Talk:Veganism/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reverted repetition of the criticisms.  The paragraph on possible deficiency already contained the information repeated 2 or more times below the graph'.  Abe Froman 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you haven't understood the structure of the article. The para under "health effects" is an intro summary paragraph of the "specific nutrients" subsection below. KellenT 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you'll read the discussion of Allen's statements above, you'll see that she was originally misquoted that her statement was essentially "vegans must supplement for b12." I encourage you to add cited sources here so we can formulate more complete criticisms in the article. Also other aspects of attack on the idea of veganism would be interesting. KellenT 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the discussion and don't see why it was removed. I also don't characterize dietary study results and related criticisms as "attacks". —Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was using the word "attack" in a philosophical sense; Davis' article, e.g. is an attack on the concept of "least harm implies veganism"; I also wasn't referring to Allen, but inviting addition of other 'attacks' not included above. As for Allen, her comments about veganism were removed as per Talk:Veganism/Archive08#pregnancies_section_cleanup. In any case, I explicitly mentioned Allen in the above list. What I was looking for in this section were other avenues of criticism/attack/whateveryouwanttocallit that we haven't mentioned at all. KellenT 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, "attacks" shouldn't be in the article: this isn't the place for them. What we are dealing with are criticisms of veganism.  Davis's position, as an example, is based on Regan's conclusion which favors a vegan diet - he's not attacking anything or anyone; neither was Allen. I think viewing criticism as an "attack" is very problematic. —Viriditas | Talk 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've misunderstood again; 'attack' in the way I am using it does not imply any negatives, it only implies that someone is critically examining an issue from a particular angle. But anyway. Got any additional criticisms to add to the list? KellenT 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't misunderstood anything.  None of these criticisms can be described as an attack, which in the context you are using it refers to strong, adverse criticism.  Your description of the critics above does not appear accurate.  You describe criticism by Davis as "basically attacks premise that a vegan diet causes less harm than a theoretical diet including meat" when in fact he accepts the premise and goes from there.  I'm reading Davis's article again and don't see any attacks.  Here are his conclusions: 1)"Vegan diets are not bloodless diets. Millions of animals of the field die every year to provide products used in vegan diets. 2) Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer animals than the vegan model. 3) More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the number of field animals killed in different crop production systems. 4) Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based plus pasture-forage-ruminant systems."  None of these can be construed as attacks. —Viriditas | Talk 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Example: Davis is attacking Regan's premise that 'least harm' necessarily implies a vegan diet. This is using 'attack' in a philosophical (or, hell, a computer security) sense. It doesn't mean Davis has to hate Regan or veganism; his paper is still an attack on this conclusion. How about you list these other criticisms here, or put them in the main article, and if it requires a new article, so be it. KellenT 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But he's not.  Quoting Matheny: "In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis (2003) accepts the common moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the “least harm principle”) but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian diets do in fact cause the least harm." —Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, exactly. The way in which he's attacking Regan's conclusion is through his by "challeng[ing] the empirical claim that vegetarian diets do in fact cause the least harm." KellenT 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh, I said "premise" above. Perhpas that caused some confusion. Should be "conclusion." KellenT 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kellen, sorry but I think using the word 'attack' is a bit prejudicial. I suggest you use 'criticizing', 'disputing', 'challenging'. To qualify as 'attacking', in this context, I would expect to see a very serious effort being made to refute every single point of the opponent. Being criticial is not the same as attacking. And, using a word like 'attacking' does not help bridge the gap. Lsi john 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davis disputes the premise that veganism kills less animals. Attack, dispute, debate, disagree, whatever. Why are we caring about this? I'm sorry, it really looks like this is sidetracking the conversation by nitpicking on Kellen's choice of words (words that are not actually in the article itself).  Madeleine 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. He doesn't even do that.  He says, "several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer animals than the vegan model."  Davis is using and supporting Regan's least harm argument, but reaching a different conclusion.  I'm really tired of the us vs. them mentality you and others are promoting. —Viriditas | Talk 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He questions it? Does this make you happy? And why are you persistently conflating "Regan's least harm principle" with "Regan's conclusion that a vegan diet satisfies the LHP" (the latter is what Davis is attacking disputing "questioning", which is what I believe I wrote). You seem reluctant to compromise on anything anyone says, right down to their choice of words on a damn talk page. -- Madeleine 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davis questions the validity of Regan's conclusion that the vegan diet would cause the least harm to animals, and proposes that humans may be morally obligated to consume a mixed diet of vegetables and animal products.  Davis doesn't attack vegans, veganism, or the LHP; he only shows that the vegan diet may not cause the least harm.  On the other hand, Matheny (not an animal scientist like Davis, but an ecomonist) does attack Davis's argument, mostly with vigorous handwaving. —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You already noted the childhood issue, and it's sort of covered already within the nutrition section, maybe the pregnancy section could get expanded to cover "pregnancy and childhood"? or even "pregnancy, childhood, and adolescence"? That is, assuming these all have the same nutritional cautions / recommended supplements. It's good to address these things, I suspect this is a major cause for concern for a lot of people. Madeleine 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms clearinghouse 

message: 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)
: I have been 'aggressively' referencing the article and as I am often tied to the computer for other reasons, also watch this article. I am vegan. You were reverted mainly because you (a) blanked sections, which is common of vandals (b) later added a large chunk of poorly formatted text to the article, which is common of people with good intentions, but without an understanding of how wikipedia works. Also, if you are Michael Klaper, you should know that referencing your own work can be construed as a conflict of interest. I'm not sure why you blanked out the calcium bit, as it is referenced (click the little number, read the cited article). Also, please please use the preview button so you can work out the kinks in your comments/posts before they are shown to the rest of the world. I've fixed your broken </ref>, so your comments should show up now. KellenT 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well you don't have to fight for anything, you have to discuss and persuade other editors that your changes are beneficial if they don't appear to be at first. I have not read Klaper's book, but including his "food pyramid" smacks to me violating wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (specifically the "instruction manuals" section). In any case, our references already cite several vegan nutrition guides, provided by the Vegan Society, among others. KellenT 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simplifying nutritional requirements into a set of food groups can be done many ways, it feels to me that lists like this oversimplify nutrition in a manner that necessarily reflects a particular POV. That is not to say the list isn't healthy -- I am saying that there are a lot of lists out there that are healthy, it's not like any single list exists as a scientific fact. If these are included, the list should be particularly notable (eg. BRAT diet) and/or arise from more general sources like government agencies (eg. the American food guide pyramid), and I don't think this one meets that criteria. If this isn't notable then, as Kellen says, it is an indiscriminate inclusion of information. -- Madeleine 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a PubMed link and a DOI. Its major conclusion is that "fracture risk was similar for meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians. The higher fracture risk in the vegans appeared to be a consequence of their considerably lower mean calcium intake." Therefore its most certainly appropriate as a reference. If your contrary evidence is published an peer reviewed, then perhaps you could refer us to it, otherwise its not relevent per WP:NOR. Rockpocket 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition 

message: 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)
: I have been 'aggressively' referencing the article and as I am often tied to the computer for other reasons, also watch this article. I am vegan. You were reverted mainly because you (a) blanked sections, which is common of vandals (b) later added a large chunk of poorly formatted text to the article, which is common of people with good intentions, but without an understanding of how wikipedia works. Also, if you are Michael Klaper, you should know that referencing your own work can be construed as a conflict of interest. I'm not sure why you blanked out the calcium bit, as it is referenced (click the little number, read the cited article). Also, please please use the preview button so you can work out the kinks in your comments/posts before they are shown to the rest of the world. I've fixed your broken </ref>, so your comments should show up now. KellenT 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well you don't have to fight for anything, you have to discuss and persuade other editors that your changes are beneficial if they don't appear to be at first. I have not read Klaper's book, but including his "food pyramid" smacks to me violating wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (specifically the "instruction manuals" section). In any case, our references already cite several vegan nutrition guides, provided by the Vegan Society, among others. KellenT 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simplifying nutritional requirements into a set of food groups can be done many ways, it feels to me that lists like this oversimplify nutrition in a manner that necessarily reflects a particular POV. That is not to say the list isn't healthy -- I am saying that there are a lot of lists out there that are healthy, it's not like any single list exists as a scientific fact. If these are included, the list should be particularly notable (eg. BRAT diet) and/or arise from more general sources like government agencies (eg. the American food guide pyramid), and I don't think this one meets that criteria. If this isn't notable then, as Kellen says, it is an indiscriminate inclusion of information. -- Madeleine 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a PubMed link and a DOI. Its major conclusion is that "fracture risk was similar for meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians. The higher fracture risk in the vegans appeared to be a consequence of their considerably lower mean calcium intake." Therefore its most certainly appropriate as a reference. If your contrary evidence is published an peer reviewed, then perhaps you could refer us to it, otherwise its not relevent per WP:NOR. Rockpocket 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Vegan Six Food Groups

message: This change of:
: Vegans are potentially at risk for being deficient in nutrients ...
to:
: However, Vegans with poorly planned diets are at a risk for being deficient in nutrients ...
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:
: However, vegans are at a greater risk than vegetarians or omnivores for being deficient in nutrients ...
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)
replies: text:  A poorly planned diet is a prerequisite for these deficiencies.  The deficiency does not necessarily include Veganism at all.  Maintaining the link between poorly planned diet and the deficiency is contextually necessary.  Abe Froman 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a poorly planned diet is the cause, but vegans, due to their dietary restrictions, are at a much higher risk of having some particular deficiencies. The higher risk for these particular deficiencies follows from the vegan restriction, this is not just about generic poor diet planning. In other words, this does necessarily include veganism. Although I wasn't unhappy with the previous caveat, the alternate wording Kellen has proposed to avoid flatly stating "all vegans" are at risk sounds reasonable to me. If people insist on mentioning planning, maybe something can be said that says both at the same time like "vegans are at greater risk for being deficient in some particular nutrients and need to pay special attention to these when planning their diets" -- Madeleine 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "with poorly planned diets" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do any other editors care to weigh in on this? Lsi john responds in the next section down. KellenT 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anybody? KellenT 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: When you say: "If we have to 'build up' the value of a source, by citing it in the lead, question whether or not we're making a POV statement." I think you're referring to the reliance upon the Vegan Society quote. The fact of the matter is that the Vegan Society originally created the word veganism and defined its meaning, so it's pretty authoritative. If you had some other concern, can you clarify it? KellenT 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My specific concern was in the aparent need to say that the Vegan Society was the source. Either they are a reliable source, or they arent. If they aren't then we shouldn't be citing them. If they are, then simply cite them and be done. It's unnecessary to say who said it. That is an attempt to 'build credibility' for the statement, and is unnecessary. The readers will 'assume' that the statement is credible, simply because we make it. Lsi john 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and in answer to an implied question; there were two health sections because the one in "motivations" had been there for a long time, then a "health criticism" section was created, which was then edited to be more NPOV and provide direct health-related info. The "health motivations" section has remained basically unedited, and as such is a collection of random junk that people have dropped into the article. They should have been merged, as you have done. I suggested this multiple times above, but was waiting to edit down the motivations section. KellenT 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it just takes a fresh face, to kick things forward. Lsi john 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My Changes

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Tag warring is a form of edit warring, and is not appropriate. —Viriditas | Talk 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Migospia, please read Lsi john's comment above more carefully, then consider your response again. I think you may have misunderstood his meaning. Rockpocket 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Migospia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vegan cuisine 

message: 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)
replies: text: True, the whole "benefits" section needs a brutal editing. Please do so at your earliest convenience. =) KellenT 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, brutal I shall be -- we will still have the history :) CyrilleDunant 06:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted a change you made to the first sentence, making it contrast veganism with diets "rich in proteins". I think this mischaracterizes the study referenced, which observed a negative health correlation with animal protein but a positive correlation with plant protein. I've seen some claims that too much protein is bad for you (and a lot of back and forth regarding Atkins diet), but this study wasn't addressing that... so that's what I was trying to avoid. I hadn't read what you wrote here, your edit makes more sense now. Maybe we can use what you wrote but reword it with some of the least controversial bad aspects of the SAD that the study mentions? (high fat, low fiber, low in green vegetables ?) Madeleine 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Which statement(s) in that section do you think reflects this assumption?  Doctormatt 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one I noticed was "Additionally, an animal-based diet is far less land, water and energy efficient than a vegan diet." which asserts that crops are always the most efficient use of land for food production, instead of merely more efficient for normally cultivatable land (Kirtai 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources section 

message: 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)
replies: text: These images are probably all copyrighted but I think I disagree with general idea -- a food pyramid implies some sort of medical/health recommendation being made by wikipedia. If people do like the idea, I'd also like to point out the ADA's "A new food guide for North American vegetarians", which has a less artsy pyramid and also a "rainbow" ... possibly more informative for the labeling of calcium rich foods, and presumably NPOV, but contains vegetarian (non-vegan) foods and is also copyrighted material. Madeleine 03:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying we have to use these images, just the idea of explaining recommended vegan health nutrients in a food pyramid idea, because I think a lot of people can relate to that, and the main problem with your link is that it's for vegetarians not vegans, and we don't have to copy the copyrighted material just take the information needed in the way the average  food guide pyramid, like how all articles are made. But just to understand what you don't like about the idea is that it is a health recommendation?--Migospia†♥ 03:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a strong concern, but a food pyramid does seem to imply a recommended eating pattern (eg lots of grains). If we adapt the ADA (make our own version but remove nonvegan elements), we could place a caption like "the american dietary association recommends a modified food pyramid for vegans" to make it clear that it's the ADA's recommendation and not wikipedia's, and link to their food guide. Madeleine 03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well adding not very useful non-free images is not a very good idea unlessa absolutely necessary (in this case, the fair use argument would be tenuous). CyrilleDunant 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I am not talking about adding not very useful non-free images, just the talking about the vegan pymarid with a diagram to help vegas and non vegans understand, I am shocked that is not on here already, I mean we even have a section tellin people the risk of being vegan and not even the vegan pymarid on the vegan article?--Migospia†♥ 07:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel concerned, why don't you draw one? If your image is not very-well finished, it might well be that another wikipedian will create a new one from the template you have provided, if the template is free to use.CyrilleDunant 07:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't speaking in pure hypotheticals. If you check my userpage, you'll see that I've already made a fair number of images for wikipedia. But I'm finding it very irritating when you act "shocked" that it's not here already, please respect that it's a fair amount of work to make images and while you may think this image is important, others haven't felt the lack of a "food pyramid" was a critical deficit in this article. After all, other dietary articles do not have custom food pyramids -- eg Vegetarianism and Atkins Nutritional Approach. I don't think it was an issue until you brought it up just now. Madeleine 15:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine find it very irritating, how do you think I feel? And I am not just talking about the image read what I wrote again pease before you jump to conclusions and find things irritating. And it may not have been an issue or not but the vegan article still needs a lot of work and a section like this can help, we may not even need a picture to explain the nutrients, please re-read what I wrote.--Migospia†♥ 21:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Vegan_food_pyramid.svg -- Madeleine 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* Guess that was a waste of my time. Ah well. -- Madeleine 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a waste of time. I just added the image both to the Veganism article and the vegan nutrition article. Since nobody that participated in this discussion has thanked you for doing this, I will. Thanks Madeleine, the image looks awesome. mako (talk•contribs) 13:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan Food Pyramid 

message: 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)
replies: text: For example you say "but according to doctors it is not serious/severe enough [to be described as serious]" - but do you have a source for that? Or is it just something you heard. --danielfolsom 21:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Which word/words? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I was refering to "serious" - which based on what Migospia says above is the problem--danielfolsom 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I don't feel that word is the issue. I think we need to find reliable sources that tell us vegans actually do come down with these diseases if they have poorly-managed diets. Because otherwise it's like saying, as was argued above, that teenage motorists may die if they fall asleep at the wheel. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought there was a reliable source - what are those above?--danielfolsom 21:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait - it seems like everyone's agreeing - what's the conflict here?--danielfolsom 22:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If vegans are not at significant risk of those diseases, whether they are serious or not is a moot point. I made this point to Migospia, but she chose to continue to contest the "seriousness" if the diseases, rather than whether the diseases themselves are relevent. Rockpocket 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, but you never went ahead and proposed an alternative as was asked in the discussion above. Also, you will note I never reverted your edit after we discussed it. I was not agreeing that your edit was correct or preferable, simply that it addressed the grammatical error that I had corrected in the first place. Rockpocket 23:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Because you had addressed the grammatical error that I had reverted. I was not interested in edit-warring over content, much preferring to discuss the matter here. "you can" and "if you wish to do that" does not indicate I agree with the content of your edit, simply that it was no longer grammatically incorrect. If you have three alternatives to significant improve the article, why don't you make those edits, instead of revert warring over whether a disease is "serious" or not? Rockpocket 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, still kinda confused - but from what I'm reading it seems like Migospia is saying there's such a low chance of them that it shouldn't be mentioned. I think that they should be listed - and the only alternative that I can think of would be saying "are at a low chance for consequences" - but that's probably npov and it sounds bad. Even if there is a low chance - having any chance at all is worth mentioning - because if one of those diseases can stem from veganism than that is a fact about veganism, and facts about veganism should go into the article about veganism. I don't think that either "potential" or "serious" should be used in the phrasing - potential is implied with "can have consequences" - it's uneccesary. We would only use potential if we said "Veganism does have potential consequences". Serious, based on the lack of use in most of the articles, is seemingly an unencyclopedic term - so that shouldn't be used either. --danielfolsom 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim virgin - it's different then saying that "Teen drivers who fall asleep at the wheel may crash" - because falling asleep at the wheel has nothing to do with the driver being a teen, and the sources taht are currently listed in the comment prove that the diseases can be caused by veganism".--danielfolsom 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is important here is whether being vegan puts one at an increased risk if these diseases or not. That is the case with B12, as Migospia says, but I've yet to see any reliable sources that says that is the case with rickets and cretinism. What was being disputed by Migospia was whether these diseases (the consequences of a deficiency) are serious (I think its now pretty clear that they are). However, and I could be wrong here, but what I think Migospia would like to dispute is whether or not these diseases are relevent to the article, since vegans are no more at risk than omnivores. Am I right? Now, I don't know why Migospia was so concered with an issue that appears to be entirely beside the point, but since everyone appears to agree it is now beside the point, perhaps we can move on and focus on more relevent issues. Rockpocket 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Break

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm really unsure, because I'm not the original author of this material, and I don't know exactly what that editor was trying to convey: the original editor was IdleGuy . I hope he will step in here and try to clarify a few things. —Viriditas | Talk 06:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis]] ref 

message: Per this 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 (B, 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. B, 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)
replies: text: This is a Vegan article so people won't be thinking of vegetarianism or any other diet. And the second sentence does not state that any poorly managed diet (although true this is a Vegan article) but "A" (vegan) one, since this is a vegan article. The first one is too over analytical and it would make better and clearer sense to use the second. If you think readers can't acknowledge that the sentence is talking about vegans.... (although they are reading a vegan article) it could say instead:
 "Due to health risks associated with the reduced levels of some vitamins and minerals in a poorly-managed diet (B, 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)

text: Sounds better to me. Bob98133 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not an improvement. The issue is that an unplanned vegan diet has an increased risk, when compared an omnivorous diet, of deficiency in calcium, etc, and that it has an almost 100% chance of B12 deficiency over a long period of time. Downplaying this does a disservice to all readers, and especially to any vegans looking here for objective information. KellenT 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly Managed Diets 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you can find any, please add it. Even the US numbers aren't all that good. The UK dietary study data is probably the best but unfortunately the questions weren't very clear so determining vegans from them isn't straightforward. KellenT 01:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I will do a massive database search later tonight and try to find some more stats. —Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any luck? KellenT 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: 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). —Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a slight, unexplained "excess of cancer mortality" among vegans  according to Fraser, Gary E. (2003) Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease: Studies of Seventh-Day Adventists and Other Vegetarians.  Oxford University Press. Author concludes that "veganism does not appear to result in either dramatic protection or increased risk when compared with other vegetarian diets". —Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Life expectancy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion for latest version 

message: . 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)
replies: text: Exactly what do you think I changed? Basically all I did was re-arrange. What do you think is harmful now? Lsi john 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you even looked at the article and read this version? Its almost all the same words. Just arranged in a clearer order. Lsi john 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even looked? And you keep edit warring and reverting close to 3RR, I wish you would not make such edits without talk, that is why the talk pages are here...--Migospia†♥ 07:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  . Lsi john 

message: 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)
thread_title: Good

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: I think Why Not A Duck was merely undoing all changes by the IP that removed all statements about "poorly managed". "Poorly planned" seems like an acceptable NPOV qualification to note that vegan diets are not necessarily risky, that a well managed vegan diet that uses supplementation and pays attention to nutrients can avoid the risks of nutrient deficiencies. I agree with you about that second paragraph that was reverted, all statements about poorly managed should still note "vegan"; different poorly managed diets have different deficiency risks (eg. Vitamin C) this section is about vegan diets. So I changed that one to say "vegan" as well. Madeleine 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason it's there is because vegans feel that simply saying "vegan diets risk X" fails to consider that well planned diets with supplementation presumably avoid that risk. Madeleine 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True - but this isn't an article on poorly managed diets - it's an article on vegan diets. What I'[m saying is I'm fine with everything except this statement which doesn't mention veganism at all: "Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency in nutrients such as ..." --danielfolsom 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed that statement. Sorry I wasn't clear.  Madeleine 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly Managed...

message: 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)
replies: text: The recent edit I made was not the needed revert. Someone needs to 'edit' the previous version and save it. I'm at 1 or 2 RR and would prefer not to have to defend myself at 3RR. Lsi john 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I was out for a bit - just tell me what exactly needs to be reverted--danielfolsom 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nvm - i think i gotcha--danielfolsom 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance Rqd

message: 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)
replies: text: I think maybe you missed this further up the page:
"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)

text: -Will.law 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lindsay Allen

message: 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)
replies: text: Ah me. Time sure flies. It is the eighteenth today; technically the 'On Hold' spell will expire and turn into a decision of some sort. Here is my draft. I'll be posting it here later today. [Now posted] Take care. — Gosgood 14:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My informal pronouncement: good job. I learned stuff. More importantly, casual browsers of this article will also come away with important information. While my most arch comments concern scope and stability, I'm aware that the good Pendleton724 did a surprise nomination, and kindly told none of you about it, so the beds weren't made, the windows still needed cleaning, and the editors here were stumbling around in bathrobes and slippers. That notwithstanding, I conducted the review (at least my third of it) as if you had requested it. I'd like to thank Tim Vickers| for doing most of the work, and the editors here for informing and educating me. I suppose, if some of you take issue with all of this, you may take this to Good Article Review forum. By the way, I do think much work has to be done for a Featured Article nomination: the items I marked with the grey icon are primarily, in my humble opinion, Feature article work areas. Take care — Gosgood 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reviewer 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: I believe the "more" refers to the fact that as purchasing power rises in developing countries, so does meat consumption, and thus there are fewer de-facto vegans. KellenT 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: Proof - template at top.--danielfolsom 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is part of the Manual of Style, and it does not say that criticism sections are prohibited. —Viriditas | Talk 15:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - you admitted that - now couldn't you have figured that out a while ago by looking for yourself rather than denying it so many times?--danielfolsom 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the discussion above. —Viriditas | Talk 15:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute - even you said that they were discouraged! "It says they are discouraged"--danielfolsom 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are discouraged, in WP:CRITICISM, an essay, not the Manual of Style.  I've explained this to you several times. —Viriditas | Talk 16:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I agree that's an essay - I've never said it wasn't - but wait - if you agree they are discouraged then I don't know what we're arguing about. However, as we've been asked to leave this talk page - which I agree we should do, we can only continue this on either your or my talk page - I could care less which.--danielfolsom 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you claim below that my "lack of objection" meant that I had "conceded".  It's getting difficult to believe anything you say or write. —Viriditas | Talk 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is part of the MOS

message: 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)
replies: text: The section you have quoted does not say  "criticism sections should be avoided" nor does it discuss criticism sections.  In case you don't understand, not all criticism is controversial, and not all controversy is criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 15:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - so you're upset because it doesn't say criticism. I think it's obvious that they're talking about criticism, "proponents" and "opponents"? But stop calling this harassment because that's bullshit - I'm getting a second opinion, you should to. It seems to me like ever since I proved you were wrong about the article being part of the MOS you've called it harassment.--danielfolsom 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has never been about "the article being part of the MOS".  It's been about your claim that that the MOS prohibits criticism sections, which it doesn't. —Viriditas | Talk 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just out of curiosity - can you think of a few instances where criticism isn't controversy? Because mostly, when a organization accepts criticism - they usually try to change - in which case it would more likely become a section.--danielfolsom 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Film criticism, literary criticism, art criticism, historical criticism, criticism of scientific studies, criticism of medicine, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: From dictionary.com: controversy: a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. - like criticism.--danielfolsom 15:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And nothing about criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Criticism and controversy are not even related words.  Criticism is a "a serious examination and judgment of something"; or "a written evaluation of a work of literature"; or "disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings". —Viriditas | Talk 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be rude, and I respect both of you, but would you two please go talk past each other somewhere else?  This exchange has long ago ceased to have any benefit to this article.  Cheers, Skinwalker 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article says editors should avoid "distilling" criticism

message: 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)
replies: text: Please don't speculate about other editors.  You never claimed that criticism sections were discouraged, you claimed that "Criticism sections are not allowed per mos. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure".  I patiently explained to you - several times - that criticism sections were discouraged per a Wikipedia essay, not a policy or a guideline.  I hope that clears up your confusion. —Viriditas | Talk 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again - we have two editors that think controversy is a general category that includes criticism - but regardless - I think the NPOV quote proves that criticism sections should be avoided - so we don't need to go back and make points on random things - as long as the general is decided.--danielfolsom 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy does not necessarily include criticism, nor is the reverse true, and the NPOV policy quote proves my point not yours: there is no policy or guideline against criticism sections.  If you had actually bothered to study the issue, you would understand that the all of the commentary relating to controversy sections is in relation to unbalanced, POV, and disjointed sections.  This is not a critique or prohibition against criticism sections: it is a request for integrating controversy whenever it is unbalanced, and for balancing criticism whenever it carries undue weight.  This of course, does not apply to all criticism sections, nor could it, which is why there is no prohibition against such sections. —Viriditas | Talk 02:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The definitions at dictionary.com for criticism and controversy are dissimilar. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So now in conclusion I and Localzuk think criticism sections aren't allowed, and Viriditas doesn't.--danielfolsom 02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in conclusion, your claim that "Criticism sections are not allowed per mos" is false.  The MOS does not say that. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeat: Localzuk and I say it does - you say it doesn't (if you're so competitive that you need to declare someone wrong - well you're in the minority).--danielfolsom 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, the MOS does not say that criticism sections are prohibited, nor can you provide a quote saying such a thing: that's your interpretation.  What you or anyone else believes is irrelevant. Beliefs have no role to play in this discussion. Either the MOS prohibits criticism sections or it doesn't.  And, it doesn't. The NPOV policy footnote that you cited in defense of your position contradicts your belief. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - it does - and the other user agrees with me.--danielfolsom 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait - I thought you didn't want to talk about this anymore - so let's end it. I think the MOS says no crticism sections. Localzuk thinks the MOS says no criticism sections. You think it doesn't. Those are the facts. I'm not saying you're right and I'm not saying we're right - I'm just saying obviously there's not going to be a change in opinion on either side. Now as you said and as I said before you - the veganism page is not the place to discuss this, but you refuse to talk on your talk page (not sure why). So obviously, it's closed. Now if you want to have the last word and make a snide comment about how you're right when in fact I've just said let's agree to disagree - go ahead, be my guest.--danielfolsom 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: 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)
replies: text: Dietary supplements exist that do not use animals.  B12 from seaweed, for example.  Which supplement exists only in animal form?  Abe Froman 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why you posted that here but you should read the box again as it states it is a vegan version of the dish - so by reading the rest of the article you will know it has no fish in it.-Localzuk(talk) 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veganism and Dietary Supplements 

message: * Exclude for the reasons I listed above. KellenT 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No, exclude

message: ====Yes, include====
====No, exclude====
* Exclude for the reasons I listed above. KellenT 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Lindsay Allen's comments be included in the article? 

message: * Exclude for the reasons I listed above. KellenT 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No, exclude

message: and more edition is needed, see Treatment with CAM for amendament
: No, sorry, a pro & con section is not appropriate for this article. KellenT 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is just bad style. The info is better integrated within the rest of the article. CyrilleDunant 06:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Bring Pros & Cons section back..... 

message: Hi, everyone! I added some examples to what they do, are they good? Feel free to change them :) --HollywoodHeart
:Hi. Sorry, I removed your examples because there is no need to have them. "Vegans do not use or consume animal products of any kind." is pretty clear - no need to mention every kind of animal product.Bob98133 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is the English Wikipedia - we can't accommodate everyone. Else articles would be filled with examples, repetition explaining things etc... We don't need specific examples as the line, as mentioned by Bob98133, covers it all.-Localzuk(talk) 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example