Talk:Veganism/Archive 1

message: Vgans are ppl who dont eat anything that come from animals
The Vegan page should have a nutrition section or a link to one.  Vegan diets lack essential proteins unless planned somewhat carefully.   For example, corn and beans when eaten together combine to form a protein similar to meat protein.
When eaten separately, that combination doesn't occur and the result is malnourishment unless you get the protein some other way.  People who stay vegan for a long time have to know about things like this.  I decided it was too much bother and chose not to become flat-out vegan partly for that reason.  Could someone more knowledgeable than I am about this issue please add some material about it.  --phr
:Well, protein combining been has shown to be a faulty theory based on a biased study.  In fact, Soy protein is equivalant to animal protein for all intents and purposes.  You can find more info by going to this site: Vegan Society and scrolling down to Protein Combining.  Maybe you can re-evaluate veganism as a personal choice for you? :)   TheChin!
::We (my partner & I) have been vegan since 1984, and our 4 kids since birth, and I don't think we've ever conciously combined a protien once in all that time but we're all healthy and fine. we just eat a good variety of stuff, lots of fresh veg, fruit, pulses and grains, etc. But a link to vegan nutrition might be of value all the same, it's just that i think it's a myth that vegans have to be any more careful what they eat than anyone else, apart of course from the vitamin B12 which can be deficient (but if you eat lots of marmite it's not a problem :-) quercus robur 19:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Protein combining is an idea that is half right and half wrong.  The right part:  Most plant foods do not have all of the amino acids (the chemicals that make up protiens) that your body needs.  They do have some, however, so the "combining" idea is that you eat foods that compliment each other and provide all of the essential amino acids.  Many of the world's traditonal eating schemes have figured this out on their own.  The corn and beans or Latin America, the rice and lentils of India, the rice and soy of East Asia, etc, are all protein combination strategies that provide good nutrition.  Essentailly you want to combine a legume (i.e. a bean, pea, lentil, or soy product) with a whole grain (brown rice, corn, wheat)  The part that is wrong:  You do not have to eat this food combination in the same meal.  Just make sure that you are eating a wide variety of natural, minimally processed foods like beans, peas, lentils, soy, whole grains, corn, nuts, and seeds.  If you are doing that you will get all the protien that you need, and have other benefits as well.--165.121.33.75 00:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protein combining

message: I wonder about the validity of the CNN poll quoted in this article: perhaps it rules out people who are vegan, but would not call themselves vegetarian?
TonyClarke 13:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: CNN Poll

message: I could said that veganism is in and of itself imoral, as plants are not considered able to "feel" by vegans dispite the lack of traits that make animals mentaly,or emotionaly distinctive from plants.Thus veganism is just as "Kingdomist" as vegans consider non-veganism specist.''
:Removed the above from main article, many vegans use the basis of sentience as the line upon which to draw their ethical objections to the use of animal products. Most plants aren't demonstrably sentient in the way that most animals are, and even if vegans are mistaken in their ethics regarding this issue, it doesn't make them 'immoral'quercus robur 16:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics of Motivation

message: What is a sublingual vitamin? Rmhermen 16:16, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
It's one that's placed under the tongue and allowed to absorb rather than being swallowed. Polymath69 18:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sublingual

message: :Occasionally veganism is criticized as a prejudiced position, in that plants are alive and that not killing should also extend to plants.  Although this argument is used to suggest an absurdity of veganism by people with less stringent diets, it also forms the basis of fruitarianism for some people.
Mshonle, you removed this on the grounds that 'veganism is not specifically criticized by fruitarians'.  I wasn't intending to imply that it was; I added this as an argument used by omnivores and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and thought I should also point out the link to fruitarianism.  This is based on the edits by User:205.188.116.79 that you previously removed as vandalism.  Maybe this issue could be better integrated with the existing reference to f'ism, but since the main point is to show that veganism has been criticized as prejudicial or as a kind of half measure, it seemed better under ==Backlash==.  Does anyone have any ideas how this can be better integrated? -- Karl Naylor 12:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been removing that "kingdomism" guy for many months now; we don't need to bend over backward to satify a troll. Omnivores and lacto-ovos don't criticize vegans for eating plants. And while Fruitarians may criticise people who do eat plants, their main target is not veganism. There's a good discussion about the Inuit on the vegetarian page, and maybe we should copy that content. If we are to say anything under "backlash" we should have some evidence it actually exists. MShonle 16:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, your point about evidence is well received.  I've personally had the argument thrown at me a couple of times (by omnivores) that if I'm giving up milk and eggs, then 'surely' I should avoid hurting plants too, and this led me to accept the argument as a common one without checking for evidence that it was. -- Karl Naylor 18:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, I've just noticed that the ==Similar diets= section mentions 'the aforementioned fructarian diet', but I can't find any other references in the article.  Perhaps something was deleted? -- Karl Naylor 13:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fruitarianism

message: Recently there has been a bit of deleting and reverting on the trans fats section. What does everyone think, should we leave it in, revise it, or delete it? I think it should be left in, but perhaps make it more clear that this is a nutritional issue not just for vegans but for anyone who eats processed food. Rosemary Amey 20:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trans Fats

message: There is nothing particularly alternative about veganism. Veganism is supported by mainstream medical science and these days most opposition to the vegan diet comes from alternative practitioners (such as the blood type diet, Atkins, etc). I do not like seeing veganism associated with "alternative" medicine. Many vegans (myself included, obviously) are skeptical about alternative medicine. I would like to remove that text box at the bottowm, but what do others think? Rosemary Amey 16:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Every article can be classsified more than one way.  So, it is with a lot of mainstream activities like exercise and diet.  They are part of natural approaches to health such as Natural hygiene which is classified alternative medicine. I have replaced the orange box with one that doesn't even look like a box. -- John Gohde 07:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it just looks out of place. This article already has a see also section Which you are free to place alturnaive medcine link if you feel they are relivant. There are a number of other places the role of vegaism in alt med could be better covered.12:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Medicine

message: I agree with User:ContiE that products using human hair are still vegan, but I'm wondering what User:Heegoop has to say on the matter. Heegoop, are you a vegan who avoids human hair, or do you know vegans who do? And if so, why? Rosemary Amey 18:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Human hair?

message: Human hair from salons is not vegan because human hair is techinally an animal product. Vegans do use the human hair they grow but not other human's hair. You see humans are actually animals because they are in the kingdom Animalia. Vegans also avoid other human products such as keratin.
Get the picture, vegans do not use human products. Now I am not vegan but I thought about being vegan. - Heegoop, 20 Jul 2004  (UTC)
:I have never heard of any vegan avoiding human hair. Vegans avoid animal products because of the suffering and exploitation involved, neither of which apply to freely given human hair. Rosemary Amey 23:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not unusual for lactating mothers to let their adult partners have a sip. I have also heard of a woman giving her milk to her husband in the hopes that it would treat his cancer. Rosemary Amey 02:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: How about, "Vegans generally do not eat human hair, but in extremis, their cravings for animal-derived products may lead them to break their principles.  Human hair is preferred to other products because it can be given with the consent of the animal.  Human hair should be from an vegan and organically-fed human who also does not use shampoo or any other nasty chemicals in their hair.   It must be chopped up into small pieces to avoid the puking problem cats tend to have, and then boiled for a minimum of three hours, preferably with some vegetable stock, and used to make soup.  Yum! Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Human hair is not vegan

message: I used to like this page, it was succinct and to the point- now it is a complete mess, badly written with mashed up grammar and worse than useless beyond the first couple of paragraphs IMHO. The 'backlash' section is particularly bad, by no stretch of the imagination NPOV. The whole page needs a total rewrite, leaving in the useful, factual stuff but stripping out all the opinionated POV, preferably chucking 'backlash' in the dustbin. I'm no the one to do it, nt enough time plus I'm biased (vegan for 20 years) so anyone sensible fancy having a crack??? quercus robur 19:03, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate if you can make correction on grammer.  The fact that you are vegan should not be a problem for this.  Secondly, the purpose of this site is to present different POV with proper attribution.  You said opinionated POV should be stripped.  But is there a such thing as point of view which is not an opinion?  The section is about criticism and backlash against vegan.  Surely, such section ought present views which criticise vegan rationale. 
FWBOarticle 19:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the NPOV is exactly that point of view which is not an opinion. I'm going to take a swing at it now. Pjrich 04:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This page needs a total rewrite!

message: I haven't really worked on this article, but I noticed some concern about the quality of the article starting to slip and that the article is getting long.  It seems like the sections on vegan nutrition and critisms probably justify their own articles.  Moving that content out would also shorten this article significantly and make it easier to edit it well. --Ahc 04:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree regarding the length. Hyacinth 17:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one said no in over 2 weeks, I've gone a head and created Vegan nutrition, and the main text of that section to the new article.  I'll look for other sections to move soon, unless I hear negative feedback to the move. --Ahc 05:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I've now moved the criticisms section to it's own article. --Ahc 21:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you move out a section, you need to leave a more detailed summary of what you removed. A point which is a paragraph or section on the new page deserves at least a quick mention on the main one. The reader shouldn't be forced to detour to the second article if he's just seeking a quick understanding, only if he actually wants to know a great deal about the topic in that section.Kaz 02:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking sections out 

message: Okay, what is up with all of these external links?  How does this page get away with having so many links?  (See vegetarianism for comparison.)  Are all of these links good references?  Is there any way someone could maybe weed out some of the less useful links so as to make the list a little more manageable?  Please remember that an overabundance of links makes each individual link seem less important -- better to have a few high quality links than a list of every possible reference on the web.  I would prefer someone who's actually into veganism to go in and cut down this list on the basis of quality; but if no one gets around to it soon, I'll cut it down myself on the basis of google ranking.  I'm thinking twenty links or so at the most, so someone get to it.  - Eric Herboso  04:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: IMHO the spectacular number of external links is in direct contradiction to our main doctrine of writing an encyclopedia. This is not all a web directory. Are there any volunteers to do a critical sighting? --Pjacobi 20:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
:I just removed two; the Vegetarian Soc's nutrition pages (we already have the Vegan Soc's pages) and veganvillage.co.uk, which is low traffic and isn't really a "Vegan Organization" anyway. I don't think the number of links previously was anything close to a "spectacular number" or "abundance". Zach 00:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When Pjacobi first posted, there was a glut of links, it has been pared down since then.--TheChin! 12:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok. Sorry about that. I hadn't noticed anything about links on my watchlist since then, so I assumed it hadn't been done. Ironically, I think we could use a couple more links, specifically to vegan recipe- and community-type sites, e.g. vegweb.com or vegsource.com. Or veganvillage.co.uk for that matter, altho I think the other two are more major players. Zach 16:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link abundance 

message: I'm a little concerned with the coverage of Vitamin B-12, especially in regards to expectant mothers and very young children. Perhaps someone should look into this further?  --130.194.13.103 11:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. In what way do you think it's not neutral? (Or is that what you're saying?) Zach 00:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern of vitamin B-12 deficiency are understated, with the deleterious developmental effects of such a deficiency unmentioned; the issue of dietary iron is entirely omitted, and the means for controlling both of these deficiencies are poorly covered. Additionally the general slant of the section reads as a flawless nutritional solution, which it is not. --130.194.13.103 11:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality re: nutrition. 

message: This article lists latex as being non-vegan (specifically in condoms). Is there some sort of source on this? The wikipedia article on latex has no information about this, and a quick google search also came up with nothing too credible.
:apparently the latex used in condoms contains some sort of milk protien. Vegan latex alternatives are available from the UK vegan Society however. Cheers quercus robur 17:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  latex 

message: 1. Is vegetable sushi really an example of "imaginative" vegan cooking? I was pretty sure that sushi is sometimes vegetable based anyway (of course sometimes fish too), and that the whole "sushi equals raw fish" thing was a myth. Maybe I'm wrong tho.
:Well, "real" sushi is always primarily rice, raw fish, and vinegar. The California roll isn't exactly real sushi. AlbertCahalan 00:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Raw fish is sashimi.  Sushi is rice, seaweed and vinegar, with any of a variety of extra ingredients.   — Chameleon 01:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sushi was developed as a way to pickle raw fish. Rather than full immersion in a liquid, vinegar-soaked rice was used. Plain raw fish is thus not sushi; you are correct that it is sashimi. So-called "sushi" that is lacking in any of the three basic ingredients (raw fish, rice, vinegar) is in some sense not really sushi. Of course, raw fish may be a little disturbing, and the California roll (using cooked crab) is rather popular. Seaweed is definitely not required; sometimes a very thin omelet is used instead of seaweed. AlbertCahalan 03:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You are right.  The word "imaginative" is silly and should go.  — Chameleon 22:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sushi question; "See also" question 

message: I'd like to add a (referenced, of course) paragraph about the connection between veganism and eating disorders such as anorexia and orthorexia nervosa, especially among young women.  Any objections? 68.21.180.106 15:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality, any unbalanced diet can lead to problems, and there is certainly evidence of dietary deficiencies related to veganism in the medical literature.  I think a neutral, referenced section would be helpful, as well as delineate the differences between a proper and unbalanced vegan diet. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eating Disorders

message: That leaves a vegan free to kill animals as long as he doesn't use it afterwards. So as long as all you are doing is satisfying your blood lust you're in the clear?
:"A vegan is a person who avoids the ingestion or use of animal products, or the use of animals for any purpose that benefits humans to the detriment of animals, such as in a rodeo or circus, sport hunting, or in laboratory testing." 
:Something like that. I didn't post it because it didn't seem concise enough to me, especially not for the first sentence of the article. I wanted to throw the word "exploitation" in there somewhere, but trying to stick to NPOV. --Mumblingmynah 06:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A vegan is a person who avoids the ingestion or use of animal products" 

message: I'm a proud omnivoire, with some vegan friends and family, and I'd say that as of right now this article is pretty damn NPOV and also very good.  Kudos to those responsible. ZacharyS 16:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments... 

message: I removed this humbug: "The high levels of cholesterol found in dairy and egg products are now accepted by the majority of the medical community to be dangerous. Cholesterol is only found in animal products; a vegan diet has zero cholesterol. Less traditional, low fat milks, which are becoming more and more popular, do not contain very much cholesterol, but there are very few cheeses which can make the same claim." From Low density lipoprotein article: "It is not the cholesterol that is bad; it is instead how and where it is being transported, and in what amounts over time." If you are gong to write something sensible about this subject, start with saturated fats instead. -Hapsiainen 09:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Pound for pound, the highest amount of fat (100%) cholestrol is found in ghee a form of clarified butter. If anything practically veg includes cheese and butter which are x times more harmful than any meat products. Idleguy 11:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about veganism, not vegetarianism, so dairy products are not part of their diet. My point was that you can't measure healthyness of a food by its amount of cholesterol. You should look instead at the amount of saturated and trans fats. And that you don't get too much fats as a whole, of course. -Hapsiainen 12:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cholesterols

message: ...so I made more cuts.  I mean, there were sections in there consisting only of opinion and preference.  Others railed on about things that meat and dairy have been "linked to" - obviously, specific studies have "linked" many, many things together, but they aren't rock-solid encylopedia fodder.  Not saying they were wrong, but the scientific jury is still out on a lot of this stuff.  Just because it might fit your cause, don't go believing EVERYTHING that suggests your diet is the way, the truth and the light.
Then there was just dumb stuff like this:
Vegans enjoy almost as wide a range of foods as animal product–eaters do, since almost any dish containing animal products can be adapted by substituting vegan ingredients.
Well, if you substitute, say, Ener-G Egg-Replacer for eggs in some cookies, yeah - essentially the same thing.  For many others, however, you're altering a meal beyond recognition.  Even subbing tempeh for bacon in a BLT, you've created an entirely new dish. In fact, non-vegetarians can consume not only the meat dish, but the vegan alternative, so a non-vegetarian's options have actually increased w/ the vegans.  Result - it evens out.
So again, as a former teenage vegan animal rights activist, I know the desire to spread your gospel as much as possible.  But recognize that we're making an encyclopedia here.  There are some things that you believe to be very, very significant, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia because it's not the job of Wikipedia to change somebody's diet.  This article is merely to inform somebody what veganism is, and give a vague idea of what motivates people to take it up.  An *overview*, not an alternative to The Vegan Sourcebook.
:I quite appreciate your trimming the fat off here... I've been wanting to make this article shorter for a while now. A lot of the information in it is redundant, or unnecessarily in-depth, or borders on a "how-to" guide. Might I suggest that you leave some of the external links used as references if they're still relevant? That way people can follow up and read more if they want to, and the article remains well-cited. --Mumblingmynah 04:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article read like a PETA pamphlet... 

message: 'Sentient' means very different things to animal rights folks than to other folks. I'm off to school, but later today will add some context explaining this dichotomy...unless someone beats me to it (feel free). R 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sentience" means the capacity to feel, "sapience" means intelligence or self-awareness. They're often confused. Is that what you're referring to? --Mumblingmynah 21:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sentience" needs context

message: I've done another copy edit as there were a few spelling mistakes, inlined external links, and a very long TOC, so I combined some sections, and also deleted some original research. Plastic Editor has objected on my talk page to the removal of this:
The most prominant [sic] opposition to veganism on ethical grounds states the long human history of consuming animal products; many believe that certain body types have evolved consuming meat and dairy, and thus absorb certain nutrients best via these sources. The requirement for B-12, a vitamin humans can only derive from meat or dairy, is seen as evidence of this. Thus, the use of animals for certain purposes in a balanced diet is "only natural", a notion hotly contested by many vegans and vegetarians.
It needs a source and preferably a medical one, as it's a medical claim. The "certain body types" thing sounds odd, and it's not an objection on ethical grounds; and the "only natural" quote needs a citation. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: Skinwalker removed this, and it's been removed before, but shouldn't have been, in my view, because it has a properly cited, credible reference. Skinwalker, you referred me to the NPOV section of the talk page, but I can't see anything there about this study. What problem do you see with it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that carbohydrates are used by the body for energy much more efficiently than proteins or fats.  Carbs give over twice the energy that protein or fat does, so it is not surprising that an endurance athlete would perform better on a high-carb diet during aerobic exercise.  As it is currently incorporated into the article, this study is used to justify dietary efficacy.  This study does not follow its subjects for anywhere near enough time to establish the long-term superiority of a vegan diet, and it makes some fairly unscientific claims about "increasing the stamina of athletes 300 percent" and abolishing the "protein myth", etc.  Also, the article is quite outdated (1968) and was published in a fairly low profile nutritional journal.  It's sort of a red herring, and I'm sure there are better, more recent, and more scientific papers that can be found to support (or refute) the nutritional claims in this wiki.  Skinwalker 23:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, these are all fair points. Give me ten minutes to go back and read it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, but I've just googled him and he's referred to very highly on exercise and diet websites e.g. the "legendary" Dr. X etc. We can't argue with the findings because that would be OR but it seems a shame to delete it too. Could we perhaps find another study, either showing the opposite, or explaining his findings? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclist study 

message: Bottom line, murder is murder, regardless of species. What was done in the past to survive is completely inconsequential today. We are an advanced society that is in no way forced to eat murdered animals to survive. I'm not starving, and I know no one who is. If I were on the brink of death and my only food source was meat, I would eat it gladly and give thanks, but that is not the case, therefore I abstain. If we do not require meat to survive, and to eat meat is to pay others to commit murder for us, then it is wrong. Period. To pointlessly muder animals, simply because we can, is neither moral nor healthy.
Animals aren't people so it doesn't count.  Also, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not pontificating on how superior your diet is to everyone else's.
"neither moral nor healthy" - how is that even remotely immportant as long as it is tasty?
:I'm not even going to get into how incredibly offensive I find this attitude. --Mumblingmynah 17:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of the substitutes; none of them taste anything like meat! Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, the idea that meat causes cancer is a myth! Studies have shown that it is vegetable oils, particularily soybean oil, that are the leading causes of many kinds of cancer! Same with heart disease! It's mainly vegetable oils! You want to know something? The chemical that gives popcorn a buttery flavor, as well as shortening, causes lung cancer, and it comes from a PLANT! Also, you say that vegetarians live longer than meat-eaters. WRONG! Actually, the opposite is true! If you eat meat that is shovelled from the floor of a factory, yes, it is bad for you! If you eat meat that is grain-fed and raised in a commercial farm, yes, it is bad for you! Grass-fed beef, among other meats, is not bad for you. In fact, people who eat this kind of meat actually live longer than those who eat no meat at all! Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm perfectly aware of this. It was indeed God's original plan for the world. But because of man's sin, animals now eat each other! Also, after the Flood, God gave man permission to eat meat! Genesis 9:3 reads: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." God said that we could eat meat! It's no longer murder. Genesis 9:4 says: "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." That means that you don't eat the blood. It doesn't mean that you don't eat the meat! Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm aware of the intelligence of some animals; and I have had and do have pets. I had a gerbil once. I did love it as a pet, but not as a human. Animals can't know God the way we do. Remember, God gave us permission to eat meat! Back before the Fall, it would've been murder to kill anything that had sentience. Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And you'd better not let myths confuse you either! As I said, one myth is that meat causes cancer! But thank you for your politeness, and I'm not trying to insult you either. I don't like the idea of killing for sport, especially if it's a very rare animal. Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please keep the discussion on the topic of improving the article, and remember that personal attacks are not allowed here. Rhobite 05:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making any personal attacks! We're simply debating this fact; not sweating and swearing over it! Scorpionman 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please quit having this argument here? Talk about the article. --Mumblingmynah 01:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why can't we hold a debate on this page? Isn't that what discussion pages are for? Scorpionman 16:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not the pros and cons of veganism. --Angr/ 19:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, then where can we discuss this? Scorpionman 01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere off of Wikipedia. Michaelbluejay 08:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder 

message: I saw a post on somebody's page today about veganism, and figured I'd put in my two cents worth and weigh in:
First, the problem with vitamin B-12 deficiencies is due to the fact that we over-work the soil, instead of giving it time to rest. Both humans and land need time to rebuild, and this principle (letting the land rest once every seven years and then some) was once mentioned in the Bible, but that is informational (not preaching down your throat) information. If we let the land rest up well, then the fruits and veggies would have sufficient B-12 when grown on that land.
That being said, The four traditional reasons to become vegan are:
#More efficient (saves money, since calories aren't wasted in making un-edible things like bone and gristle)
#More humane (to our animal brothers)
#Tastes better (subjective opinion, but I buy it!)
#Healthier (Objective fact. Period.)
For more information, you might see my research on the subject:
*http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/consumer.html
*http://hometown.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/consumer.html
*http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/consumer.html
--GordonWatts 13:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegan diets are not neccessarily either more expensive or less expensive than Omnivorous diets. It depends on where you live, what you eat, and who how you obtain your food. If I were to subsist on nothing but processed soy (all those fake meats out there made of tofu and the like) a few veggies, and tons of junk food, then yes, my diet would be more expensive than that of someone who ate lots of fruits and veggies from a Farmers' Market, and a small bit of meat. However, if I were to exclude tofu and all those fake meats, or at least make them a rareity in my diet, or make them myself, and buy my produce from Farmers' Markets rather than large chain sotres, then my grocery bill would be extremely cheap. And no, we don't need tofu to live. You could get enough protein if you all you ate was potatoes. A normal, healthy, 100% plant-based diet, is generally cheaper than the average Columbian (U.S. National) animal-based diet. Canaen 04:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've noticed that a lot of what many seem to be claiming as bias is just fact that you and others either haven't heard, or don't agree with for various reasons. If you want to attack something, make it specific. Canaen 04:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I reiterate, please keep the discussion on the topic of the article. Make suggestions and back them up with hard data. This is not a discussion forum. Rhobite 16:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 2¢ on veganism 

message: Would a vegan eat a salad made by a chimpanzee?  (One that wasn't getting paid to do it or forced to do it) How about a steak from a human who had killed himself and willed his body to a restaurant?Pedant 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are pretty ridiculous questions that don't have a basis in the reality of an informative article -- similar to the question I am commonly asked, "Would you eat an animal if you were stranded on a desert island?" Who cares? I'm a vegan in the real world, which is what Wikipedia articles should concern themselves with. Dylan 03:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It would very much depend on the opinion of the particular Vegan. It's not as if we were all blind, simply repeating someone else's ideas. No, a Vegan who truly cared, and was informed of its production process, would not eat said sandwich. Though I myself would not eat said steak (I doubt I'd be able to stomach it, and I doubt that my body would accept it), I wouldn't neccessarily object to it's being eaten by another Vegan, granted that the human had truly killed themself of their own free will, and truly wanted to be eaten. That said, I would have to agree with Dylan above; it doesn't really matter. Canaen 04:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If a person killed himself and really wanted to be eaten, then you most certainly shouldn't eat it! Suicide is against the law in most countries (including the US), and cannibalism is also against the law in most countries (with the exception of underdeveloped countries), and eating a person who commited suicide should be a double crime! Scorpionman 01:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you meant that comment to come my direction, read this. If not, ignore it, or read it anyway. The State has no right to tell someone that they can't kill themselves if that's what they really want to do. For Samurai (or anyone following the Bushido code), for instance, Sebuku (ritual suicide) is the only way that one can atone for certain acts, and to restrict that person from balancing their soul and losing all honor would be far worse than death, in their eyes. You simply cannot apply your standards to all. I personally wouldn't eat any animal's flesh, be they human or otherwise, whether they'd been tortured all their lives, lived on a 2 or 3 foot chain all their lives, crammed into a cage where they couldn't move their whole life, got hit by a car after years of running free, or commited suicide. Canaen 07:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, the talk page is not a forum for general debating of ideas, it's a space to discuss improvements to *the article*.  Please take debates like those above off of Wikipedia. Michaelbluejay 08:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would a vegan eat a 

message: Could editors adding material please watch the quality of the writing? An intro should give a succinct overview of the subject, not just be two sentences. Also, when you add something, please check the overall flow and that the material you've added doesn't exist already elsewhere. After banging on at great length about animal suffering, animal rights and how vegans care about these, halfway through the article, I found this: "Vegans cite a variety of reasons for adopting their diet. A desire to reduce animal suffering is another possible motivation." Also, please source material, and cite it correctly. Don't add name of book, author, ISBN number etc in brackets after a sentence: that material goes at the end in the references section. After the sentence, just write (Smith 2005) and page number if you want to. Readers can then look at the references section to find out what Smith 2005 refers to. Though having said that, it's always better to add too much citation material than too little, and anything is  better than nothing. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good points, SlimVirgin. Now, I note that you removed the taste reason, saying that you can't tell the differences in some non-vegan things. (Your hidden comments and/or edit comments.) True, but I am trying to be a complete vegan, and I think that vegan things taste better in some cases: Taste is in the mouth of the beholder. That notwithstanding, someone who appears to be a newbie (?) attempted to revert the edits of an anon here, and in the process erased all your edits and those of many others, while removing the funny and true (but POV) McDonald's statement. While I disagree with your one edit on taste, I let it alone and reverted back to your last version -just a friendly heads up, you know.--GordonWatts 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing 

message: I can't work on this right now but I added a POV tag due to someone who repeatedly adds sentences like these:
*"Indeed, as awareness of the impact that our lifestyles have on ourselves, others and our environment becomes greater, more people are shifting to healthier diets and eco-friendly and ethical purchasing, all of which require some attention to detail and research."
*"Sadly, however, "organic" and "free-range" labels may not mean that animals were raised humanely."
Very annoying when people continue to use words like "sadly" in a supposedly neutral article. For this and other reasons I've added the POV tag. Rhobite 20:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the POV tag should stay, because vegans are fighting tooth and nail for every genuine point/concern added by non-vegans. But they on the other hand don't want to remove silly statements like "the family that fed their children wallpaper and plaster". It looks very POV. Idleguy 03:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent POV 

message: There's a load of tosh going on in here. Gandhi never promoted veganism. Infact he even promoted the use of table eggs and his quotes on eating sterile eggs are well known to open minded people in India.
Gandhi wrote in a 1948 leaflet, "Nowadays sterile eggs are also produced. The hen is not allowed to see the cock and yet it lays eggs. A sterile egg never develops into a chick. Therefore, he who can take milk should have no objection to taking sterile eggs."
This issue surfaced recently in India where Gandhi was used as the brand ambassador for eggs by NECC. The news report  would tell you that they did their research carefully as this quote has been known to fairly educated people who have read Mahatma's teachings.
:Gandhi was vegan for 6 years. He relented and consented to drinking goat's milk (but not cow milk) on his wife's insistence when he was seriously ill. Gandhi's point was that if one takes milk, eggs are not any worse in terms of violence. He changed his opinion later on to include milk in the diet.  -- Satya Oct 22 06:52:20 UTC
Even Buddha is known to have eaten meat though he didn't actively promote its use. Idleguy 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhi didn't promote veganism 

message: Whats the general vegan line on eating road kill? (My personal opinion is that eating roadkill is quite an ethical choice but I'd be interested in hearing other peoples views). I've eaten road kill pheasant and rabbit before. - FrancisTyers 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, since no one has answered you, most vegans probably wouldn't eat it, because having not eaten meat in a while, they would probably become very sick from eating it, even if it were the cleanest roadkill in creation. Dan Carkner 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a vegan and I would avoid the roadkill, mostly for the reasons mentioned by Dan Carkner above, rather than any ethical reasons.  However, I would imagine that eating roadkill would go against the tennant of avoiding animal products.  Clearly, eating roadkill provides no suffering to the animal at hand.  Alternatively, most vegans would also avoid it simply because it is meat, and ergo many vegans would consider it simply unhealthy.  Shawn M. O'Hare 16:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think even most meat-eaters wouldn't eat roadkill, just out of hygienic considerations, although there is apparently a "Roadkill cookbook" out there somewhere. --Angr/ 16:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan opinions on eating road kill 

message: vegans may be motivated by the alleged high environmental costs of producing animal products. Often cited are the pollution of local environments by animal waste, as well as the resources used to care for livestock. [13] A commonly cited (and contested) statistic is that it takes 14 times more land area to support a meat eater than a vegetarian. This is due in part to the fact that caring for livestock requires resources to produce many inedible products (e.g., bone), although a conscientious non-vegan can sometimes find uses for these by-products. In fact, only about 10% of the energy used in livestock is available for human consumption
:Is this claim disputed by the department of agriculture or anyone notable? FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: land needed to raise meat

message: The word starts and ends with the first three and last two letters of vegetarian, representing that veganism begins with vegetarianism, then takes it to its logical conclusion. 
::"logical conclusion"? Therefore eating meat is illogical? FuelWagon 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the implication is that being ovo-lacto-vegetarian is illogical. --Angr/ 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: logical conclusion

message: I did some googling and found a few examples of possible sources for the non-vegan point of view for this article. FuelWagon 03:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: some possible sources for non-vegan pov

message: The article says: 
:The cultivation of paddy requires far greater quantity of water than most crops grown in Europe/America. Cultivating a single kilo of rice requires 5,000 litres of water 
A kilo... gram of rice takes 5,000 liters of water? I checked the URL, and unfortunately it is equally lacking in units. Does this mean kilo-ton, perhaps? The word "kilo" simply means "thousand", but unfortunately, the sentence doesn't say a thousand of what of rice, grams, tonnes, whatever. Can someone clarify this in the article? FuelWagon 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the confusion with Metrification! (recently Featured Article). A kilo in normal usage means kilogram. fyi, ppl using metrics seldom say kilo ton but directly ton (meaning kiloton). Idleguy 04:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A kilogram takes 5,000 liters of water? I'm having trouble making sense of this by the conservation of mass alone. How is it that 5,000 liters of water yield but a kilogram of rice? I assumed the article meant to say kilotonne. But a kilogram? I don't understand at all. FuelWagon 05:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's not a surprise since paddy is a water loving plant. Here's another one and another source . Idleguy 05:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't confuse metric ton (also spelled tonne) with kiloton(ne). A metric ton is 1000 kg; a kiloton is 1000 metric tons. When the source says "a single kilo of rice" it means a kilogram. To imagine 5000 liters of water, imagine a cube 171 cm (5 feet 7 inches) on each side. If that cube were filled with water, it would be 5000 liters. Now imagine a one-kilo (2.2 lb) bag of rice, and think how many plants all those grains must have come from. 5000 liters of water for one kilo of rice doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me. --Angr/ 06:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: a liter of water weigh one kilogram, yes? Which means that a kilogram of rice takes 5,000 kilograms of water to produce, yes? I'm just a little flabbergasted by mass ratio of 5,000 to 1. I mean, an internal combustion engine is around 20% efficient. This is basically saying that rice is .02% efficient in converting mass of water to mass of rice, which is, well, flabbergastingly bad. FuelWagon 03:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem vaguely to remember hearing somewhere (don't ask me to provide a source) that the reason rice is grown submerged in water is because while rice plants will grow under water, weeds won't, so it's an effective way of keeping weeds out of the rice paddies. Rice could be grown using much less water, as I understand it, but then other ways of eliminating weeds would have to be found. --Angr/ 04:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you are both right fuel and angr. Rice is one of the most "water guzzling" plants. In countries like India, it is estimated that despite a healthy water ratio per person, the per capita availability of drinking water is lower than should be. Paddy cultivation is currently seen as the reason for this. Few farmers use effective ways of using minimal water to cultivate rice. As a result many such countries export water through the form of rice leaving little to drink. Keeping weeds out is also true, but that's not the main reason for paddy cultivation; it has more to do with the fact that it is the staple diet in most of Asia irrespective of weed/pest infestations. The fact that it is good in keeping the weeds out is an added bonus. Idleguy 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get the connection. The fact that rice is the staple diet in most of Asia isn't the reason why rice is cultivated in fields (arable true to definition) flooded with water; there's no connection between the two statements. --Angr/ 06:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: kilo of rice

message: Could we have a citation, please, for the Stepaniak claim? -- Those who avoid eating animal products, but who otherwise use products containing animal derivatives, describe themselves as "dietary vegans". Vegan author Joanne Stepaniak argues that this term is inappropriate, because, she argues, veganism is about avoiding all animal abuses, not just food-related ones. For this reason, she says, a term such as "total vegetarian," or "strict vegetarian," would be more appropriate for those who avoid eating meat and dairy products, but continue to buy leather shoes.
:There seems to be some debate as to how to differentiate those people who eliminate all animal products from their diets and those who eliminate all animal products from all areas of their lives.  I have heard suggestions of: strict vegetarianism and veganism; dietary veganism and veganism.  However I propose a third alternative.  In 1944 Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson originally came up with the word veganism after they had become frustrated that the term vegetarianism had come to include the eating of dairy products. Therefore the term vegan was originally coined to describe vegetarians who eliminate all animal products in their diet.  It was only over successive years following this time that the UK Vegan Society expanded the term to mean those who eliminate all animal products from all areas of their lives.  Therefore my suggestion would be to have veganism and strict veganism.  The background to this is that many people are now becoming vegan primarily for personal health and wellbeing reasons rather than the sole motive over the last few decades which has been ethical reasons.
::This being an encyclopedia, it is not the place to propose new definitions. All we can do is report on what definitions for what terms are verifiably used by various organizations. --Angr/ 12:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of the problem.  In America veganism is commonly used in reference to diet but in the UK it refers to the stricter practice. --nirvana2013 13:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide terminology 

message: would someone like to cull them?
I would, and did, and did before, its a flourishing section.
TonyClarke 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many external links 

message: I've read the comments, and gone over the article in detail. I've tried to eliminate POV issues where I see them, does anybody see any remaining? If not, we can remove the disputed tag, it doesn't do Wikipedia any good to have these hanging around too long. Please comment!
TonyClarke 23:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality tag 

message: Someone added this to the intro: "
The National Cattleman's Beef Association defines "animal welfare" as taking reasonable care of all animals, and good animal husbandry practices.(it may be idleguy, idleguy shows edits on the environmental vegetarianism page and there are two "animal husbandry" references) The NCBA also defines "animal rights" as the position that animals as having legal and moral rights similar to humans. The NCBA supports the position of animal welfare." 
I've deleted it because the writing is odd, because it's irrelevant to the article, and particularly the intro, and because the NCBA (and national as in which nation?) is a bizarre source to use for definitions of animal welfare and animal rights. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't strange at all. The intro states that vegans become vegans "primarily" because of "animal rights". This brings up the topic of animal rights in the intro and reports the vegan point of view. The non-vegan point of view regarding "animal welfare" needs to be added to balance the introduction. If "animal rights" is introduced, then "animal welfare" needs to be introduced to maintain the opposing point of view. FuelWagon 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is very strange. (1) It's badly written, and I'd have rewritten it, but it's such a weird thing to stick in the intro, it seemed pointless to tidy it. (2) This isn't about animal rights. It's about veganism. If you're going to define animal rights in the intro (just because it's one of the reasons people go vegan), then you'll have to define the other reasons too: you'll need to define "health" and "environmental reasons," and give each of them their own paragraph. Why define only one? (3) Then there's the issue of the source: why choose such a bizarre non-specialist source to define the difference between animal rights and welfare? (4) Why even mention animal welfare? The welfarist position isn't one normally adopted by vegans. (5) And why have it in the intro? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if you want to define animal welfare to oppose animal rights, you ought to define the opposite of the health and environmental reasons too, and anyway, there are more than two animal-rights/welfare positions. Why aren't you defining the other positions? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't bring up that vegans support "animal rights" in the intro without bringing up at least some mention that non-vegans generally support "animal welfare". If you don't want animal welfare mentioned in teh intro, then you can't mention "animal rights". If you only have one point of view, then it is not neutral. Either report both POV's or none. But you can't report one and qualify as neutral. I'll reinsert. If you remove, be sure to remove both. FuelWagon 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but that makes no sense. This isn't about non-vegans, and animal rights aren't being promoted. We say "people often go vegan to support animal rights," just as we say "vegans eat carrots." We don't have to supply other animal-related points of view, just as we don't have to mention that some people prefer parsnsips. Please don't reinsert. You appear to have misunderstood WP:NPOV and it really is very badly written. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely understand NPOV, and it's clear you are ignoring it. If you say vegans are vegans to support animal rights, the non-vegan point of view around animal rights needs to be mentioned otherwise it leaves the reader with the impression that non-vegans have no regards to animal welfare at all. It would be the same if the intro said "vegans are vegans because they view eating meat as murder". That then accuses non-vegans of murder, and the non-vegan point of view deserves to be reported that they support animal welfare. If you take out the animal welfare POV from the intro, then you will have to take out mention of animal rights, and any other pro-vegan statements that you won't allow to be counter-balanced by a non-vegan poitn of view inthe intro. FuelWagon 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ. I've never seen you edit in way that shows you understand it, and this particular example is just silly. Just because group A expresses support for animal rights by doing X, it does not follow that group B, which does not do X, does not support animal rights. It's a fallacy, and you've misunderstood. And anyway, why do you think there are only two views: animal rights and animal welfare? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say there were only two views. But if you report one point of view in the intro, it means that at least one of the major countering points of view deserve reporting in the intro. Otherwise, the intro is just a pro-vegan piece of advertising, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. NPOV policy requires views be reported "in proportion" to those who hold them, so I listed one of the major views that is different from the vegan point of view. FuelWagon 03:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Now you're compounding it with original research by adding your own argument to the intro with the nutrition addition. Please review WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The intro is not pro-vegan advertising at all. It is an entirely factual description of what veganism is. It doesn't say it's good or bad. It simply describes it. YOU are the one who is introducing your opinion, and you're violating NPOV and NOR, and in addition the writing is ungrammatical, and the source is absurd. Yet you're revert warring to maintain it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange addition to intro

message: I think we have moved on from the many POV issues which were posted here several weks ago. At present, it is not perfect, but we seem to be co-operatively moving forward. Are there any objections to removing the disputed neutrality tag? If anyone has any significant doubts about POV issues, please state them and let's get them resolved. Otherwise I vote we remove the neutrality tag in several days time.
TonyClarke 21:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's much, much better. Hopefully the militant pro-vegan guy has moved on so we don't have to continue fighting over the criticism section. Rhobite 22:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, it does not do wikipedia much good to have these tags hanging around indefinately.  The same could be said for the vegetarianism article regarding the worldview tag. --nirvana2013 11:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current POV 

message: SlimVirgin claims that "this article is about veganism, not any other group" , which apparently allows her to delete the point of view of any source that is different from the pro-vegan point of view. I'm not sure how SlimVirgin defines how an article would satisfy the requirement to be "neutral" if it can only report the point of view of one group, and exclude the poitn of view of any group that has a different view. FuelWagon 03:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly room for us to describe the conflict over the rights of animals in this article, as well as nutritional objections to veganism. Sure, the article is about veganism, but we should describe how non-vegan groups view veganism. Rhobite 04:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The intro should be balanced, reporting the big picture points of views of veganism, and it should also report at least some of the more prominent counter-views to balance any statements contained in the vegan point of view. That the intro brings in "animal rights" as the reason for most vegans being vegans means that at the very least, the intro should also mention the point of view of "animal welfare" that is supported by most non-vegans. Otherwise, the intro leaves the reader with the impression that non-vegans have absolutely no concern for animal welfare at all. The alternative is to remove any mention of "animal rights" and "animal welfare" from the intro, and leave it to the article where both main points of view can be reported in a balanced and neutral way. FuelWagon 17:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it's preferable to leave out all mention of animal rights or animal welfare from the introductory paragraph than to have this artificial contrast laid out there. But what is your source for the claim that most non-vegans support "animal welfare"? "Animal welfare" as defined in the article is an invention of the beef industry to counter propaganda by groups like PETA. --Angr/ 19:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: this article is about veganism, not any other group

message: Anybody else agree with me that this should just read 'Criticism'? Modular. (Talk.) 12:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Anti-vegan Propaganda and Criticism"?

message: So tell me, Viriditas, do I have to find a source who specifically disputes the definition of Veganism by the British Veganism Society in order to report that non-vegans dispute the BVS implication that non-vegans support cruelty to animals and exploitaiton of animals? That is an interesting interpretation of original research. Are you telling me that non-vegans support the idea of cruelty to animals and exploitation of animals? FuelWagon 15:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained above, the BVS makes no such implication. --Angr/ 17:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: re: this edit, the BVS defines veganism as a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals. This reports why vegans are vegans: that people are exploiting animals and are cruel to them by eating meat and wearing leather. If you can eat meat and wear leather without being cruel, then the BVS definition needs clarification in the wikipedia article. But I think it is abundantly clear that the BVS definition is saying that the non-vegan way of life must neccessarily involve exploitation of animals and cruelty towards animals, and that the only way to avoid such exploitation/cruelty is to become vegan. By all means, if the definition does not imply this, please show me where the BVS view on veganism explains how one can avoid cruelty/exploitation while eating meat and wearing leather. Otherwise, the insinuation stands, and NPOV policy applies. FuelWagon 18:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The BVS's definition is "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals...", not "the only way of living that excludes exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals". It does not eliminate the possibility of other philosophies and ways of living that also exclude exploitation and cruelty. Granted, it doesn't explain what those could be, but it doesn't rule them out. --Angr/ 19:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "doesn't rule them out"? And you accuse me of original research? Please see the pro-life example I submitted above. The term "pro-life" does not "exclude" the possibility that abortion supporters are also supportive of life, but the term "pro-life" is sufficiently biased that the article mentions the opposing point of view i.e. that "pro-choice" is not the opposite of "pro-life" and therefore is "pro-death". Implications of "cruelty" and "exploitation" are sufficiently biased to demand the non-vegan point of view to report themselves as not cruel/exploitive. It is not enough that the definition does not rule them out. The terms are sufficiently biased that the definition must either explicitely say how non-vegans are not cruel/exploitive, or the non-vegan point of view must be reorted. Anything else is biased, emotionally loaded words, and bifurcation of the issues. FuelWagon 19:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you cite good, reputable sources for such claims, there shouldn't be a problem.  The source that you have cited does not discuss the issues that you raise, and as such, your edits amount to original research.  FWIW, it shouldn't be too hard to find such sources, if they exist.  Good hunting. --Viriditas  | Talk 07:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cruelty and exploitation

message: As a physicist I was a bit bothered by the sentence discussing efficiency of raising livestock in terms of the first law of thermodynamics. I don't object to the sentiment expressed (about useable output from farming livestock). I think saying that no energy is truly lost, so it can all be capitalized on with a little smarts isn't quite relevent in this case. The complexity of energy lost and reused in such a large biological study is difficult to assess in terms of thermodynamics, and utilizing all the energy or a large percentage is beyond our abilities (for either livestock or plant farming). We can't even get all the energy back from a "simple" system like fuel powered engines. Just a wording change, no content change. Good page for such a political topic! Superclear 22:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Physics??

message: I really think groups should be allowed to define themselves without necessarily needing to include an alternate point of view. But we really need to remember that implications of morality whether here or on any page, should be prefaced by a belief clause. The line edited by Canaen (not picking on you either :-) to read "Vegans generally oppose the violence and cruelty involved in the meat ..." is POV. All we need to do is to change to "... oppose what they see as ... " then everyone can be satisfied (yeah, right) since it is fact independent of who thinks what about animal welfare. Agreed? For any morality judgement (e.g. Societies consider murder of innocent people wrong/taboo/ ..., NOT Murder of innocent people is wrong. I hope I've made a decent point. I will change the statement if there is no objection. Superclear 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining Yourself