Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Consumption
PLEASE stop removing the word consumption. You don't use a steak, you CONSUME it. You do not consume leather, you USE it. Before censoring words, pleas read a dictionary before editing. --Sfiga (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
"People aren't completely stupid....." where do you live in a cave?? if not can i move there? wherei live people ARE completely stupid. and they are two different words, I will keep putting the word in as it is more correct. --Sfiga (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
wtf? i thought wikipedia tries to be correct. why are people trying to make incorrect statements? i do not understand why a few are so adamant at using the WRONG WORD! --Sfiga (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Sfiga is correct, slim virgin and kellen are wrong. The term "use" is not a subset of consumption. Although it can be used as a definition to mean the same idea as consumption, the word is a more accurate term than 'use' and should replace 'use'. --71.147.49.125 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
--Sfiga (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the definition from the Oxford English dictionary, I am not saying it. You are the one who wants to 'use' a steak instead of consuming it. You really do not seem to understand word choice. why are you doing this? fighting to dumb it down?
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/221868?redirectedFrom=veganism#eid15925772 Pronunciation: /'vi:g?n/ U.S. /'v?d??n/ Etymology: < veg- (in vegetable n.) + -an suffix. Thesaurus »
1. A person who on principle abstains from all food of animal origin; a strict vegetarian.
Derivatives 'veganism n. the beliefs or practice of vegans; abstention from all food of animal origin. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfiga (talk o contribs) 14:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
--Sfiga (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and an article should encompass the various nuances of a concept in a non-prescriptive form. As it says in the article, some vegans abstain from consuming animal products because their ethical opinions lead them to forego all use of animals in any form - thus it is derived from more than just an abstention, and a wider concept exists. So please, stop changing it against the apparent current consensus, and discuss what you want here *before* you make any changes -- edit warring will get you blocked. Also, please try to assume good faith - see WP:AGF, and try to lose the battlefield approach to editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Vegetarian Diet For Hypothyroidism Video
New Section on risks
An entire section needs to be created showing the potential health risks associated with this lifestyle. For instance, the typical vegan is nutritionally deficient in several nutrients that a greater percentage of omnivores are not. 64.121.173.185 (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. There is enough balance in the article as it stands. It would not be NPOV to start a section like that. If people find the criticisms incomplete, then edit what's there, don't start again. While we're on the point of nutritional imbalance, maybe we should start a section showing the typical non-vegan is health deficient is several areas that a greater percentage of vegans are not? I'm not serious of course, and similarly I don't think this (anonymous) suggestion should be taken seriously.TonyClarke (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It would not be wrong to start a section on risks, indeed it's widely discussed in the news. I came to this article specifically looking for information about children who've died on a vegan diet (there have been *many*) and couldn't find anything. You state "there is enough balance" while completely leaving out a long a protracted series of events in the news over a period of years which is directly related to veganism - demanding that be left out is unbalanced. I wonder if TonyClarke is a vegan... -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.3.108 (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- @89.139.3.108, if you can provide reliable sources to support claims that many children have died from vegan diets, then that can be added to the article - do you have any such sources? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I found 3 references to children dying 'from' vegan diets in the past 30 or so years on Google books (each single instance being referenced by multiple sources, which inflates the perceived number of cases.) The most recent case actually involves fruitarianism. A second case involves a baby named Crown Shakur, who was fed very little food period (and never saw a medical professional at any time in his short life, including delivery). I have few details about the first child (other than Boston, early eighties, parents members of a nonmainstream religious sect). So perhaps those three cases constitute 'many' to the poster. DaveinMPLS (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
New pic
Nice! But does the caption need changing too? I'm not sure what the food in the pic is. DaveinMPLS (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Lead too long
According to the Manual of Style for lead sections, our lead is too long: ideally it should be two or three paragraphs for an article of this size (15,000-30,000 characters). Any ideas to how it can be shortened? I'm inclined to leave the 3 first paragraphs and move everything else (the statements by the dietetic associations and the heart association, nutrients of concern etc.) to appropriate sections in the article body. TheLastNinja (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I definitely agree. The lead should be a general overview or outline. Specifics (such as those mentioned) should be kept to whatever section is appropriate. DaveinMPLS (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
First draft for new lead: "Veganism is the personal practice of eliminating the use of non-human animal products for any purpose (including food and food processing, clothing, medications, and personal care products) for ethical reasons. [Mangels 8]. The term 'vegan' is also used for those who consume a vegan diet for health reasons [Mangels 9], although this usage is disputed [Jo].
The vegan diet does not use meat, dairy, eggs, or honey. Variations of this diet include fruititarianism and raw veganism."
I didn't fill in all the ref info - Mangels refers to The Dietician's Guide to Vegetarian Diets, Jo refers to The Vegan Sourcebook.
