Talk:Veganism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Vegan farming

@Zefr: You said my edit was undue when you reverted it. Why is it undue, considering it lists facts, not points of view? Please do refer to WP:UNDUE and check if what you mean is "undue". Perhaps you mean it violates some other standard? If so, please elaborate :) Trimton (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Why is the source "poor", considering :

• the label itself links to the source on its website?
• You might think the source is poor because the label (and its partners) themselves claim to have licensed 12 farms, not the press? But it seems that Wikipedians believe labels when they say how many companies they certify (e.g. Swissveg here. Furthermore,
• the vegan-farming.org website has a post for each certified farm which allows verification. For example, you can check for a German farm: it has a 'vegan-farming.org' post and a [1] website that confirms use of the label.

Trimton (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia would need some independent/secondary sourcing to establish WP:WEIGHT. This looks like a minor factoid which has not generated much attention. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph of UNDUE explains what applies to Trimton's edit: 1) vegan farming is a minority type of farming and is not prominent enough to be in the encyclopedia, 2) vegan-farming.org is a singular, non-neutral view and not a reliable, secondary source, and 3) wouldn't have sufficient weight to qualify for "see also". Zefr (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OK I'm happy to accept the part about the label certifying 12 farms. I may have learned a lesson about how WP:UNDUE works in practice. The UNDUE article, in its current wording, only talks about minority viewpoints, which in my interpretation would be things that are either scientifically disproven, or hard to disprove (such as "the Earth is flat" on the Earth article, or "we were created by the Spaghetti monster" in the Religion article). But in your interpretation, minority practices and facts of relevance only to minorities can also be WP:UNDUE. So if vegan organic farming is only practised by a very small minority (within vegans), then facts about it do not belong in the article (about veganism). Instead of my edit, I would like to suggest adding a simple link to Animal-free agriculture to the sentence that existed before my edit. That would surely be OK? Trimton (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Zefr added the link in their last edit. Thanks Zefr! I agree to the above discussion being marked as resolved. (I only object to part of Zefr's edit for adding unsubstantiated claims, and changed it accordingly. This should be discussed in a separate section if necessary) Trimton (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerning removal of content from this edit, 1) lower product yields: "typically 20-30% lower than farms that use synthetic fertilisers" (Guardian) and numerous other sources, such as this, 2) increased labor costs: "compost would cost him anywhere from three to six times more than manure" (NPR), 3) increased consumer costs: the Guardian article questions the higher cost of compost-humus soil making organic consumer products more expensive, a fact well-established, such as by the FAO. Zefr (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that not all vegan farms are organic ("industrial agriculture – which uses nitrogen-laden synthetic chemical fertilisers – is vegan. They are not derived from animals and allow farms to grow vegetables that are bigger and more tightly packed together, and free from animal manure and byproducts." in a different Guardian article. 1) you're misquoting the Guardian. You wrote ""Vegan" (or "animal-free") farming uses plant compost only with the effect of lower product yields, and increased labor and consumer costs to vegan farming.", so you compare vegan to nonvegan farming. But the quote about yields compares organic to nonorganic farming. In fact, the article cites academic research that suggests that the yield is in fact 99% higher (1-7.95/4) with their vegan organic humus, compared to synthetic fertiliser 2) You mean material (capital) cost, not labour cost. Yes, the self-made humus on one Greek farm is more expensive than manure. But is all compost? Also, is all (vegan) synthetic fertiliser more expensive than manure? 3) No the Guardian article does not do that. It talks about cost prices (prices to producers), not consumer prices. Yes, organic food tends to be more expensive than non-organic food, but again, that's not the point. This is the veganism article, and you are explicitly comparing agriculture that involves manure to agriculture that doesn't - this comparison as such has nothing to do with organic. Some vegan farmers may well not be organic because they use synthetic fertiliser (which is vegan), and GMO crops (which are vegan). Therefore, you cannot claim that the organic premium applies to all animal-free agriculture. I doubt that you can find a source at this point in time that systematically compared the prices of vegan and nonvegan products. You would need such a source for the sentence you wrote. Trimton (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Trimton - just an observation, but that's a lot of words - you might want to take a look at WP:WALLOFTEXT. I haven't looked at the content, but from experience of many talk page discussions, I doubt whether anybody is going to read all that. Be concise, break down your points: we should add/remove X because source Y says Z. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 18:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I shortened it a bit. Trimton (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Defining "well-planned"

This article states at two locations that various dietetic associations consider "well-planned" or "adequately planned" vegan diets as healthy.

This seems a bit vague to me. What exactly do vegans need to plan? Could someone review their positions and try to sum up what they mean (at one location)?

It would seem reader-friendly to write up what they mean in two parts: 1) things any healthy diet should include (eating your vegetables, not too much junk food, vitamin D if you don't get much sun light) 2) what vegans need to watch out for that nonvegans don't have to (vitamin B12, maybe other aspects). Trimton (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is misrepresenting veganism

This is a commonly misunderstood subject, because while the word "vegan" can be used to describe food, people, and the diet that vegans follow, the word "veganism" is exclusively about the philosophy and way of life, about "seeking to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promoting the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals".

That's why it is called veganISM... like capitalism, like socialism, like all other isms it is an ideology/philosophy, not a diet plan. It was Donald Watson of the Vegan Society that originally defined the vegan diet in 1944, and Leslie J Cross, also from the Vegan Society, that defined Veganism in 1949, and made clear that it was about ending "exploitation of animals", and not just about dietary choices. https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history

Donald Watson compared the vegan society to the fight against slavery, so obviously it was about much more than just dietary choices, veganism has always been ethical.

A 100% plant based diet can be called a "vegan diet", but following a plant based diet is not veganism, veganism is a lot more than just what we eat, it is the ethical worldview that unnecessarily harming, killing and exploiting animals is wrong, and that we as individuals at the very least should try to avoid contributing to such cruelty. Therefor vegans not only avoid animal products in food, but also avoid using clothes, furniture, and other items made of animal products(like leather, skin, lanolin, wool, fur, silk, suede), and oppose animal testing. The definition of veganism by the Vegan Society is universally accepted by vegans(or about 98-99% of them in my impression), but of course there are news articles that misrepresent what veganism is, many of those articles are written by people who are not vegans themselves and don't have full understanding of the term, and some are written by people representing large corporations that have an obvious interest in undermining veganism. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is being used to promote these incorrect definitions of veganism.

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

"Veganism is a stricter form of vegetarianism. Vegans avoid consuming or using any animal products or byproducts. The Vegan Society define veganism as “a way of living, which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.”

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325478#veganism

"Veganism is a lifestyle that excludes all animal products and attempts to limit the exploitation of animals as much as possible."

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-a-vegan#what-it-is

Veganism - "the practice of not eating or using any animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, or leather: Strict veganism prohibits the use of all animal products, not just food, and is a lifestyle choice rather than a diet."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/veganism

There is no "environmental veganism", there is no "dietary veganism", I have been vegan for 30 years, and those are concepts I have barely seen mentioned outside of this Wikipedia page. While many people follow a plant based diet for environmental or dietary reasons, that alone does not make them vegans and certainly does not in any way change the original definition of veganism. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Much like yoga, the practice and the philosophy don't always go hand-in-hand. The term "vegan" and "veganism", according to WP:RS, is used for the diet as well as the philosophy. That some vegans disagree with that doesn't make it not true. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says in the very first line that veganism is a "diet, and an associated philosophy". The second line says "An individual who follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan." You are basically here telling us veganism is a philosophy but the article reflects that. I don't see what the problem is because the article explains it is a diet and a philosophy. If I am understanding you correctly you want diet removed and you just want veganism just as a philosophy? This has been discussed before on this talk-page. As the user above explains we have RS for veganism being a diet and philosophy. This is a bit of a silly semantics dispute and really a non-issue. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TheOriginalVegan has made these same arguments before in 2019 on this very talk page [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about *veganism*, not people who eat plant based for the environment or to lose weight. The definition of veganism is crystal clear, as presented by the people who created the term, the Vegan Society. This is not about semantics but about the definition of a movement against the exploitation of animals. And even if "practice and philosophy" don't always go hand in hand, veganism IS the philosophy/ideology/way of life, and therefor this article should be about that subject. You can argue about how we use the term "vegan", misunderstandings have risen because people speak about "vegan diet", but "veganism" is a perfectly clearly defined term, and should not be watered out here. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is not saying veganism is not a philosophy so I do not see any problem. We have many reliable references saying it is a diet and a philosophy so that is what the article reflects. There were vegans before the creation of the word in 1944 and many of them did it for dietary reasons. I understand your viewpoint that veganism is a way of life and philosophy but to many people the practice of veganism is also based around diet. I find it unlikely we are going to create a new article for veganism (philosophy) or remove any mention of diet on this article. We do not need separate articles as the article mentions both. We also have an article on vegan studies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, there were no "vegans" before the creation and definition of the word, precisely because there was no such definition... there were strict vegetarians, people who followed a plant based diet, but veganism is very specifically about avoiding exploitation and harm of animals, and therefor not buying food, clothes, furniture or other things that contribute to the exploitation/harming and killing of animals. The problem with the article is that it is dividing veganism into several different "philosophies" which is nonsense. There is only one philosophy of veganism and that is the one about avoiding exploitation/harm to animals as defined by the Vegan Society, or the "ethical" veganism. The other "philosophies" do not exist, but are wrong use of the word. People may follow a plant-based DIET for the environment, or a plant based DIET for their health, but veganism is a philosophy/ideology which "seeks to exclude —as far as is possible and practicable— all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose"... not about weight loss or environmental activism. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The article and its lead seem to cover the meaning you prefer, and the non-exploitation of animals as associated with veganism is clear. A good discussion here, and it feels from reading much of the page that your concerns are met and already included. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TheOriginalVegan there were "vegans" before the term was invented in 1944 and some of these vegans did not do it for dietary reasons they did it for purely ethical/philosophical reasons so that would fit your criteria as philosophical veganism rather than dietary. Robert Cook (eccentric) and Lewis Gompertz are examples of this. Cook for example would not wear anything of animal origin. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Good information. In light of the current popularity of veganism, the title of vegan pioneer Robert Cook's article should contain a better descriptor than 'eccentric'. How about just (vegan)? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As noted in an earlier discussion, I favor having Veganism and Vegan nutrition, with a concise presentation of nutrition issues in the first and that content enlarged upon in the second, with each article having a "See...". A similar approach can be seen for some of the minerals which also happen to be essential nutrients. David notMD (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, how would that solve what TheOriginalVegan is complaining about? At another page you were at,[3] someone pointed to the FAQ at the top about why this page talks about those who are vegans just for the diet. Some of these people aren't only vegans because of perceived nutrition. TheOriginalVegan is pushing a POV because they only see those who follow the philosophy as vegans. Academics contradict TheOriginalVegan. Psychologist Guy says "this has been discussed before on this talk-page." It has multiple times. I looked in the archives. I suggest people point TheOriginalVegan to those discussions, and keep it moving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Unacceptable_types_of_forking indicates this shouldn't be two pages. ApproximateLand (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed my post that was missing a signature.[4]. ApproximateLand (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Veganism -ism

The page associated with Veganism carries itself as the sole proprietary source of the term.

It is however not actually a word, it is more a conversational attribute and by adding -ism, for the literature understanding of Vegan it is not acceptable. Vegan is not philosophical in the sense it holds the same architecturally ideology.

What best to incapsulate "VEGAN." Is a fundamental truth.

As a Vegan you expect the reality of how unnatural it is for Humans to have associations with Animals in any fashion. If one says their diet is Vegan. (V) this symbol is most likely to appear on its label on labels in cafeterias. Diet though mentioned in Eastern Philosophy and Abraham Religions doesn't mention Vegan nor ancient Philosopher's. It simply isn't a Philosophy outside conversations. As a meal choice not diet a Vegan will make their best efforts to see to it their meal is exempt of Animals if I say no egg & dairy as well. I nullify "exempt of Animals." Egg is Animal. I would create a run on sentence.

To be Vegan is to make your honest to (yourself) attempt to unstaine from Animals in your food, fashion etc.

It is founded on Compassion, therefore a rigorous extrem dictated by Philosophy and Religion, is not compassion rather control.

People make mistakes a Vegan understands this.

Their is much to discuss because the whole of Wikipedia on Vegan is riddled with inaccuracies. It doesn't matter the source for which one cites to support anything other then your Pera Conscious Compassionate Attempts to leave Animals to live. Is creating confusion.

To be Vegan is to be of the highest tenet of living. It's not nor ever going to be allowed a Philosophy, Religion or Spiritual notion. Its individualistic.

[Definition of ism noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary

ism noun

/ˈɪzəm/ (usually disapproving)

used to refer to a set of ideas or system of beliefs or behavior You're always talking in isms—sexism, ageism, racism] Citizen Todd6 (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? ApproximateLand (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Citizen Todd6 what precisely do you want changed in the article? Trimton (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note re Equality Act 2010 in the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&oldid=1009037724 fixes a misstatement of the law. Ethical veganism isn't a listed protected characteristic in EA2010 (for that matter, neither are "gender" nor "ethnicity", it's "sex" and "race") but it was found by the ruling cited in the article to qualify for protection as a belief under the "religion or belief" protected characteristic. The judge's wording at the end of the ruling is misleading. Juroreight (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit said the judge found veganism "worthy of" protection under EA2010, which sounds normative. I just changed it. The judge said at the very start of the ruling that veganism qualifies as a protected belief, so that's what I put into the article. Trimton (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

EU Parliament definition

I replaced the mention of a supposed definition of 'vegan' by the EU parliament with the information from the actual legal act, which grants the European Commission the right to define the term when it comes to food information. The cited definition is found in a legislative resolution, which means it was part of the negotiation, but it did not wind up in the legislation ultimately. Hekerui (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring and moving nutrition information to Vegan nutrition

This article's section Vegan diet has roughly two parts: sections 1-4 treat what vegans eat, and sections 5-8 treat nutritional (meaning health) aspects. I propose two amendments: 1) Separate sections 5-8 into a "Health aspects" or "Nutrition" section 2) Shorten the content and move most discussion to Vegan nutrition, which covers the same aspects but is less extensive in some areas, e.g. dietetic association evaluations. Do other users agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimton (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. As the two articles are right now, there is too much duplication of content. Shrink nutrition/health in veganism and add content to vegan nutrition. David notMD (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I finally got around to doing it! --Trimton (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Do you think I should shorten the nutrition section even more? And should I move stuff from the diet section to Plant-based diet? The latter describes an 'entirely or mostly' plant-based (vegan) diet. Would it be strange to describe plant-based substitutes for animal products (nutritional yeast, vegan cheese) there, like currently in Veganism?

This topic needs serious attention. To say B12 is not made by Animals but a bacteria which grows in Animals. Makes it something an Animal made, by supply the necessary parts for the bacteria to grew. What is inside or an Animal is still the Animal's property so it makes it Animal Made. Like protein at one point still kinda is, a Propaganda spread falsely. Lack of B12 from Vegan Food is not to be associated with rhetoric of a fearful attribute of Vegan as a food choice. This is harmful and scares people. When the availability of B12 is easy to acquire. Furthermore a large contribution to B12 losing is fight to grow in soil is based in part to the chemicals and pollution caused by the Meat & Dairy industry. Which entered our soil with blatant disregard to warnings. Don't put Vegan food negatively in this light. Citizen Todd6 (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn I think we should use the {{Excerpt}} template here for Vegan nutrition to save us the work of updating both articles. Would you agree? The template would automatically insert the lead section of the nutrition article, nipping any WP:CONTENTFORKING or WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY problems in the bud. For an example, see Veganism#Prejudice against vegans. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue with that is that it's difficult to skim the source text with excerpt to get a good summary of all of it. It would be good if the relevant content of the VN article could be boiled-down to a couple of sentences here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving most of Veganism#Prejudice against vegans to Vegaphobia

Currently, Veganism#Prejudice against vegans is more detailed than Vegaphobia in describing vegaphobia (prejudice against vegans). That doesn't make sense, so I'm going to move most material to Vegaphobia on 11 April. There's also some stuff on Vegaphobia that might need mention in a summary sentence on Veganism, I'll check. I'll familiarise myself with Template:Main and perhaps link Vegaphobia as "main article", instead of "further information". If there's any reason against my plan, please comment here :) Trimton (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Would oppose. Copying some of the text over is a good idea, but removing the section here throws out the baby who drinks bathwater. The topic is relevant to this article, and covers issues many vegans experience. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn I didn't and don't propose removing the section here. Did you mean to say the section should keep its current length? Trimton (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Just went ahead boldly and performed the move. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 16:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Crikey, I've just looked at this section and it is terrible: full of primary research findings asserted in Wikipedia's voice, which is probably all undue. A heavy trim or maybe wholesale removal would be in order. Maybe there are some reasonable sources on this? Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

To throw in or not to throw in "non-human animal products" because of breast milk?

Where do I start? Countryboy603's edit was reversed[5] by Bodney because it didn't have a ref for corroboration. So Countryboy603 came back with a ref.[6] This would be fine if the contribution wasn't off-kilter, cite or no cite, for corroboration. Now I reversed the contribution, as it's confusing and off the usual definitional span, I think, to write "non-human animal products". Do refs usually consider human breast milk an animal product? I've seen no evidence of that. Nothing that comes from humans is usually considered an animal product. Thinking deeper: Is writing "non-human animal products" not then saying that cannibalism is vegan? I know that's an extreme thing to throw out there, but I think there are good reasons the definition of veganism isn't typically prefaced with "non-human" in refs. The ref[7] Countryboy603 added manages to debate itself about human breast milk's relation to veganism and says what it doesn't take as a literal definition.

Countryboy603, if you want to add something about human breast milk, please add it farther down the page rather than alter the usual meaning of veganism. ApproximateLand (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That's one reason we should give the Vegan Society definition more prominence: "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose" Ref (a 2005 book) at Wikiquote

Human breast milk, hair, ejaculate etc. are vegan if not derived from exploitation or cruelty. Cannibalism, on that account, can be vegan or not, depending on whether all cannibalism involves cruelty or exploitation.

If you whack the Vegan Society definition into Google Scholar search, it comes up with ~50 quotations, and it's cited even more often without a quote. It's arguably the most influential definition. They had similar definitions since their foundation in 1946, and they came up with the exact wording in the 80s.

Another reason is that the Vegan Society, like the Oxford English Dictionary, do not define veganism as abstention like our lead does currently, which has connotations of ascetism. Vegans don't see themselves as ascetics. Veganism is just not using certain products. Ethical veganism is boycotting them. Some Christians like St. Radegund are vegan and ascetics, but 99% aren't, so I find "abstention" quite objectionable. (OED: restraint in one's consumption; abstinence. "alcohol consumption versus abstention") Trimton (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Vegan Society definition is better. With the current definition in this article, someone could be led to believe that hunting for sport is vegan.Countryboy603 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Trimton, I've realized that you've laid bare personal positions on this page that have been contrary to other users' opinions. Look at archive 18. You made an "abstain" argument in October 2020. Did you take any of the opposing arguments on board? What about in the discussion above us, from March 2021, where reasons to not give the Vegan Society definition more prominence were provided? You want the first sentence changed, but you don't seem to be hearing people who say it shouldn't be changed. Why didn't you join the March discussion? Why did you make the human breast milk thread another circular argument about removing "abstain" or dismissing dietary vegans? Are you going to keep pushing for your beliefs at this talk even as you acknowledge the many prior discussions about this that resulted in an overall agreement that opposes your position? No POV, please. I find that I agree with Psychologist Guy, Randy Kryn, etc. about the first sentence.

Yuck, I don't find that I agree that cannibalism "can be vegan or not, depending on whether all cannibalism involves cruelty or exploitation", mostly because I was thinking of human cannibalism rather than the general cannibalism seen in nature, but it's off-kilter to argue about it. I used it as an extreme example. ApproximateLand (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I was unclear. To answer your question about "nonhuman", I would add it for precision, ApproximateLand. WP:MOS advises against vague language. But since you were asking about refs: authors like Francione and Vegan Society themselves call nonhuman animals simply animals .

All I meant to propose is "not use" instead of "abstain". I don't think the archived discussions touch on this word choice? By "given more prominence", I meant the Vegan Society definition should be mentioned in lead section before history, (not as a definitive of veganism though). The V.S. definition would in my view help readers understand ethical veganism better. As I explained, it is an influential definiton. Of course yes, there are vegans that don't follow the Vegan Society definition. As you say, there are dietary vegans (végétaliens). One could add vegans that don't think of animal use as exploitation. Trimton (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You said it: "authors like Francione and Vegan Society themselves call nonhuman animals simply animals." Everyone predictably just says "animals" when they don't mean our species. Even when refs use "non-human", the usual purpose is to preface "animals" rather than "animal products." I don't think the Vegan Society definition should be at the top of the page. The recent users (with one guy now blocked[8][9]) complaining about dietary vegans and whatnot tells me that doing that would cause more problems than any it could solve. ApproximateLand (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok and what about "abstaining" to "not using"? Is there any reason that would justify the current connotations of abstinence? Trimton (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Feeding human babies human breast milk is a natural process, which ends when the mother decides. Veganism, as a life and dietary choice, is made by the individual themselves but not when they are babies. People who continue drinking milk or eating milk products, usually from a cow or goat, once they are weaned, may come to a point of questioning that choice, which is where the definition of 'vegan' comes into play. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? It debates whether ice cream made from breast milk is vegan-friendly or not.--Countryboy603 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving all references to vegetarianism to the main article: Vegetarianism

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

---

Veganism and Vegetarianism are, in practical terms, unrelated subjects. In contrast to vegetarianism - veganism is not simply a diet, a health fad, or a casual lifestyle.

Veganism is an All-or-Nothing proposition, a Worldview and an Ethos. The primary principle being non-harm.

Vegans stricly consume only plant-based food and products (including shoes and clothing) which use no animal sourced materials anywhere in the manufacturing process. The priciple applies to everything which a vegan owns or uses, including cars (no leather in upholstery, gear levers..), musical instruments ( no animal bone, hide glue, shellac, or gut strings..), and so on. Anyone who does not meet this criteria is not a vegan.

Vegetarianism, by comparison, can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Persons who (in addition to vegetables and fruits) also consume dairy products (lacto-vegetarian), and may also eat fish (pesco-vegetarian), or eggs (ovo-vegetarian) and still call themselves vegetarian. Therefore the concept of vegetarianism is untenable for vegans. Vegans regard vegetarianism as hipocricy, as the dairy industry is an inseparable partner of the death industry. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC) NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far in removing absolutely all mention of vegetarianism but I agree that there is too much of it. The "Vegetarian etymology​" section does not belong on this article and most of the history section is on the history of vegetarianism not veganism. I think we should remove that content. I think we should start the veganism section by talking about proto-vegans like Al-Maʿarri, William Lambe, Amos Bronson Alcott etc. These are already mentioned on the article but much other early history is missing. I would like to read about early vegans on the article, not early vegetarians. We have an article on the history of vegetarianism for that off-topic content. The history section should cover the history of veganism and contain more information about the creation of the Vegan Society and forgotten vegans like Georges Butaud who was doing veganism in 1920s France. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The current state of the article is an atrocity agaist veganism. I reads like a bloody vegetarian cookbook. In fact it's really more of an extention of the article on vegetarianism than it is about veganism. It's quite enough to include the "vegetarian" reference within the vegan society history, which began as a vegetarian society. Also a cross link between the articles veganism and vegetarianism. This article needs to act as a hub for the vegan principles, not vegan recipes. Veganism is not about cooking, or diet, it is strictly an ethical worldview, where plant-based food is only a consequence and not the primary issue. Non-harm is the fundamental issue~ Also there is only one form of vegan, all true vegans are ethical vegans. By all appearances, the article bears all the signs of sabotage, possibly by anti-vegan lobby groups. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, no offense intended, but I pose a serious question: How can you expect us to tell people about vegan history or etymology without talking about vegetarianism, which, as a subsequence, would damage the background information for this page? If I have it right, you're asking us to ax germane history information and the information (e.g., health) that compares the diets even though refs compare them?

Don't we all know the diets and their histories have entanglement because veganism branched from vegetarianism? From the Vegetarian Society sec,[10] the passage "Lacto-vegetarians acknowledged the ethical consistency of the vegan position but regarded a vegan diet as impracticable and were concerned that it might be an impediment to spreading vegetarianism if vegans found themselves unable to participate in social circles where no non-animal food was available." has more to do with veganism than vegetarianism. Four lines from the vegan etymology sec[11] say that The word vegan was invented by Watson and Dorothy Morgan, a schoolteacher he would later marry. The word is based on "the first three and last two letters of 'vegetarian'" because it marked, in Mr Watson's words, "the beginning and end of vegetarian". The Vegan News asked its readers if they could think of anything better than vegan to stand for "non-dairy vegetarian". They suggested allvega, neo-vegetarian, dairyban, vitan, benevore, sanivores, and beaumangeur.

Everything taken together, Psychologist Guy and I are of like mind. I think we should ax the vegetarian etymology​ section and cut most or the entirety of the history section and move the rest to the vegetarianism page if it's missing that information. But all of the information in the vegetarian society and vegan etymology sections should stay because those are the origins. I also think the vegan etymology section should be renamed "Vegan Society" because the section's focus isn't etymology alone. The rename would also be a nice transition name from "Vegetarian Society" before it.

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, your belief that that veganism "is not simply a diet" has a discussion section ("This article is misrepresenting veganism") on this page. Please discuss that there. ApproximateLand (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We can discuss it in the "This article is misrepresenting veganism" section if you prefer. Veganismn is not a diet, it is an ethical worldview. Plant based food is only a consequence of the ethos. This is the consensus of the vegan movement, and not only my point of view. This article must be clear ad concise. Also, be aware of the 3 revert daily limit, you are approaching it. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You can check the archives and refs provided. You can then read WP:CON, because the general agreement among editors opposes you. The 3 revert daily limit, OK. You shouldn't try to game it. ApproximateLand (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ApproximateLand's and Psychologist Guy's approach the article can be trimmed in places selectively as they suggest, not ripped to pieces. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ApproximateLand, this is the place for discussion on improving the article, so let's talk about improving it, without heated argument. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You are pushing your personal beliefs onto the page, aren't willing to listen to arguments contrary to yours (in fact, you only want a select group editing it),[12] and are gaming WP:3RR.[13] What's there to talk about, except that the admins made a big mistake unblocking you? ApproximateLand (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ApproximateLand, clearly we do not share the same opinion. If this talk page is going to be a clash of opinions, then I do not see how anything will be accomplished here. If you insist on having your way on the matter, then I will leave the project to you. This is not the way to achieve a consensus. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"If you insist on having your way on the matter." Gaslighting. I'm not the user forcing my edits onto the page, dismissing what others say and prior general agreement on things. You don't care for prior general agreement and you don't wait for new general agreement to form. Studying WP:CON will help you. ApproximateLand (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ApproximateLand, you are still arguing through aggression by making ad hominem attacks against me, and not discussing the issues. You have reverted the article 3 times today, violating the 3 revert rule, and accuse others of "gaming it". You insist on having your way, so have your way. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I was in the process of undoing your edit NonhumanAnimalAutonomy it is exactly you who is gaming the system and forcing your views on this page and ignoring consensus. I am definitely watching this article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney:, you claim to be an ethical vegan, and yet you betray every principle of veganism. Obviously there has never been a consensus on this talk page, which is why the article is a complete disaster. This is why there cannot and will not be a concensus here as long as non-vegans are involved. This WikiProject is doomed. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You've just come off a block where you made explicit promises to be better -- now you're making personal attacks against other editors. Guess it's time for us to go back to AN/I. — Czello 12:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I am on the receiving end of ad hominem attacks by ApproximateLand, I am not the one attacking others. There is nothing to be accomplished here, no consensus is possible with non-vegans, so I will leave the WikiProject all together. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Verbose

This article is verbose. I don't think the lead needs to be so large. Below, I've used "strikethrough" bold formatting to show the verbosity that (in my opinion) should be removed from the lead and moved to appropriate sections within the article. My reasoning is that leads should give an introduction to the article, not arguments or evidence. Somebody should be able to read the lead and "Ah, now I understand the jist of what this article is about, so now I know if I'm on the right page or if I'm on the wrong article."

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.[c] An individual who follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan. Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans, also known as "strict vegetarians", refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances.[d] An ethical vegan , also known as a "moral vegetarian", (citation needed?) is someone who not only follows a vegan diet but extends the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and opposes the use of animals for any purpose.[e] Another term is "environmental veganism", which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable.[22]

Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life, including infancy and pregnancy, by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,[f] the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council,[24] the British Dietetic Association,[25] Dietitians of Canada,[26] and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.[27] The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency—does not recommend vegan diets for children or adolescents, or during pregnancy and breastfeeding.[g] There is inconsistent evidence for vegan diets providing a protective effect against metabolic syndrome, but some evidence suggests that a vegan diet can help with weight loss, especially in the short term.[29][30] Vegan diets tend to be higher in dietary fiber, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron, and phytochemicals, and lower in dietary energy, saturated fat, cholesterol, omega-3 fatty acid, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.[h] As such, a poorly-planned vegan diet may lead to nutritional deficiencies that nullify any beneficial effects and may cause serious health issues,[31][32][33] some of which can only be prevented with fortified foods or dietary supplements.[31][34] Vitamin B12 supplementation is important because its deficiency causes blood disorders and potentially irreversible neurological damage, though this danger is also present in poorly-planned non-vegan diets.[33][35][36]

Dorothy Morgan and Donald Watson coined the term "vegan" in 1944 when they co-founded the Vegan Society in the UK.[3][4][37] At first, they used it to mean "non-dairy vegetarian."[38][39] However, by May 1945, vegans explicitly abstained from "eggs, honey; and animals' milk, butter and cheese". From 1951, the Society defined it as "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals".[40] Interest in veganism increased in the 2010s,[41][42] especially in the latter half.[42] More vegan stores opened, and vegan options became increasingly available in supermarkets and restaurants.

Notice that the modifications I've suggested remove both "the good" and "the bad" about veganism, and leaves behind a plain overview. As for the phrase "moral vegetarian", I've never heard of it, so maybe it's not part of common Australian lingo. I'm surprised to read that it's a synonym of "ethical vegan", my intuition feels they're different (yet related) terms. It absolutely needs a citation if it's a true synonym or a "commonly known as" terminology.

Another example of verbosity, one of the sections of the article currently reads:

Calcium is needed to maintain bone health and for several metabolic functions, including muscle function, vascular contraction and vasodilation, nerve transmission, intracellular signalling, and hormonal secretion. Ninety-nine percent of the body's calcium is stored in the bones and teeth.[258][259][260]:35–74

This seems irrelevant, reminiscent of an advertisement, or a precursor to a certain argument. It sounds like "Here's some information on biochemical metabolism relating to calcium. It's important. Now that you know this (about calcium), vegans get their calcium from this plant-based source and that plant-based source. They don't seem to have higher health problems…"

I think a more to-the-point way of communicating this kind of information should resemble something like: "Calcium, an essential nutrient,[1][2] is present in high concentrations in these natural (vegan) sources[3][4] and these processed (vegan) sources[5][6]". I think this style of writing is neutral, concise and encyclopedic.

I think it's better to isolate "health risks/malnutrition consequences" in its own section in this article rather than compounding it here. My reasoning is that, to pose a realistic example, if some child is interested in veganism, their parent might come to Wikipedia to address some of their concerns. Such a parent might think "How can I make sure my child gets enough calcium?" so they go to the nutritional section which, without verbosity, says "calcium is in this". The parent, being concerned, also notices a section in the Table of Contents that says "Health risks/Malnutrition". They click it, and then they read up about risks associated with veganism.

To have an organised article is to communicate effectively. Furthermore, by scaling down the quantity of information, it allows more opportunities for biased edits pushing an agenda to be noticed and removed/altered.

So. Verbosity. It's a problem. Less is best.

