from the article. To me, it reads like a personal essay, merely replacing "I" with "some vegans" to make it seem a bit more encyclopedic.

Of course, label reading and looking up ingredients becomes habitual, and many vegans express their pleasure at understanding just what is going into or onto their bodies and come to regard the idea of not doing so as rather horrifying. It is often referred to as an empowering experience. Many vegans find the experience broadens their understanding of how the food, cosmetics, and clothing industries work and leads them into environmental and human rights activism. It is often the case that outside observers have difficulty in understanding that vegans do not feel deprived, that they are not practising a form of aeseticism, and that they find pleasure in their veganism. Non-vegans often express the idea that vegans are "disciplined" in their choices, but vegans tend to feel that they have simply adopted new habits. Because many people believe vegans to be practising a form of self-denial, and because self-denial is often seen as morally superior, many others assume that vegans feel morally superior to them. When vegans do not actually feel this way, the misunderstanding often causes difficulties in social interaction, and many vegans feel that it is best not to talk about their veganism for fear that those around them will feel implicitly criticised.

It was also smack in the middle of a "common criticisms" section, making it seem even more personal and defensive. I can see how some elements could be useful elsewhere in the article, but I'm not entirely certain. - Plastic Editor

This article read like a PETA pamphlet...

...so I made more cuts. I mean, there were sections in there consisting only of opinion and preference. Others railed on about things that meat and dairy have been "linked to" - obviously, specific studies have "linked" many, many things together, but they aren't rock-solid encylopedia fodder. Not saying they were wrong, but the scientific jury is still out on a lot of this stuff. Just because it might fit your cause, don't go believing EVERYTHING that suggests your diet is the way, the truth and the light.

Then there was just dumb stuff like this:

Vegans enjoy almost as wide a range of foods as animal product–eaters do, since almost any dish containing animal products can be adapted by substituting vegan ingredients.

Well, if you substitute, say, Ener-G Egg-Replacer for eggs in some cookies, yeah - essentially the same thing. For many others, however, you're altering a meal beyond recognition. Even subbing tempeh for bacon in a BLT, you've created an entirely new dish. In fact, non-vegetarians can consume not only the meat dish, but the vegan alternative, so a non-vegetarian's options have actually increased w/ the vegans. Result - it evens out.

So again, as a former teenage vegan animal rights activist, I know the desire to spread your gospel as much as possible. But recognize that we're making an encyclopedia here. There are some things that you believe to be very, very significant, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia because it's not the job of Wikipedia to change somebody's diet. This article is merely to inform somebody what veganism is, and give a vague idea of what motivates people to take it up. An *overview*, not an alternative to The Vegan Sourcebook.

I quite appreciate your trimming the fat off here... I've been wanting to make this article shorter for a while now. A lot of the information in it is redundant, or unnecessarily in-depth, or borders on a "how-to" guide. Might I suggest that you leave some of the external links used as references if they're still relevant? That way people can follow up and read more if they want to, and the article remains well-cited. --Mumblingmynah 04:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Sentience" needs context

'Sentient' means very different things to animal rights folks than to other folks. I'm off to school, but later today will add some context explaining this dichotomy...unless someone beats me to it (feel free). R 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Sentience" means the capacity to feel, "sapience" means intelligence or self-awareness. They're often confused. Is that what you're referring to? --Mumblingmynah 21:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've done another copy edit as there were a few spelling mistakes, inlined external links, and a very long TOC, so I combined some sections, and also deleted some original research. Plastic Editor has objected on my talk page to the removal of this:

The most prominant [sic] opposition to veganism on ethical grounds states the long human history of consuming animal products; many believe that certain body types have evolved consuming meat and dairy, and thus absorb certain nutrients best via these sources. The requirement for B-12, a vitamin humans can only derive from meat or dairy, is seen as evidence of this. Thus, the use of animals for certain purposes in a balanced diet is "only natural", a notion hotly contested by many vegans and vegetarians.

It needs a source and preferably a medical one, as it's a medical claim. The "certain body types" thing sounds odd, and it's not an objection on ethical grounds; and the "only natural" quote needs a citation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Cyclist study

Skinwalker removed this, and it's been removed before, but shouldn't have been, in my view, because it has a properly cited, credible reference. Skinwalker, you referred me to the NPOV section of the talk page, but I can't see anything there about this study. What problem do you see with it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that carbohydrates are used by the body for energy much more efficiently than proteins or fats. Carbs give over twice the energy that protein or fat does, so it is not surprising that an endurance athlete would perform better on a high-carb diet during aerobic exercise. As it is currently incorporated into the article, this study is used to justify dietary efficacy. This study does not follow its subjects for anywhere near enough time to establish the long-term superiority of a vegan diet, and it makes some fairly unscientific claims about "increasing the stamina of athletes 300 percent" and abolishing the "protein myth", etc. Also, the article is quite outdated (1968) and was published in a fairly low profile nutritional journal. It's sort of a red herring, and I'm sure there are better, more recent, and more scientific papers that can be found to support (or refute) the nutritional claims in this wiki. Skinwalker 23:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, these are all fair points. Give me ten minutes to go back and read it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I've just googled him and he's referred to very highly on exercise and diet websites e.g. the "legendary" Dr. X etc. We can't argue with the findings because that would be OR but it seems a shame to delete it too. Could we perhaps find another study, either showing the opposite, or explaining his findings? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

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:

• http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/consumer.html
• http://hometown.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/consumer.html
• http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/consumer.html

--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. [8] 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 [9] 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. [10] -- 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 [11]

The Justice Department Report on Animal Terrorism 1993 [12]

Animal "Snuff films" have been faked [13] The 2001 entry mentions some interesting behaviour by a vegan student.

Non-vegans support "animal welfare" as opposed to "animal rights" [14]. (also includes some interesting quotes by PETA, with sources)

Johns Hopkins enters suit over lab animal regulations [15]

Federal report highlights animal rights terrorism 1989 [16]

National Cattleman's Beef Association [17]

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." [18] 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 [19]

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 [20]. 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." [21]

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" [22], 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)

[23] 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 [24] 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