Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Davis section
A little while back, User:Viriditas changed the "ethical criticisms" section from:
To a previous version:
with the edit summary "Restoring Davis' argument. Please stop removing it." I think I was the one who changed it to the first version with the intent of making the entire article more concise. I believe the longer version of this section is unnecessary; particularly the giant list of animal species, the specific actions done by tractors, and the uber-detailing of Davis' argument. I propose reverting to the more concise version that doesn't have all the fluffing up of Davis' position, yet still retains the essential force of his argument. If readers want the full details, they can read the cited articles. KellenT 11:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody else feel free to jump in here. Obviously Viriditas and I have differing opinions on how this should be approached, so hearing from other editors is probably the only way this will get resolved. KellenT 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Pros And Cons About Being A Vegetarian Video
Jarvis criticism
I would like to remove this "criticism of vegetarianism" from the article:
Not many vegans or vegetarians ever argue that "all life is sacred" and it seems to me that the entire Jarvis attack on what he calls "ideologic vegetarianism" is based upon misunderstanding or conflation and that his critique is not really relevant to veganism, but possibly only to something like Jainism (I don't know if even that would be accurate). KellenT 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Criticisms clearinghouse
Some "criticisms of veganism." Can basically be broken down as arguments against each of the "motivations." My comments in italics.
Health:
- "Vegans don't have a balanced diet" or "vegans can't get enough of vitamin/mineral X" Dealt with in the "health effects" section
- Lindsay Allen comments. See cattlemen's section above for the full text. Summary: eat a "well planned" diet. Dealt with in "health effects" section
- "Vegan diet harms children" 2 cases: (1) vitamin deficiency is dealt with in "vegan pregnancies" (2) cases where vegan parents basically starved their children are not currently included in article; this generally not due to veganism but to non-feeding, still possibly deserves mention
Resources:
- Steven Davis crit. Basically attacks premise that a vegan diet causes less harm than a theoretical diet including meat. Included in article, haggling about wording above.
Ethical:
- William Jarvis crit attacking idea that vegans think "all life is sacred." I contend this is a strawman, but this is currently included in the article.
- Standard responses to "animal rights" or "animal welfare" ideas; animals have no ethical standing, eating animals is natural, etc Not currently included in article.
If there are other major criticisms, please add them here so they can be included. KellenT 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hypocrisy; vegans don't actually eliminate all animal products. This criticism isn't actually advanced, but it is responded to by vegan outreach quote in 'animal products' section. KellenT 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this doesn't even begin to address Criticism of veganism. Try Ecologist; Oct2001, Vol. 31 Issue 8, p20, 4p for starters. Furthermore, Dr. Lindsay Allen's [3] statements about vegan diets harming children were reported by a variety of reliable secondary sources, and represent her scientific research findings concerning 500 schoolchildren in rural Kenya. Essentially, Lindsay concluded that "animal-source foods should not be withheld from children, pregnant or lactating women." Dr. Frankie Phillips of the British Dietetic Association agreed with her findings, but Tom Sanders, head of research at the department of nutrition and dietetics at King's College, London, merely recommended caution. A related study by the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition found that 30% of UK vegans were "severely deficient" in vitamin B12. I can keep going like this. --Viriditas | Talk 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Please add additional criticisms! Thanks. KellenT 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nutrition
we need something like this:
The Vegan Six Food Groups
kel len, judging by the above dialogue (and our recent editing conflicts), you seem to aggressively control this article, are you vegan?
"sufficient amounts of all the essential nutrients" required for human health are easily obtained from the following vegan food groups
1. whole grains and potatoes: 2 - 4 (4oz) servings daily
2. Legumes: 1 - 2 (3-4oz) servings daily
3. Green: 1 - 2 (4oz) servings daily for water-soluble vitamins, and Yellow vegetables: 1 or 2 (4oz) servings every other day for fat-soluble vitamins
4. nuts and seeds: 1 - 3 (1oz) servings daily
5. Fruits: 3 - 6 servings daily.
6. Vitamin B12 and trace mineral foods: a.) root vegetables (such as carrots, beets, turnips), b.) mushrooms, c.) sea vegetables. 1 serving of each a.), b.), and c.) three times weekly
and a reliable source of B12 [see below]
this information comes from the book: Vegan Nutrition: Pure and Simple by Michael Klaper M.D. published by gentle world, inc. maui, HI 1998 vegans eat a larger variety of foods than our omni-friends, i think its important that people understand what vegans are supposed to eat. its also important that people dont think vegans are calcium deficient. the china study is sufficient proof of the fact that good vegans get all the calcium they need. we need something in there backing that scientific evidence. maybe we can talk about protein-induced hypocalciurea and dairy? i wanted to add this: "Numerous medical studies have shown that the intake of calcium on a vegan diet is entirely adequate." Following the vegan food groups , "an average of 800 to 1200 milligrams of calcium is easy to obtain" according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, "the true calcium defieiency on a vegan diet has never been reported" according to Dr. Michael Klaper of the book Vegan Nutrition Pure and Simple. Good sources of calcium include collards, kale (1 cup of either of these greens, cooked, has approximately the same usable calcium as milk), broccoli, mustard greens, swiss chard, chick peas, lentils, green peas, brazil nuts, almonds, peanuts, sunflower seeds, seasame tahini, pumpkin seeds, oats, tofu, "leafy green vegetables, watercress, and dried fruit. will somebody use this information for the page since i'm obviously not editing correctly. (starfish2)
thank you for helping me with my comments. no, i'm not dr. michael klaper. my name is genevieve and i live in california, if you have not heard of his research please look it up. like dr. ornish, dr. klaper has been a major contributor to vegan nutrition research. (by the way, you do not need to take supplements or fish oil for omega fatty acids. walnuts, flaxseeds, and hempseeds have the omega 3s 6s and 9s the human body needs for optimum health) anyway, the point is, that the above information belongs, properly cited, on the veganism page. thats all i'm fighting for. (Starfish2 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC))
reference 63 about the bone breakage in vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians is not a viable reference, because vegetarians and vegans have very different nutrient intake, AND the link is not verifiable. not even from a biological research facility library. it costs money to view the reference, making it unavailable to the public, therefore inappropriate for this article. the comment on calcium needs to be removed. its questionable, and against all the evidence I've investigated about vegans and calcium.