I don't intend to help solve the problem of editing this article, because I'm too lazy to deal with defending edits on a "controversial" topic. But these are my thoughts on what ought to happen. JKVeganAbroad (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Plant cream

"Various types of plant cream have been created to replace dairy cream, and some types of imitation whipped cream are non-dairy."

The sentence above seems to contain a bit of duplication, should it be rephrases as:

"Various types of plant cream or imitation whipped cream have been created to replace dairy cream." Jan Vlug (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Imitation whipped cream can still have milk.--Countryboy603 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Despite @Countryboy603's assertion that imitation products may still not be vegan, I agree that @Jan Vlug's suggested phrase is a much better phrasing, and does not contradict @Countryboy603's statement. "Various types…" inherently implies "some but not all", and therefore is consistent with the truth. JKVeganAbroad (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar vegan symbol

The sidebar image must be a vegan symbol, and not a bloody pizza. Displaying food is misleading, and is an insult to veganism. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you please, pretty please, stop leading with your personal beliefs and play by the rules? You know why.[14] I think the opening image[15] is a fine image. ApproximateLand (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The symbol for veganism is not a pizza. The Veganism article is not a cookbook, The vegan symbol will be restored. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I am not sure how an image of vegan pizza is "an insult to veganism". Additionally it does not say that it is the symbol for veganism, just that it is one of the "Examples of vegan dishes". Greyjoy ^talk 10:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The pizza belongs in a separate article, such as "vegan cooking". The main article should focus on animal ethics and non-harm, which is the basis of veganism, not cooking. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly your opinion, and this talk page is the place to discuss that idea and reach consensus with other editors. Greyjoy ^talk 11:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus is why we are here. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a specific image in mind that you believe would be better for the infobox? Greyjoy ^talk 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the image which replaced the pizza, until it was reverted back to the pizza. This image is the most appropriate for the article. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't find anything to indicate that this is a common symbol to represent veganism, how is this the most appropriate image for the article? Greyjoy ^talk 12:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you are not a vegan, or it would be self-evident to you that this is the primary symbol which represents the vegan movement. This is complete futility - I am leaving the project. Enjoy your pizza. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Reopening this because I'm not sure the discussion was actually resolved, rather than closed on the basis of "it was made by a POV-pusher". I can actually see where OP was coming from here. As a non-vegan with a fair amount of experience with veganism, I actually agree that the symbol previously in the article was more appropriate, and that it's widely recognizable as a symbol of veganism -- perhaps moreso than food with fake meat that can be mistaken for real meat on it. (Although the current photos are aesthetically quite nice.) Vaticidalprophet 07:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in that I have been dissatisfied with the sidebar images for a while.

1. I think that the sidebar should really highlight vegan foods without the imitation non-vegan foods. Whether the pizza is made of animal products or not cannot be determined from the image alone. As an image, it just looks like real pizza. This can be confusing especially because vegetarians can eat some pizzas made with vegetarian cheeses that vegans cannot. I also from personal experience don't think it is very representative. I don't have any data, but my impression is that vegan imitations are, with a couple of key exceptions, novelties eaten occasionally.
2. I don't think the symbol is a good. Since I don't recognize the proposed symbol nor know of any universal vegan symbols (I am a vegan for what it is worth). There is a section on vegan symbolism in the article, and I don't see the point of using a symbol in the sidebar other than to just occupy space.
3. Although I did not think of it earlier, I do think that the point about it being overly food focused is valid. However I disagree that a symbol would to anything to improve over it. Many people conceptualize veganism as solely a diet, and I don't think we should be reinforcing this conception with the sidebar image. Including an image of, for example, a textile might prompt people to think about veganism in a broader context.

In summary I would suggest a new mosaic of images, the bottom two images are fine, but I remove the top two since they both appear to have cheese. I would suggest adding a textile (perhaps cotton) and one more food which is culturally associated with veganism (perhaps tofu, beans or nuts). AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Images of food are tricky, yep most folks would think the white sprinkle on the pasta is Parmesan cheese ... but cakes usually have eggs in them and the stew could be a chicken or lamb stew. Just because some of us do not recognise a symbol does not make it bad (after all folks are probably reading this article to discover things about veganism). I think the symbol is OK, we could have a mosaic that featured the symbol plus images of Tofu beans/nuts, a package that says vegan, maybe on a non food product? etc ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

When I clicked on this article for the first time today, I was quite surprised to see the collage of food as the poster-image of this article. My impressions where as follows:

• Woah, what?
• That looks like delicious food.
• I think this image was selected for the explicit purpose of debunking a myth that vegans "eat like rabbits". Hmm. I want myths like this to be debunked, but as the poster of "veganism" seems more like advocacy than encyclopedic.
• This food representation is strongly biased towards the wealth of developed economies, many people eat plant-based diets in developing economies too.
• Where's the vegan food logo? There are many.

Of course, I'm a vegan myself, and I've seen many various vegan logos on food packaging or restaurants. @AquitaneHungerForce above said that they're vegan but they weren't familiar with vegan logos. Perhaps, rather than a collage of food, the infobox could serve as an opportunity to inform readers, vegan and non-vegan alike, of these vegan logos.

Another point to consider is that when somebody is looking for a specific page on Wikipedia, the infobox image is an instant opportunity of recognition if they've found the right article. Seeing the food collage of arbitrary food does not help this recognition process, but logos are static and recognisable. I think it's a better choice.

In Japan, this one is frequently used. In Australia, this and the following logo are common on food products:

So, as such, I agree with the motion to replace the infobox image containing "examples of vegan food" with "examples of vegan logos". JKVeganAbroad (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

---

It's been a month and a week since the last entry to this talk. Because there appears to be no more objection to the notion, I'm changing the sidebar "food collage" picture to this:

for, as @JKVeganAbroad said, it is one of the commonly used symbols/logos in Vegan products. These are the three reasons why this symbol matters:

• This symbol serves to ensure that a product is free from animal products (which is a notion closely associated with veganism);
• This symbol serves as an easily recognizable mark for people to easily find vegan products (yet another notion closely associated with veganism);
• Lastly, this symbol serves as an opportunity for people to learn about the vegetarian and vegan lifestyle (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what this veganism article is supposed to be all about).

Do feel free to revert back this edit for I am nothing but a newbie editor. However, just like any other editor, I certainly hope that the editor in question have made sure that they read all the key points mentioned in this talk page with the usual neutral judgment and good faith, and are able to provide a logical reason that the food collage is, in fact, better suited to this article than a vegan symbol would. Otherwise, they'll become the "POV-pusher" in this situation, and no one else. Thank you for being considerate. WinterFanboy🌹^TALK 08:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I support the decision to replace the food image with that vegan logo. I also support the recommendation that if the image be changed again, it should be discussed here with good reasons that the proposed image is more suitable. I doubt there are more suitable images at this point in time. — JKVeganAbroad (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I also support the use of simple vegan symbol, symbols might not be fully international but its better than questionable food images...pepperoni pizza, parmesan cheese pasta, lamb stew with dumplings and double egg chocolate brownie pudding thing . Good vegan food images can be tricky to find, as you often can not clearly see the ingredients of a dish, and veganism is more than just packets of tofu and tempeh etc. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the use of a symbol. I have already made clear that I had issues with the food and would not propose reverting this. However I don't think that there is any universally recognized vegan symbol, and for that reason I think that putting a symbol here risks misrepresentation. I think this discussion has so far been operating on the assumption that some image must be put there, however I feel that no image remains better than a unrepresentative symbol. I would encourage other users to justify the inclusion of the symbol over no image, rather than the previous food images. Since it seems that there is a consensus that the previous food images were lacking. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I know I've already said this, but I thought it might be worth re-iterating in response to your encouragement of some justification to the inclusion of a symbol over no image:

When somebody is looking for a specific page on Wikipedia, the infobox image is an instant opportunity of recognition if they've found the right article. Logos are static and recognisable, so people are likely to immediately understand that they're on the right page. Without an image, people have to read either the article's lead or read the contents of the infobox to know if they're on the right page, and that could take several discouraging seconds. So that's how I would justify the presence of having a logo... (although I genuinely feel based on my anecdotal existence that the current symbol in use is highly recognisable in countries where the word "vegan" is part of the common tongue.) — JKVeganAbroad (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I support using the symbol because most people will associate it with veganism, more so than the photos of food. There's no rule that says symbols included need universal recognition (compare Pansexuality) but there is a good argument against showing only food in that dietary veganism is just one aspect of veganism. I'd support the addition of food and other vegan items such as cosmetic articles or shoes along with the symbol. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 22:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Support The vegan logo is universally accepted by vegans so this is an easy vote in my book, those pizza and other foods items were not good quality photographs and may have mislead readers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dyaluk08 - I was reviewing the changes you made recently to this article. Can I query a couple of your changes please?

• I don't see the word 'exponentially' appearing in any of the sources (but I may have missed it). Contrary to what many journalists seem to think, exponential growth has a specific meaning, it's not synonymous with 'rapid growth' or 'substantial growth' - we shouldn't use it unless it's clear that the growth has actually been shown to be expoential.
• This edit strikes me as WP:EDITORIALISING, and it isn't supported by the cited source; even if it were to be supported by a separate citation, would still be inappropriate WP:SYNTH - that's not how we introduce appropriate balance.

I've reverted these particular changes; feel free to reinstate the 'exponential' word if it's credibly supported by one of the sources that I've missed, or use a different word; please don't reinstate the second change without further discussion. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Definition of veganism

Hi, I believe the explanation of veganism is fairly flawed. The definition of veganism should begin by stating that it is a philosophy versus a diet. If you eat a plant based diet that does not mean you care about animals, which is what veganism is. A vegan for example could consume animal products if those products were produced without animal exploitation, e.g. lab grown meat (without use of bovine serum), or by consuming road kill. A vegan could dumpster dive and consume the animal products that were thrown out (there is of course more debate here, for example one could argue that there is an obligation to donate these animal products to reduce economic meat demand). A vegan could buy second hand leather as it does not further exploit animals (though it is debated and mostly condemned).

I would refer to the vegan society for a definition: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Compare this to the current wiki definition:

"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.[c] An individual who follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan. Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans, also known as "strict vegetarians", refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances.[d] An ethical vegan, also known as a "moral vegetarian", is someone who not only follows a vegan diet but extends the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and opposes the use of animals for any purpose.[e] Another term is "environmental veganism", which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable"

There are many areas to criticize ->

"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products (only if you cannot source animal products void of exploitation. It should begin by stating that it is a philosophy that excludes animal exploitation as far as possible and practicable), particularly in diet (it currently includes diet because it is hard to source animal products void of exploitation, but it is not the definition of veganism), and an associated philosophy (it is not an associated philosophy, veganism is a philosophy, it should rather state that a plant based diet is an associated diet) that rejects the commodity status of animals.[c] An individual that follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan (a plant based dieter is not a vegan, you can eat exclusively plants without being a vegan, this line can be removed or changed to clarify that a plant based diet is not veganism). Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans (there is no such thing, veganism is a philosophy. A plant based diet could be mentioned here, but differentiated from veganism), also known as "strict vegetarians" (very uncommon phrase, it was used several times in old nutritional studies. It does not require this clarification in the intro), refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances.[d] An ethical vegan (there is no such thing, that is what veganism is), also known as a "moral vegetarian", is someone that not only follows a vegan diet (needs to be changed to plant based diet) but extends the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and opposes the use of animals for any purpose.[e] Another term is "environmental veganism" (there is no such thing again, veganism is a philosophy. This can include plant based dieters for the benefits of the environment, but going plant based for the environment does not entail caring for animals, which is what veganism is. For example environmental plant based eaters commonly argue for sustainable forms of animal products, such as sustainable fishing), which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable"

I would argue nearly the whole paragraph is incorrect and irrelevant e.g. most of the phrases used here are never used and are misleading. RBut (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

RBut, do you have any independent scholarly sources supporting that view? The Vegan society is an advocacy group, and a primary source for our purposes. What do reliable secondary sources say? Girth Summit _(blether) 21:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

From the wiki article it says The Vegan Society coined the term "vegan", but they do not get to dictate what it means to be a vegan? RBut (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

RBut, correct. They may have been the first people to use the word, but they don't own the word: it has passed into common usage, and we follow the secondary sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I guess that's how the Kleenex guy must feel. RBut (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RBut, meh - I guess it's similar, but Kleenex is a trademark-protected brand name for a commercial product, whereas vegan/veganism was a word coined by some people to describe a diet/lifestyle/philosophy that they were trying to promote. The initial use of the word is of course relevant (and it is already discussed in the article), but their successors don't get to define how the word is used and understood for evermore. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

tallow is cow fat. it's not the fat of any random animals

O Syedalibangbang (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Syedalibangbang, that's not what Tallow says. You'll need some reliable sources to support this view. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes tallow refers to goat/sheep fat too, but it's still not the fat of random animals. 119.160.119.85 (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

other areas of their lives

I'm not convinced that this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&diff=0&oldid=1039150396 is an improvement. I think that the original version is clearer. The key point is that veganism is not only applicable to food, but also to for example clothing, furniture, i.e. other areas of their lives. Jan Vlug (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I will change it to the original. RBut (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Veganism and COVID

In regard to this [16], the media actually slightly misrepresented the study for example [17]. The study can be found here [18]. The study does not use the term "vegan" but "whole foods plant-based" but they combined those results with the vegetarian diet.

To increase precision, we analysed three dietary patterns after combining dietary patterns that are similar in terms of dietary intake. We combined ‘whole foods, plant-based’ diets and ‘vegetarian’ diets into one category (‘plant-based diets’, n=254). Then, we combined ‘whole food, plant-based’ diets, ‘vegetarian’ diets or ‘pescatarian’ diets into another category (‘plant-based diets or pescatarian diets’, n=294) to test if a spectrum of plant-based diets which include animal products are associated with COVID-19 severity. Due to the small number of cases (nine cases of moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 40 COVID-19 cases), we could not analyse pescatarian diets separately. We used plant-based diets to encompass plant-based diets and vegetarian diets, given that vegetarian diets are considered a subset of plant-based diets which minimise consumption of animal products (meat, fish, dairy).

In regard to the results the study found that "participants who followed plant-based diets had 73% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19... Similarly, participants who followed either plant-based diets or pescatarian diets had 59% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 compared with those who did not follow these diets." But the study basically lumped whole food plant based diet (vegan) with vegetarian diet (who consume eggs or dairy). Because of the combined results I don't think we can say that vegans were exclusively 73% less likely to develop severe symptoms from COVID-19 because that is original research. I don't doubt that vegans and vegetarians are less likely to develop severe symptoms of COVID because as the study reported these diets are higher in vegetables, legumes and nuts and its advocates are not eating shite like processed meats but not enough research has been done on this topic to separate the diets, they have not been isolated. I suspect the results would be similar for flexitarians or those who eat the Mediterranean diet. These results are not exclusive to veganism so I don't think they should be reported on this article, especially when some of the media sources have misrepresented the study. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps with the appropriate changes this material can be moved to the Plant-based diet article. Thoughts?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Vegan Logo in infobox

The current logo used for veganism in the infobox is the symbol used for vegetarian products (used by EVU for their trademark V-label). Why would we support one trademark instead of another. Some profit economicly from this. I would argue there is not one symbol for veganism and would leave it out of the article. I don't know how to change the infobox. If someone could, thank you. Timelezz (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Timelezz: they look different to me:

Vegan_friendly_icon.svg

File:European Vegetarian Union Logo.svg If you want a new image in the {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}, what would you propose to replace it? --awkwafaba (📥) 11:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the image necessarily needs a replacement. If there is no suitable symbol which widely and properly represents veganism than no symbol should be used at all. Using a incorrect or non-representative symbol on something as widely used and referenced as wikipedia risks influencing the way the public sees these things. If we don't have a neutral, representative symbol than no symbol is certainly preferable. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I also do not think we need to change the symbol, it may well be one of several Vegan certifying organisations internationally, with similar logos, I do not think the is a problem with selecting one. If folks think the is then this could be a radical alternative.

V for Vegan

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well-planned versus appropriately planned

{Edit semi-protected}} I wanted to quickly make a correction in the article, but as it is semi-protected I must bring it up here first. This section of the article is referencing the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. In the abstract the phrase used is "appropriately planned," not "well-planed." There is an important difference in connotation here as as "well-planned" implies a high degree of difficulty, when in reality this is simply not the case. Anyone who is vegan will tell you that it really is hardly any different from being non-vegan. We should update the article's phrasing to more accurately reflect the source material being cited. ReasonVEVO (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Intro to section on health

I have tried to make the intro more balanced. It used only half of the abstract of the cited paper (only the cons, leaving out the pros). If we cannot decide to give a balanced view I will delete this intro as all nutrients are dealt with in the following sections anyways. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:NOABSTRACT applies here, as that paper's abstract is not a proper summary of its content - in particular in blending correlation and causality. I am also concerned about WP:CLOP, and - even more - why we are using a paper from 2009 for this. Surely there's newer and WP:MEDRS directs us to look for stuff within the last five years. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have taken the time to think it through a little and here are some points we can discuss. The vegan nutrition profile differs from other diet forms and so do the health benefits and risks respectively; as does the amount of evidence. This cannot be summarized with either "a vegan diet has health benefits" nor "has no health benefits". So I would suggest not to give any such summary at all.

However, if we think we need a summary it should at least make the following points

• A vegan diet composed of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds
• that is low in unhealthy ... fats, processed foods etc...
• is considered to be a healthier option than the standard american diet
• if supplements for vitamins/minerals ... are taken.
• However there is no evidence that a healthy vegan diet is more healthy than a diet low in red meat and saturated fats.

This would reflect the current literature that more and more tries not to talk about "the vegan diet" but about healthy eating patterns measured in indices. Anyways, I think it's to hard a task to sum this up in a good way. So my suggestion is to not give an overall summary. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow the sources, is what I say. If they think it can be summed-up, that good enough for Wikipedia, which operates by reflecting what reliable sources say, not the POV of editors! Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Add) Oh, I see you are now revert-warring to remove the content.[19] Let's see what others say. I have posted at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's look into some more detail here.

• The sentence I deleted goes: "Few studies have reported the health benefits of vegan diets and therefore no conclusive evidence can be proposed. here. The authors refer to this and this to support their claim. To be honest, I cannot see, how the latter articles support the claims of the authors, as these articles do in fact see evidence for health benefits.

• On the other hand we have the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada. For them the evidence is clear since 18 years and they claim: "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." here

All I'm saying is, we cannot use the first claim and leave out the latter. In my view no general claim should be made at all, because health benefits and risk depend on the nutritional profile, which will leave you with health benefits for one thing but health risks for another. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The statement is not particularly contradictory since "certain health benefits" are accepted knowledge and discussed in this very article, as are the various health disadvantages. The overall modern conclusion cannot be deleted based on a synthetic over-interpretation of a source from 2003! Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The authors refer to this and this to support their claim. To be honest, I cannot see how the latter articles support the claims of the authors, as these articles do in fact see evidence for health benefits. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia follow, the views of reliable sources or the view of editors who "cannot see" (because of bias?) ? Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the source you quote is not very reliable to make such a huge claim that contradicts a position that the American Dietetic Association holds since 18 years. Your source deals very briefly with vegan diets and makes a claim that it only backs up very shaky with other sources. If you want a big claim, you need big sources, that's what Wikipedia's principles say. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Science moves forward, and WP:MEDRS directs us to ensure our content is up to date. As I already said, in any case, the sources are not contradictory. If you going to claim a recent review article in a reputable MEDLINE-indexed journal is "not very reliable" you will need some objective evidence. It seems to me you are just POV-pushing and casting around for sources to push a POV, and this is pretty much your MO here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The ADA statement is up to date, because it was not updated. That's how dietetic associations operate. If there is no new and conflicting evidence these associations do not change their positions. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Except a later version takes[20] the more cautious view that such diets only "may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". Why are you deleting recent sources on the basis of over-readings of what outdated, 18-year-old, sources said? Alexbrn (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We can use the updated version and thus latest position of the ADA as intro summary. Tischbeinahe (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

So long as we also include the recent science clarifying there's no good evidence of overall benefit, that's fine. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the title of the paper it only looks into CVD. The authors look into different dietary patterns and their health benefits for CVD. So if you want some general summary on all health benefits that is more up to date than the ADA, what do you suggest we use? Tischbeinahe (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The title of the paper is CVD, but the content is wider-ranging. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Have mentioned this discussion at the veganism-vegetarianism WikiProject. Hopefully editors there know of relevant sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• As of 2021 the medical literature on CVD and vegan diets is lacking. Recent Cochrane review "There is currently insufficient information to draw conclusions about the effects of vegan dietary interventions on CVD risk factors" [21] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Psychologist Guy, I have added the Cochrane review. Tischbeinahe (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Vegan

As the b12 supplement was able to produced by man until 1944 i seriously doubt anybody before then could have survived on a vegan diet, that's just one supplement as vegans need many other supplements and no archeology has ever unearthed any evidence of a vegan diet in any of the homo species. 2A02:C7F:6893:6700:493F:D6BA:8FFA:16BB (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

B12 deficiency was first described in 1849. B12 was discovered in 1926 and first isolated in 1947 or 1948. There are some historical examples of people living into old age on a vegan diet before B12 supplements were available. Two examples are Al-Ma'arri and William Lambe who both lived to their early 80s. This talk-page is for article improvements. Unless you have a reliable source for your claims then it is not relevant for the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dietetic associations have been misrepresented on this article

The article contains the following text "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada state that properly planned vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy and lactation.[252] The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council similarly recognizes a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age,[26][253] as does the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[254] British National Health Service,[255] British Nutrition Foundation,[256] Dietitians Association of Australia,[257] United States Department of Agriculture,[258] Mayo Clinic,[259] Canadian Pediatric Society,[260] and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.[261]

This is a name drop of various dietetic and government associations but if you take a closer look and examine some of the references they do not support vegan diets for all life stages nor mention anything to do with age. Just two examples (we can go through them all), Mayo Clinic is sourced to this link [22] which is on vegetarian diets, not vegan. It does mention vegan diets but it does not recommend them or mention anything to do with age and vegan diets, it even says "Vegans may not get enough iodine and may be at risk of deficiency and possibly even a goiter."

New Zealand Ministry of Health is sourced to this leaflet on vegetarian diets [23]. The leaflet is not on veganism and only mentions vegan a few times such as "Vitamin B12 deficiency is a serious condition with non-reversible effects. This is most likely to occur in periods of rapid growth, in pregnancy and when breastfeeding. Vegans are advised to have their vitamin B12 status assessed regularly by their doctor." Remember both these sources are cited on the Wikipedia article as "recogniz[ing] a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age". This is completely false, they do not such thing. From what is cited on the article if you actually read the sources, few of the dietetic associations advise a vegan diet for any age or all stages of life.

In the above discussion there has been strong mention about the American Dietetic Association (ADA) supporting vegan diets for all stages of life. I would point out the ADA statement does not represent every dietetic association in the world and much of the paper is on vegetarianism, not just vegan diets. The 2009 version appears to be the most 'recent' (over 10 years out of date) and it is online in full [24]. If you scroll down to the bottom to see who actually wrote the paper it was Reed Mangels. This is not a neutral party. Mangels is a well known vegan activist who writes vegan cookbooks. She is listed as a "nutrition adviser for the national, non-profit Vegetarian Resource Group and the nutrition editor and columnist for Vegetarian Journal. She is the co-author of Simply Vegan (with Debra Wasserman)", she currently works for the website "vegan health" [25]. The other co-author is Winston J. Craig he is a well known vegetarian activist. Now look at the section below at the "reviewers" of the paper which lists about 7 names. You can Google search these names and they are vegan or vegetarian activists. For example Cathy Conway is an adviser for the "Vegetarian Resource Group" [26], Mary Hager worked as a consultant for the Vegetarian Times, Tamara Schryver describes herself on her blog as a vegetarian [27]. None of this conflict of interest is disclosed. You would have thought they would have gotten some neutral reviewers but it didn't happen.

The source seems to have been cherry-picked because it supports vegan diets for any age but it needs to be known that this is a highly biased source with a massive conflict of interest. The authors and reviewers of the paper are all vegans and vegetarians, they are hardly going to present a balanced overview of the subject are they? In conclusion there is misinformation, misrepresentation and dishonesty in the "Positions of dietetic and government associations" section on the article. The deeply biased ADA do support vegan diets for all stages of life but many of the others cited do not. I suggest we go through these one by one, because most of the references cited in this section are on vegetarian diets, not specifically vegan. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

How could any nutritional authority claim that *any diet that depends upon how it is practiced* would always (regardless of how wisely it is practiced) bring better health (to the practitioner)? I think that the core variable is how the diet is practiced. Someone consuming adequate nutrition through health supporting foods but adding lots and lots of desserts and 'recreational foods' (albeit vegan-compliant foods) would overconsume calories (a macronutrient) and have the results of overconsuming calories. Further, the exercise variable is not often included in describing dietary types. What we can see is that are no shortages of illustrations of the feasibility (proof of concept) of doing well and maintaining individual health on well-designed vegan diets; there are also (I believe) many illustrations of persons doing poorly on diets described as fully 'plant-based' which don't follow the best guidance on how one can live wisely and well. Avoiding tobacco and alcohol may contribute toward health; better health on vegan diets may or may not correlate with educational and professional/vocational achievements. Using 'may' could be cautionary. Further, that one can live on totally plant-based diets without damaging the ecosystem as much is an interesting line of argumentation that may emerge in the shadow of frustration with 'health only arguments' for such diets. MaynardClark (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact the new source pmid:31250769 has a fair bit on environmental considerations. If an important aspect which should be covered (if not quite on point for the current discussion). Alexbrn (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

United States Department of Agriculture is sourced to this link [28] which is on vegetarian diets. Again, I believe this is a failed citation. It does not support the claim that a vegan diet is suitable for all ages and stages of life. My understanding of this topic is that there is a lot of medical literature of vegetarianism but much less on veganism. Most of the dietetic associations or health organizations have acknowledged benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets but they have not all endorsed a vegan diet for all ages. We need to update the article and clarify this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(a) Secondary research (the kind used by journalists and authors and preparers of graduate theses) may be in order to see what has already been studied on this topic. If there is nothing, we can state that; however, I don't see how we could possibly state that something does not exist without our looking for it.

(b) Second, concerns for dietary superiority are not identical to concerns ethical vegans have about how far they could safely 'live by humane values'. Maybe the topic needs to be reorganized and the section rewritten.

(c) Finally, comparing WFPB (whole food plant-based diets, NOT the average dietary practice of professing vegans) with 'the alternative' (SAD or MAD - Standard American Diet or Modern American Diet) as the public 'practices' eating is likely to be more statistically relevant, I would (tend to) think.

(d) 'Can it be done - wisely and well' is IMO a more relevant ethical concern - IF the destruction of unconsenting sentient beings - FOR socially constructed human purposes (often socially constructed social purposes - holidays, recreational food, etc. - seldom evidence-based as the general public has received them) is defensibly a reasonable TYPE of moral consideration. Rewriting the article would need to better digest the intellectual profundities and sprawling intellectual diversity of its moral concerns. (MaynardClark (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"I don't see how we could possibly state that something does not exist without our looking for it." ← you're aware of core policy on this, presumably? Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you suggest? MaynardClark (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Simply that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of veganism. I'm not even sure what you are saying doesn't (or does) "exist". Alexbrn (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Talking of misrepresentation, ‎Tischbeinahe has just misrepresented a 2018 PloS One article (not a great source in any case) as being from 2021 in order to "trump" a 2020 source. This continues this editor's pattern of careless/problem editing. Alexbrn (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is an interesting discussion. The main question it leads me to is this: Are nutrition advocacy and personal nutrition choices really a conflict of interest for a nutritionist? Isn't it their job to identify the best nutrition practices, advocate for them, and to practice what they preach? I suppose there is momentum that builds in any scholarly career, where the researcher fares better if they stick to their current viewpoint. That's true in any field. Regardless, I'm not seeing any specific changes that need to be made based on these considerations, although I do think information about the dietary practices of diet experts is worth including in many cases; after all, that is pertinent information for a diet article! Jmill1806 (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn there has been misrepresentation of sources, its obviously quite a controversial topic and I believe much of it is irrelevant for this article because this article is not on nutrition, the section is obviously undue. I find the vegan nutrition section problematic. I propose a merge solution, please see below for what I propose and let me know if you think it is a good idea. Jmill1806 I believe moving most of the nutrition content (not all) to the vegan nutrition article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

History

This has previously been discussed several times and users did agree to this but it was never carried out. I would like to re-write the "history" section and remove the off-topic material about the history of vegetarianism. There is a history of veganism. I would like to re-write this section and include only history of vegans. Some of the earliest vegan history was in France. For example, Georges Butaud and Sophie Zaïkowska. There is no reason to be citing off-topic material about "Vegetarianism can be traced to Indus Valley Civilization in 3300–1300 BCE in the Indian subcontinent" etc. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This would tremendously improve the article. I wrote the history section for the WP:DE Version but had trouble finding good sources (WP:DE is much more rigid when it comes to sources). Maybe I was missing something but the main usable sources were Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz: Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism and Leah Leneman: No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain. In addition we had a German source on the history but it was more of an essay not a scientific source. So maybe a good point to start is to first compile and agree on reputable sources? Tischbeinahe (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Over the last two years I have done extensive research on historical vegans. I have found about 100 people from different periods of time who ate no animal products at all, some of these people tried to create communities and attain followers, others were hermits or associated with eccentric religious ideas. Such people are sometimes termed "proto-vegans" (I have listed some of these people check the Veganism WikiProject), but there has been no scholarly coverage of all these people as a historical overview only isolated sources that cover them individually. Off-site I am interested in history and I aim to author a paper on this topic at some point and collect information about all such people. I have added quite a few to Wikipedia. If we are talking about the first "movement", veganism originated in France and there were communities of vegans. This pre-dates anything to do with Donald Watson and the Vegan Society. Unfortunately most modern vegans do not know the history of veganism and some get very aggressive about it (such as the banned troll Iyo-Farm who created sock-puppets on the Vegan Society article and claimed on about 30 accounts that veganism is only an animal rights philosophy), they claim veganism is only an ethical philosophy and it has nothing to do with diet. From a historical viewpoint if we want to be factual this is not true because most of the earliest vegans (proto-vegans) had nothing to do with animal rights and had no interest in helping animals, they were dietary vegans or doing it for other reasons. You can learn more about this if you look up the term "végétalien". This French word means vegan but it had been in use far before Donald Watson coined the term vegan in 1944. It is sometimes stated that Dr. Jules Lefevre coined the term [29] but it predates his use.

There is even an older history of veganism that predates the use of vegetalian. The term "légumiste" was used to describe someone who eats a vegan diet (there is an interesting website that covers that here [30], again the history of veganism had nothing to do with animal rights, it was mostly dietary. This has now changed because veganism is a philosophy and a diet but it never used to be that way. I don't plan on mentioning 100 proto-vegans on this article because that would be far over the top, but a few paragraphs about some of these individuals and communities is due in my opinion. Instead of collecting sources here I will draft some paragraphs into the Veganism and Vegetarianism joint sandbox over the next week or so because I do have sources (some are in French). What I am proposing is not actually controversial it is just some early history so I am sure there won't be any objections. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I share the same view on the history of dietary vs animal rights veganism. The latter might probably have peaked in the 1990s. But for the baby boomer generation it often is still the one and only thing that shapes their image of veganism. It would be great to see the article correct this scewed view on veganism. I think the approach to take on single proto vegans might work and is probably the only viable way in lack of other sources. Tischbeinahe (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hlc63.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Zampelas 2020

This source is not a general assesment of all health related issues of vegan diets:

• The title of the paper is "Dietary patterns and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a review of the evidence"
• The objectives of the paper are "To determine the effectiveness of following a vegan dietary pattern for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD"

The paper makes absolutely no statements about bone health, mental health, inflamation markers, gut microbiom, dementia, or any other health aspect that has been researched with respect to a vegan diet.

Claiming that "The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits is inconsistent" is deliberate misinterpretation of this paper that deals only with CVD.

Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The paper is focused on CVD, but also offers wide-ranging discussion of non-CVD aspects, and a general background discussion of health effects. As it says for background, plainly:

"In addition to the vegetarian diet, vegan diet, i.e. the total exclusion of any animal-derived substance, is a pattern that has been attracting an increasing interest among the public. Few studies have reported the health benefits of vegan diets and therefore no conclusive evidence can be proposed".

And this is cited to two papers on veganism in general (not just CVD). So you're engaging in synthesis by trying to piece bits of the paper together in ingenious ways to undermine its plain meaning. Maybe there is a language problem? Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

...some cohorts contained participants predominantly from specific ethnic backgrounds, questioning generalisability of results as well as the actual effect of this pattern on CVD outcome. For example, vegetarians ... In addition to the vegetarian diet, vegan diet, i.e. the total exclusion of any animal-derived substance, is a pattern that has been attracting an increasing interest among the public. Few studies have reported the health benefits of vegan diets and therefore no conclusive evidence can be proposed. Regarding intermediary risk factors of CVD, a recent meta-analysis of seven clinical trials

The sentence you quote is clearly embedded in a discussion that is only focused on CVD. You cannot leave out this context. Do you really think the authors are talking about gut microbiom health in their statement? Or bone health? Or inflammation? These things are neither in scope of the paper itself nor in scope of the paper cited by the authors. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

They are talking about "the health benefits of vegan diets" as they say. It doesn't require Wikipedia editors to spin that. The following paragraph starting "Regarding ..." (which you show as run on text, for some reason?) shows a switch of focus to the specific. Are you an English speaker? (In your extract, you have used ellipses to elide a paragraph break, which is misleading too.) Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You keep spinning words and complain that I am not a native speaker? I think you are not familiar with medical literature. This study is only a review. Not a systematic review, nor a meta study. This means the authors did not systematically screen all existing evidence, because they did not use the methodology that is needed to do so! So they cannot make a claim about all health related aspects of a vegan diet. Tischbeinahe (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course they can. It is not Wikipedia editors' job to tell published scientists how to do their job. Per WP:MEDASSESS a review is a good source, especially for this unsurprising statement. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

They can make a statement about all health aspects even if the intention of the paper is only a specific aspect and the methodology they used is not suited for this purpose? I think we have reached a dead end in our discussion here and wait what other editors have to say. I am also willing to reach out to one of the authors so they can explain what this sentence you keep picking on means. Can you tell me a OTRS address of WP:EN that can be used to receive their reply? Tischbeinahe (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You already have the views of other editors. But you have reverted everyone. If you want to engage in private approaches to justify your strange arguments, that is not my business. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The best paper to date I have seen on vegan nutrition is [31] which is not cited on the article, it could also be used to also back up the statement "The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits is inconsistent". Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The paper you mentioned looks mainly at intake and adequacy of vegan diets. It could be used in Vegan nutrition. It should be noted that the authors only looked at European populations. Tischbeinahe (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all of the studies on this topic are done on American or Europeans populations. For example the meta-analysis on inflammation you cited on the article if you individually look at the studies they are mostly done in Europe but many of the vegetarian studies are done in Asia. That's typical of this topic. I visited Bangkok a few years ago and most of the locals I asked could not direct me to a vegan restaurant. When I finally got there, the only people eating in the restaurant were white tourists like myself. Veganism is on the rise in western populations but not in the east where meat and seafood intake is increasing every year. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. I would like to add to that that there is quite a boom of vegan food in China and Japan but that doesn't mean we have a considerable number of level 5 vegans there. Concerning the WHO paper I was more concerned with the fact that iodine and selenium are a problem in Europe (because of the soil that is low in both minderals) but not so in the US. Tischbeinahe (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have now written Zambelas to his corresponding email. Here is a copy of my mail, that I CCed to info-en@wikimedia.org. Let's see what he says.

Dear Mr. Azampelas,

I am an editor of the English language version of Wikipedia. We are currently including you study "Dietary patterns and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a review of the evidence" in the article on veganism.

Your article is summarized with the following statement: The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits is inconsistent.

However, it is my understanding that the intention of your article is to look only into CVD and not into all health related outcomes of a vegan diet. So I was wondering if the following statement would be a more accurate summary of your article: The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits with reference to CVD is inconsistent.

Thank you very much for your help.

Yeah, I messed up "with reference to" and "with respect to", but I think everybody gets the point. Best Tischbeinahe (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal for vegan nutrition

Above there has been heated discussions about content in the "vegan nutrition" section, some of the content is unreliable, outdated or misrepresented. We already have an article on vegan nutrition, I am not sure why we have so much text on this article on nutrition. For example, on this article in the vegan nutrition section we have different sub-sections on critical nutrients, vitamin b12, calcium, protein, vitamin d, iron, iodine, omega 3s etc. Why is any of this relevant for the article when we have an article on vegan nutrition? This article's "history" section is very poor. It would be great to expand text on the history of veganism and I plan to do that. I am sure readers of the article would prefer this than information about calcium or iodine.

I suggest moving all the content in the "vegan nutrition" section (all sub-sections) apart from "health effects" and "Positions of dietetic and government associations" to the vegan nutrition article where all the same content is already covered. This way there is less information on this article in that section about nutrition which to me is undue on this article. This will make the article less controversial and all the irrelevant stuff can be merged to the vegan nutrition article (which we can also improve). Please let me know if you support this or not. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Tischbeinahe (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Would be useful to streamline this article to the practice of veganism and consolidate nutrients and dietary advisories to the vegan nutrition article. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have cross read both articles and done my best to contain all information in Vegan nutrition. I have deleted everything exept for a short summary from Veganism. Tischbeinahe (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree and reverted the bold edit, this is essential information for this page and topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want a summary from the main article on vegan nutrition can you please make a suggestion on what aspects you want to have in this article. Please note that the text you reverted is outdated and the only current version can be found in the main article on vegan nutrition. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: if you want the content in this article, please copy the whole article on vegan nutrition here. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the main article on veganism, and content loses many readers when it is forked. Readers should know things like vegan diets provide enough protein (one of the main misleading criticism of vegan diets is "they don't eat protein" and that it provides almost all other nutrients. A summary at a minimum is needed, with points like the protein lack mentioned in the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Picking „educational“ aspects is misleading as all aspects on vegan nutrition are of same importance if one takes a NPOV. I also ask the other editors to revert the article back to what has been decided here. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing has been decided here, so please stop asking for an edit war. I've posted this discussion, which is far from over, at the WikiProject page. Not mentioning adequate protein intake on the veganism page doesn't seem a viable idea as it is probably the main false accusation against the vegan diet. Should actually be in the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

What you think the masses need to learn is not a NPOV on the topic. If you want a summary on veg. nutr. please provide a text. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You've done a good summary so far for what you've wanted included. But not including adequate protein intake in this page is itself POV, as it is the main criticism of vegans and veganism. Hopefully editors from the w.project can join you in editing a summary before it replaces what some editors see as an adequate and already fine page section. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This whole protein discussion is something that is currently blown totally out of proportion on social media. Speaking as a European, I have never encountered this prejudice in personal conversations nor in public media. I think you are hunting a ghost. Can you even prove that this is the only major point that „the general public doesn‘t get“? Like, with a study or something? Tischbeinahe (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The content that was merged to vegan nutrition should not have been restored on this article. We have the vegan nutrition article for the nutrition content, we don't need all the off-topic nutrition content about iodine or b12, calcium, iron etc on this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:, as you are concerned about „busting the protein myth“ (and have so far not brought forth any other arguments to include the whole section on nutrients) may I suggest we add a sentence on protein? The ADA states:

A concern that vegetarians, especially vegans and vegan athletes, may not consume an adequate amount and quality of protein is unsubstantiated. Vegetarian diets that include a variety of plant products provide the same protein quality as diets that include meat.

If we add „Adequate amount and quality of protein can be derived from plant foods alone.“ to the end of the „Critical Nutrients“ section would that help to mitigate the issue you see? Tischbeinahe (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the entire section as is per its importance to the topic but seem to lack back-up from editors. Can you edit the page as you suggest and then I'll re-edit if I can add more and see what the page looks like. The section as you envision it would probably be better higher on the page as it would be more important to the topic than much of what comes before it, and the nutrient article mentioned and linked in the lead. Thanks for the ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:, it took me some time, but I have finally edited the paragraph. I have included a statement from the A.N.D. about vegans getting enough protein. I have also added a sentence to make a transition to Vegan nutrition but it may sound a bit clumsy to native speakers, so maybe you find something more elegant. I have left a comment in the source code to show what part can -- from my point of view -- be deleted. Please let me know what you think and if we can proceed with deleting the now redundant information about vegan nutrition from this article. Tischbeinahe (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn: Tischbeinahe (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn: I have now delete the redundant sections. Please let me know if you think we need anything else in this article. I am open to further improve the summary section or explicitly mentioning specific nutrients of concern if you think that is needed. Tischbeinahe (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Vegan athletics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vegan athletics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Vegan athletics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Edenic Diet" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Edenic Diet and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Edenic Diet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Junk food vegan" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Junk food vegan and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Junk food vegan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

lots of repetition

this article has a lot of repetition that could be removed/moved to dedicated sections/articles 41.133.68.216 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has witdrawn its position paper

It is assumed this is to update the paper, but whatever the reason, the reference to that endorsement should either have a caveat written with it, or it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.76.245 (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This is misinformation that is being promoted on unreliable carnivore diet and other anti-vegan YouTube videos. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has not withdrawn their position paper on vegan or vegetarian diets. It's not been updated because they are putting together a new review team. Within a year the new position paper will be published. Just because a position paper has not been updated does not mean it has been withdrawn. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"Paris exemption" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris exemption and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Paris exemption until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 18:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Paris exception" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris exception and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Paris exception until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 18:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"The Paris Exemption" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Paris Exemption and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#The Paris Exemption until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 18:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

“Veganism” wiki page needs an edit or a verified source for info.

Moved from User talk:Ijenspace

Copy-pasted direct wording under “Demographics” on Wikis “Veganism” page.

“Demographics- In the United States, vegans (making up 2% of the population) tend to be middle-class, white, female-identified, educated, agnostic or atheist, and urban-dwelling.”

This has no legitimate citations other than a political opinion book called “Trump Veganism: A Survey”- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321142376. This is not a fact or verified source and is being used in a derogatory way to misguide information about true Veganism.

Based on the previous citation and wording alone, clearly it has been edited to be biased and political.