Comments? DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Only major addition, specified poultry and fish in addition to 'meat', mirroring how the source reads. Still can add google book links to the two sources cited, but right now it's lunch time! I'll also move the chunks that really fit better in other sections too. DaveinMPLS (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Moved everything else out of lead. Mostly specifics. Cut the ultramathoners info - it can be restored someplace but I didn't see an obvious new home. The demographics section has contradictory statements about the # of UK vegans, which needs to be reconciled. DaveinMPLS (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Paris exemption section
How does this section add to the readers understanding of 'veganism' in the slightest? It's about Francione's criticism of Singer's food choice while traveling. And takes up quite a bit of space, a photo, and audio link to do it. I'm not even sure would be relevant in the entry on Singer, but I could see an argument made for it being there. It's just an advocacy bit thrown in as yet another volley in the Utilitarian/deontology war. DaveinMPLS (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I just noticed the caption on Singer also refers to the Paris exemption. Ludicrous. DaveinMPLS (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Vegan Fashion
Should there be a section (or a new page) on vegan fashion/shoes? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.141.22 (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Dualism - again (aaargh) - and internal consistancy
The sentence "The philosophical debate about the moral basis of veganism reflects a division of viewpoints within animal rights theory between a rights-based or deontological approach, and a utilitarian/consequentialist one." is yet another restatement of a highly questionable dualistic model of animal ethics. Interestingly this entry itself contradicts the supposed primacy of the (mostly cosmetic IMHO) consequentialist/deontologist dichotomy! Carol Adams is notable enough to be mentioned and even pictured. Her views lie outside either of the mentioned views. I'll work up something more reflective of the breadth of the discussion. DaveinMPLS (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
'vegetarian', 1847 and Brotherton
http://web.archive.org/web/20080630114643/http://www.ivu.org/history/renaissance/words.html is factually incorrect about 'vegetarian', based on current information. See IVU manager and historian John Davis' blog: http://www.vegsource.com/john-davis/vegetarian-equals-vegan.html. Also, lots of history links at http://www.ivu.org/history/vegan.html. It was NOT coined at the Ramsgate conference, and Brotherton almost definately had NOTHING to do with it. You can read the pre-1847 uses of 'vegetarian' on google books, or the nice summary on IVU's site at http://www.ivu.org/history/vegetarian.html. Anyone not tired of reading yet :) can find a brief summary of vegan history at http://www.candidhominid.com/p/vegan-history.html. (note I wasn't involved in writing any of this - my own blog addresses historical vegetarian cookery specifically - cookbooks and the like). But whatever. DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Images
The new image (tofu scramble) looks revolting. The other one looks okay as a thumbnail but looking at the full image just shows it as a load of different types of tofu. Tofu's a bit of a stereotyped vegan food. It's the vegan burger picture that really needs changing IMHO.Muleattack (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Removing sourced material
Ninja, parts of the article seem to have been removed, particularly from the lead, which had become far too short (see WP:LEAD). Can you discuss the removals, rather than restoring them over an objection? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Footnote 7
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle, though they caution that poorly planned vegan diets can be deficient in vitamin B12, iron, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids.[7} But the cited page says "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Since there is a difference between vegetarian and vegan the sentence should be changed or removed. I'm not going to be bold because I don't know if removing entirely or amending "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard such a diet..." to "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard planned vegetarian diets..." is better. Nitpyck (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
neutrality or ideologic!
It seems to me this article is so non-neutral especially in the health section. Every where there is some report of problem with the vegan diet there is also some phrase that wants to say those vegans where not planing their diet adequately. For example I looked at the reference of one part : "Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition, and some infant fatalities, have been associated with poorly planned, restrictive vegan diets, often insufficient in calories." as I looked at the reference : at telegraph report and also at NY times there was no indication of "poorly planned" or like that in the reference! This is self made. I fix this and I hope others have time to fix other mistakes. thanx Amidelalune (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit you made, Amidelalune, because it seems to remove some of the nuance of those articles. In particular, both of the cases cited are self-apparently extreme cases: The NYTimes article, for example, notes that the deceased child's parents "fed him mostly soy milk and apple juice." Overlooking the horrible travesty of this event, the NYT article is an op-ed, which by definition is not subject to the same editorial standards as other reporting that appears in the times. As you noted, the Telegraph article doesn't provide any detail whatsoever about the diet the child was eating, but the other citations in the main wikipedia article, from leading health organizations and authorities, seem to agree that a "well-planned" vegan diet can be healthy. Ergo, it seems very reasonable to note that the very few outlier cases mentioned here were a result of doing something horribly wrong. The plural of "news item" is not "scientifically sound supporting data". :)66.93.60.187 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
My name is Jimmy Snyder. Isn't it the case that if meat were not consumed, then there would less acreage under cultivation for food, not more? Animals eat grain and we eat the animals. But it is not efficient. You get more nourishment per grain by eating the grain directly. What am I missing? 173.61.117.8 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"non-human"
The use of "non-human" in the lead is confusing. Does this imply that cannibalism is an acceptable vegan diet (obviously it's not), or is it there simply to rule-out breast milk? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.129.183 (talk o contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree "non-human" does not merit inclusion in the opening sentence. It reads as if vegans say no to animal products but yes to cannibalism (if/when the need arises). A section on vegan infants/breast feeding should be included later in the article (new section?). See Vegan babies and children. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
[Definging "animal" as "an animal organism other then a human being"] is political. Segregating humans from all other species legitimizes a human monopoly on moral and legal rights. When we say "animals and humans" we deny that we are too animals. The verbal ruse preserves the speciesist fantasy that chimpanzees, snails and tree frogs are more alike then chimpanzees and humans
An analogous (and quite popular) critique is also be found in Derrida, Jacques. For What Tomorrow . . .: A Dialogue (1 ed.). Stanford University Press. p. 111. ISBN 0804746273. To use "other animal(s)", "nonhuman animal(s)" or anything other then just "animal(s)" when speaking of "animal organism(s) other then (a) human being(s)" is a well established practice even in non-vegan modern literature on animal ethics. --goiken 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Criticism
Why is there no criticism section? Surely not everyone agrees being vegan is perfect, seeing as not many people are actually vegans. Point could be raised such as possible deficiencies in certain nutrients, etc. 70.78.5.3 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Meltable Vegan Cheese
On November 13, Viriditas made the following comments on my talk page. I've moved the discussion to Veganism talk page so that anyone can comment
Lots of examples, but the most current and best known example would have to be Daiya. Now, please restore the material and remove the unsourced original research you added. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- McKinnell, J. (2010, May 25). For these vegans, it's the Holy Grail. Maclean's. 123 (20), 60. ISSN 0024-9262 "Oprah tried it. Ellen talked it up. Alex Jamieson, wife of Super Size Me's Morgan Spurlock, calls it "crack for vegans." Daiya (pronounced day-a) is a new non-dairy cheese alternative that's causing such a sensation that one vegan blogger in L.A. described it as "the sort of stuff that's going to start a revolution." [...}"The cheese flavour is dead-on, and even more remarkably, Daiya melts like real cheese. No joke. It melts and stretches and actually makes you want to eat it," writes the L.A. blogger at toliveandeatinla.com."