Health effects-from userpage
I believe the health effects section in the veganism article is discriminatory toward vegans, and what you wrote seem to go against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. It has been proven you can be a healthy vegan with B12 deficiency the only issue, so I have reverted your edits, I feel on Wikipedia the most factual information should be displayed your edit[4] to health effects on veganism was not and more anti-vegan bias--Migospia? 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You cited out of context is what I am trying to say, because many vegan websites say the only health concern is B12--Migospia? 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is very unacceptable!! I am just baffled right now for a lot of reasons one is that there does not seem to be a lot of postitive wikipedian editors to the vegan article because Kellens edits were in there a while althouh I am not the only one to revert it. If you are talking about my edit being minor it was cleary because I undid Kellens edits back to someone elses, which has been done and seems to be what is known. And just for apparent massive deletion there can be harmful, vandalism and nonesense edits editors make to artciles which are long and need removal of, personally attacking vegans in the veganism article and mentioning and basic risk frorm what I am aware does not belong on a Wikipedian article.--Migospia? 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this be renamed to "Health Concerns"? The positive health effects seem to be covered elsewhere. Maybe move them to be here, or maybe rename this section? Madeleine 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the tags added by Migospia. There is no rational justification provided by this user. --Viriditas | Talk 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Disputed Tag
In the health effects section, B12 deficiency is repeated 3 times. Ditto for most of the other alleged effects. This is POV pushing at its most insidious. Make the claim, and move on. Repeating it three times is a pathetic and bald attemp to marginalize a subgroup. Abe Froman 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I want to reiterate that the opening paragraph in which these things are first mentioned IS A SUMMARY PARAGRAPH FOR THE FOLLOWING ONES. This is why there are multiple mentions of the same issue. The wikipedia formatting may not make this entirely clear, but that is how it was written. KellenT 07:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"with poorly planned diets"
This change of:
to:
is misleading. The point of the first form is that vegans are at a higher risk of these deficiencies than non-vegans based upon their dietary choices. You could perhaps characterize them as having "poorly planned diets," but making this characterization marginalizes the facts that vegans are more likely to have low B12 and calcium intake, for example. Perhaps a wording like:
would be more appropriate since it's a comparison rather than flatly stating 'all vegans' are at risk. I'm not sure if this would satisfy the concerns of the editors who changed it or not. KellenT 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
intro changes
A chunk of changes to the intro were recently made. I'm okay with the changes to the third sentence, but since "vegan" redirects to this page, it seems to me the sentence defining the term should be in the intro. Also, quoting the vegan society was a compromise from a few months back, that seems to have kept the intro fairly stable; removing the source for the quote, while it's a little less unweildy, doesn't make this as clear and I suspect will result in further disagreement about the intro, particularly from new contributors. KellenT 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Changes to Health sections
I disagree with your changes to Health. One of the reasons for choosing veganism is health. Presumably, that would be 'health benefits'. Though there could be a 'health' category, and then 'health benefits' & 'health concerns' as sub categories. .. then even deeper sub-categories under 'concerns' for each concern. I actually started with that, but deleted it as too cumbersome. Lsi john 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
My Changes
I practice WP:BRD. be Bold, get Reverted, Discuss.
Until two days ago, I had no idea that veganism existed. (Well sort of). I knew it existed, but not really.
I'm going to be blunt, because thats how I tend to be sometimes.
The Lead was not well written and appeared to be a compromise which included things that, quite frankly, didn't need to be there. I read it, I re-wrote it, I read it again, I re-wrote it again.. and ultimately, I believe it still says everything that it said before, but in a much clearer way.
The first sentence combined what veganism IS with WHY people choose it. That was confusing and not well written. Tell the readers what it is and then tell them why. Putting the 'why' inside the 'what it is' is POV. It gently leads the reader to a desired view. Therefore, I reworded the first paragraph.
This is an article about veganism, not vegan. Whether or not vegan redirects here isn't really relevant. The article title isn't: veganism and vegans. People looking for vegan, and ending up at veganism, will figure it out. Cluttering up the lead, in order to explain a redirect, is unnecessary and redundant. Besides the fact that the definition for vegan should be obvious. Therefore, I moved the defintion to the definition section.
I added a third paragraph about health. That seemed to be a major part of this article and deserved a paragraph in the lead. I'm not tied to the words I put in the paragraph, but it seemed to be an appropriate paragraph for the lead of this article.
Also, we don't need to justify our sources. If we have to 'build up' the value of a source, by citing it in the lead, then I question whether or not we're making a POV statement. All our sources should be reliable.
I also combined the two HEALTH sections. Having them spread out like that, was.. well.. odd.
Thats my contribution for now.
Peace in God. Lsi john 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now that I've probably pissed off everyone, and had my cup of coffee, I'll change hats.
There is some good stuff in this article. There is a lot of potential here for it to be a good article.
But there is a bit of work that needs to be done first. So I suggest, and request that everyone start working together on compromise. There is room for everyone's opinion (as long as there are facts to back it up).
You have a good start here, don't get hung up in POV on any issue.
And try to keep in mind that people will be reading this article. Filling it full of statistics and facts doesn't make it readable. Its not required that you 'exactly' cite a source, as long as you 'get it right' and don't twist the meaning. Notice that I didnt put any sources in the new paragraph in the lead. Because I took that information from the article, where it's already sourced.
If someone wishes to, they can tack some sourcing to it, but as long as the original sources remain in the article below, then the material is sourced and verifiable.
Lsi john 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
BSE section
I've removed the BSE section from "health benefits." It read:
My reason for removing it is that it doesn't specifically say anything regarding veganism (although whoever added it is implying that vegans aren't subject to this threat). Also, the "citation" for Greger is just a link to the top page of his website, which provides little information. Perhaps WHO ban is relevant to the BSE article, but it doesn't appear to have much relevance here. KellenT 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Post here
Can you please show me the specific source that says being a vegan there are more at risk?--Migospia +? 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Are all of these active topics? This talk page seems to long and some may need to be archived.--Migospia +? 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- "... vegans are more likely to be at risk of cobalamin deficiency" (Waldmann et al. 2003. Homocysteine and cobalamin status in German vegans. Public Health Nutrition: 7(3), 467-472.
- "...In Western countries... the risk of vitamin B-12 deficiency for vegans may be greater." The American Dietetic Association. 1993. Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 93, Number 11.
- "[In a recent study] 58 percent of strict vegans and 34 percent of moderate vegans had a vitamin B12 deficiency, based on the concentration of vitamin B12 in their blood {this is higher than the average for omnivores}. They also had high concentrations of homocysteine [which] can be caused by a vitamin B12 deficiency...Vegans should strive for an adequate vitamin B12 intake, both to prevent vitamin B12 deficiency and to reduce risk of heart disease." R Mangels. 2006. Scientific Update, Vegetarian Journal Issue 3.
But it is tagged right and not unjustified, it says: an editor is concerned that statements of fact in this article may be misleading, I think someone better fix this section because it is misleading: The position of the American Dietetic Association is that "appropriately planned" vegan diets "are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."[44] However, vegans with poorly planned diets are at a risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12,[51] vitamin D,[52] calcium,[53][52] iodine[54] and omega-3 fatty acids.[55] These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences, including anemia,[56] rickets[57] and cretinism[58] in children, and osteomalacia[57] and hyperthyroidism[58] in adults.
I mean why is it even there and why under Specific nutrients, shouldn't there be something -http://www.vegsource.com/nutrition/pyramid_vegan.htm- there instead? It makes way more since and is not misleading nor confusing if done right. Also what is this: Precautions-Main article: Vegan nutrition, there is nothing written there or anything. You know people say you are nice and you seem like you can be, but the tone, wording and authority you use when speaking with me makes me a bit nervous and upset.--Migospia +? 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also that is not to be considered an insult or personal attack so please don't turn it around and make it seem that way I am just expressing my concerts from where I am coming from and how it all comes across because maybe you don't mean to come of so hurtful all the time--Migospia +? 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I asked for what is says specifically and what is wrote is nothing like that but I know vegans are at higher risk for B12 deficiency, but the others? And yes you are wrong, vegans are at risk but so are vegetarians and meat eaters so I don't know why single vegans out I mean in the meat or food article does it state all of what could go wrong if you don't eat right?