It needs to be changed to “ 1 in 10 Americans say they don’t eat meat. About 10 percent of Americans over the age of 18 consider themselves vegan or vegetarian as of January 2022. An online survey administered to 930 Americans, selected to be representative of the US population in terms of gender, education, age and income. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percent.” Citation- https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/1-in-10-americans-say-they-dont-eat-meat-a-growing-share-of-the-population/ Ijenspace (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have replaced the relevant sentence with In the United States, 1 out of 10 Americans over the age of 18 consider themselves vegan or vegetarian. I have also opted to use this source rather than the one provided since Alliance for Science took it directly from The Conversation. —Sirdog (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Selling vitamins

Stating that vegans need a steady supply of vitamins and minerals is not WP:COI, but this is medical science (mainstream science). Wikipedia does have a WP:GOODBIAS. Vegans who pretend to live without such products are simply engaging in denialism, to the extent that for them raising a child is often equal to child abuse (children need vitamins and minerals which vegetables and fruits cannot provide). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that vitamins are critical in the vegan diet and not WP:COI. Kreyren (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up, since from your edits to the article your position about selling vitamins to vegans was still unclear. Hence the notifications for discretionary sanctions. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Kreyren has been alerted of discretionary sanctions, because of their WP:Advocacy for the WP:POV that selling vitamins to vegans is WP:COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see relevant talk page A and talk page B, considered misunderstanding on my end. Kreyren (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If you suggest that you can dodge notifications of discretionary sanctions with bogus threats of WP:ANI: no, you can't. Not even Jimmy Wales can undo the fact that you have been notified of discretionary sanctions. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Please try to calm down and try to de-escalate the conflict you've iniciated, you evidently misunderstood that my contribution with cite_check is somehow motivated by denialism to the consumption of vitamins on a vegan diet which it is really not as I've pointed above that i agree that vitamins are critical in a vegan diet and not WP:COI.

What i was trying to point out with the cite_check is the evident bias by the source to influence their wording to encourage readers to buy their products that I in good faith believe violate WP:SOAPBOXING with the expected course of action being to recognize this bias and add more relevant sources and adjust the wording in the article to make the article more objective and scientifically driven.

Furthermore you are encouraged to read the chat log of #wikipedia IRC channel and recognize that your misuse of 'discretionary sanctions' is not complying with WP:Assume_good_faith and that your use of them is evidently meant as intimidatory. Kreyren (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't do IRC.

Please provide objective evidence that the article is WP:SOAPBOXING for buying vitamins from only one company, disfavoring thus other companies.

Where does our article say "Buy from here, but not from there"? That is what WP:SOAPBOXING means. It does not mean citing consensus views of dieticians.

Sincerely, I don't have any opinion whether the many citations to the British Vegan Society have to be culled or not. But I failed to notice any external links which peddle the sale of vitamins from select companies rather than other companies. If you know which those WP:EL are, please tell us.

And, to answer you evidently misunderstood that my contribution with cite_check is somehow motivated by denialism to the consumption: of course I have misunderstood your point of view, since it was not at all apparent what you mean just going by your edits. You knew you don't oppose the sale of vitamins to vegans, I had no way of knowing that you don't oppose it.

Do you understand that "BVS is linked to a third party (BDA) which is in its turn linked to two other third parties (Danone and Yakult)" is a very weak reasoning for crying WP:SOAPBOXING?

So, I say: your reasoning is very weak. Prove me wrong. And you cannot prove me wrong by merely expressing an opinion, you need to produce evidence in order to be believable.

This isn't really a conflict: I genuinely want to know what evidence is there that this article is soapboxing. Provide evidence to that extent or retract your claim, the choice is yours. Convince me, I can be persuaded. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In regard to this bizarre note that was removed [32], I am not seeing any evidence of soapboxing or promotion of the Vegan Society website to sell supplements on the article. The page on supplements [33] that Kreyren mentioned is not cited on the article anywhere so there is no promotion or soapboxing. Above this user claims "What i was trying to point out with the cite_check is the evident bias by the source to influence their wording to encourage readers to buy their products", this is clearly not the case because we do not cite such a thing. I doubt anyone who has ever read the Wikipedia article has been influenced to go over to the Vegan Society website to buy their supplements. No such link has ever been made. Sadly this same user has been making bad edits on articles such as Danone and Yakult with unreliable sources [34]. I think we can just close this and put this down to bad editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Split

Could we split this into 2 pages, one for the diet and one for the philosophy? An ethical vegan doesn't necessarily follow the diet. Countryboy603 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Why should they be lumped together in a single page? A dietary vegan couldn't eat their own fingernails since humans are technically animals. An ethical vegan could.--Countryboy603 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair, but there's already Ethics of eating meat (which is a redirect for Ethical vegan and Ethical vegetarian), while Dietary vegan redirects to the main page (Veganism). So, perhaps it would be better to expand that page (Ethics of eating meat) instead of making a new one? Just a thought. I'd think a split would require enough to justify the split, so its not an unnecessary spinoff. There have been pages like Economic vegetarianism but that has fared badly, although Environmental vegetarianism seems to a strong page in its own. Historyday01 (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been suggested before (see archives). There has been agreement not to create a new article. We do not need separate articles on this. Best to have it all in one place. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Better as one page, per Psychologist Guy. Splitting would lose pertinent topics at both. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I personally don't support a split in the page. Historyday01 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea why you think that an ethical vegan "doesn't necessarily follow the diet". I guess Christians don't necessarily follow Jesus' teachings, but Christianity is based on Jesus' teachings. The ethics of veganism absolutely requires following a vegan diet. Can you explain your rationale? Thinker78 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't make sense either. I would say that the ethics of veganism definitely requires following a diet, so I'd like to hear the rationale of Countryboy603 as well. Historyday01 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ethical vegan

I thought an ethical vegan is just someone who doesn't eat, wear, or use animal products. If someone who only avoids eating animal products is a dietary vegan, and an ethical vegan is someone who follows a lifestyle devoid of harm and exploitation, what do you call someone who avoids animal products altogether but doesn't follow the lifestyle? 2601:282:C00:ABB0:F4C9:A650:D887:71B4 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

What you described as ethical vegan and someone who followes the lifestyle you described are almost completely overlapping, if not the same, so you would call them that. Veganism always refers to harm, exploitation or killing of non-human animals. Any differences between the vegan lifestyle as you described it and an ethical vegan as you described it would proably only arise in edge cases or difficult cases that go far beyond this case, such as animal testing in medicine. Vaccines for example have to be tested on animals in certain countries, but according to [35]https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animals-and-us/202207/vaccinations-vegans-and-the-problem-moral-consistency 80% of UK vegans took at least one vaccine. Some people think veganism is a matter of "as far as possible and practical" with wiggle room (but where to draw the line?), others are all-or-nothing. All of these differences are abract, seldom or obscure that there just isn't a word to distinguish those cases. 2A00:A200:0:802:7CA1:7EA1:5624:969C (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

POV in regard to dietetic organizations

On the article in the lead is the following text "Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life, including infancy and pregnancy, as said by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,[f] the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council,[24] the British Dietetic Association,[25] Dietitians of Canada,[26] the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[27] and the Italian Society of Human Nutrition.[28] The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency—does not recommend vegan diets for children or adolescents, or during pregnancy and breastfeeding."

The same text is pretty much duplicated in the section on this article "Positions of dietetic and government associations". All health agency and organizations agree that a well-planned vegan diet is safe for adults that is not up for any dispute. However, many do not agree it is safe for infants and children.

• The Spanish Paediatric Association, French Pediatric Hepatology, Gastroenterology and Nutrition Group, German Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Italian Society of Preventive and Social Pediatrics, Italian Federation of Pediatricians, Italian Society of Perinatal Medicine, Slovenian Paediatric Society, Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium, Swiss Federal Commission for Nutrition all advise against vegan diets during infancy or childhood. You can find this information on the article vegan nutrition.

• The British Paediatric Association, European Paediatric Association, European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Croatian Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and Danish Health Authority only advise vegan diets for infants and children under professional dietetic and medical guidance or supervision (i.e. from a paediatrician).

The consensus that vegan diets is safe for infancy and pregnancy is clearly not as clear-cut as this article makes out as the majority of paediatric organizations do not recommend the diet or only support it under medical guidance. There definitely is some POV in the lead because it says "The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency". Any reader coming to this article will be under the impression that every organization in the world supports a vegan diet for children and infants and only one "non-profit organization" disagrees. This doesn't appear balanced to me and is a case of cherry-picking. Any thoughts about what to do here? Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also point out it is accepted by vegan paediatricians that there is "a lack of international consensus on the safety and desirability of such diets for infants and children." [36]. I believe the section "Positions of dietetic and government associations" should be expanded on this article and it should be made clear in the lead that there is no consensus on vegan diets for infants and children if the material about organizations is going to remain there. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think covering all stages of life is too much for this article. I would include the statements for adults as given above and make clear that they don't apply for other stages of life. Then refer to Vegan nutrition for further information on infants, children, pregnancy. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

this is ridiculous and has been debunked before IsraeliEditor54 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What has been debunked before? YouTube is not a reliable source but I watched 20 minutes of your video, the video was mostly talking about heart disease and studies on LDL, nowhere did it mention any of the paediatrician organizations around the world. It has nothing to do with the topic discussed above. It is a fact that nearly all professional paediatrician organizations around the world (especially in Europe) do not recommend vegan diets for infancy and pregnancy without dietetic advice and supervision. It would be foolish to claim this has been "debunked". See our article on vegan nutrition which is well-sourced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Without having looked at the sources, solutions could be replacing "consensus" for "many professional associations". As for the stage of infancy, the statement could be accompanied by the word "potentially". 2A00:A200:0:802:7CA1:7EA1:5624:969C (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ethical veganism vs. Dietary veganism

Hello, the current article is quick to categorize veganism into Ethical veganism vs. Dietary veganism, while I feel there are some serious flaws that need to be resolved:

1. There are not many scientific papers on "dietary veganism" and no article really has a definition for dietary veganism. It is - from the given sources and beyond - unclear whether it equals to a plant-based/plant-food diet, or that it also involves a boycott of products that are produced with use/exploitation of animals or animal-based derivatives (think of truffles, the clearing of wine, etc). The lack thereof does not feel like a legitimization to make this distinction in an encyclopedia, especially not readily in the top of the article.
2. From what I read "dietary veganism" is rather a light version of veganism where people only adopt the diet part of veganism. The main part of the article is currently written like this "light version" of veganism equals "veganism" as well. This is totally at odds with the definition of veganism given by the movement itself.
3. The article starts with "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal product—particularly in diet— ..." while the movement's definition calls "abstaining from the use of animal product" as a part of the practices of this way of living.

Can you reflect on this and suggest what we could do to improve the article? Timelezz (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

From studies that I have read about motivations of vegans it seems clear that people get interested in veganism for different reasons (health=diet, animal rights, environment, taste) and may adopt one or more of the other motivations over time. Thus, the clear-cut categorization is not based on sociological studies but on abstract reasoning, while it is unclear if this abstract categorization is useful or does reflect reality. The article could drop the categorization (or at least soften its language) and instead speak of motivations that may change or expand over time. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)