- Mosko, Sarah S. (2011, Sept.-Oct.) "The Cheese Challenge." E/The Environmental Magazine. 22 (5), 38-39. ISSN 1046-8021. "After melting and taste-testing four top brands, the site veganbaking.net concluded that vegan cheddar and mozzarella shreds made primarily from tapioca or arrowroot flour combined with various oils from Daiya (daiyafoods.com) had both the flavor and melt-ability to stand up to their dairy counterparts."(subscription required)
- Fullbrook, Sarah. (2011, April 4). Daiya Foods Inc. BC Business. 29 (4), 78-79. ISSN 0829-481X "Available in stores across Canada and the U.S., including Whole Foods and IGA, Daiya Foods' cheddar- and mozzarella-style "shreds" are free of animal products and many common allergens, yet, as one panellist can attest, they maintain much of the flavour and consistency of traditional cheese. Daiya Foods products can be used in cooking in a way that no other vegan cheese is used to date, says another panellist: "That's the innovation - the taste and texture."
- Rosolen, D. (2011, May). Company Profiles: Daiya Foods Inc. Food in Canada. 71 (4), 38-42. ISSN 1188-9187. "Blake is a co-founder and CEO of Daiya Foods, a company that makes non-dairy cheeses. But what's unique about the company is that it has found a way to make dairy-free vegan cheeses that have the same properties as dairy-based cheeses -- they can shred, melt and stretch."(subscription required)
To be honest, I think the whole part about the meltability of vegan cheeses should go. The newly added statement relies on the totally unsourced statement about vegan cheeses not melting to make sense. Instead it should just be mentioned that there are vegan 'cheeses'. The meltability of vegan cheese isn't exactly of great importance to the article anyway. Reference to the meltability of vegan cheeses should go in the Cheese_analogue page. Muleattack (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Lead image
I'm not sure who replaced the old lead image with the current image, but I cannot envision a more horrible choice. First of all, the "tofu scramble" is universally hated by many vegetarians/vegans and omnivores. It does not represent the best veganism has to offer, nor does it appear to be a good photograph, with at least a considerable portion of the left side of the image in shadow, probably due to the hand of the photographer blocking the light. Considering the incredible number of great photographs of vegan cuisine available on commons, this choice is by far, one of the worst I've ever seen. I intend to replace it ASAP. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
potential resource
Sculptured by Weights and a Strict Vegan Diet by MATTHEW L. WALD published NYT. A version of this article appeared in print on January 5, 2012, on page B10 of the New York edition with the headline: Sculptured By Weights And a Strict Vegan Diet. 99.190.80.182 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
History of veganism
I have just created History of veganism as a stub. Feel free to contribute. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Veganism Growing
Currently the introduction says Veganism is growing, but doesn't back this up correctly. The statement is followed by figures giving the current number of Vegans in the UK & USA but no stats showing if this has changed. Has anyone got any figures to back it up? Strange ideas (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Gary Francione, a law professor and animal rights advocate, tells a story in Animals, Property, and the Law (pp. xiii-xv). There is a pigeon shoot every year in Hegins, near Harrisburg, PA; has been for 60 years. People have a breakfast at 6 am, and from 9 am, thousands of pigeons in boxes are given electric shocks, or propelled out of the box by a stick, fly upwards, and are shot by people who have paid $80 each. The pigeons are kept in a dehydrated and emaciated state for days beforehand, and are too weak to fly more than a few feet. Trapper boys are employed to gather up the injured birds. The boys rip the birds' heads off, or smash them against a wall, or sometimes just throw them into a barrel with the dead birds, where they suffocate. If there are animal rights protesters there, the boys play to the crowd by smashing the injured pigeons together, or swinging them round in circles. But it is the protesters who end up being arrested.
He writes that every year protesters set up veterinary clinics to help the injured birds, and are routinely harassed by locals, but it is the locals the state troopers defend. He recounts a conversation he had with a local:
- "How long have you participated in these pigeon shoots?"
- "Since when I was a kid."
- "Don't you think it's cruel to the pigeons?"
- "Look, you're from the city. You don't understand. ... It's a tradition. We've been doing it for 60 years."
A crowd gathered to listen to the exchange. A trooper warned Francione that, if he continued with the conversation, he would be charged with disorderly conduct.
But here's the thing. Although we might feel that these people (and your cockfighters) are particularly cruel, most ordinary people take part in similar cruelty every day, just one step removed, by paying for the eight billion animals that are slaughtered each year (in the United States alone) for food; and who are kept in horrendous conditions beforehand. And they are kept in those conditions, not so that we can have meat and cheese, but so we can have them at absurdly low prices.
The lesson is that human self-interest knows no shame. So to make advances, that self-interest has to be appealed to. You would have to persuade the cockfighters that it was bad for them - that handling the birds might make them ill, that doing such a stupid and cruel thing will make them unattractive to women, etc. Appealing to ethics does work as part of the overall meme that "hurting animals is bad", but it takes a long time for the shame factor to kick in, and it needs self-interest to propel it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Growing again
This constant attempt to remove that veganism is growing as a movement is a little disturbing, when it's so obviously true. Anyone can do a Google News search and see the number of very recent articles that report growing interest from physicians, growing interest from restaurants and customers, and from people with certain chronic diseases. If anyone wants to remove this again, could you explain your reasoning on talk first, please? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
GHG Data of Eshel and Martin
The Wikipedia article uncritically presents an invalid conclusion based on erroneous data and flawed analysis, from the study at University of Chigago by Eshel and Martin (2006. Earth Interactions 10, Paper No. 9). Their calculations used figures on fossil fuel energy use in beef, pork, chicken and lamb production, expressed per unit protein energy production, from Table 8.2 of Pimentel and Pimentel (1996. Food, Energy and Society). That table indicates that the data source is Pimentel et al. (1980. Science 207: 843-848). However, in the latter paper, output was expressed on a protein mass basis, and conversion to a protein energy basis by Pimentel and Pimentel (1996) involved calculation error resulting in extremely inflated ratios of fossil energy to meat protein energy in their Table 8.2. The overestimation for beef, pork and chicken is by a factor of about 1.7 if intended to be on a metabolizable energy basis or about 2.2 on a gross energy basis. [Writers of the Wikipedia entry can confirm this by checking the 1996 book and the 1980 paper and consulting Merrill and Watt (USDA Handbook No. 74) for data on metabolizable and gross energy contents of meat protein. The Merrill and Watt publication is a widely accepted source, being approved, for example, by US FDA regulations (CFR 21, sec. 101.9) as a source of energy data for certain food labeling.] The "fossil fuel energy" input figure per unit lamb protein energy production used by Eshel and Martin presents a different issue. This figure vastly overestimates a realistic magnitude and bears no apparent relation to the 1980 data, despite the Pimentels' citation of the latter as the source. In the text of Chapter 8 of Pimentel and Pimentel (1996), this same figure exactly is the feed energy input per unit lamb protein energy output calculated for a range sheep production system. As such, virtually all of it represents photosynthetically captured solar energy. Its inclusion as a fossil energy figure in the Pimentels' Table 8.2 was evidently an error. For all kinds of meat production examined, Eshel and Martin failed to partition alleged livestock production energy input between food and non-food products. Substitutes for the non-food products of livestock would require energy use and involve greenhouse gas emissions, which must be taken into account if estimation of net energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with reduced livestock production are to be credible. If one knows how the substitution will be done, the preferred alternative is to do a calculation accounting for the energy used in substitution. If one does not know how the substitution will be done, a credible alternative is using energy partitioning between food and non-food products. With partitioning of energy input among food and non-food products on a product mass basis, Eshel and Martin's energy use figure for beef meat, for example, is found to be inflated by a factor of at least 3.5, relative to the original 1980 data. Analogous partitioning for sheep production energy indicates that their fossil energy input figure assigned to lamb meat is inflated by a factor of approximately 21, relative to a credible figure. The extreme overestimates of fossil fuel energy use assigned to beef, pork, chicken and lamb meat production by Eshel and Martin were used by them in calculating carbon dioxide emissions that they assigned to meat production. There are also other errors and omissions in their analysis, affecting results. The cited GHG results from that paper cannot be presented responsibly without calling attention to important errors that invalidate those results. Note the Wikipedia verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Schafhirt (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
GHG Percentage Attributed to Livestock by Goodland and Anhang
The Wikipedia entry uncritically presents the erroneous percentage of GHGs attributed to livestock by Goodland and Anhang. Goodland and Anhang's figure includes carbon dioxide emission from respiration by livestock. The plant biomass C amount emitted as carbon dioxide and methane from livestock would tend to be emitted as carbon dioxide and methane (but in different proportions) by other herbivores and decomposers metabolizing the biomass in the absence of livestock. In their tally, Goodland and Anhang neglect the reduction of carbon dioxide emission from non-livestock biota that thus occurs due to livestock production. This omission would be unexceptionable if they were tallying gross emissions. However, they do not tally gross emissions, omitting (for example) carbon dioxide emission by respiration from crop plants in their total, and including, as "emissions" attributed to livestock, net photosynthetic offsets foregone due to livestock-raising. They also use a large multiplier for livestock methane and a small multiplier for other methane (for conversion to carbon dioxide equivalents). In summary, they distort methane data and arbitrarily include some source and sink terms while omitting others, to inflate the percentage of emissions that they claim is attributable to livestock. As a result, their emission percentage estimate is meaningless, and uncritically citing this exceptional claim is inappropriate. Note the Wikipedia verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Schafhirt (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Low birth weights
Current text - "A maternal vegan diet has been associated with low birth weight,[61]"
This implies an unhealthy child with a low birth weight is a risk of veganism. The actual reference however states "Lower birth weights have also been reported in white communities consuming macrobiotic diets and in white vegans". Lower birth weight is not the same as Low birth weight. In this case I don't think just changing it to 'lower' would be good enough as the word associated still implies it as a negative when there's no evidence of that.Muleattack (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Tofu Scramble Picture
Needs to go. Awful picture. It's not even tofu scramble as described, it's clearly tofu stir fry. Muleattack (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Poorly planned
It's certainly true that any poorly planned diet can be dangerous, so I've always wondered why vegan diets were being singled out. We only have to look at obesity and diabetes stats to see what poorly planned non-vegan diets do. What is the objection exactly from those who are reverting? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Vegan Vs. Vegetarian
"...dietary vegans (or strict vegetarians)..." < That is incorrect, I am removing it. Vegetarians eat animal products, but do not eat meat. A vegan who llows others to have non-vegan diets is a vegan, not a vegetarian. The term "vegan" has explicitly to do with your diet, and nothing to do with Animal Rights activism. In fact, most Animal Rights activists are guaranteed not to be vegans, most are likely not even vegetarian. Whoever wrote this article is offensive! -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
"Joanne Stepaniak, author of Being Vegan (2000), argues that to place the qualifier "dietary" before "vegan" dilutes its meaning--like using the term "secular Catholic" for people who want to practise only some aspects of Catholicism.[66] She writes that people should not call themselves vegan simply because they have embraced the diet: "Practising a vegan diet no more qualifies someone as vegan than eating kosher food qualifies someone as Jewish."[67]" < That is also highly offensive, so was also removed. You are not allowed to insult people like this! It is clearly stated in wikipedia rules to keep articles free of bias! And, this bias is utterly inapproprate, and literally insane! If you personally feel this way about this group of people, fine, but keep that feeling off of wikipedia articles! And, for the record, it's wrong. Vegan only means dietary veganism to begin with. Cultist types cannot hijack a practice of foriegners and attach looney tune crud to it like this. For starters, if you are frothing-at-the-mouth hating dietary vegans, you have 100% failed the ethical veganism path personally, because a human being is not considered lower on the totem pole than a cow (except in Hinduism, but Hinduism is not one of the Vegan religion, Buddhism and Jainism are, and they don't feel that way about cows)!
Crop Death section
Humorously enough this section constitutes an unethical use of single side argumentative citations plus omissions of logic. The simple conclusion of one side is subjected to unopposed persuasive arguments and conclusion of the other. If that was not enough very large omissions in logic and the topic of ethics are made in order to present a very emotional false dilemma. A very key omission is that deaths cannot be classified as purely or even mostly accidental IF you know there is a high probability or yield of death by any process. In human courts this would at least be placed in the venue of negligent homicide and voluntary manslaughter. But more likely it would be treated as terroristic mass murder like driving a car into crowd. That is recent ethics have recognized that lack of intention to kill specific individuals or even a specific number of individual does not make the event an accident. By rough definition an accident has to be an unexpected event; all else is at best negligence.
The Vegan attempt to invalidate figures via the "you didn't use OUR units of measure" is very basic one were you start by proposing without proof that only one measure of measure is valid and you are the only one who knows how to do math. The specific move to per capita or people based figures is one of the oldest bit of chicanery in the books -- in voting they call it gerrymandering. But basically any time an argument can be moved to people counts, a skilled opponent can exclude huge fractions of people by choosing data sources that only count the people they want counted and ignore others -- or sometimes create false differences to allow double counting the same favorite people. Part of this is because accounting for all the people a slice at a time is difficult to track. But also because most surveys are either poorly done (even with the right degree not everyone was an A student or flexible with results based on financial inducements) or used without the context explaining who was included and who might not be. There are all sorts of ways to bias the answers by the way you ask questions "when did you stop torturing animals for your pleasure and financial gain?".
Nor can you invalidate an argument by simple observation that its numbers are not very precise -- you can only suspend any comparative conclusions as final pending more study (conclusions are still potentially correct). Thus the land use argument has its own problems but its unlikely that land are used by US farming for crops will decrease - even if the ratio of domestic versus foreign use changes. The biggest unaddressed issue about land use is that some poor land (rocky, arid, steep, etc) can be easily be grazed by animals to some degree but is not suitable for any popular mass production food crops -- yet some harvestable crop exists (grapes for semi-rocky hillside) or can be developed. Obviously crop growing kills differ by crop and by harvesting methods and pest control measures as well as planting other maintenance operations. However, wheat and corn and soybeans kill rates are probably close enough for a first stab at numbers...if you want precise numbers then more study is needed.
I would rate the Vegan sources cited as actually having fairly poor scores in logic and ethics (logic being the foundation of ethics). Properly speaking emotional means of persuasion belong to MORAL issues and morals form the foundations for some sort of emotion driven religious-cultural value system. While such system can theoretically also have ethical foundations, the heavy use of intentional deception and logic traps within arguments tends to point toward unethical victory at any cost standards.
Now in all fairness I would like to point out that field mice deaths and those of most higher animals can easily be greatly reduced by several means: One of means being ultrasonic broadcasts well ahead of machinery to drive them out of the way. So really the question of comparison is a very good one which remains wide open. Neither side as done enough research to make reasonable conclusions about numbers for either solution.72.182.15.249 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Vegans are advised
This has been removed and restored a couple of times recently. I share the concerns of the editors who are removing it:
Sources: [14]
Looking at the sources, there's no consensus on this issue (except for B12), and the way the sentence summarizes the source material is a little misleading. Also, the sources are not up to date given how much has changed about attitudes to vegan nutrition in recent years, and in some cases the sources aren't scientists or experts in nutrition.
I would therefore prefer to remove it until we find reliable sources that say clearly that vegans in particular need to do X or Y, because it's giving the impression that there is something problematic about a vegan diet, and it risks encouraging readers to take unnecessary (or even harmful) supplements. I'm thinking in particular that it's not a good idea to encourage readers in the lead - where we can't explain the issues in detail - to take iron, calcium or iodine. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ There is a 2009 paper here about vegan nutrition. Using that, we could write the following in the lead, which I have taken from the start of his third section. Then we could give more detail about supplements in the relevant subsections, where we can provide context:
Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease. They tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron, and phytochemicals, and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.
I haven't been able to find any recent review articles on vegan nutrition. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
TonyClarke (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I've added the new sentences to the lead, and I've removed the recommendations about supplements, except for B12. I've also started working on the vitamins/minerals subsections to make sure the text matches the sources, and that the sources are appropriate. The end of the lead now reads:
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard a well-planned vegan diet as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle. Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease. They tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron, and phytochemicals, and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12. Because plant foods tend not to contain significant amounts of B12, researchers agree that vegans should eat foods fortified with B12 or take a daily supplement.
I found this paper from Japan that suggests B12 can be found in sufficient quantities in nori, but it's a primary source so I didn't add it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Religious veganism
I attempted to add a section on religious veganism as observed in certain religions, particularly during the Lenten fasting periods of Oriental Orthodoxy. I've scoured the articles on the subject of Oriental Orthodox fasting for sources, but it appears that most of these are derived from Oriental Orthodox practitioners' experiences rather than any written source; I suspect that this is because these churches are based in the Middle East and Ethiopia, and as such little English-language materials are available on the subject. I would urge others to find more concrete sources in (e.g.) academic and historical sources on these churches; I myself will seek information online in Arabic. However, I would like to ask for some leniency in the matter, for the simple reason that hard research is harder to come by than the common knowledge of English-speaking practicing Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Varieties of veganism
I've noticed that this sentence, in the first paragraph, doesn't seem to make sense to me: "Environmental veganism, rejects the use of animal products on the premise that the industrial practice is environmentally damaging and unsustainable." Aside from the fact that only people can accept or reject things, and philosophies cannot, the sentence does not communicate what "industrial practice" is environmentally damaging and unsustainable." It says the industrial practice is damaging. There is more than one industrial practice in existence. Which one is damaging? What is an "industrial practice" anyway? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 06:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not an opinion. It is the standard definition of both the Vegan Society and the American Vegan Society, and is the definition supplied by Donald Watson, who is universally credited with coining the word vegan. I don't know who you are or what your agenda is, but you are mistaken. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 13:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, there are not different "classes" of vegans. A person is either a vegan, or they are not. If they have a vegan diet, that does not necessarily make them vegan. That is standard definition, not opinion. Some of the confusion may be caused by the fact that more animals are raised and killed for food, than for any other purpose. See http://shakahara.com/donreq2.html So the primary practical difference between vegans and non-vegans, is their diet. And it is also easier to avoid animal products in food, than in clothing, and shelter, which are not labeled as clearly as to their constituents. As a reference, I cite about 45 years of being vegan, and personal acquaintance with Jay and Freya Dinshah since around 1970. What are your credentials?
We won't be divided into warring "classes." We generally respect people's freedom to adopt a vegan diet, without being vegan, and people who are not vegan but have a vegan vegan diet generally respect the principals of veganism asserted by the "founding mothers and fathers" of veganism, and do not try and assert that they are vegan.
I ask you, if I adopt the diet of lion, does that make me a lion? If I adopt a Kosher diet, without conforming to the general rules of Kashruth (using different utensils for dairy and for flesh, for example) does that make me Jewish, or even Kosher?
From http://www.vegansociety.com/about/ "Promoting ways of living free from animal products, for the benefit of people, animals, and the environment." It doesn't say promoting diet free from animal products, it says promoting ways of living free from animal products. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 13:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly the Vegan Society and the American Vegan Society are better sources for a definition of veganism, than Webster's dictionary. Oddly, no-one cited the Oxford English Dictionary Definition, which is "The beliefs or practice of vegans; abstention from or avoidance of all food or other products of animal origin."
And who are you. Your talk comments aren't signed.Nomenclator (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC) What makes what I say "opinion" and what you say "fact"? Respectable writers of fact (as opposed to fiction) identify themselves, sign their works. Those who are trying to muddle the facts, and promote propoganda, hide behind anonymity. That is a basic tenet of journalism. We can generally devalue your assertions, if you don't sign them.
I'm going to allow you an opportunity to revert the article yourself, Ms or Mr Anonymous. I know I should have added the references in the main article, that I added here. I apologize for being so neglectful about providing references for my facts. You may add the reference I cited, yourself.Nomenclator (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
My real name is theodore zuckerman. http://theodorezuckerman.com http://shakahara.com -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The vegan society and the american vegan society are authoritative sources. Associated press is most certainly not. One of the sources you cite to support your pov, actually refutes it, and confirms the facts I reported, saying "This [dietary vegan] fits the 'strict vegetarian' group, but in the best of American traditions, they then confused things further by insisting on calling themselves 'vegan'. They describe exactly what you are trying to do, confusing things by insisting on called people who have a vegan diet, vegan. You are being inconsistant and contradictory in the best tradition of propogandizing a personal agenda. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 16:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Nomenclator (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how pointing to material from the Vegan society or the American Vegan Society is Original Research. I did not write that material. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
At least one of the sources cited by SlimVirgin, the International Vegetarian Union, is actually consistent with the sources I cited, and the facts I cited, and inconsistant with Slimvirgin's pov. I pointed this out above.
The Associated Press is simply not an authoritative source. The Vegan Society and the American Vegan Society are authoritative. A news or magazine article in the general press regarding veganism, is not as authoritative regarding veganism as a national vegan organization or an international organization. Why anyone would hold to the alternative view as to which is more authoritative, makes no sense - unless they were intentionally trying to propogandize against veganism or divide vegans among themselves into different classes, in an attempt to start class conflict. Nomenclator (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I remind you that I support my statements with my true identity, while SlimVirgin remains hiding beyond anonymity. This is often a tip-off as to who is telling the truth, and who is making up propaganda to promote a hidden agenda. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 17:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. This again? Wikipedia is about communication, collaboration, and compromise. If you're not able to clearly communicate, collaborate, or compromise, perhaps you should find another place to write. Your own website has no limitations on original research and you need not cooperate with others. KellenT 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I will remind you all again that at least one of the sources that was cited to support the idea that the term ethical veganism is not a redundancy, and that diet-only veganism is a form of veganism, actually articulate the opposite view. Further, the idea that vegans fall into 2 main "camps" is divisive, and suggests that it may have been proposed by non-vegans whose intent was to foster divisions among vegans. Regardless of what wikipedia is about, my own goal is to reveal truth and to point out efforts at deception. That is why I point out contractions, redundancies, and ambiguities, and distinguish between denotation and connotation, and why I distinguish ascriptive or prescriptive remarks, from descriptive remarks. I feel you are using wikipedia to mislead the public about vegans, to calumnize us, and attempt to divide us. I am tryin to use it to communicate the truth. There are not multiple kinds of vegans. There is only one kind of vegan. Difference between individual vegans do not put them into different camps. We are united despite our differences, and no attempt you do to confuse the facts is going to change that.(talk) 21:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Victor Yus "Your argument seems to be that an organization that has "vegan" in its name, or which is some sort of successor to those who first invented the word "vegan", get to be the sole and ultimate authorities as to what vegan "really" means." My argument is that the American Vegan Society, The Vegan Society, the International Vegetarian Union, and the Oxford English Dictionary, are more authoritative sources than the Associated Press, CBS News, Webster's Dictionary. Another source, that you cited in favor of your view, Joanne Stepaniak, actually supports my view "Joanne Stepaniak. Being Vegan. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2000, p. 10: "'Dietary vegan' is one way to get around the sticky issue of those who consume no animal products but do not extend animal-free philosophy beyond diet, but I'm not sure it is the best choice ... To put a qualifier before [the word] dilutes [its] meaning." I emphasise the last phrase, "to put a qualifier before [the word] dilutes [its] meaning." Greetings to the present company of meaning-diluters. That is what you are. I've attempted to clarify, but you insist on obfuscating.
That said, I'm not sure "dietary vegans" even exist. We are all, to use the redundancy, ethical vegans. My observations have been that most every person with a vegan diet, also makes at least some effort to avoid animal products in other areas too. And that makes them a plain ordinary vegan, rather than a dietary vegan. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 21:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
A strict vegetarian is not a vegan. Their food is vegan but he is not. This is correct: Veganism /'vi:g?n?z?m/ is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products in all areas of life. Veganism emerged as a philosophy of life that respects the sentient animals, as well as associated to a strict vegetarian diet (vegan diet). A follower of veganism is called a vegan.Xxxzenicxxx (talk)
People often use words informally. There is nothing wrong with doing this, and an informal definition of the word vegan would allow you to describe someone who has a vegan diet, but just loves to hunt deer, for trophy purposes, as a vegan. But strictly speaking, such a person does not comform to the formal definition of vegan. The purpose of an encyclopedia is different than the purpose of a dictionary. Dictionaries often report how people use words precisely, as well as informally, and report primary meanings, secondary meanings, and collogquial meaning. Encyclopedias try to to provide a more formal and precise information about what something truly is, rather than what the uneducated hoi poloi think it is. The fact that a dicitonary defintion of vegan can be "someone who adheres to a vegan diet," or that people use the word vegan this way, on message boards, informally (I do the same thing myself) should not be used to support an encylopedia article. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk o contribs) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't tell me that. I have no idea what you are trying to tell me, in your remarks about Garner. And according the your definition of dietary vegan, there would be nothing absurd about a vegan who goes trophy hunting. It would fit right in, precisely, with your definition. Someone reading wikipedia, to find out what a vegan is, and what veganism is all about, would learn that someone who does frequent trophy hunting, but never eats anything they hunt, and confines their diet to vegetable matter, keeps a 10 square foot freezer filled with chicken breasts and lambs legs, and sells them to people who come to her door, and raises minks in her back yard, slaughters them, and makes furry mink clothes, could be described as being a kind of vegan, a dietary vegan. Nomenclator (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, informally, especially if communicating in spoken language, I might say that such a person is a dieatry vegan - meaning that they had a vegan diet, but not making an effort to be really precise. But when writing an encyclopedia article I try to make an effort to be more precise, and communicate more factually, by using the phrase "person with a vegan diet" rather than the somewhat vague and misleading "dietary vegan." Of course if I am talking to a bunch of vegans, I may not be so careful, and talk about "dietary vegans" when discussing people who care about not clogging their arteries, but don't care to go to too much effort, or any effort, to avoid buying vegan shoes, or buying leather furniture.Nomenclator (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC) But I don't have to be so careful, when talking to my fellow vegans, because I know that my fellow vegans already know that the person who has a vegan diet for health reasons only, and is an avid deer hunter because they like trophy heads in their living room, is not actually a vegan. But if I am trying to be crystal clear, to people going to an encyclopedia for information, I use the more formal usage. Context. Nomenclator (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed the first sentences of the article had been changed to take my suggestions into account, and that it has stayed this way for quite a while. Saying that "distinctions are sometimes made" is not the same as saying the distinctions are valid, as the article formerly had said. Nomenclator (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Um...
Why is there a box opposite the contents called "Tool Box" I've never seen this before on a talk page. Am I meant to be able to access this feature? 212.250.138.33 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Clarification on The China Study and osteoporosis
There are other wiki pages that discuss the condition of acidosis, the condition of increased acidity in blood and tissues, and they do not support your opinion that there is a link between animal products and osteoporosis. I do agree that T. Colin Campbell claims in his book that animal protein is linked to osteoporosis, but just because one person claims that there is a link between two things doesn't mean that we can't provide critical analysis or provide links to pages that discuss the medical condition in detail.. The actual citations on The China Study wiki pages are available on google books (pages 205 and 208), and I would invite you to review it. The methodology that T. Colin Campbell claims that meat causes acidosis is not really explained in his book and is not consistant with the acidosis wiki page. However, there is considerable evidence that acidosis doesn't cause the kind of medical problems that Campbell mentions. For example, see the following studies and reviews:
- [Milk and acid-Base Balance: Hypothesis versus scientific evidence] Recent critical analysis that shows that milk and dairy do NOT cause metabolic acidosis
- [Dietary acid-base balance in adolescent sprint athletes: a follow-up study] Concludes that athletes who eat meat don't increase their acid load
- [Dietary acid load and risk of hypertension: the Rotterdam Study] Concludes there is no link between acid load and hypertension
I would also encourage you to visit the alkaline diet page. Both the alkaline diet and acidosis pages have critically evaluated what acidosis is and it's not consistent with Campbell's claims. If you want to argue this some more, lets take it out of the Veganism pages and to one of the other pages.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Milk, eggs and honey
I have added sections on these animal products with an explanation on why vegans avoid them. I have edited this article for several years but it was only this week that I noticed this important distinction was missing! Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet
Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Heavy emphasis on food
This article is slanted heavily toward food and strict-vegetarianism, not so much animal rights which is really what veganism is about.75.202.47.116 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
insufficient citing " Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition"
Yesterday I deleted the line "Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition (resulting in spine malformation and fractures) and some infant fatalities have been reported in families in which parents fed their child and themselves a poorly planned vegan diet." along with its "source" reference. As I noted in my edit comment, the citation only notes ONE case (not "several") of malnutrition, and that case doesn't even actually link malnutrition to veganism.
User SlimVirgin added it back in without properly noting why or adding more sources.
I would like to have the line deleted permanently UNLESS BETTER SOURCES ARE PROVIDED.
Please advise, wikipedia community!
Wikidsoup [talk] 20:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Demographics
Hi Harel, regarding this edit -- "... a July 2012 Gallup poll found 2 percent report being vegan, 91 percent 'not vegan,' and 7 percent reported 'no opinion'" -- I can't see the significance to this article of including 91 percent "not vegan," and 7 percent "no opinion" (source).
Was the previous version not better? "In 2006 a poll by Harris Interactive suggested that 1.4 percent were dietary vegans, a 2008 survey for the Vegetarian Resource Group reported 0.5 percent, or one million, and a July 2012 Gallup poll suggested two percent." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Unnecessary attribution?
"Reed Mangels of the department of nutrition at the University of Massachusetts Amherst writes that a" is in the B12 section. But it precedes what should only be basic health facts about B12 deficiency, I think, so I don't think the attribution is necessary. Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikidsoup, I see you removed the in-text attribution. I've restored it, but moved it to a different place in that section. The reason it's there is that a lot of the section depends on her, so I want to give her credit. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Parking a couple of new sections
I'm uncomfortable with the following two sections added recently, which I have removed and pasted here for further discussion.
Firstly,
I think this material might be suitable if we remove some of the original research and fix the attribution. For example, the IPSRM citation is to a presentation given at a workshop, and is not an official statement of the UN. Ultimately I am unsure if a workshop presentation is a reliable source.
Secondly, from the always-fun pregnancies and children section:
I don't like citing health claims to an op-ed in the NYT. Ideally we should look to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for specific statements of this sort. Comments? Skinwalker (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Date format
I'd like to change the date format to day-month-year (17 December 2012) because it looks tidier (no commas). This is the sort of style issue we're meant to ask about before changing, so if anyone objects please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Davis and Regan
In "Debate about animals killed in crop harvesting", Steven Davis certainly seems to misunderstand and thus misrepresent Regan's position on minimizing harm to animals. In The Case for Animal Rights, beginning on p. 302, Regan devotes considerable space to explaining why he rejects what he calls the "minimize harm principle" (i.e., the utilitarian position that Davis attributes to him). So I propose deleting Davis's claim that Regan has a utilitarian position on this issue (Regan has frequently explained why his rights position is incompatible with utilitarianism), while retaining reference to Davis's claim that "a plant-based diet would kill more than one containing beef from grass-fed ruminants." Scales (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Dodgy citation
There is a citation [15] that is nearly all about vegetarianism. If it doesn't address veganism specifically, it can't be used to make claims about vegan diets, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Biased Article
It seems to me that this article is biased, especially in its section about health effects. There are *plenty* of counter-arguments, one need only look for them; and yet there is no mention of that fact.
68.199.204.112 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Rewording needed
Aside from Brendan Brazier and Robert Cheeke, the lead overstates the case. The point isn't that some athletes are vegan (and the lead presents this somewhat dishonestly), the point is that you can be be vegan and still be a competitive athlete. This argument has more to do with negating myths about protein intake (for example, "you have to eat meat to compete") than with athletics. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Lead images
I would like to propose replacing all of the images in the infobox (and perhaps even other images in this article) with selected images from the SweetOnVeg photostream on flickr. By all accounts, these are the best free images available. I'll start uploading a few for discussion purposes. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
proposed new section: Arguments against veganism
There are many articles, research papers and studies that have enough weight to merit a section of criticism against the vegan diet. I fear that this is something that some vegans would not want to see on this page as the article appears to be written from a very biased prospective. I am proposing that a new section be added as described above. Please comment as I would like to hear all feedback before embarking on this journey. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.70.40 (talk o contribs) 2:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The pronunciation of quinoa
I removed it, and it was reverted. I want to explain why I think it should be removed. First of all, it is not relevant to this article. Secondly, anyone who want to know how to pronounce the word can simply click on the word and get an instant answer. Thirdly, why mark quinoa but not all the other exotic foods mentioned in this article? Lastly, shouldn't the pronunciation labeled in IPA? Yel D'ohan (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)
These two essential fatty acids are synthesized in humans from ALA, which is discussed in this article.
However the efficiency of conversion is controversial, with some studies showing that for many individuals enough EPA and DHA cannot be produced from ALA. Getting enough pre-formed EPA and DHA from unprocessed vegan sources is not possible, although there are commericially available processed vegan sources.
This seems to me an important issue for vegan diets, as there are many health issues for low EPA and DHA, and as there are vegan products available to supply them.
This information is already mentioned scattered through various other wikipedia articles. There is extensive research on the subject so there is no lack of secondary or tertiary sources to create a new section DHA and EPA, or extending the present essential fatty acid section to include them.
For example this review article:
"With no other changes in diet, improvement of blood DHA status can be achieved with dietary supplements of preformed DHA, but not with supplementation of ALA, EPA, or other precursors. "
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19269799/reload=0;jsessionid=YPcAjZLMLHjpPp84lZnV.4f
Brenna JT, Salem N Jr, Sinclair AJ, Cunnane SC, International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids, ISSFAL Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Savage Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. jtb4@cornell.edu Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes, and Essential Fatty Acids [2009, 80(2-3):85-91]
RiceMilk (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Category:Vegans
There's a discussion here about whether to delete this category, in case anyone wants to comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Redundancy
I removed "and fish" from the phrase "meat and fish" in the intro. It's redundant.
Thanks.
--74.141.163.51 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
No criticism
Why isn't there a section of criticism towards veganism? This article sounds pretty biased in favor of the subject almost ignoring the criticism or drawbacks of being a vegan. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 18:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, any problems with veganism are buried here. For example, numerous reliable sources of the highest caliber state in no uncertain terms, "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals." (U.S. National Institutes of Health) Rather than starting the section on B12 with a straight ahead statement that natural vegan foods do not contain this necessary nutrient, our section rambles on about what B12 is, what it is for, etc. before giving a watered down version littered with crap about "in most cases" and "at least in the West", citing a vegan book that, I'm guessing, argues that various obscure algae that science is still investigating might contain bio-available B12 (or useless analogues) and gee, if you eat veggies covered with shit they probably have some B12 in them. This "quite mainstream" diet is followed by, at most, 2% of the population. It is the natural human diet, though you need careful menu planning and artificial supplements to follow it. Numerous top level athletes follow it, until you examine the claims and find that the individual athlete tried it for part of a season, until he decided he needed to add in a little chicken, fish and eggs to his diet. But no, this article isn't biased at all. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Summer PhD, please don't destabilize the article. It has been very carefully written and sourced. The sources for the B12 section are:
- Mangels, Reed; Messina, Virginia; and Messina, Mark. "Vitamin B12 (Cobalamin)," The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011, pp. 179-192.
- Mangels, Reed. "Vitamin B12 in the Vegan Diet", Vegetarian Resource Group.
- Herbert, Victor. "Vitamin B12: plant sources, requirements and assay", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48(3), September 1988, pp. 852-858.
- Norris, Jack and Messina, Virginia. Vegan for Life. Da Capo Press, 2011, p. 34.
- Halsted, James et al. "Serum Vitamin B12 Concentration in Dietary Deficiency", The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 8(3), 1960, pp. 374-376.
- "Vitamin B12", Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health
- Norris, Jack. "Vitamin B12: Are you getting it?", Vegan Outreach, 26 July 2006.
SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon