Talk:Veganism/Archive 3

message: The reason I found it necessary to edit the article to replace "dietary vegan" with "total vegetarians, strict vegetarians, or pure vegetarians" is that veganism is about a whole philosophy of life, not just a diet.  Diet just happens to be an important aspect of this way of life.  Calling a pure vegetarian a "dietary vegan" makes about as much sense as calling somebody that eats kosher foods a "dietary Jew." 
-Random Violin Guy 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with your sentiment, people do apply the term "dietary vegan." Obviously, people who fall into this classification do not subscribe to otherwise standard vegan positions. Kellen T 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since we seem to agree that "dietary veganism" is poor term to describe a pure vegetarian, and since this is an encyclopedia, I hope you don't mind if I swap my change back in.  I think it makes perfect sense, and I don't consider it a minor point at all.  But, since I don't want to get into a revert war, I'll wait for a little feedback first.   -Random Violin Guy 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be a poor term, but it is fairly commonly used. Though in my experience the term "strict vegetarian" is also often used to refer to a vegan diet. So I suggest that the article should say "dietary vegans or strict vegetarians". I think "total vegetarian" or "pure vegetarian" are less often used in this context, so I'm not sure if they should also be mentioned. --Vclaw 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added "strict vegetarians" to it. Kellen T 08:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the term "Strict vegetarian" could be very misleading as it is often used by people who strictly follow a (non-vegan) vegetarian diet.  We have a few Indian restaurants locally that are "pure vegetarian" but their dishes includes ghee, paneer, etc. I preferred "dietary vegan" alone.--Michig 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I see that someone has changed this again to just strict vegetarian which is totally misleading.  I know a few strict vegetarians, none of which has a vegan diet.  Face facts - some vegans choose the diet for reasons other than ethics.  Dietary vegan is commonly used so let's keep it in.--Michig 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Veganism is a philosophy and way of life in which one avoids the use of ALL animal products, including leather and wool.  Eating a diet free of meat-eggs-and-dairy doesn't make you vegan any more than eating only kosher foods makes you Jewish.  The term "dietary vegan" is completely misleading because it implies being vegan, when in actuality, it only means you avoid certain foods.  I understand that the definitions of the non-lacto non-ovo vegetarian diet are blurry, which is why I suggested listing "total vegetarians, strict vegetarians, or pure vegetarians" instead of just one of the three.  Or perhaps it would be best to just leave out this whole labeling spree and say that "the vegan diet excludes any animal products (including meat, eggs, dairy, and honey)." ---RandomViolinGuy 10:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For you, yes. For me, yes. But not for everybody who applies the term "vegan." Kellen T 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Indeed, asserting that Veganism is a philosophy and way of life as if one had a personal and all-encompassing lease on the term is simply absurd.  Many who practice ethical veganism do not regard veganism per se as a philosophy at all.  For example, while some Preference Utilitarians and western Buddhists may practice veganism in the fullest and strictest sense (i.e., avoiding use or consumption of any and all animal products on a consistent basis), veganism is here not the philosophic root cause.  Rather, veganism is in this case a practice which is a consequence of a larger philosophy in which vegan considerations are encompassed, even though it may be functionally indistinguishable from the practice of individuals who consider themselves ideological vegans (i.e., vegans who consider veganism "their philosophy and way of life").  Certainly, I do not consider veganism either my philosophy or my way of life.  And yet this notwithstanding, considerations within my bioethical philosophy necessitate that I neither facilitate nor practice consumption of animal products or destruction of animal life at any time, thus causing me to describe myself as a vegan, but with this veganism as an aspect of a much larger ethical outlook in which veganism is merely a footnote.  The distinction I tend to propose is between ethical vegans who practice veganism for bioethical reasons, whatever they may be, vs. dietary vegans who do not (at least chiefly) practice veganism for philosophic reasons.  If one really wants to give a special status to individuals who consider veganism their all-encompassing life philosophy under which all other things are subsumed, I suppose I favour ideological vegan to signify that this is not merely an ethical tenet but rather a generalised philosophy for said persons --Yst 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So just strike "People who avoid eating all animal products, but who otherwise use animal by-products (for example, leather shoes) are commonly referred to as strict vegetarians or dietary vegans." ?  Kellen T 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I think so.  I'm gonna go ahead and take care of that.  -RandomViolinGuy 04:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a very good point. I think that it's mostly to make it easy for them, though. Airlines, in my experience, aren't exactly dietary experts, but if they make all Vegetarian meal options Vegan, then they don't have to deal with two different types of food for special diets. That also means they'll make them okay for folks with diabetes, and Kosher, among other things.  Canæn  05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dietary Vegan" 

message: The "possible limitations" that I had in place will either stay, or the studies will be removed. It's obvious that throwing in two studies by the same group of German researchers, on less than 100 participants (in the case of the first study, less than 30), with no mention of duration (and no mention of "vegan" in the second study) serves no purpose but to baselessly attack veganism. Find some peer-reviewed studies that can't be so easily criticized, allow the limitations to be added in, or remove the studies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyle key (talk • contribs) 16:31, August 6, 2006.
:Please look up the original articles, which contain the information you say is lacking.  Abstracts typically don't contain all of the relevant details of a paper.  B12 deficiency and homocysteine excess are well-documented problems with vegan, and to a lesser extent, vegetarian diets.  The scientific literature is quite clear on the topic, and the passages in question were written by a medical doctor.  
:My feeling about adding explicatory content, especially when we comment on scientific articles, is that it should not be done unless there are glaring errors in the original paper.  That is, if we want to criticize a scientific study, we should find a peer-reviewed article where the conclusions of the original study are criticized, and cite that article.  Take a look at WP:NOR, where uncited explication is looked upon as original research, which is unencyclopedic.  So, my opinion is that we should either cite the articles, or not cite the articles, but not include uncited criticism.  B12 deficiency can be remedied by vegan-grade supplements derived from yeast (I'm not sure about how to deal with elevated homocysteine levels), but it is a big enough problem that it should be mentioned, and the reader should be informed about how to avoid the risk while staying vegan.  Cheers, Skinwalker 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the matter is that many issues with non-vegan vegetarianism apply to veganism as well, but (as I've noted above) there are few studies which are written specifically about veganism. Since this is the case, having some such studies included is appropriate. Kellen T 09:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As concerns the flawed studies in the "health criticism" section 

message: I have updated the entry about the study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin. I have tried to make it fair and neutral in tone, as I believe that their conclusion that meat is unhealthy, with regards to the diseases they cite, is based upon the studies they have included and should be in the article as their opinion as well as a generally accepted view. I think the entry is now more specific and conforms to NPOV. I would like to gain a consensus if User:Rotten still feels the entry should be reverted.
For details please see page 15 of Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin's paper: "Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming?: New Research Suggests What You Eat as Important as What You Drive" - Solar 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Generally Accepted" that meat is bad for you? Nonsense. Show some evidence that it's "generally accepted". I'm deleting that section. Thanks.--Rotten 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Rotten's edits are appropriate. Solar, you may want to create a new article about the relationship between meat eating and health.  —Viriditas | Talk 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to leave the change from 'is generally accepted' to 'claimed', although it should be pointed out that "Rotten's" eloquent response is not an accurate quote. The edit did not say "meat" is bad for you, it said that animal fats are generally considered to have adverse effects on health. A statement that is quite true. I think generally the section is more specific and is an improvement on the original edit. I will consider creating an in-depth article on meat and its effects on health, but this section needs to mention health, as it is important to the paper the paragraph is dealing with. Thanks - Solar 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe saturated fat (which is BS IMO but it is claimed by the mainstream media that it's bad for you). But how about fish oil? That's generally accepted to be quite good for you. You vegans need to show some restraint.--Rotten 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The statement "Studies have proven that a plant based diet is far healthier than an omnivorous diet" is false.  It is cited to PETA India, one of the LEAST reliable sources for objective, unbiased info.  There are people who are very long lived and healthy on a primarily meat based diet, as well as people who are long lived and healthy on a plant based diet.  Simply saying veg*nism is inherently healthier than an omnivorous, or even carnivorous diet is just plain stupid. JesseG88 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More cites added.  Do you have a cite for your claims?  I'm not a Vegan, but a diet consisting of meat and dairy products is far less healthy (and problematic) than a plant based diet.  There's a considerable amount of research on the subject proving the claim.--Scribner 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also research that suggests the exact opposite. Here are some sources: , ,  - JesseG88 11:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The "eco eating" reference is exceedingly poor and POV. Please replace it with something better, or remove the sentence that it supports. Kellen T 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat bad for health 

message: A while back I tried unsuccessfully to defend the addition of a couple of external links that I thought were high quality and relevant.  Since there are editors here who are super-strict about external links, can I call upon such editors to help me trim the massive list of external links in the Animal rights article?  I have tried many times to trim that huge list of links to animal rights orgs. to a reasonable number, but SlimVirgin insists on keeping them all in, even though there exists an entire separate article devoted to that topic:  List of animal rights groups.  Thanks, -MichaelBluejay 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  That's a crapload of unnecessary links.  In principle, I agree that those links should be harshly pruned.  However, I am hesitant to enter in an edit war with the user you refer to.  S/he has squatted the vast majority of animal rights-related pages and refuses to listen to legitimate criticism even from editors sympthetic to her viewpoint (as i gather from reading your contributions on Talk:Animal rights).  Sh/e also interprets such legitimate criticism as a personal attack, as you have probably realized, and seems to have enough free time and "cabal" standing to revert edits at will, soon after they are made.  We would need a "bipartisan" group of editors (e.g. more than just you and me, and consisting of editors who typically approach the subject from a pro and anti direction) to effect the changes you desire.  I am willing to help, but we will need several more volunteers.  Cheers, Skinwalker 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps propose a completely new, culled set of links on the Talk page. Then other users will probably have some additions, but since you're starting from a positive (proposing something new) rathr than a negative (cutting away what exists), you might have more success. Also, since you can propose a very short initial list, it's less likely it'll end up looking like the current one, which I agree is far too long! WP:ISNOT a web directory. Kellen T 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the above comments related to the links and SlimVirgin's conduct. I think a vote would be a good idea, this way we can find a consensus and no one user has more power. - Solar 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Animal rights links? 

message: thie length of the article has now exceeded 51 kb so it should be tageed as very long.--Lucy-marie 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't it just go here? It's not a helpful thing for readers of the article to see and doesn't really deserve the space devoted to it. In any case, the first thing that should get pruned is the nutrition section, which several people have expressed an intent to move to Vegan nutrition, but nobody has ever done so. Kellen T 09:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article length 

message: Obtuse quote taken from criticism:
Many health supplements (vitamins, minerals, herbal alternatives, etc.) are placed inside capsules made of animal-based gelatin [1] [2]. Though online retailers have emerged selling vegan alternatives to such products, and vegan-friendly multivitamins and supplements can now be found in most health food stores, it is legally available only in the developed world.
Huh? What is only available in the developed world? Can someone who understands this sentence rejig it a bit? Cheers! Mujinga 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficulty section 

message: This article is good and overlong. I would suggest:
1 Moving more nutritional info to the vegan nutrition page
2 Sorting out the introduction, which is a bit unwieldy at present .. i would suggest moving the stats about us and uk vegans to its own section
I am happy to help with these changes, but I thought I would broach the subject here as I dont recall making any edits on this page before today .. Mujinga 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening an overlong article 

message: I have seen reference to the UK having low levels of iodine in the soil due to the last ice-age, this reference comes from the Vegan Society. I have recently contacted them to see where they got this information, I received the following reply: "According to Stephen Walsh PHD in his book 'Plant Based Nutrition and Health' (The Vegan Society, ) "The iodine content of plant foods depends on the iodine content of the soil, which varies greatly from one part of the world to another. Iodine in the soil is low in many areas, including most regions that were covered by ice during the last Ice Age". (p106)". I have not been able to find an independent reference that confirms this. Due to conversations I have had recently with scientists I am inclined to be sceptical, does anyone have a link to a scientific paper or other research that confirms that there are low levels of Iodine in the UK soil. Thanks - Solar 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I dont have access to the full article. --Mig77(t) 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I'm skeptical as well.  These two references state that in some parts of the UK iodine is deficient in the soil (causing local effects such as "Derbyshire neck", lol), but that it is normal in the rest of the country.  Since these articles deal with a local study of iodine concentration, I wouldn't treat them as definitive on the country-wide concentration, but they probably cite something that does directly study the national concentration. I am not aware of a mechanism by which iodine is removed from soil or blocked from entering soil by glacial ice, but I am a chemist and not a geologist.  A related Pubmed search suggests that regional differences in iodine consumption are caused by eating foods that interfere with iodine uptake.Cheers, Skinwalker 10:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a 'Not verified' tag to the Iodine section until we can find clear information supporting the Vegan Society's position or some information with a different opinion that can be added to make the section more balanced. - Solar 10:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iodine 

message: In the next major edit/reworking of the page, could an attempt be made at providing a more balanced perspective? I have nothing against veganism, but this reads like a "20 Reasons You Should Be Vegan" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdrickgr (talk • contribs) 
: Perhaps you missed the giant criticism and controversy section, which is almost half the length of the article. Kellen T 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less Bias? 

message: I have added a citation request regarding the reference to Hinduism. As far as I am aware most Hindus eat cheese, yoghurt and ghee/clarified butter (lacto vegetarianism). To include their reference under veganism seems unnecessary, and even misleading. nirvana2013 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-worded the sentence. Let me know if it is not satisfactory. nirvana2013 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've every reason to believe that this is exactly what's happened, over time. On another note, most hindus don't eat cheese, just because Cheese is a relatively western food item. Most hindus eat rice, naan, and curry, because most Hindus are poor Indians. That's not racist, that's not looking down on them, that's just the state of things in large portions of India, from what I've seen/heard. Jains, on the other hand, are ideally vegan, the monks/nuns of which going further, sometimes into fruitarianism, sometimes just refusing to eat. Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all very closely linked, something like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism; all coming from the same place, being different interpretations of the same basic beliefs. That's my take, anyway, and now I'm rambling.  Canæn  08:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism and veganism 

message: Tagged "disputed" because of the three claims in the first paragragh I read were pov, all three claims are false.  I haven't checked the entire section, yet.  I checked this paragragh at random.  Don't remove the tag until a check is done.  Here's the paragraph:
"Related studies note the importance of early recognition of significant maternal vitamin B12 deficiency during pregnancy and lactation in vegetarians is emphasized so that appropriate supplementation can be given and irreversible neurologic damage in the infant prevented.[37] Critics also point to studies which show that a Vegetarian diet is linked to genital defects.[38] They also cite that a vegan diet carries an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke.[39]"
Two sentences are lies, one, the last is ridiculous misrepresentation.--Scribner 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the first paragraph (checking cites), this section is not factual, is pov and contradicts itself.--Scribner 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Health criticism section

message: I don't recall when the last time I was on this article was, but god damn folks, what happened? The article at least used to look half-way decent. Now it's so filled with tags and prose (unwikified, unsourced pov nonsense) that I don't know what they hell's been going on. The hell of it all is, most of the text in the top half seems to be precisely the same. I don't mean to just complain, but I don't want to get myself too-far into this article again. Nothing good came out of it last time was. That said, is there anything small that I can do to help? Give me a message if y'all ever need an outside voice on it; I know how helpful that can be sometimes. Two-three people get so wrapped up in arguing over an article, they forget everything else, and that's no good. It almost seems like this article could be better if it were entirely re-written, from the ground-up.  Canæn  08:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened? 

message: "In conclusion, an inhibitory effect of SAH on whole-genome methylation was found, but from our data no interaction between vegetarian lifestyle and DNA methylation could be determined.
This is another B12 deficiency study.  The study does NOT support the section, not at all.--Scribner 16:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops; you're correct. The section quotes the hypothesis of the researchers in a way that makes it sound like it is their conclusion. Their conclusion is actually ... inconclusive. I'll remove the section as it is unsupported. Kellen T 17:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last line in the study 

message: :Some scientists dispute the assumption that a vegan lifestyle prevents unnecessary death of animals. Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, claims that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production.[29] Gaverick Matheny wrote a rebuttal in which he claims that Davis' reasoning contains several major flaws, including the notion that vegans generally eat at a lower trophic level.
Davis does not seem to be disputing that vegan lifestyles prevents unnecessary death of animals. Maybe this wording is just misleading. To me, it looks more like Davis is saying that even though Dietary Veganism may lead toward the prevention of some death, it does not address the fact that industrialized crop production kills animals and insects as well. What do you all think?
:According to one scientist of the US Agricultural Research Service, it is "unethical" to put children on a vegan diet in some cases since it could harm their development.[31] Later, the same scientist added 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."
Is it really neccessary to have two different quotes? It looks like the first quote is half of a thought, and the second quote is a full thought. Could we not rephrase it to be:
:According to one scientist of the US Agricultural Research Service, "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 don't have the page in front of me, but something along those lines. What do you all think?  Canæn  08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Davis is asserting that a vegan diet leads to more unnecessary death than a nonvegan diet insofar as it primarily relies upon industrialized agriculture. You can read the article [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972951/posts here] (on FreeRepublic, so beware the trolling and idiocy). As for your second point; yeah we should combine those bits -- the scientist in question specified that he originally made a statement with the whole "unless" clause, but that it was left out by a sensationalist reporter. Kellen T 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. That makes more sense, even if I don't agree that Veganism must rely on industrial agrciulture. One step closer to understanding these citations,  Canæn  04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we really be citing something from that site? All those comments at the bottom make the thing sound like a joke. It looks like a blog.  Canæn  04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FR is a well known "conservative" blog/news/community site. No, we probably shouldn't link there. Kellen T 11:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical criticism 

message: Hi everyone. I think that we should be very clear about claims we make, and qualify all of them. Let's get one thing clear: A Vegetable is indeed vegetarian, but it is nto a specifically vegetarian food. Most humans, being omnivores, eat vegetables. When we make claims about vegetables grown as part of modern industrial agriculture which makes use of pesticides, we should be clear that we are talking about vegetables which are grown with modern industrial agricultural techniques including the use of pesticides and other chemicals.
Omnivores consume the same fruit and vegetables, and suffer from the same health concerns. The problem here is with spraying pesticides on the crop, not with vegetarianism. For example:
:A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from a specific genital defect, called hypospadias. The study implicates Pesticide residue or possibly naturally occurring chemicals called phytoestrogens, found in vegetarian foods, especially soya as the cause.
Here, the point is that pesticide residue and phytoestrogens can be dangerous if consumed in large amounts. If we insist on using this source, perhaps we could say:
:A study has shown that, when mothers consume large amounts of pesticide residue and/or phytoestrogens may be more likely to have children with a specific genital defect, called hypospadias. Phytoestrogens are commonly found in soya, which is commonly found in meat analogs such as tofu.
If not that exact wording, that idea. The point of the BBC article, is:
: They believe that a vegetarian diet alone is unlikely to cause hypospadias. But they think vegetarians are probably eating more of something that is to blame - soya is a suspect.
The entire Criticisms & controversy section is riddled with misleading facts like this, impropperly qualified, if at all, and quotes taken out of context. I fear I shall have to go through each one individually.  Canæn  08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pesticides, Chemicals, Industrial Agriculture 

message: All of the health claims made in the criticism section, such as:
:The US Food and Drug Administration in its report states that vegetarian women of childbearing age have an increased chance of menstrual irregularities, and that vegetarians are the risk of not consuming enough micronutrients like copper, iron and zinc in their diet.
should be qualified, to make clear that the risk factor only comes into play when said vegetarian women do not obtain adequate nutrients. Otherwise, we are being misleading, and doing readers a disservice. And if we are going to make many claims like this, we must qualify every one. Otherwise we run the risk of misquoting, and misleading. When we quote sources, we must be sure to preserve the context which the quote was originally in.  Canæn  08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Health & Quoting sources

message: I'm questioning a source here, again. The National Cattleman's Beef Association's sponsored African study, referenced in the Health crticisms section. Should we really be presenting information from such an obviously partisan organization? Granted they didn't conduct the study themselves, but they were a major financial backer, and influenced the results. Excuse me for questioning aspects of the article more than I am actively contributing to it. I just don't usually see articles with this much criticism. I think that Wikipedia articles are meant to present a neutral view of an article, not volleys back and forth.  Canæn  08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another B12 study.  Slam dunk for the beef industry.  The dairy industry is guilty too.--Scribner 08:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, indeed. I just feel guilty, as an editor at Wikipedia, spreading the claims made by such a dubious source. I mean, what they're saying is that starving African children, when fed adequate amounts of food, show signs of improvement in their health. To present that as saying that Meat & Dairy improve health is absolutely ludicrous and unscientific. It just makes our article look bad, even if we do counter the claim with further counter-criticism.  Canæn  08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Come on guys, this is a well-known, well-publicised study. The author works for the UC Davis and the Agricultural Research Service, part of US Department of Agriculture. That the study was partially funded by the Cattleman's association is fine to mention, but the research is fine. Kellen T 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's well-known, and well-publicised. Hell, I've heard about it (though that doesn't make the research fine in my book, I won't press the matter). I just don't really see how relevent it is to Veganism. From what I've read about it, they basically took starving african children living in a rural community, and started feeding them large amounts of food. I haven't read the actual study itself, though. Just secondary sources on it. But if they're accurate, then this criticism would be much better as a criticism of starvation, or malnourishment. Have you read the study, or could you give more insight? Canæn  06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's relevant (a) because it's a B12 study and vegans are notoriously low in B12, (b) the author made vegan-specific criticisms which (c) vegans and vegan organizations publicly criticised. We're here to represent the views surrounding veganism, not judge validity of the research itself. Kellen T 10:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Africa Study

message: Reposted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-publishedsources
===Policy===
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.
However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV.
===Analysis and application===
I believe we may have many references which should not be in the article. I have not read through all of our 40-50-some-odd references. I have seen a few. I'd like to hear what others have to say. The following may not be reliable sources, based on the above policy.
*The Davis least-harm-principle interpretation
*The Fuhrman quotes; this may already be taken care of
*^ Robert I-San Lin. Nutritional Requirements of Vegetarians. Retrieved on 2006-10-31.
: The Davis criticism is interesting and valid and widely cited (as in the Time article in the introduction). The stuff relating to Fuhrman is still applicable in my opinion -- the guy's a nutritionist FFS -- but the wording should probably describe the situation more thoroughly . As for I-San Lin; I'm indifferent to the actual source but the sentence the citation supports could use some better citations. Kellen T 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources policy: Self-published articles 

message: I believe we may have many references which should not be in the article. I have not read through all of our 40-50-some-odd references. I have seen a few. I'd like to hear what others have to say. The following may not be reliable sources, based on the above policy.
*The Davis least-harm-principle interpretation
*The Fuhrman quotes; this may already be taken care of
*^ Robert I-San Lin. Nutritional Requirements of Vegetarians. Retrieved on 2006-10-31.
: The Davis criticism is interesting and valid and widely cited (as in the Time article in the introduction). The stuff relating to Fuhrman is still applicable in my opinion -- the guy's a nutritionist FFS -- but the wording should probably describe the situation more thoroughly . As for I-San Lin; I'm indifferent to the actual source but the sentence the citation supports could use some better citations. Kellen T 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis and application

message: This post is only to resolve a confusion in the lead para and not to be mistaken as singling out/attacking anyone. In this edit, User:Kellen` removed "almost all" stating that in theory they commit to abstaining from all of them. But the article line begins with "In practice, a vegan..." So if the abstention is in theory, the the article ought to reflect that, or if it is in practice, then "almost all" should be readded. Idleguy 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, you're right about that being confusing and I hadn't considered the "in practice" clause at the beginning. The "in practice" clause, to my mind, refers to the "practice" of the "philosophy and lifestyle" of veganism; commiting to abstain from all animal products. Where the (semantic) problem comes in is that one could read "practice" as "realistic ability to adhere to the philosophy" in which case your addition of "almost all" make sense. I think every vegan implicitly or explicitly accepts that they can't do away 100% with animal products (since many ingredients in many, many things are unlabelled, ingredients have multiple sources, etc), but the point of the sentence is to establish how adherence to the philosophy of veganism manifests in real life; that is attempted avoidance of all animal products. All that said, perhaps there is a better way to phrase the intro that avoids both of these problems: removing the "in practice" bit. This information is included later in the Definition section; the UKVS definition basically spells out what you are trying to express. Kellen T 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is, the "theory" is "live without harm to animals", the "practice" is avoiding animal products. Convoluted! Kellen T 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually added in that "in practice" bit, because of a similar argument awhile back. It boils down to the philosophy and belief that we should be without animal exploitation, and the practice which is that we avoid animal products. Most Vegans, from a western-centric view, don't go as far as Jains, many of whom wear masks so as not to inhale micro-organisms, sweep the ground in front of them before taking a step so as not to crush anything, and some ever starve themselves to death (though this is quite rare), to avoid consuming because they see so much wrong in just living and consuming. Most vegans, to retain their sanity and their comfy lifestyles, draw a line at what they consume; what they buy at the grocery store. That's sort of what the in-practice part refers to. Others do go further, but that's not the main body of Veganism.  Canæn  06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Idleguy, the problem with adding "almost all" is that Vegans do not attempt to avoid "almost all" products of animal exploitation. The point of veganism (excluding the health nut reasons) is to stop contributing to industries which exploit animals, and to attempt to bring those industries and practices to a hault. The point is not to come close to stopping animal exploitation. Maybe you could add a line in the criticism section, mentioning that very few vegans stop contributing to animal exploitation entirely, or that very few vegans use absolutely no animal products. However, it remains that the point of veganism, which is what should be presented in the introduction, is to achieve the goal of doing away with animal exploitation, not simply coming close. "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades," so they say.  Canæn  06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In theory or in practice? 

message: I went through the cite given, i.e. this one. He actually says he went vegan in 1990 and not prior to the world record breaking Olympics in 1988 seoul. and his "best year" came as he says later in the article 1991. Maybe he personally thought it was his best year but actually he had performed better in 84 and 88 olympics when he wasn't vegan, atleast not according to what he says. And there have also been accusations of his drug abuse. See Carl_Lewis#Drug_accusations so comparing him with Ben Jonson is also pointless. So i've reworded it to what is actually in the source. Idleguy 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there are a few points that are unclear with regards to Carl Lewis, but the statement that he had his best year after becoming vegan is backed up by his performances in 1991, for example, his best 100 m time was 9.86 s and his best long jump was 8.87 m, w 8.91 m, both in 1991 after becoming vegan. So the 1988 Olympic final was not his best performance. Ben Johnson was also striped of his win in that race, Lewis has never been striped of any medals as it was fairly clear he had simply taken a normal over the counter remedy. It is relevant to mention Johnson as Lewis was the fastest man in the world after Johnson was found to have been cheating. The article on him calls 1991 his best year, so it seems this is generally considered fact not simply how Lewis 'feels'. - Solar 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Lewis and Veganism 

message: Since the link apparently is considered spam, here are more for cleanup, if anyone is so inclined:  --Femto 11:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've removed them. Kellen T 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eco-Eating 

message: Wouldn't it make sense to consolidate the bare-bones "List of Vegans" article into this main page and re-title the section "Famous Vegans" or "Notable Vegans"?  I realize space is a consideration, but a list of notable adherents is usually pretty standard on pages dealing with a particular philosophy or lifestyle. Atlantawiki 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Vegans 

message: I have added a source (Vegan Society) for the statement that supplements are recommended for vegans.
I removed the section stating that supplements are recommended for everyone, vegan and non-vegan alike, because the source cited did not state that IN RELATION TO VEGANS. Per WP:OR "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say".
Mdbrownmsw 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplements 

message: to Mdbrownmsw: i removed the contradiction tag for a couple of reasons:
# there was no explanation on the talk page (here) explaining the nature of the contradiciton with Vegan nutrition. without at least some indication of where you find the contradiction to be, how can wikipedians fix it? if you feel the need to re-insert the contradiction tag, please be specific on the nature of the problem. or, better yet, fix it!
# the whole vegan nutrition page is a mess to begin with! i wouldn't be surprised if it contradicted itself!
thanks!
frymaster 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction tag removed 

message: I have removed the following:
"The evidence is overwhelming that vegetarians have lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease, and that non-meat eating reduces all-cause mortality by 50%.[20]"
Actually, the source cited (which is not "overwhelming evidence", nor does it claim such evidence exists) says, in reviewing previous results:
"it was suggested that the exclusion of meat from the diet might result in a 15–25% reduction in risk for ischemic heart disease."
Then, it's study results:
"These large reductions in the apparent effect of diet group may be because the healthy volunteer effect was more pronounced in the vegetarian subjects, who were likely to have been more strongly motivated and, therefore, generally healthier than the nonvegetarian subjects at recruitment. It is also likely that there was some crossover among diet groups during the first 5 y of the study, which would dilute the apparent benefits of a meatless diet."
Finally, this article is about veganism, not vegetarianism. The study found NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER accross several mortality rates for fish eaters, who are, of course, not vegans.
Mdbrownmsw 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ischemic heart disease 

message: This article is great. It perfectly sums up what vegans stand for and the downsides to this lifestyle choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegen8tor (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Article 

message: Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 8#Template:Pet Species. Please keep the discussion to the encyclopedic merits of the template, not ideology. — coelacan talk — 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template for deletion 

message: This report from the UN might be of interest here, as well as at Environmental vegetarianism. It's about the UN's conclusions on the environmental impact of livestock.  Canæn  02:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UN report on livestock & environment

message: I'd like to encourage the regular editors of this page to please always use an appropriate citation template when adding references. This is usually  or . Most of the article is properly cited in this fashion and it would be nice (structurally, visually and functionally) to have it consistent. Kellen T 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation templates 

message: I was looking for more information on the different levels of veganism, I was wondering if someone who knew about the subject could add a section on what each level means.JW 00:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there really levels?  There's that joke from the Simpsons where a guy says he's a level five vegan - he doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow, but I don't think that joke is based in any real levels of being vegan.  The only think I'm aware of is that some vegans are okay with eating honey, while others are not.  The diet is fairly straightforward.  Sparsefarce 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole "levels" thing stems from what different Vegans know. Ideally, Veganism is the abstention from any and products of animal exploitation. Things like Meat, Milk, and Eggs are real obvious animal products, but things like Refined Cane Sugar, Condoms, and Molasses are quite a bit less obvious. It takes a level of experience (either through research or friends or whatever) to learn of those latter three and other more obscure animal products. As well, some Vegans do voluntarily eat things like Honey, and Refined Cane Sugar, conscious of the fact that they are products of animal exploitation, or possibly disagreeing as to whether all commercial animal products are also products of exploitation (i.e., whether or not getting Honey from Bees is cruel or not).  Canæn  01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a joke and does not deserve inclusion in the article. Kellen T 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Levels

message: Skinwalker, what criticism was removed? It looks like you just reverted a response to criticism. 
(Note that I'm not involved/invested in whatever's been going on in that section.) --Joehaer 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Skinwalker probably misunderstood the edit history, but ultimately the edit he made was correct in that it removed a unnecessary, poorly written, and uncited response. Kellen T 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "properly sourced criticism being removed"

message: further on that subject there doesn't seem to be much criticism of veganism in this page at all. just the ethical crit. portion and a few bits about how to avoid health problems. there are many more arguments against veganism that just a few paltry health concerns and some abstract ethical arguments. where the comprehensive criticism section that appears in almost every other article on these sorts of subjects? furthermore much of the information quoted in this article specifically refers to vegetarian diets, and does not necessarily carry over to a vegan diet. for example: vegetarian diets are linked to higher IQ, vegan diets however are linked to lower IQ. this fact is listed in the vegetarian article, but curiously omitted here. in short the article is poorly constructed and badly biased. its set up to say as few bad things about veganism as possible, as opposed to offering a balanced/objective look at the subject.
24.185.239.254 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article is lacking in criticism (I disagree), provide some sources to back this up. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Kellen T 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find anything on the vegetarian page linking veganism to low IQ test scores. Can 24.185.239.254 please provide a source for this alleged fact? Speaking purely from personal experience as a second generation vegan, I can say that I have never seen evidence of such a link between the diet and low IQ but would be very interested to see any research on the matter. - Hyperflux 12:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with the original poster, although maybe for slightly different reasons. As someone who has no real view on the vegan lifestyle either way and was just reading out of interest, I got the impression that the article is very supportive of the notion. Not that this is a bad thing at all, but I can understand how it can be perceived as unbalanced. There is a large section that lists many many reasons why veganism is beneficial and I initially felt this was clearly not NPOV, until I noticed that the section is the 'Motivations' section, so of course it will be this way. However, this is not clear and is not mirrored by a 'Criticisms' section that most wiki articles have. IMO this is the source of the confusion. Just my 2 cents. 85.210.209.35 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's all very well to say that an article lacks criticism, but you have to take into account the possibility that certain subjects don't support the same amount of well cited, encyclopaedic criticism as others. I'm not saying that there's no more criticism to add to this article, but I am encouraging people to judge each case on it's on merits, rather than thinking along the lines of "This article has less criticism that some others, so it needs more!". Which I feel would be a mistake. Hyperflux 11:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The point about vegan IQ has now been removed as it was based on a study of 9 people, which is obviously not enough to make a scientific evaluation. - Solar 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  crit 

message: Saw this on Newsnight last week ethical man kills turkey as he believes people should see the animals they eat being killed. then goes on a month long vegan diet to find out what difference cutting animal products from his diet would make to  "carbon footprint".
carbon-guru Professor Tim Jackson calculates that 18% of the carbon emissions created by the average diet are from meat and a further 10% are from dairy products.
only counting carbon dioxide would be a woeful underestimate no-one has calculated the contribution methane and nitrous oxide emissions make to the climate cost of the food meaties eat.  he it is safe to double the figure for carbon dioxide which means 
60% of the global warming potential of the average diet is from animal products.
Just something interesting to chew over for Veganism
meet daisy the cow
Whackorobin 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link refers to the recent UN report "Livestock's long shadow" which is cited in this article. Kellen T 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Ethical Man

message: I am rather reluctant to bring this issue up, but the issue of vegan IQ is misrepresented in the article. Vegans actually scored the lowest in the paper IQ in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood: 1970 British cohort study. There are of course numerous problems with this study, firstly vegans were actually only 0.1% of the study sample, which in my view is far too low to get an accurate average, and secondly there are numerous problems with the cultural biasing of IQ tests. In my opinion it is unfortunate that many vegetarian groups feel it is useful to draw on this kind of study as a piece of propaganda. I will change the entry to reflect the issues with the sample size and the actual vegan IQ levels reported. - Solar 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section about IQ scores should be removed, as the study was specifically about vegetarians, not vegans. And also, comments such as "Vegans were shown to have low IQ scores but vegans only made up 0.1% of the test group so this probably needs more research" do not belong in an encyclopaedia. - Hyperflux (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 8170 people included in the study.  0.1% suggests that there were only 8 vegans in the study.  This isn't anywhere near enough to produce meaningful statistics, so it should be removed from the article.--Michig 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be removed, I did consider removing it but thought it might be better to clarify as this study has been quoted quite a bit, but as others think it should go I think that is best. - Solar 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked with the authors of the study and only 9 vegans were in the study, hardly enough to be scientifically relevant or be included in this article. - Solar 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. This study shouldn't be included here. Kellen T 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan IQ 

message: I think it's very important for this page to examine the environmental implications of vegan farming. I have been writing a personal examination of "Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency" which looks at aspects such as energy transference in food chains and land area required to support vegan diets compared to animal based diets, but it is currently nowhere near encyclopaedia standard. 
I am especially interested in the food chain angle. The transference of energy from one level of a food chain to the next involves a 90% loss of energy, according to the ecological pyramid. 
It makes far greater sense (in terms of logic, efficiency and productivity) for humans to be the primary consumer in their food chain than to massively reduce efficiency by adding cattle or other animals into the food chain and consequently become secondary consumers.
If anyone has any ideas on how to bring this angle to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to discuss it in detail. 
Hyperflux 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a lot of mention of that when researching world hunger last summer. Info on that isn't too hard to find, even in mainstream examinations of hunger issues. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency

message: I removed the section about some vegans avoiding toothpaste with calcium from bone sources and whatever. This are minutia that may be interest to vegans having a discussion with each other about exactly how far to go, in being vegan, but is not of interest to the general public and does not belong in an encyclopedia article.
--Nomenclator 01:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing details that don't belong in encylopedia article 

message: Please present a citation that shows that vegans are more susceptible to vitamin A deficiency, or remove the sentence or sentences that makes this claim. There is no support of this idea anywhere, as far as I know. It is mere speculation. 
I am trying to bring this article out of the swamp of repetition of absurd rumors, and popular mythology. --Nomenclator 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitamin A, Carotene and retinol 

message: Acc to Dr. William Harris, from The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism, on the web here, http://www.vegsource.com/harris/sci_basis/CHAP1.pdf avail from page here http://www.vegsource.com/harris/book_contents.htm
"Beta-carotene is usually called pro-vitamin A and retinol is called "Vitamin A". I believe this is an error
on the part of the nutritional establishment. Two molecules of retinol, an essential hormone-like metabolite
required for skin, vision, and reproduction, are formed in the body by enzymatically splitting one molecule of
beta-Carotene, a photosynthetic plant pigment interacting with chlorophyll and found in green leafy vegetables.
This being so retinol fails the definition of vitamin. Beta-carotene should be called the true Vitamin A. It
is synthesized only by plants. Retinol is synthesized only by animals, but there can be no retinol in the animal
kingdom unless somewhere in the food chain there is an animal eating plant beta-Carotene.
--Nomenclator 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nomenclator, the article currently implies that vitamin A is only found in animal products. That is simply untrue. Palm oil, for example, is an excellent vegan source of vitamin A... There are plenty of vegan sources of vitamin A, as shown here --  - Hyperflux (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is misleading and incorrect to say that retinol is the "true" form of vitamin a. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also incorrect to say that plants do not contain vitamin A, as the link I provided earlier explains. Retinol may be easier to absorb, but it's not "the true form" of vitamin A. The whole section about vitamin A is erroneous. I am going to remove it. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the section said "despite consumption of such provitamin A rich foods there might be vitamin deficiencies", which is un-encyclopeadic. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the last reference to vitamin A on the page as  all note that needs can be met by plant foods. Kellen T 12:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitamin A, carotene, citation 

message: I'm removing this from the article:
: In addition, lower counts of lymphocytes (the white blood cells responsible for immune system responses) and platelets (responsible for blood coagulation) and alterations in the iron metabolism and transport, were demonstrated.
Because my reading of the abstract seems to indicate that these counts were used to diagnose B12 deficiency, which has already been mentioned and cited by this study. If this is wrong, somebody can add the sentence back in; it uses the "vegparameters" reference. Kellen T 06:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "impact of vegetarianism" study 

message: This part of the article is suspect:
:Some studies show that vegetarian women are much more likely to have female babies. A study of 6,000 pregnant women in 1998 "found that while the national average in Britain is 106 boys born to every 100 girls, for vegetarian mothers the ratio was just 85 boys to 100 girls."[78] The high amount of oestrogen balancing chemicals (the majority of which are soya ‘isoflavones’) contributes to this effect, as well as to stimulate early pubescence among females, and delay male pubescence.[79]
The first sentence cites a BBC news source, but even inside that article the study is criticized as being flawed (by not including what men ate, since men determine the gender of a child). The second sentence cites the weston a. price foundation, which has been criticized (notorious?) for railing against vegetarian diets, without the WAP foundation citing any other source. Kellen T 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a bit sketchy! Eddie mars 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketchy bit 

message: The person was right to add leather and wool. I think the details he-she included were too much for the introductory paragraph. There is no controvery among vegans as to the idea that, ideally, products such as leather and wool should not be used, and to the idea that sometimes, in order to be pragmatic, and live well, things can't go precisely according to ideals, and leather and wool may be acceptable where alternatives are much more expensive, difficult to find, or even non-existant. Fur is usually considered totally off limits, as are ostentatious leather garments.  --Nomenclator 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, obviously. Their edits were not acceptable where they were placed, and indeed, are mentioned later in the article. Kellen T 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products, mentioned later in the article. Why repeat some things, and not others, such as pearls, and nacre? Why go into so much detail re different kinds of meat in the former sentence (meat, fish, poultry) when you can use the latter sentence to add these details. --Nomenclator 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because these are the notable things, as specified. Pearls and nacre are hardly as notable as meat and dairy. Later, everything is listed. Kellen T 15:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No controversy over leather and wool 

message: Perhaps the ethical criticisms section should be moved up near to, or sub to, ethics, with an added section for ethical pros. In other words and ethics section with ethical pro subsection and ethical con subjection. Or better choice of words for pro and con.--Nomenclator 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally there would be one "Ethics" section which integrates both. The ethical foundation for veganism and criticisms of this standpoint. However, the current "Ethical criticism" section is more of a "health criticism" section than anything. Kellen T 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethics and ethical criticisms 

message: Weston A. Price has a well known bias against vegetarianism.  It is a less than ideal source.  Much like quoting from notmilk.com.
Perhaps we should be quoting the references used by the Weston A. Price foundation to make their statements?  I am thinking specifically wrt the article on soy and puberty. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, that part of their article was not backed up with a source. But you should look again. Kellen T 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will double check that.  If there is no scientific source, then I think we should consider removing the section that relies on it as a source. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is indeed no reference given on the Weston A. Price foundation website wrt this subject.  I am going to tag that entry as requiring a source, and if no one can find one in the next week or so, I am going to remove it.  I will try to dig through the universities library on my break, but I can't promise anything. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weston A. Price Foundation 

message: While stearic acid and other fatty acids are a possible "ingredient" in soap, fatty acids are also used to make soap, which can be made by chemically reacting a fatty acid with lye. There are 2 ways to make soap, the traditional method of saponifying a fat with a strong alkalai, to produce soap and glycerine, or the modern factory method of first separating a fat into individual fatty acids, then saponifying each fatty acid with an alkalai, one at time, to produce soap and glycernine, then blending various soaps, glycerine, fats, and fatty acids, back together, to precisely adjust the properties of a "soap product." It is explained here http://shakahara.com/soap3.html Instead of saying "soap with ingredients which may have been extracted from animal fat (e.g. stearic acid) is avoided" it would be better to day, soap made from animal fats rather than vegetable fats, may be avoided." Although soap products made from vegetable fat may have added animal ingredients, such as glycerine produced from animal fat, or unsaponified animal fats or fatty acids added (added in small amounts). --Nomenclator 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better would just be to say "some soaps" and not get overly held up with the details; let a reference do that work for you. Having a huge list of animal products and the things which includes them in this article (as we do now) verges on the idiotic, in my opinion. Kellen T 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sayin it verges on "idiotic" is a thinly disguised way of calling me an idiot; it is name-calling. And you are mistaken. And people are entitled to have a difference of opinion from you, without being called idiots. --Nomenclator 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it has nothing to do with you. The listing of ingredients existed before you started editing this article, and you didn't contribute to it, except for to replace things previously taken out of the intro. If you want a complete list of dogmatic non-vegan ingredients, these are plentiful on the web. Having a list here is not only redundant, but confusing, unnecessary, and an invitation to every last vegan newbie on the planet to add their own ingredients. Kellen T 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  A small sample list of common ingredients is one thing, providing that it is labelled as such.  But this isn't the place for a comprehensive list.  If one is really desired, perhaps it should go in it's own article?  It could then be linked to from this article. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And I never provided a comprehensive list. In fact, I shortened the actual length of the list. Go an take a look. And since I created the list that you said was "idiotic" it has "everything to do with me."--Nomenclator 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stearic Acid and Soap 

message: Reorganization suggestions:
# Eliminate "motivations" as a section and instead use its subsections as the main article sections
# Eliminate "criticism and controversy" as a section and merge its subsections into the other sections
# Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Ethics" from "Motivations" if appropriate (it appears this would not actually be appropriate)
# Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Resources and environment" from "Motivations" (this seems more appropriate)
# Merge "Health concerns" and "Health" from "Motivations"
# Merge "Similar diets and lifestyles" with the "Definition" section
Kellen T 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone were to do it, it's you Kellen. Maybe something this big should be tried first, then compared? Vert et Noirtalk 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I have a few spare hours perhaps =) Kellen T 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I just finished exploring one of those brilliant 'List' articles around, and I was thinking, would it be relevant (and forgive me if it's been done, I did a search I swear!) to create a list of animal ingredients, and include a link in this article? I know that many of you would agree that one's non-vegan friends and family are constantly saying "that's not vegan/vegetarian!?". Maybe a list would be really helpful to help people understand the scope of a vegan diet. As a very new Wikipedia member I feel it is not my place to create it myself, besides the fact that all the wiki-skills are a bit beyond me at this point. Anyone interested in doing this with me, or think it's totally pointless? Eddie mars 07:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pointless. There's lists available from the vegan society and elsewhere on the web. Kellen T 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with Kellen here.  The list shouldn't be ON this page, but linking to one?  Especially if we take the opportunity to shorten the existing list to obvious examples (animal flesh, eggs, milk, textiles/leather/fur and "precious" materials like ivory and pearls).  I would even go so far as to say that it might be a good article, such as "Animal ingredients found in food".  --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I think it's reasonable to link to one, I just don't know that it's very productive to make an article on WP about it as it will essentially be a full mirror of the vegan society list and (probably) nothing more. Kellen T 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hum.  I just had a good look at the Vegan Society's list, and it is more thorough than I first suspected.  I think that you are correct, and that linking to that site would be sufficient.  --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick thought about a List

message: * I think it's good. It succinctly defines veganism, lists the most important things which vegans avoid, and the notable reasons for people to be vegan. It's cited and verifiable. The only bit I might change is the "also known as" to be "variously known as" or some other less authoritative set of words. Kellen T 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your changes. You have been asked not to change the intro unless you previously reach consensus with other editors on this page. Kellen T 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Kellen T needs to review WP:OWN.  Kellen T is not the owner of this article, and changes need not be approved by him or her.  Abe Froman 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers; there are, however, other editors here whose opinions are listed above. Kellen T 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Kellen T here.  The introduction should be frozen until a consensus is reached.  So far, more editors have voted to keep it as it is than to change it.  4 out of 6 is a good reason to keep it as it is for the moment.  --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: I cleaned up the pregnancies section, which has been the focus of a lot of complaints. It's significantly smaller now.
* merged: intro sentence with ADA recommendations in "mineral deficiences" section
* merged: 2 cites of severe B12 deficencies reported leading to neurological damage in the child
* removed for now: cattleman's study. not really relevant to pregnancies. semi-relevant to children's health. uproar over comments somewhat relevant to criticism, though the point of the researcher is just that vegan mothers need to be especially careful about what they eat as they also affect the life of another; the controversy basically centered around a partial reporting of her comments. Maybe pare down to "Lindsay Allen, of blah balh, thinks feeding children an improperly supplemented vegan diet is unethical" to some vague "health" section that appears in the future. 
*: Another B12 study was conducted in rural Africa, partially backed by the U.S. based National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which demonstrated a dramatic improvement in the health of individuals who had, prior to the study, been on diets completely lacking in animal products. The study concluded that the added nutrients, especially vitamin B12 contained in the meat and milk improved the health of the children in the study. The author of the study, Professor Lindsay Allen of the United States Agricultural Research Service, declared: "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans, unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods." However, the British Dietetic Association contended that the findings of the study were not applicable to vegan children in the developed world. They note that B12 (produced by fermenting carbohydrates with specific strains of bacteria) is now included in many fortified foods generally available. Noting that the impoverished children in the study had diets deficient in zinc, B12 and iron, they concluded, "There is no evidence that our vegan and vegetarian children in this country suffer impaired development." They did note, however, that young children, pregnant and nursing women are vulnerable as vegans, urging parents to review their children's diets to be sure that they have a well-balanced diet.
* removed and replaced: really old FDA article claiming particular deficiences as this information is rather outdated. Copper, for example, is not mentioned in the ada position on vegetarian diets, and zinc is not significantly mentioned. Iron is already included in our article. 
*:The US Food and Drug Administration in its report states that vegetarian women of childbearing age have an increased chance of menstrual irregularities, and that vegetarians run the risk of not consuming enough micro-nutrients like copper, iron and zinc in their diet.
* removed: sketchy "more girls" study which nobody here has read the text
*:Some studies show that vegetarian women are much more likely to have female babies. A study of 6,000 pregnant women in 1998 "found that while the national average in Britain is 106 boys born to every 100 girls, for vegetarian mothers the ratio was just 85 boys to 100 girls."'More girl babies' for vegetarians And while it is the male which determines the sex of the embryo, female fetuses are known to be more robust -- thus environmental stressors also influence viability differently for each gender.
* removed: westonaprice citation and the response, which essentially cancel each other out. These could be useful in the soy article if they're not there already.
*:It is a concern amongst some groups that high levels of oestrogen balancing chemicals (the majority of which are soya ‘isoflavones’) may contribute to early pubescence (precocious puberty) among females, and delay male pubescence.sexual development damage due to soya.  Scientific research however, does not seem to back this up. 
Kellen T 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pregnancies section cleanup 

message: With the cleanup of the vegan pregnancies section, the entire "health effects" section is now cited and pretty much clean. Some of the prose probably needs tweaking for it to be "beautiful," but I don't think it shows any POV problems. One concern I have about this section is that it could easily come to be a mirror of the "ada position" article. Summarizing things rather than detailing every single study should probably be a goal of editors of this section. Similarly, the introduction, vegan cuisine, and similar diets and lifestyles sections are concise and cited. 
The first part of "definition" is pretty good, but as soon as the "animal products" part starts, it goes to hell. What nees major work, though, is actually honestly evaluating the ethics section, which implies some things, but doesn't really cite anything or bring in the objections of major vegan organizations. The "health" section also needs cleanup for clarity and WP:RSes. Kellen T 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections needing work 

message: moved improperly placed comments from above
Kellen writes "The truth is that working with a smaller subset of foods does put you at higher rsk for missing some nutrients"
That is basically incorrect. The fact is, that all the nutrients needed by animals, are produced by micro-organisms, and green plants. As a human animal, you can either eat the micro-organism or green plant directly, or eat an animal that has eaten the micro-organism or green plant, or an animal that has eaten such an animal, etcetera. This is basic junior high-school biology or junior high school health studies. None of the nutrients that we get from animals, cannot be gotten also - and more directly - from micro-organisms or green plants.--Nomenclator 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you put this here, or why you've misattributed Cpoupart's comments to me. Please be more careful. Kellen T 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, you're literally correct, but Cpoupart meant that it's more difficult to obtain necessary amounts of certain nutrients (B12, D, calcium, etc) by eating strictly plant foods, which is also correct. If I ate oily fish, obtaining omega-3's without supplements would be much easier. Kellen T 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, that was my quote, not Kellen's T.  To address it however, you are misinterpreting what I am saying.  At no point did I say that a person needs to consume animal products to get a full range of nutrients.  I simply said that eating less variety of food puts you at greater risk for missing out on nutrients. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. However the question is not whether eating less variety puts you at risk for missing out on nutrient; the question is whether leaving out animal products in general puts you at risk for missing out on nutrients. You said eating a "smaller subset of foods" puts you at risk for missing out on nutrients. That is true in general, and it is true if subset you leave out, is a certain kind of vegetable, but is not true if the subset you leave out is all animal-origin foods. It may be true, however, if you leave out certain kinds of animal food. For example if you leave out animal livers, you are at risk for missing out on B12; if you leave out eating animal thyroid glands, you are at risk for missing out on iodine. But if you leave out animal foods altogether, you are not at risk for missing out on any nutrients.--Nomenclator 18:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First off, it doesn't make sense that if you leave out part of an animal, you would be at risk, but if you leave out all of the animal, you wouldn't be.  At this point, I am not even sure what the point of this discussion is.  "Higher risk" doesn't even necessarily indicate that it is a high, or even a significant risk.  Just that the risk is greater.  --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  source of nutrient 

message: Not everything that is described as "shellac" is really the traditional formulation of lac dissolved in alcohol, that was the original "shellac." Do you think that "latex paints" contain latex? Not in 50 years. The first latex paints contained latex. Gradually various other elastic resins began being used. Today, there is not a single "latex paint" on the market that truly has latex in it. And lots of things called shellac, just do not have any lac in them. Fruits can, however, be covered with beeswax, or whale oil.--Nomenclator 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shellac 

message: Says "Vegans note additional health benefits are gained by not consuming artificial substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to farmed animals." However what proof for this is there? Not "note" this but claim this is what a few vegans do. Evidence supporting their claims is at best not a lot of it. So to Are there really enough growth hormones in milk to affect milk drinkers? The dairy industry it says no. As a controversy this should not be in encyclopedia where we are wanting facts not controversies, unless they are labeled as controversies. Controversies should not be presented as facts, as here they are presented. No? I'm sorry my English is not good so someone you want to write the changes be else, not me, it would be better. --Tonguebutcher 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section is sketchy and poorly cited. I am working my way towards it and intend to merge it with the "health effects" section into a single "health" section. Kellen T 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Health Benefits? 

message: I came across the following on the Tertullian site (www.tertullian.org and www.tertullian.org/fathers) - there are several sections
Porphyry (philosopher), On abstinence from animal food: []
- if someone wishes to put in the links. Jackiespeel 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Porphyry piece

message: There is a popular myth(?) that vegans can eat certain kinds of shell fish, such as mussels, as they lack a nervous system and are incapable of suffering. Is this true? One way or the other, should mention be made of it in the article? Thefuguestate 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, vegans generally do not eat shell fish. This myth is not really notable (I've never heard it), so it does not deserve mention. Kellen T 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegans and Shell Fish

message: I just glanced at the references and literally laughed at how bad they are. I don't care enough about the topic to do it myself, but if any self-respecting vegan wikipedians read this may I suggest using sources not from websites such as notmilk.com lol. Cheers. Rothery 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! But you're right that the references for that section are crap; the section needs serious work. Kellen T 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better sources

message: Moved unreferenced sources from main page. Kellen T 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is an unreferenced source? —mako (talk•contribs) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These were listed as "sources" on the page, but were not used as inline references to support any specific statements. I suspect older editors of this page (a) used some of these sources in constructing parts of the page (b) just added books on the topic of veganism, but which have no direct bearing on what is written here. These might be useful for extracting supporting references for some parts of the article, but are not particularly useful just as a list at the end of the article. Kellen T 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-referenced references 

message: I think the data related to # of vegans should be moved elsewhere in the article, with a summary in the intro. I'm not 100% sure of what the title of the section should be; perhaps "Demographics". Comments/concerns? Kellen T 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this. Kellen T 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of vegans 

message: As a subheading for the picture next to 'health' it says "A fruit stall in Barcelona. All fruit is vegan."... should this not make the exception for some apples which are coated with shellac? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.184.202 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, probably not. I have changed the caption in any case so this issue doesn't keep coming up. Kellen T 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on picture 

message: Do we really need some section that will inevitably be filled with non- or poorly sourced material? Can the fact that these people are vegan be mentioned on their own pages if it is notable enough rather than here? Kellen T 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not needed here.  There is already a List of vegans article which has done a nice job of keeping this sort of list off this article.--Michig 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Famous" vegans 

message: I don't think the "gestation crate" picture really needs an extended explanation of what's going on; there can be a link to an article about the crates rather than having that info here. It doesn't significantly add to the "ethics" section, imho. Kellen T 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've trimmed it heavily. Better now? mako (talk•contribs) 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, that's how I would have had it written. Kellen T 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gestation crate caption 

message: The conclusion in this paragraph doesn't sound correct:
:A 2006 poll conducted by Harris Interactive in the United States listed specific foods and asked how often respondents never ate those items, rather than asking respondents to self-identify. The results found that, of the 1,000 adults 18 and over polled, 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs. They were, in other words, vegan except for possibly honey.
The definition of Vegan in the article includes not using animal products such as leather and wool. If the poll didn't ask respondents about non-food uses of animal products, then the conclusion "They were, in other words, vegan" doesn't hold. At best, 1.4% is an upper bound on the number of vegans - the actual number could be considerably lower. 192.171.3.126 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording a bit, to indicate that we're just talking about food consumption with regards to this survey.  Cheers, Doctormatt 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demograhics and the Harris Interactive poll 

message: Hi Vegans. I can understand not wanting to cause undue suffering to animals, but if that's the reason for one's veganism, how does one feel about the eating habits of carnivores? Are lions murderers? and as far as the health concerns go, well, it seems like one has to have ample time and money to be able to maintain this diet without problems - also, if it's so healthy, why can I not think of any society in the history of the world that was 100% vegan? It seems to me that people should be concentrating more on advocating the responsible eating of meat - which would entail eating much less meat(in places where it is eaten not in moderation, like Chicago, for example)and ensuring that animals utilised by people are treated in a humane, respectful way. If you think that's a contradiction, well, a deer being eaten by a wolf is no less ethical than a clean shot from me (and I get a useful skin out of it). It just seems to me that if veganism were the dominant paradigm, which is what I assume vegans want, it would actually throw things just as out of balance as they already are. 76.173.124.88ModerateMeatEater
:While your statements about the humane treatment of animals seem reasonable to me, this article is meant to cover the facts of the vegan diet -- while notable advocacy and criticism of veganism warrant inclusion, neither the article nor the talk page are the place for personal arguments for or against vegan philosophy. (This is true of all wikipedia articles, not just this one, wikipedia is not a forum for personal opinions.) Madeleine 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What About Predators? 

message: The IPA pronunciation of "vegan" has been changed a bit, from [] to [] ... from reading the IPA chart, it appears that the first is more correct than the second (since it indicates the "primary stress" is on the first bit), but I can't really tell if I'm reading everything correctly. Anybody? KellenT 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no language expert, but your interpretation looks right to me and agrees with http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vegan. -- Madeleine 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegan which has an IPA pronunciation and it indeed has the leading 'ˈ'. I have put this back in the article. KellenT 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation? 

message: I know the original and strict definition of veganism says that honey is not vegan. Nevertheless, some vegans eat honey and still consider themselves to be vegan. A recent edit to Vegetarianism tried to add this information. My impression is that wikipedia pages need to cover all viewpoints, and a significant subset of vegans do consume honey. I feel something to the effect "Although the original definition of veganism excluded honey and insect products, some vegans consider these to be vegan." should be added. some outside sources: http://www.veganmeat.com/honey.html and http://www.vegan.org/FAQs/index.html#7   -- Madeleine 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think wikipedia pages need to cover all viewpoints, just those that are notable and well-substantiated by reliable sources.  I don't think those two sources are very good; if they were wikipedia articles, they'd have major problems with weasel words and lack of citations.  Perhaps better sources can be found, since I do believe that vegan attitudes toward honey are worth mentioning.  The sentece you suggest sounds great, with an appropriate reference.  I'll keep an eye out.  Cheers, Doctormatt 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... I thought the second source sounded okay, since it came from a group that calls itself "Vegan Action" and has the www.vegan.org website, but I'm no expert in the field. Thanks. Madeleine 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say the second source is fine and that the article should cover "the honey debate" as most if not all the self-identified vegans I know do not strictly abstain from eating honey (myself included). This could be in the "animal products" section. If you don't get to it first, I may write it myself. KellenT 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honey