But if other editors feel it is needed can it be at least listed under something other than specific nutrients and also be worded differently and why mention so many diseases you can get. -Maybe something like this under Precautions:
The position of the American Dietetic Association is that appropriately planned vegan diets, "are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." However, with poorly planned diets are at a risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12, and in some rare cases vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids. These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences.
And something that explains the official vegan food pyramid like -http://www.vegsource.com/nutrition/pyramid_vegan.htm- so it could explain how you won't deficient if you follow the pyramid it makes me sense and creates less fear, but if others still feel they need the risks then at least word it differently and put under precautions or some title like that and put the pyrmaid picture and explanation under Specific nutrients or Vegan Food Pyramid. I hope that all makes sense!--Migospia +? 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Migospia
I have requested that CyrilleDunant not revert your article tag, as it is generally considered bad form to revert another editor's article content tag, provided that editor is still a registered and active editor and able to revert it themselves.
For your part, I request that you please refrain from talking about personal attacks here in the article discussion. What may seem like a personal attack to you, could simply be another editor's frustration with communication issues and vice versa. Complaining about personal attacks just distracts from the discussion and derails progress.
What I would like to know is, under what circumstances you would consider removing your {{misleading}} tag?
Specifically what content do you find objectionable and what changes would you require in order to find it acceptable?
Thank you. Lsi john 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Revert warring over an article tag is very unproductive and clearly demonstrates the level of frustration here in this article. There are several ways this can be resolved. Using revert, the resolution will be a protected article and one or more blocked users.
I recommend trying to find out the answer to my questions (above), and if that does not work, then pursuing other methods of dispute resolution.
Lsi john 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
arghh, I am trying to be nice about this and I have no idea how to respond to anything you say! And again I did NOT pesoonally attack ANYONE so PLEASE don't say I did, and like above I said the content I found misleading and as well some changes that I think should be made, but I did not attack anyone--Migospia +? 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Vegan cuisine
I think it is very important to expand this section. The article should mention notable physicians and nutrition experts like John A. McDougall, M.D. who teach "better health" through vegetarian and vegan cuisine. --Viriditas | Talk 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Times
Lsi John, why would it be POV to name the Times as the source? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent):The Times not as reliable as a science journal? I would take issue with this simplistic statement; This is the longest established independant newspaper in the world, an (English) Establishment pillar, and previously an instrument of legislative, governmental and society change (and resistance). Unless it was part of an editorial then any claim by The Times is very likely to be sourced from the scientific journals it has been poorly compared to, and written by the author of the quoted report. Very often it is by The Times that scientific theory and discoveries are taken from the closed world of the scientists and into the wider community. The Times has standards of references and citing, and editorial excellence, that this encyclopedia should aspire to. LessHeard vanU 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly care one way or the other if we mention the Times or not, but is there any guideline in the manual of style or WP:CITE that talks about this situation? My cursory glance at the MOS didn't turn up anything, but I don't usually muck about with stylistic matters. Nevermind, "it has been estimated" is weasel-wordish, I suppose that's our style guideline. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Skinwalker, I threw in 'its been stated', but I'm not hooked on the wording. I already acknowledged and suggested better wording as: "One estimate says ...".
Also, I'm not exactly sure what Viriditas meant on my talk page, but it seems that Viriditas may see 'Times' as lessening/or enhancing the value/quality of the estimate. This would, in fact, be POV. Nobody yet has stated 'why' it is necessary to include 'Times' in the statement, or what 'significant value' is added to the article by its presence.
And, as I said above, we're going in circles at this point. I only posted due to the post on my talkpage which seemed to suggest POV, though I'm not completely clear.
At this point, it got far more air-time than it needed. I reverted, SV asked for my reasons. I gave them. They were questioned, and I defended them. Either I made a good case or I didnt. Time to move on. Lsi john 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Health section
The whole health section is littered with weasel words: the vegan diet is never compared to recommended diets but with such monstrosities as the Standard American Diet or diets "rich in proteins". Which essentially amounts to saying "the vegan diet is not so unhealthy as some other diets" but phrasing it in such a way as to make it seem like a more healthy than usual diet.
also, some of the references do not concern vegan diet, but diets low in proteins, which would make for quasi-vegetarian diets, perhaps, but not vegan.CyrilleDunant 06:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Resources section
The Resources and the environment section makes the invalid assumption that any land suitable for animal farming is also suited for crop production. Some farm animals such as sheep and goats can graze in areas where crop production would be impractical.(Kirtai 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC))
Vegan Food Pyramid
I think there should be a little section on the Vegan Food Pyramid with a picture/diagram under health from sources from:
- http://www.chooseveg.com/vegan-food-pyramid.asp
- http://www.vegsource.com/nutrition/pyramid_vegan.htm
- http://www.veganfoodpyramid.com/
- http://www.nutrispeak.com/veganfoodguide.htm
- http://www.famousveggie.com/vegfoodpyramid.cfm
That explains what we should eat a day as I was trying to say earlier, like there is Food guide pyramid, any thoughts agree/disagreements on this?--Migospia+? 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Also are all of these open topics/debates, maybe we can archive what is not--Migospia+? 02:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Risks
What is exactly the problem with a version that is clear, and in accordance with the source? Namely, vegans with poorly planned diets are at risk of several deficiencies. This is a fact (or at least extensively sourced) Why not put it? And since when is anemia not a severe condition? CyrilleDunant 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That was the problem it was tagged somebody moved it, it is not clear at all and misleading. And anemia is not consider a serious diseases, maybe aplastic anemia is which is not the same thing, but according to doctors it is not serious/severe enough, maybe some that have it may think it is but that and the way the paragraph is written is POV and we try to stay away from turning Wikipedia into POV articles.--Migospia+? 07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Rickets is a serious condition and steps to prevent it are very important" [8]
- "It is a serious condition and one that we know how to prevent." [9]
- "A deficiency of vitamin D causes rickets, a serious condition that can cause skeletal abnormalities and failure to thrive." [10]
- "Cretinism causes very serious retardation of physical and mental development" [11]
- " A lack of the nutrient causes various disorders, from stunted growth to cretinism, a most serious condition." [12]
Again almost anybody can make almost any disorder *serious*--Migospia+? 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Even in the Wikiepdia article, they are not stated serious--Migospia+? 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Section Break
Migospia- are there any sources you can provide that says they're not serious? Or perhaps if you find something that says they're only serious by a condition (like "only serious if left untreated") - in the latter's case we could add "potentially" to the line. --danielfolsom 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually though- I think I'm agreeing with Migospia here - serious seems like a weird word for an encyclopedia - even HIV doesn't use the word, but since none of the concerned diseases use the words in their respected articles - perhaps we should view that as a precedent.--danielfolsom 21:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes thank you that is what I am saying!--Migospia+? 21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes and I did as we disscused it, but also I did concern whether they should be there or not Talk:Veganism#Post_here
Wow! Yes I did I actually proposed three alternatives on this talk page and one on yours! If you were not agreeing why did you say: Yes, you can. If you wish to do that then go ahead.--Migospia+? 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That is what you don't seem to understand I did make one of my alternative edits and I did not edit war so please stop it--Migospia+? 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
No see these diseases can't be caused by veganism, but specific deficiencies can lead to these diseases, and what I am saying is yes but we already stated that if you have a good diet there is no need to worry I mean if you miss these deficiencies no matter what diet you are on vegetarian or meat eater, the only deficiencies vegans have more of is B12 since there are a lot of vegan foods with the other supposidly missing nutrients--Migospia+? 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis ref
Viriditas, I think you got it right here. The flaw of course being that feeding excess grain to a cow in your backyard is not the equivalent to production of any sort. Vert et Noirtalk 05:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Poorly Managed Diets
Per this[15] edit summary, I am not confused. Take a look at the following two sentences:
"Due to health risks associated with the reduced levels of some vitamins and minerals in a poorly-managed vegan diet (B12, D, calcium and iodine), vegans are encouraged to take supplements and monitor their diet."
and
"A poorly-managed diet, however can lead to various deficiencies, e.g. B12, D, calcium and iodine."
The first states that there are health risks associated with the reduced levels of various nutrients in a poorly managed vegan diet. It is grammatically correct, and gives potential vegans proper advice: take supplements and monitor your diet. The preceding section in the lede discusses vegan and vegetarian diets, and this sentence differentiates between the two. The second sentence states that any poorly managed diet can lead to deficiencies, and does not differentiate between vegan, vegetarian, or any other diet for that matter. It is grammatically incorrect and awkward, though I suppose this can be fixed. It does not mention dietary supplements or dietary monitoring. Of these two, the first is clearly the better choice to conclude the lede. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"Due to health risks associated with the reduced levels of some vitamins and minerals in a poorly-managed diet (B12, D, calcium and iodine), vegans are encouraged to take supplements."
How about that sentance it makes more sense--Migospia+? 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
B12
- Migospia, I have to add that it's an increased risk for cancer if pills are popped and it decreases only when B12 comes from diet, as per the source "According to the researchers, individuals who said they used multivitamins, and whose blood showed traces of these nutrients, had a 139 percent increased relative risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Just in case you missed it.Idleguy 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- In this diff you changed the words from "increased" risk to "decreased" risk which is exactly opposite of what the source says about pancreatic cancer and B12. --Idleguy 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Abe Froman, I have tried to address your B12 concerns. I have reworked the concerns section and I broke out the individual vitamins/nutrients into separate subsections.
At this point, it seems to be fairly balanced to me. I believe that the B12 cautions are significant enough to justify the amount of print they got. Personally, I don't see it as a negative to Veganism, but simply an important concern which should be considered along with a healthy vegan diet.
Lsi john 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The American Dietetic Association has said that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency in nutrients such as vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iodine and omega-3 fatty acids. These deficiencies have potential consequences, including anemia, rickets and cretinism in children, and osteomalacia and hyperthyroidism in adults.
Thereafter, Calcium, Iodine, and B12 are repeated several times as "concerns". This is concern trolling. Repetitious statements of "concerns" is a not so subtle violation of NPOV. Wikipedia is not an unstructured list of information, medical studies, and old wives' tales. The place for these alleged "concerns" is inline refs to the paragraph printed above. I have placed the NPOV tag in this section until this change is made. Abe Froman 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its interesting that you find someone who has no POV toward veganism to be writing as concern trolling.
Abe, you're the one pushing pov, by deleting valid concerns. I'm done here for a while. I just spent two hours working on that to make it NPOV and accurate ,and you delete it in 10 seconds to suit your POV. You are not editing in good faith. You clearly have no desire to discuss and I have no desire to play your revert game. Peace be with you sir. Lsi john 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Demographics
Why do the demographics only cover the UK and the USA? Is there no information available about veganism in other countries? -Malkinann 13:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Supplements
Migospia, I have not seen any recommendations that went so far as to specify 'bacteria or non animal' supplements. I'll take your word that some exist. However, we can't make the claim and imply that 'only' those supplements have been recommended.
I realize that animal supplements would violate veganism, but that is Original Research. Adding your wording 'restricts' what is being said, and does not accurately reflect the entire array of recommendations being cited.
I have compromised and added a secondary sentence, but I believe it detracts from the article with extra words. I believe your extra wording is a bit POV'ish. Lsi john 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
And, on a personal note, reverting me cost you 1RR today for this article.. if you had brought it up here in talk first, I'd have been more than happy to work with you, without you needing to revert me. Lsi john 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The American Dietetic Association has said that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases
But does not go any further, but yet
Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency
Goes futher....a bit too far making it not NPOV this needs to be chaged--Migospia+? 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Argh. now we have two discussions going on in this section and it's going to be confusing.
- Folks, first of all, it is a CONCERNS SECTION. By definition a concerns section has concerns. It isn't about why to 'not' be a vegan. It is about things vegans should be aware of.
Lsi john 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Next, Migospia, your link, that you just provided, does not say what you are quoting it to say. It 'recommends supplements' period. It goes on to say that 'vegan supplements' are available. But you have combined two different sentences (that is original research). Lsi john 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone has to change
Why is the Precautions longer than the Benefits section, why can't someeone expand the Benefits and American Dietetic Association section?--Migospia+? 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Moved fom section supp
The American Dietetic Association has said that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases
But does not go any further, but yet
Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency
Goes futher....a bit too far making it not NPOV this needs to be chaged--Migospia+? 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hon, NPOV doesn't mean equal words.
It means every significant viewpoint gets expressed fairly and without bias. And, personally, I think it is a bit silly to believe that 'cautions' are the same as 'anti-vegan'. Cautions are cautions. There are cautions when driving a car, but I wouldn't say that 'be careful when driving on ice' is the same as 'driving a car is bad and dangerous, never do it!'.
Also, I actually looked at the sizes of the two sections when I was finished, and they were very close to the same size. Which isn't bad, considering the extra space required for sub-sections, and the one or two pro-vegan statements inside the concerns section.
I have no opinion on veganism. That makes me neutral. I'm not a vegan, but that doesn't make me anti-vegan. I'd never even heard of veganism until this article. The fact that I eat meat doesn't mean I'm anti-vegan; it means I eat meat. Period. I also eat vegetables, and there are occasions when my entire meal is salad.
Hiding and deleting legitimate concerns, is shameful and bad faith editing. The concerns exist.. So What, Big Deal, Who Cares. They exist, so they should be represented. In fact B12 concerns exist in numerous places, on numerous websites, and are a significant concern for vegans. Reducing that representation in this article is wrong and it could put someone's health at risk. It probably won't, but it could.
Even more importantly, the article could be considered POV pro-vegan because there isn't ANY section which is actually AGAINST veganism. There are concerns, but concerns are not ANTI-vegan.
And, that is why I have concluded that Abe is so far POV that it's not worth bothering to edit here for a while. He is seeing neutral material as POV. If I were anti-vegan, I'd fight him. But I'm not. I care about good articles. I care about NPOV. But I don't care enough about any particular article to get in a fight with Abe about it. What he is doing, by deleting relevant and sourced material, is making wikipedia an unreliable resource.Lsi john 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is what should happen...
I don't want to edit war either and am not sure what edits you or Abe want, but here is what I would like:
- RV back to Madprime's edit 20:46, June 17, 2007[16]
before your edit war with Abe
- The benefits section gets an increase in valid factual information and expand on the sentance benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases....
Is that okay for everyone?--Migospia+? 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Life expectancy
It might be interesting to add information related to life expectancy to the article. "Don't ditch low-fat dairy or fish rich in omega-3s: In a German study comparing vegetarians, vegans (who eat no dairy or eggs), and moderate vegetarians (who eat fish), the moderates lived longest--and vegans the shortest." (Prevention; May2007, Vol. 59 Issue 5, p56-56) Prevention doesn't list the study in question, but I think this is one of them: "Being a vegan was associated with a higher mortality risk (1.59; 95% CI, 0.98-2.59) than being a lacto-ovo vegetarian (1.08; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34), when compared with nonvegetarians with moderate meat/fish consumption, accounting for all other variables (data not shown).[17] --Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion for latest version
Migospia, I do not know how to explain this any better. REVERT is not necessary. Discuss it.
What are your specific objections to the current version? Lsi john 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
. Lsi john
. Lsi john Why have you made the edit you have made to veganism and engaging in edit warring again?--Migospia+? 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I made the edits to try to improve the article. Please indicate exactly what you dont like, and what you'd like to change. It just might be that I like your idea and agree with you. But until you say what's wrong with the current version, I won't know. Lsi john 02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No please undo them because they harm the article after ALL what was discussed on earlier and you still made those edits?--Migospia+? 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm really confused here. You were editing with me when I made those 21+ edits. You edited in the middle. You didn't object while I was editing. Now you want to revert and won't say why?
Vitamin B12 section
There are far to many references in this section. Someone needs to decide which are the best and jettison the rest. David D. (Talk) 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Good
Ok, so no one thinks I'm crazy, I'd like to start off by saying that a lot of work needs to be done on this article - there are some horrendous sections that really need to be worked on. That being said, assuming the changes are made, I think this article should absolutely be promoted to a good artcie - and then soon after that featured. The informatinos that is cited here is exceptional, I mean there are 108 citations, and I think if you guys can hold off pov from both sides thus cleansing the article, then it should really be noted.--danielfolsom 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources
Ok, here are a few sources you guys might be interested in, some are good some are crap, but you never know. Some are positive and some are negative, in no particular order --danielfolsom17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC):
- [19] - I added this into the article, but not well
- [20]
- [21] - for globalizing the demographics section
- [22]
- [23]
Quote
The quote in the 'Specific Nutrients' section Lindsay Allen, of the US Agricultural Research Service, came out against the diet in 2005, saying, "There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently". She especially targeted parents who allow children on the diet, "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans." In retaliation, Kostana Azmi, the chief executive officer of the Vegan Society in the UK, said: "The vegan diet can provide you with more energy, nutrition, and is bursting with goodness." seems out of place. Also, it is far too verbosely discussed - we don't need all of that, just a summary really.-Localzuk(talk) 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This was previously removed per: Talk:Veganism/Archive08#pregnancies_section_cleanup. Please see this article in which:
So there we are. Essentially she said: "withholding vital nutrients from a child is unethical," which no one would disagree with. The Vegan society said something similar with respect to so-called vegan parents who were charged with child abuse for starving their child. The addition of this section adds no new information about veganism that isn't covered except for re-reporting the media frenzy around a mis-reporting of Allen's comments. KellenT 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Again I don't have the time to work on this article (I'm working on what feels like 500 and I'm dealing with an editor) - but here are some good links that could be extremely useful.
- Canadian Living - has reasons for going vegan and also has nutriotional stuff
- Times - it's an editorial - but we can still use quotes and stuff.
- Animal Rights Africa Vegan Support - just for expanding the demographics section
--danielfolsom 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
SV
I'm curious why you deleted the 'founded by' in the lead? I'm also curious why you commented it as 'odd'. It was cited material and seemed relevant to me, given that his name appears in multiple sources that I've read. Lsi john 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, this: Donald Watson. Why wouldn't we mention someone that significant in this article?
What's going on?
Why is everything changing like this?--Migospia+? 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
a good question
can a vegan posses and work in a farm?it appear in an animated film"the barnyard
Finding prominent adherents for viewpoints
Although I understand the desire to provide "dissenting views" to try to balance an article, it is also important that dissenting views do not represent the view of an extremely small minority. From WP:UNDUE:
Emphasis on "prominent" is wikipedia's, not mine. There are viewpoints expressed in this article from people that are not prominent enough to have wikipedia pages dedicated to them. If these opinions are going to be represented here, I feel the article needs to find more prominent people or organizations to back them up. Steven Davis and Gaverick Matheny are particularly obscure. William Jarvis seems fairly obscure to me. While Lindsay Allen has published the the "Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition", she's apparently not notable enough to have her own wikipedia page. Kostana Azmi is notable only insofar as she represents a notable organization, justifiable if we believe her statement is meant to represent the position of the organization itself.
If any of these people represent a significant viewpoint, I feel better references than their names and personal opinions should be found and used. I am not trying to be pro-vegan in this, I am trying to set a standard to follow that will avoid inclusion of extreme minority views. I'm encouraging the article and editors to scrutinize the notability of all individuals quoted & referenced in support of particular viewpoints. Madeleine 16:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Factoid dump?
Another issue I'd like people to consider whether the article is turning into an incoherent factoid dump. Viriditas above mentioned that the author of a 2003 study Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease: Studies of Seventh-Day Adventists and Other Vegetarians [26] concludes that "veganism does not appear to result in either dramatic protection or increased risk when compared with other vegetarian diets". While I haven't read this book, I suspect this reflects the scientific consensus and I feel the health section should reflect this. I'm not against discussing the nutritional concerns or perceived benefits, but when an isolated study on pancreatic cancer and B vitamin intake (note that the study had nothing to do with vegans) is inserted I wonder if this article is turning into an incoherent factoid dump. Also questionable is inclusion of the China vs. Western diet study (which doesn't actually study veganism itself), which seems like a tenuous OR-ish justification for claiming a vegan health benefit.
Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs, this is a summary article. The best sources for the article should be general reviews of the diet (like the one Viriditas has found) rather than haphazardly picking a few of the zillion isolated dietary studies out there. Madeleine 16:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
PS - The multivitamin cancer association seems OR-ish to me as well. It is connecting two facts: (a) vegans are at greater risk for deficiencies and supplementation is recommended by notable organizations, and (b) a couple studies have associated multivitamin supplementation with increased incidence of cancer. The implicit OR here is that vegans are "damned if you do, damned it you don't" -- that they face risks from supplementation as well as from lack of supplementation. While this may be true (although note that the studies are merely association and have not found causality), wikipedia should be using an reliable outside source that connects these two dots, not doing it on its own. Madeleine 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected your misunderstanding of my above comments, by adding back part of that survey. The fact that vegans are at risk for lower Bx vitamins, is important, given that increased Bx vitamins show reduced risk of cancer. Its the rest of that study that doesn't apply. Speculating on increased cancer from vitamin supplements and including that the scientists can't explain why, is not relevant. Lsi john 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding your wording change to the lead, that is a good compromise. It separates the recommendation for supplements from the fact that vegan-friendly supplements are available. Thank you. Lsi john 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Poorly Managed...
Ok - although I have yet to get into it myself, there's apparently a revert war going on. I actually have to question the one that uses poorly managed ... all the time. At one point we talk about poorly managed diets in general - why is that being brought up on the veganism page? see the second green paragraph "Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency in nutrients such as ..." - seriously - what is that? --danielfolsom 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Assistance Rqd
Daniel, if you're around, and not close to 3RR, would you be so kind as to revert the article. Thanks. I'll report on AN3RR if the anon IP reverts again. Lsi john 23:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Lindsay Allen
I have relocated this statement to the relevant section on pregnancy. I also changed that section title to include children.
I reworked the quote into an encyclopedic paragraph which still says the same thing she did, but without quoting her. Any further changes to that text need to be carefully compared to the original source, in order to maintain context and accuracy.
Lsi john 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
"Since the story first broke Professor Allen has sought to distance herself from it, complaining that the reporter "hyped" her concern about vegan diets and omitted a crucial clause from the preceding quote. In an email message she wrote:
"The news reporter "hyped" my concern about vegan diets for pregnant/lactating mothers and infants/children by not adding the sentence I was emphatic they keep in, namely that vegan diets were unethical UNLESS those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods. I completely agree that it is possible to add back those missing nutrients and have stated this in a position paper on nutrition in pregnancy for the American Dietetic Association. I also agree that well-managed vegan diets, plus supplements plus fortified foods to get those missing nutrients, are probably healthier for adults and even many children than the average US or UK diet."" -- Madeleine 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Will.law! I had missed that (in all the confusion going back and forth). I have corrected the paragraph. Lsi john 03:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Link spam
I don't see how the link was SPAM or even a link normally to be avoided?.--Migospia+? 13:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is clearly used for advertising restaurants.
- It does not satisfy the requirements for External Links - It is not a reliable source, and it provides no additional information to the subject of the article. (This article is not about 'vegan restaurants', nor about 'choices vegans have for eating out'.
- It is a search engine, which is also prohibited as a link.
Need I go on? Peace.Lsi john 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Feedlot Radio
I wanted to add a link to my new idea, FeedlotRadio.com, to put music in the feedlots and hopefully settle the veganism problem for a lot of people. But my request was denied by an editor, which is strange since many redunant links to various pro-vegan explanations are available on this page, and no alternate points of view at all.
It was suggested that I discuss the matter here, so I am. Why isn't this a good link to add?
Repeat2341 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, you have left absolutely no way for an alternative point of view to be added to an unbalanced article. - 12.206.213.110 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
How is it idiotic? You've left me absolutely no way to edit this page. If I try to add a counterargument, it's deleted. If I try to add a link to a counterargument, it's deleted. I am not 'spamming' the site; I added it to the few pages to which it is absolutely a relevant link. You probably shouldn't be in charge of deciding what goes in and what doesn't if you have this little ability to discuss the matter, if your first choice is name-calling. I would go through the steps of formal dispute resolution to resolve this issue, as I believe you are being short-sighted and unfair.
I turned this over for mediation; it was initially refused, and I am exploring other options to get past the wall of oblivious silence you are all putting up. I am very frustrated that there is no recourse for improving the balance of these articles and that my edits are being deleted instead of improved, which is the CORRECT method according to the wiki rules. I think I've stumbled onto a bunch of partisans forcing wiki to spew their opinion, which is directly contrary to the stated goals of the Animal Rights Project on wiki.
Here's the mediation page, which contains links to all the relevant discussion sections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Veganism --Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk o contribs) 08:26, July 3, 2007
Pathetic. People DIE because of this bull. My mom's best friend killed herself because of the frustration of being involved with animal rights. I understand your policies, and I am stating that this needs to be an exemption for safety reasons. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk o contribs) 21:04, July 3, 2007 (UTC)
My attempt to add even an EMPTY Opposing/Alternative POV section to this article was blocked. What in the straight-up @#$. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk o contribs) 21:34, July 3, 2007 (UTC)
Here's an example of why the "people die from not knowing this" argument doesn't work. Suppose a new editor shows up and insists that alien rays are the cause of all brain tumors, and that we need to inform the public that they should be wearing tin foil hats in order to block the radiation. What if his response to our requests for verifiable, reliable sources was "but people die from not knowing this"? I'm intentionally taking your premise to absurd lengths in order for you to hopefully see why the editors won't make an exception here. If it really is that serious, there should be some kind of source you can use that would satisfy our policies. It might take some work to find, but it probably would exist. Sxeptomaniac 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a good analogy, and not simply because it's absurd (I do that all the time; it's useful). Your point is obvious, but you seem to have missed that my own personal mother's own personal best friend shot herself in the head after becoming frustrated by constant internal warring over veganism and animal rights. That's my proof, that's my counterexample to your point. How many tortured suicides like her and deadened, confused shut-ins like me do you really need to have on your personal tally to consider the idea you might be giving a meaningless, knee-jerk, short-term reaction to the only attempt that anyone will make to balance this article? Why won't any of you try to balance it, or edit my edits instead of rolling them back, as stated in the policy?
Repeat2341 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Lindsay Allen
I removed this passage because it was deliberately given out of context. Allen was not studying vegan children in the developed world. Rather, she studied starving children in the developing world. "The British Dietetic Association said (Allen's) study looked at impoverished, rural children with a poor background diet low in essential nutrients such as zinc, B12 and iron, and its findings were not applicable to vegan children in the developed world. 'There is no evidence that our vegan and vegetarian children in this country suffer impaired development,' a spokeswoman for the association said." [54] Abe Froman 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have reverted you. Please do not remove this information. It is sourced, and our text includes an NPOV version of her complete view by combining the two citations. This has been discussed. Peace.Lsi john 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Abe: I would call your attention to this part: "Allen later clarified that she believes it is possible to add back the missing nutrients and believes that well-managed vegan diets, plus supplements and fortified foods, are probably healthier for adults, and even many children, than the average US or UK diet" Peace.Lsi john 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Abe, if you can provide a verifiable link for the UK source, I will support its inclusion in the article. Also, if you can show me in the Allen study that it only included 'starving Kenyan children' then I would support amending the Allen statement. Otherwise starving Kenyan children, sounds a bit dramatic. Peace.Lsi john 19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please add citations/references correctly/consistently. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Starving might be considered synonymous with mal-nourished, but not undernourished.
- I also 're CAPITALIZED' the word UNLESS in the Allen statement. She was very emphatic about the UNLESS in her clarification. I am not positive how to represent that in our article, and I won't dispute anyone who changes it again. I put it back for clarification as to why it was in CAPS. Peace.Lsi john 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is now entirely too much coverage for a single study. I recommend going back to the version which has been discussed and generally accepted here. While I sympathize with Abe's pro-vegan POV, I cannot support doubling the coverage for a single study in order to nullify its findings. Peace.Lsi john 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this Allen and her research deserves, at best, minimal mention in this article. Allen's study was not about veganism, and the main connection is about a mis-reporting of her comments. Her position amounts to saying that pregnant and nursing vegans have an obligation to supplement properly. This particular position is the same as that of the vegan society. Nobody really questions it. I previously removed the content about Allen from the article, as described at Talk:Veganism/Archive08#pregnancies_section_cleanup. I do not believe it is deserving of inclusion in this article. KellenT 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So it looks like we have a consensus to remove the section on Lindsay Allen. I'm going to go ahead and yank it. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
pros & cons
I think this section is unnecessary and should be removed or properly integrated into the health section. There is no reason for this to be a distinct section. KellenT 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Moved from article, please integrate into health sections if appropriate, otherwise let it die.
KellenT 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason that I list Refsum disease is that I saw a TV show in which the patient parents are desperately seeking help from the public. This disease is considered incurable in some countries, which has been curable in others. Vegan diet is the best way of treating the disease which is supported by the reference cited. If not, please cite a reference to support your opinion. I will reverse the pros and cons section, as you perhaps are not the person who is deciding which should be in and which should be out, unless wiki standard is addressed to prevent doing so. The reason that I put this section is for the busy people who does not have enough time to read all but the distinction content. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.47.202 (talk o contribs) 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
GA review
This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria: This is well-referenced, and broad article that is reasonably well-written. I'm going to put this on hold as I have some specific corrections, suggestions and questions:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. Tim Vickers 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
New Reviewer
Tim Vickers has asked to withdraw as Good Article Nominee reviewer, and requested that I finish in his place. Sadly, I don't bring with me the excellent credentials he has in the area of biochemistry, but I'm patient and I try to be fair. I see no reason to change the suggestions he has made; and I will base my judgement on the progress made toward the milestones he has set forth. In the short term (the next two days) I'll be rather more involved in another review that I promised to finish by weekend, and then I promise to pay attention here. Drop any questions you may have here or on my talk page. Take care. -- Gosgood 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Commencing: 2007-07-11
- Completed: 2007-07-18
- Nominator: Pendleton724 on 21:02 (UTC), 2007-06-12
- Initial Reviewer: Tim Vickers
- Final Reviewer: Gosgood
- Based on:
-
- Revision 144651569 as edited by Christopher Mann McKay (Talk | contribs) at 15:32, 14 July 2007. (Vickers, Osgood. retained for reference)
- Revision 145344347 as edited by Skinwalker (Talk | contribs) at 21:21, 17 July 2007 (Approval based on this version)
My suggestion is to include a worldwide view in this article (like what the template said) and shrink the reference section into a scroll bar menu. Nevertheless, this article will stand as GA for now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Demographics
I've moved this to talk as it's not clear what the relevance of it is to veganism, which is not about eating less meat for financial or availability reasons, but about deciding to use no animal products for moral, religious, or health reasons:
However, on a worldwide scale, more meat and dairy products are being consumed in developing countries, as a result of rising incomes and increased urbanisation. The countries that consume least meat per capita are in Africa and South Asia, but meat makes up approximately a third of the diet in some parts of Latin America and Mongolia.
It's also not clear what "more meat and dairy products are being consumed in developing countries ..." means. More than where? More than what? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Health
I find it odd that the health section makes no mention of the fact (which was published recently in the New York Times) that a vegan diet (in both the child and the nursing mother) caused several infant fatalities in the last four years. Also, the article makes no mention of the recent first-degree assault conviction against two parents who fed their child a vegan diet and nearly killed her. Though the first isn't a proper ref for the fatalities, as it's an op-ed, it demonstrates what I feel is glaringly lacking from this otherwise comprehensive article. A criticisms or controversy section. VanTucky (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
About the poor change. The qualifier "poor" is not supported by the citations, and calling it strict is explicitly so. Plain and simple. The poor thing is personal opinion, as is your notion that strict veganism is a positive thing. If you like, we can just say vegan diet without adjectives. VanTucky (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Abe Froman 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- A. removed the facts of the what the convictions were, making it vague, the parents were not convicted of blankly "starving their children" they were convicted of very specific legal charges.
- B. called the diets poorly planned which is not supported by the cites. They only describe it as a vegan diet, not a poorly planned one.
- C. called the criticism misdirected, which is a complete and bald-faced violation of NPOV. Quoting the ADA spokeswoman is acceptable, but blankly calling the criticism misdirected is a completely uncited and unacceptable value judgement.
- D. Repeated the fact of the ADA's statement on the safety of the diet twice in the same section, which beyond being bad writing is giving undue weight of the most obvious kind. the statements of the ADA and other reliable sources on the complete safety of a well-planned vegan diet come directly before the cases. Furthermore, the text says that it was associated with the cases, not the direct cause.
(unindent) Well, if you can disprove my statements then by all means do, but all I have been able to find in terms of 'notable criticism' has been 2 articles - the one being discussed here (which as has been shown was taken out of context by the media) and the one involving that useless experiment in a third world country, again taken out of context by the media as well as being completely immoral and unscientific in its findings... Please provide me with more. I can find you hundreds, maybe thousands of articles saying how good veganism is for you from university professors, nutritionists, government agencies etc... This still leads me to think criticism is a fringe aspect of veganism.-Localzuk(talk) 17:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)So once again, I come back to look and see that what was a simple, two-sentence neutral statement of fact from sources that was already balanced by the overwhelming professional majority approving a vegan diet, has been obfuscated into oblivion by vegans offended by reputable news media organizations even hinting that a vegan diet isn't perfect. I'll be staying away from this article in the future, both because I get inflamed and because it seems it's lorded over by what has been aptly called a "Hezbollah-like splinter faction" from mainstream vegetarianism. Have fun with your little pamphlet on the joys of veganism. VanTucky (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait - yes it does.
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact -- the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
Ok - read the bold lines - distilling would be like creating a criticism section. But now at least you admit that the page is part of the manual of style right (if you still think no - look at the top of the page where it has the template)--danielfolsom 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Article is part of the MOS
Proof - template at top.--danielfolsom 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Article says editors should avoid "distilling" criticism
Proof -
"
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact -- the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
"
Do you not get the context - cause I'd be happy to explain that to you. When it says rather than distilling them - them refers to controversy - stated in the section before "Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative [and not "distill"]them out into separate sections that ignore each other."--danielfolsom 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What does that even mean - I gave you the definition from dictionary.com that essentially said that controversy is a matter of opinion - criticism is an opinion. Have you gotten a second opinion yet?--danielfolsom 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Second Opinion
Both User:Messedrocker and User:Danny have said that they believe that it says criticism sections should be avoided.--danielfolsom 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have shown this to Viriditas and I believe - through a lack of objection - he has conceded.--danielfolsom 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Conclusion
So apparently Viri ... was upset because I said the MOS said crticism sections were discouraged - because he/she believes criticism isn't under controversy. Localzuk said that they were, and viri... also disagreed. However, now we know that the policy on NPOV does say criticism sections aren't allowed - so is there any argument?--danielfolsom 01:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine - look I think if you actually ask any editor - perhaps an admin would be best as newcomers have a tendency towards criticism sections - then you would realize I'm in the majority. I mean keep in mind I've actually asked people as we've gone along - whereas you haven't admitted to doing so, perhaps it is fear - i dont' know. (and again - per the definition at dictionary.com - criticism is controversy) So far you're the only one that has of recent taken the pro-criticism section side, but really, whatever - I mean it's not like a criticism section is proposed- so we don't need to talk about it here --danielfolsom 02:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Veganism and Dietary Supplements
I think it should be made more explicit that vegans will die unless they take dietary supplements derived from animal matter, which obviously would make the survivor no longer a vegan. - MSTCrow 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What's up with the Herring under a Fur Coat dish? Fish is ok for vegan diet??? baloney! - Alexk 22:45, 1 Sept 2007 (UTC)
Lindsay Allen once and for all
OKAY! This has been discussed to death, so I would like to do a straw poll to settle on whether to include or exclude (a) discussion of Allen's B12 study (b) Allen's comments on veganism and the ensuing media frenzy.
For reference, here is the version which I think most accurately describes both the study and Allen's comments, without documenting the media frenzy that was provoked by a partial reporting of Allen's comments:
A number of previous discussions have been held:
- Talk:Veganism/Archive05#Prof._Allen.27s_Study_and_a_Reminder, which resulted in the content about her (a) study being deleted from the article, but her (b) comments about veganism being included
- Talk:Veganism/Archive08#pregnancies_section_cleanup, in which I justify my removal of both (a) study and (b) comments
- Talk:Veganism#Quote, which discusses a less accurate version of text than the one reproduced above
- Talk:Veganism#Lindsay_Allen_2, in which Abe justifies his removal of the (a) study mention (but also removed (b) comments), SlimVirgin argues the study is badly reported, and probably not relevant to veganism, I support removal based upon my previous reasoning, and Skinwalker ultimately removes both (a) study and (b) comments, which by this point have been re-added.
To restate my position here:
- Allen's study showed that nutrients like B12 can be found in meat, and although this is true, it has little relevance to veganism. Allen's study should therefore be excluded.
- The media uproar was based upon a partial reporting of Allen's comments, and almost all of which is irrelevant to the article. The media uproar should be excluded from the article.
- Allen's comments regarding veganism amount to saying that "withholding vital nutrients from a child is unethical." This is not a notable viewpoint, as basically everyone would agree with this, including the Vegan Society. As such, her comments should be excluded.
Should Lindsay Allen's study be included in the article?
Yes, include
- Yes, it should be included. It was widely reported and used as a reason not to raise children as vegans. In fact, when you know the background of the study, you can see that it was a very badly formed piece of research, which did not support the conclusion Allen drew from it. I think we should report it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Include as I trust Slim's judgement and good intentions re this subject, SqueakBox 02:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
No, exclude
- Exclude for the reasons I listed above. KellenT 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude per Kellen. This material is a troll-magnet and there is better criticism of obstetric/pediatric vegan nutrition in the article. Skinwalker 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude - it is a nonsense study and per Kellen.-Localzuk(talk) 07:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude the conclusions of the study were flawed. If it must be included due to its topical nature then there needs to be a disclaimer. I read the version proposed by SV above and it seems to be too much for such an irrelevant study. Wikipedia should not give so much weight to discredited conclusions. I would favor a mention and an explanaition for why it was a flawed study, i.e. third world diet (that happans to be vegan) is not comparable to first world diet of vegan children. Note, i am not a vegan, or a proponent of veganism. David D. (Talk) 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude per all above.--Michig 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Should Lindsay Allen's comments be included in the article?
Yes, include
No, exclude
- Exclude for the reasons I listed above. KellenT 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude per my comments above. Skinwalker 03:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude if the study is to be excluded as the 2 are linked.-Localzuk(talk) 07:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude most of her personal opinion, but include the material derived from the study in this version. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude A major physicians group, representing over 100,000 MD's, says Allen's research was not actually about vegans. Allen's mislabeled research should be in an article about her. Abe Froman 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exclude per above.--Michig 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletions from Pregnancy and Childhood section
I believe this section is weighted heavily towards criticism of veganism in general. In the Pregnancy and Childhood section, several editors have attempted to equate veganism with child abuse or even murder. I would like to add the following quote from Benjamin Spock's book Baby and Child Care to show these criticisms were not supported by the most famous pediatrician in the United States.
"The well-known pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock embraces vegan diets in his bestselling (second only to the Bible) book Baby and Child Care. Dr. Spock wrote, "Children who grow up getting their nutrition from plant foods rather than meats have a tremendous health advantage. They are less likely to develop weight problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and some forms of cancer." [61]
I think using the pre-eminent voice in modern US child care will put these criticisms of veganism in childhood into perspective. Abe Froman 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm having trouble understanding this edit summary: "rv "we are discussing it, what is this if it's not a discussion? A diesel locomotive?" ie, you are in minority, discuss".[62] My objections to large quotations from anyone in this article are based on principles found at WP:UNDUE, namely that articles should represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each. The viewpoint that vegan diets are appropriate for pregnant mothers and children is adequately represented by the ADA quote at the beginning of the section. As well, the article structure subsection at WP:NPOV (just above UNDUE) indicates that "arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to give exclusive emphasis to a particular "side" of an issue" require attention as to NPOV. Can we talk about why Localzuk and AbeFroman think that WP:UNDUE is not violated by this addition? As for the minority comment, you will see that my aim on this page has been to promote a fair and neutral assessment of vegan nutrition and medical issues. If that puts me in a minority then this article's newly-acquired Good Article status may have been granted too soon. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get a response about this above, so I will reiterate my offer of compromise. I propose incorporating the Spock quote:
"Children who grow up getting their nutrition from plant foods rather than meats have a tremendous health advantage. They are less likely to develop weight problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and some forms of cancer."
as the second sentence of the first paragraph of the prenancy section. This is contingent on removing the following paragraph that consists of a long quote from Dr. Lanue. Spock is a better source than Lanue for pediatric nutrition, and Lanue's views are still aired as the rebuttal to the Crown Shakur case. Will this be acceptable to everyone? Cheers, Skinwalker 18:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please Bring Pros & Cons section back.....
and more edition is needed, see Treatment with CAM for amendament
Example
Hi, everyone! I added some examples to what they do, are they good? Feel free to change them :) --HollywoodHeart
Hi, Bob! Um, that might not be specific enough for people who don't speak English as their primary language.
Anon's dispute
An anonymous contributor, 160.39.37.59 (talk · contribs), recently added
to the beginning of the "Resources and the environment" section. The addition was reverted by Kellen` (talk · contribs) as "vandalism". Obviously the main article space is the wrong forum to discuss such concerns with the article, so Kellen` did nothing wrong. At the same time it feels a bit inapropriate to ignore the comments outright, so I moved them here. --Gabbe 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I think "belief" is a far better word. It doesn't imply that they're wrong, but it does imply that it hasn't been proven to be true. In some cases, vegan diets may cause less environmental damage, but in other cases they may cause more. It depends where you are in the world, and what you're eating. Pastured poultry may be more friendly than imported tofu or monocultured soybeans. We can't say for sure, so let's call it a "belief." --DPB, 8/4
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon