Talk:Veganism/Archive 6

message: I could use help with demographics. I found a good careful study and just added that information. However in another source, I was not able to confirm it, and it was indirect (not on the website of the organization whic found the statistic) so I did not add from this second source. The second source is:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3289/is_4_175/ai_n16128605/pg_2/
which asserts, "According to the Vegetarian Resource Group, more than 10% of females under 25 now claim to occasionally practice vegan eating." If true this would be remarkable, since the general population in the US has been reported to be between 0.2% to 0.5% in more recent (the 2008 study I just added) and thus 10%, even if restricted to under-25 females doing so "occasionally" would be very significant: between 20 to 50 times the general population rate. Unforutnately I see no contact information for the author ( J. Hugh McEvoy) nor could I find a page right on the vegetarian resource group's page to confirm this statistic. If you can find it, that would be great (if you can, go ahead and add it to the demographics section, I don't need to be the one doing it :-) --Harel (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like puffy industry journalism rather than useful demographics. KellenT 01:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "puffy industry"? Well that's about as helpful as replacing "Garden of Eden" with "Seventh Day Adventists" or "Eat vegetables" with "Substitute for meat". Suits this article lovely but where's the best place to put it? Donald Watson was not a jounalist was he? What is a "puffy journalism"? It's not a reference to some vegetable is it? ~ R.T.G 12:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was really supposed to be in good humour and provoke an explaination of what "puffy" journalism is. I thought that replacing those things as such was taken with a pinch of salt. I guess taking that view with a pinch of salt would be one step closer to adding the proper facts about religion and replacing much of the articles meat with veg? I was so sure there was a door in this wall. ~ R.T.G 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: "Although some vegans attempt to avoid all these ingredients, Vegan Outreach argues that "it can be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to shun every minor or hidden animal-derived ingredient," and therefore that doing what is "best for preventing suffering" is more important than identifying and excluding every animal ingredient.[28][29]"
This is badly worded, first the 'some' vegans is a weasel word, suggesting a minority. Secondly the 'Vegan Outreach argues that' part seems to suggest that the opinion of the aforementioned vegans is wrong. Vegan Outreach are not 'arguing', it is their opinion. Other vegan organisations support the avoidance of such products yet this is not mentioned. Muleattack (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it wrong to say that a collection of people may be vegans or not and right to say they are vegan or not? I see the word vegan as a description of vegetation. In the vegetable colour. Weighing up what one person eats and another eats, that's political. That's a human meat brained brush. That's individualising hence the frequent use of vegans. It could say "Followers of vegan society Vegan Outreach are told that..." or "The Vegan Outreach society advocte...", and so on without "he's a tot je suis un tot...". If those who sang the blues went around saying "We are the blues! I am a blue, he's a blue..." or Judge Dredd, "I am the law!" Would he then say, "Hershey is the law, we are the laws.", or, "...we are the law!"? It is certainly more neutral to avoid individualising when possible. ~ R.T.G 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Products 

message: "Poorly planned vegan diets can be low in levels of calcium, iodine, vitamin B12, iron and vitamin D."
Obviously poorly planned vegan diets (and any other diet for that matter) can be low in anything and everything so why are these mentioned in particular? The sentence has no citation.
Muleattack (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what section you are referring to but in this section: Veganism#Specific_nutrients, a repititon of the same information appears cited painstakingly. ~ R.T.G 17:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's in the opening paragraph. The reason I brought it up is it's been added to twice recently with no justification for the additions, the first time with protein and today with iron, both now reverted. Muleattack (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly planned vegan diets 

message: This dose not have anything to do with the cow picture your talking about but another cow picture on the page. Im not an expert but Im just throwing this out there as some food for thought. The caption reads something to the effect of how cows produce large amount of green house gases, there for supporting the idea that a reason to not eat meat is to be more environmentally friendly. Im going to assume the green house gases being refered to are methane.  How ever this leads to a some what of a conundrum, every vegetarian and vegan I have met eats rice. Rice is grown in swamps and because it is the staple diet of the most populous countries on earth. Is on of the highest methane and green house gas producing factors on the planet. So I don't really think its fare to condemn cow eating because it produces methane unless you also say the same for rice. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you are saying is that you shouldn't condemn something if there is a worse example of a similar thing. So you shouldn't condemn thieves because there are murderers. Yeah, makes total sense... Muleattack (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The point to be understood is that on the single choice of becoming vegan in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, going from eating cows to eating rice doesn't help. At current agricultural levels of production rice accounts for minimum 6% (to 30% higher estimates) of planetary methane production whereas cows (and I mean only domestic cows) account for about 10% worldwide. The total population of domestic animals only account for about 15% (to about 40% high estimates) of methane production. Of course rice is no replacement for meat, they've very different nutritional content. However, if in the future we're all vegans and eat lots of rice I doubt my grandkids will ever get to build a snow fort. August B. (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only does every vegan you meet eat rice, but also every... person... you have ever met... Most of the world actually eats meat products on top of rice, so dropping the meat does not equal the same greenhouse gasses due to foods, it is half that. Actually why is this section not archived yet? Bah, seems quite moot. Eddie mars (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also Cow 

message: The sentence "Abortion is a topic vegans avoid but are avidly criticized for because some fetuses experience pain, but they aren't used for food" is floating around on its own without any citation. Because I am a vegan I am totally opposed to abortion, so that disproves the sweeping universal statement immediately. It's reasonable to have a section on abortion but this isn't a good start. Salopian (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Induced abortion of no-sentient animals is not contradictory with veganism. If there is no mind there is someone they can hurt.Regards.Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an academic point now as it's been rightly removed, but sentience is *not* part of the definition of veganism so that is not true. (That may be part of your own philosophy but that is not the same thing.) Also, I don't follow your second sentence at all. Salopian (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed - that sentence was not referenced or relevant. Bob98133 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion 

message: Not exist vegan diet for health reasons. Exist the 100% vegetarian diet for health reasons. Veganism is not a diet. Veganism is a philosophy and a lifestyle based on respect for sentient animals that includes a 100% vegetarian diet.Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources specify that veganism is not a diet? Gabbe (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK Vegan Society 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 for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment." ( http://www.vegansociety.com/uploadedFiles/About_Us/Articles-of-Association-Nov-09.pdf )Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Certainly a person can follow a vegan diet with or without ascribing to a particular lifestyle. While veganism is usually meant to include the philosophy, it doesn't seem to exclude those who only follow the diet. Part of the problem in referencing this is that several groups have established varying definitions. So maybe Xxxxzen.. is right based on the definition he uses, but for the article being that restrictive limits other practices that should be included. It has been a similar issue with "semi-vegetarian" in the vegetarian article, with some editors arguing that the term is paradoxical although it is widely used and people identify with it. Bob98133 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The strict or pure vegetarian diets have always existed. I understand that now popularly call them vegan diets, but what is clear is that veganism is not a diet: The veganism includes a strict vegetarian or vegan diet.Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: XXXzen... -please put your comments at the bottom of the talk section. I can't figure out who you are replying to or about what. In any event, you're wrong about veganism being purely a philosophy. If some people refer to themselves as vegan, they may only be talking about their diets, not their philosophy. Please respond BELOW if you have some referenced material to support your view and not just your opinions or beliefs. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob98133: Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle that included a strict vegetarian diet (also called a vegan diet). The UK Vegan Society 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 for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment." ( http://www.vegansociety.com/uploadedFiles/About_Us/Articles-of-Association-Nov-09.pdf )An example: It is inconsistent to call themselves vegan and wear fur (contradiction), anyone can follow a "vegan diet" and not being vegan. Called "vegan diet" to the strict vegetarian diet is popular but is a misconception. Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: By definition, an unbaptized person is not Christian (Ideology). If this person goes to church still not a Christian, although it calls itself so. With veganism is the same. I can understand a person says they follow a vegan diet, but not that person says it is vegan and uses skins. A person who wears leather and vegan calls itself creates confusion and lies.Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Christianity is learning about Jesus *Christ* and believing in what you learn. Similarly here you might be left to feel that you would need to focus on animals to be vegan but in fact the term veganism was coined owing to the same problem with vegetarianism. Its meaning was become corrupted. Veganism/vegetarianism is about vegetables, not being baptised or learning about the devil. Quite the opposite. As it is so closely related to the other it becomes too easy for people to presume of you that the other is required. "Diet" does not only include those things which you put in your mouth. ~ R.T.G 10:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Xxxzenicxxx - if it wouldn't be too much trouble, perhaps you can present changes that you would suggest, with references, for the article, so that we can discuss concrete changes to improve the article instead of your personal beliefs about veganism and religion. Thanks - Bob98133 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarian diet, lacto-ovo  vegetarian diet, ovo vegetarian diet, etc 

message: What do vegans have against using animal products like milk and eggs?  You don't have to kill a cow or chicken for those things.  Milk is there as natural food/drink.  Emperor001 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the article, it explains this. -kotra (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal products 

message: User Uncle Dick or Puffysphere or whoever you are - Please discuss, as asked, why you believe the inclusion of recent material about choline and vegan diets is not WP:OR and WP:UNDUE in reference to your recent edits. Bob98133 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bob98133 that the recent edits on choline probably violate WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. --N-k (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the section on Choline could stand to be trimmed a bit, particularly the details of choline content in certain foods. I've made some edits to reduce the total length of the section. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't agree.  It's OK to include routine calculations.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AOR  
All the calculations in of the choline content of foods are from reputable sources, and I gave solid references for the data they use.  
The reason I included those lists of choline content is that I wanted to give vegans a good perspective of how much choline their diet is likely to include.  
I've seen many websites where plant foods are listed as good choline sources, when they aren't.  For example, many websites list nuts or peanuts as good choline sources.  They aren't, for the reason I gave, that nuts and peanuts don't have enough choline for the calories.  I'm trying to correct a misconception people might have from websites online.
Also, that choline is an essential nutrient is not a minority viewpoint!  The Adequate Intake was set by the Institute of Medicine.  There's no RDA yet defined for choline, but I've read that the Institute of Medicine recommends that USDA set an RDA for choline the next time it reviews the RDA's.
I undid the deletion of the material I included, since I think it's helpful and objective.  Puffysphere (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Puffysphere - very passionate argument about choline. However, the point of this article is not to advise vegans whether or not they can, in your opinion, garner sufficient choline from a vegan diet, or to correct peoples' misconceptions. I don't know that much about this, but I've seen the B12 need of vegans discussed considerably and it seems in that case that vegan groups, as well as mainstream medical sources, expressed some concern, which was easily referenced. Your argument that nuts have too much fat for the choline is obviously original research unless the FDA has established guidelines for fat-to-choline ratios. No one is arguing whether or not choline is essential, just whether it merits so much space in an already crowded page. Bob98133 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Puffysphere -  Your three basic reasons for someone becoming vegan do not include dozens of other reasons from religion to workers' rights. You have no reference for claiming that these are the three basic reasons. You also appear unable to stay on topic - this particular topic is about whether your edits about choline were appropriate. If you are interested in creating some other articles, please go for it. If you are interested in improving this article, please indicate how and supply references to support your position, not original research. Bob98133 (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section you've inserted about choline is more than twice as long as the section about B12. It is poorly sourced and contains original research. It is WP:UNDUE. This discussion is nonsense since all you seem to want to do is rant about choline and how your original research isn't OR. I'm gone, but I'll revert your nonsense first chance I get, if another editor doesn't do it first. Bob98133 (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok so to try to halt the back-and-forth edit warring, I've placed a  tag on the section until we work this out. This compromise should serve to warn readers to make their own minds up about the content until we can find consensus on the content. I personally haven't had time to scrutinize the sources and wording yet but I will shortly. -kotra (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the first sentence doesn't entirely match its citation, which says (paraphrasing) that vegans may be at risk for choline deficiency and may benefit from choline supplements; this is not as strong as "vegans are at risk, full stop". I've adjusted the wording accordingly. -kotra (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choline 

message: A lifestyle cannot seek anything. See lead section. Is that even a copyvio? ~ R.T.G 22:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Made change. Feel free to discuss or change if not acceptable. Not sure what you mean by copyvio, but hope problem is solved. Bob98133 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was almost word for word to the Vegan Society Memorandum which is reffed and that would most likely be copyvio. It is now referred to as a who! ~ R.T.G 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if it was a verbatim quote (which it actually used to be), this would also be covered by fair use since it's pretty clearly cited. Don't stir up trouble where none exists. KellenT 00:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't entirely accurate; non-free (fair use) text is only allowed if the text is clearly denoted as a quote. Citing really doesn't mean much in terms of copyright violation (though it does in terms of verifiability of course). But this particular text has been modified from the original enough that it's probably not a copyvio. -kotra (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Kellen suggests requires that the be all and end all of veganism is in what the Vegan Society does. What is more to the truth is what Donald Watson thought up: vegetarianism was no longer defined in the same way hence a word was required. It's funny that the bible cannot be quoted as creating humans under strict vegan rules but the Vegan Society doctrine can be not only quoted but copied to define veganism is a who. It's all good not only some of it. ~ R.T.G 01:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentient lifestyles 

message: I have found editor Puffysphere's reversions of material that go contrary to the concensus of other editors to be obstructive to improving this article since he does not seem to stay on track and reverts material without concensus. In an effort to address problems with his edits, I have broken them down into my specific objections (aside from WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, both of which I still believe to be true. Perhaps Puffy can stay on one topic at a time and discuss each of these objections separately. Bob98133 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, when you discuss an item, add colons to offset your remarks from previous remarks. Other editors concur re WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I don't care if you're biased, I'm saying that you appear unable to conform to accepted editing standards and prefer to wheedle and argue rather than address the issues. For example, above I accuse you of not staying on topic and you reply that I'm supposed to go to medline and refute something you've added. That is not staying on topic. I've discussed this enough with you and believe that further discussion will not be productive. If a vote is called for, I will vote against your edits, but otherwise, I'm gone. Bob98133 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's focus on discussing the content, not the contributor, unless actual disruption occurs (personally I haven't seen it yet). The choline section covers a topic that is relevant and useful to this article, so I thank Puffysphere for contributing it. Now we only need to finish bringing it in line with Wikipedia's style and requirements, and everyone's views will be helpful in building consensus. -kotra (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obstructive editing 

message: I'm a graduate student of Gary Varner's here at TAMU.  He's not a vegan, but is a pesco-vegetarian.  I've corrected it to reflect that fact.  Everyone may now go about their business.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.21.177 (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! There was nothing in the source cited that said he was a vegan, so I assume the editor who added that was just confused. Although, strictly speaking, a pescetarian is not a vegetarian either (vegetarians eschew all meat), and it's not particularly relevant information anyway, so I've removed the reference to his diet. -kotra (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Varner 

message: It looks like the person who placed the mental health benefits section under nutritional concerns made a mistake. I'm not quite sure how to correct that.--Bloody Rose 02:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have moved it. If you click "edit this page" at the top of the page, you can select an entire section and cut/paste it to a new location. Klubbit (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, with the new layout, it just says "Edit". Also, you can sign your comments with four tildes. i.e., ~~~~ Klubbit (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental health benefits 

message: Should the first paragraph of the article aknowledge that people may exlcude animal products from their diet without aligning themselves to a particular philosophy? 33gsd (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is odd that Strict Vegetarianism redirects to veganism and then doesn't get a mention, it should somewhere. Muleattack (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veganism vs a vegan diet ? 

message: I would like to revert, to leave my quote in. (a) The China study is not mentioned below, but only Colin Campbell, with a reference to the China Study. So you'd have to be pretty determined and well informed to get at this clear, international scientific evidence off site.  (b) I put it in the introduction, since the previous post had inserted 'may' have health benefits whereas I think a more positive, still neutral statement, is more informative for readers.
Comments welcome, otherwise I shall revert.
TonyClarke (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The China Study, if mentioned at all, should absolutely not be in the lead. The lead is a SUMMARY of the rest of the article, and is not the place to introduce such material. Put it in the appropriate subsection. KellenT 23:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, it really isn't unbiased if you think about it. I don't know of any study which shows clearly that a vegan diet doesn't protect from various diseases, or of anybody promoting that position.Some have found no evidence for it, many more have found that it does. So 'may' is judgemental, whereas quoting one international respectable study is not. Down to the naysayers to find an opposing study?
TonyClarke (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Do not do this. As I said in two different edit summaries, the things which are called out in the lead are extensively cited later in the article. "May" is not an honest representation of the data; it's weasel wording. KellenT 23:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: UM, no.  "May" is appropriate for ANYTHING that is not a definite or is not universally recognized.  It is not judgmental.  Until ALL studies and the vast majority of scientists agrees with a position, then MAY is the correct wording.  And requiring a study that shows that the Vegan diet doesn't protect from diseases??  Seriously?  That's like having the article say that the Vegan diet cures cancer, and then saying that it's a valid claim because there haven't been any studies saying that it DOESN'T cure cancer.  The onus is on the claimant to prove a claim, not on anyone to disprove it.  Science does not work that way.  This whole article reads as particularly biased.  On the entire page there is but one tiny section critical of the concept.  That fairly smacks of biased authors and/or article watchdogs.
RyokoMocha (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Study in the introduction 

message: here This was great. Pamela Anderson, for instance, turning "over a new leaf" is infinitely more representative of the "Philosophical foundations" of veganism than slaughtering cattle is. I've never heard of vegans who slaughtered cattle and in fact I would be comfortable with the idea that the cattle slaughter picture here was not associated with veganism in any way besides here on this Wikipedia page. Isnt it one of the more frequently used images on slaughter-related articles? I have seen it once or twice on articles that are nothing vegan whatsoever. A long time ago images of a slaughterhouse finally convinced me that something was a neccesity rather than an ideal but you can be sure that the almost cute picture here does not represent that even remotely save for the fact that I am led to believe it was a slaughterhouse. Bring back Pammie Anderson. Bar the slaughter house. There is no place for veganism in a slaughter house and no place for a slaughter house in veganism. ~ R.T.G 21:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent picture change attempt 

message: I removed:
:Dr Neal D. Barnard has also shown that a low fat vegan diet can treat Type 2 diabetes better than the ADA guideline diet. 
Because the phrasing seemed a bit suspect. I unfortunately can't access the full text of the article (Nirvana2013, maybe you can) in order to get a full view of its contents, but from the pubmed description, it seemed likely that Barnard personally showed nothing (that is, did no research) but instead published a synthesis of existing research. That's okay, it's what PCRM does, but the line here seems like a mischaracterization. Can someone cite the actual text of this article in order to confirm (or not) this? An additional issue is that there is already a section devoted to diabetes, and it seems likely that this addition would be redundant to that one. KellenT 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He's published many articles and several books detailing his research. Like the other doctors he is worthy of note in the article. I have added him back in with a more suitable reference. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for improving the references. Could you add relevant quotes to the citation tags? These help in showing precisely which sections of the original articles support the text in this article. KellenT 18:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. I have added a quote (in fact the chapter title). Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnard citation 

message: In the section titled Similar diets and lifestyles, I propose to delete the following sentence: 
«Some small Sikh sects have lacto-vegetarian lifestyles.» 
After all, this article is about veganism, not lacto-vegetarianism. Any objections? TheLastNinja (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, bin it. I'd actually scrap the whole section tbh, it's mostly off-topic. Muleattack (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was in a pretty good state about a year ago. That is to say it consisted of a single, well-cited sentence. KellenT 19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar diets and lifestyles 

message: Much of the content of this article relies on the Vegan Society website and other sources that advocate for a vegan diet, and thus do not qualify as unbiased. For example, the claim that vitamin B12 deficiency is rare in vegans is supported solely by a reference to "What every vegan should know about vitamin B12," an article posted on the Vegan Society website. This claim is contradicted by several studies that have found widespread B12 deficiency in vegans, and even earlier in the article, where the higher rate of death from ischemic heart disease in fish eaters than in vegans is attributed to B12 deficiency in vegans. I probably will remove some the claims based solely on biased sources, but I want to give a heads up first to give people a chance to back them up with credible references. Struvite (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest following the WP:MEDRS guideline when it comes to statements in this article related to health. Gabbe (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Don't remove them. You can identify the sources if you want. Most of the things from the Vegan Society and Vegan Health actually cite other studies, so if  you really want to improve the article and not just go around screaming POV! POV!, you'll dig up those articles and cite them directly, with quotes. It's also worth noting that just because something comes from the Vegan Society or Vegan Outreach doesn't mean it's biased. And to directly respond to the B12 issue you raised; the citation specifies "clinical B12 deficiency" which is a distinctly different thing than "low levels of B12". I also made this mistake when that specific piece of information was added to the article. KellenT 11:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility of sources 

message: As choline is abundant in plant sources and as I've not once in my research encountered any other source that claims choline deficiency to be a problem for vegans, I suggest the removal of this section. In its place we should include a section on omega-3 deficiency, which is a problem for vegans who don't eat a balanced diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.75.30 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choline 

message: It might be helpful to reorganize this article, too, so that we can highlight which nutrients beginner vegans need to pay attention to and ensure getting enough of VS. which nutrient deficiencies are of particular concern for vegans who don't eat balanced diets. Right now, these two things seem to be blended together, which gives the misleading impression that there exist nutritional concerns about planned vegan diets. I don't currently have time to reorganize the article better, but perhaps others do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.75.30 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is a encyclopedia, we should avoid writing the article as if it were a guidebook or manual (see WP:NOTAMANUAL). Depending on how it was done, it might be inappropriate to "highlight which nutrients beginner vegans need to pay attention to" separately from other nutritional concerns. Differentiating nutritional concerns based on order of severity or rarity, however, might be a good idea. Gabbe (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutritional Concerns about Poorly Planned Diets 

message: I'd like to suggest the removal of references to the child deaths at the hands of parents who are vegan, which is overly-weighty for the length of the entry.
Untold numbers of children die annually in the care of omnivorous parents from diabetes and other diseases,
and these deaths are not mentioned, let alone listed and detailed in the article on human omnivorism. 
Nor should they be-they are not the result of omnivorism, but of parental neglect.
Such is the case with veganism.
Different standards of relevance shouldn't be applied to veganism's entry simply because it's less popular. --64.130.148.99 (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Child Deaths Biased/Misleading 

message: * I recently received a message from user:Andyjsmith as follows: I understand where you're coming from but you simply cannot make unsupported statements about dietary planning and you must not misrepresent the sources that you use. The reference you gave simply does not talk about the consequences of an unplanned diet.
Please explain what is meant by "I understand where you're coming from"? Where exactly do I come from and why does it matter. Do I have to specifically come from somewhere? And where exactly do you come from? Its the genetic fallacy (logical fallacy). I find this conduct offensive, intimidating and hurting. WP:PERSONAL
* The article is giving an impression that inappropriately planned plant-based diets are deficient in nutrients whereas inappropriately planned meat-based diets are not. This criticism is inappropriate. Any diet, by definition, that is not appropriately planned, will be deficient. This is why its called an "inappropriately planned diet". Animal-based diets are not automatically balanced.
* Another of my edits were removed in which I wrote: Even in a society where all human life is considered of equal value, humans are killed or allowed to be killed for the reasons of self-defense or uninterrupted functioning of the society, to the "criticism": "ideologic vegetarians," whom he claims believe that "all life is sacred" and that "all forms of life have equal value," saying that these beliefs "can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or vipers to run loose on one's premises."
Similarly, if ALL human lives are considered equal, it "can lead to absurdities such as allowing thieves to steal, or murderers to run loose on one's premises."
This is not a valid criticism. And I do not think that Wikipedia is a place to debate veganism. If this is debated in the actual article, then rebuttals should also be allowed. Otherwise, the readers will only get one side of the story and a biased view. This criticism itself is not an WP:NPOV. I propose the criticism to be either removed, or a fair ideological rebuttal allowed. Since the criticism is not of scientific (but ideological nature), no scientific sources can be sited and the rebuttal itself can only be of ideological character.   Manujchandra (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *This message is misleading and may cause harm to people. Many people assume that an animal based diet is automatically balanced and may hurt themselves by holding this non-scientific belief. This is basic nutrition science 101. I am anyways gathering the studies to stick this fact. If someone is just eating meat and potatoes, that person is liable to be deficient in some nutrients and its illogical then to go on and imply that this deficiency is caused due to a meat-based diet. Deficiencies are caused due to not eating a balanced diet, not by a _____ based diet. Manujchandra (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your edit did not say a "balanced diet" it said a "planned diet". Different things. Also, this is an article about veganism, not nutrition. andy (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole purpose of "planning" a diet is to "balance' it. And if this article is about veganism and not nutrition, then why does it make it look like vegans are more susceptible to nutritional deficiencies when the science is completely opposite? A non-vegan is just as likely to get deficient if not more, and they are more succeptable to the top-most killers due to lifestyle. Manuj Chandra (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter what you write here. If you can't find WP:RS to support your argument, it's moot. KellenT 16:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Manuj Chandra (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: *Humans are also animals and for the last 200 years we have been trying to fight real hard to view all human lives as equal, even if they are handicapped, mentally challenged, or infants etc. Again, this is a philosophical and ideological issue, so no scientific references can be sited either way. I stand by my original stance. Just because all life is revered, this does not mean self-defence is not allowed. This is the logical fallacy of  Accident (dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid). Its a known and documented fallacy and it has no place in a work of science and logic. Book Reference Manujchandra (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not fallacious :"in my opinion". Its a known logical fallacy. And wikipedia is not a debating forum. I am not opposed to any kind of criticism. But it has to be logical. There are positives and negatives to everything in the world and the negatives must also be discussed. But not a fallacious one. Manuj Chandra (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Two objections to criticism" 

message: I made some changes in a sandboxed version of the article, and request that you go over it.  See edit summaries for reasons.  You're welcome to edit that page.  I hope we can gain a consensus for a better version of the article it and then insert it. BE——Critical__Talk 01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work so far (and a great initiative)! I like the suggested lead. If it were expanded to, say, three or four paragraphs there would be a point to mention people like Donald Watson and possibly Peter Singer, and to further differentiate "animal rights" versus other rationales for veganism, etc. At present I am concerned about bringing up Steven Davis so prominently in this one-paragraph lead. Currently, he is the only person mentioned by name in the intro, yet he (and his argument) have relative little influence in any debate over veganism. True, the lead should mention "notable criticism or controversies" (per WP:LEAD), but the way it is currently written is a bit lopsided in favour of Davis. Gabbe (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks (:  If I paste the lead in here will you help me work on it? BE——Critical__Talk 21:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't promise that I'll have the time for the kind of in-depth makeover that this article deserves, but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it. Gabbe (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well besides expansion of the lead, what else would you include in that makeover?  See recent edits to sandbox. BE——Critical__Talk 04:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So shall I put it in? BE——Critical__Talk 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no objections, putting it in. BE——Critical__Talk 21:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandboxed article 

message: The statement that there are many vegans in India is incorrect. Veganism in India is virtually unknown. 
http://business.in.com/article/recliner/being-vegan-in-india/4482/1
India are the largest consumers of animal milk in the world. The vegetarians in India follow a lacto vegetarian diet, which includes lots of dairy products.
The word "vegan" is not common in India. A 'pure vegetarian' in India, means a person who consumes milk and milk products, but not meat and eggs. Kelly2357 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. BE——Critical__Talk 03:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: The article currently states that veganism is the most popular in Britain, but later says that it's even more popular in Sweden (0.25% versus at least 0.27%). What's the explanation?--Bloody Rose (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that? I can't find the text in the article.Muleattack (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the first paragraph. It doesn't use the word "popularity" but means it.--Bloody Rose (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it ought to be changed. BE——Critical__Talk 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest proportion of vegans 

message: Hate to bring this up, but the nutrition is horridly one sided, infants for example are not better off on vegan diets, or even vegetarian ones for that matter. Additionally, vegan diets are chronically low in absorbed iron; that is, the iron that is actually absorbed by the body. Plant source iron is not nearly as well absorbed as animal source iron, owing to factors of biochemical similarity (a human has much more in common with a cow than with a soya plant), and bioavalibility. In addition plant proteins are often upwards of 30 percent less bioavailable than animal ones (will post refs on request, I'd have to hunt them down), though egg whites are the best source of protein (which is why ovo vegetarians are often able to achieve adequate levels of protien intake) Furthermore, there are few reputable, uncontested studies that show that animal protien (in moderation, especially with red meat) is in any way harmful, again, with the notable exception of red meat (which is something I personally don't eat). Ronk01 talk 00:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I note also that some of this was discussed above, and the information is expanded in great detail in the Vegetarian nutrition article;  there were objections raised above to having excessive nutrition discussion in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAndersen (talk • contribs) 03:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps then it should be noted that proper vegan diets require higher protien and iron intake (from plant sources, of course) to meet dietary needs, I personally am a semi-vegetarian (organic eggs, dairy, fish and poultry only) for health reasons, and I find it interesting that one study (can't seem to place it, I think it was refed in the vegetarianism article somewhere) noted that vegans are just barely above total omnivores in terms of longevity, while the various, less strict forms of vegetarianism tended to show extreme differences (upwards of 15-20 percent longer lives in some cases) This has often been attributed in medical literature (I'm an MD/PhD, if that explains anything) to higher (that is, of course, existent) levels of cobalamin in their diets, of course, cobalamin can be stored for upwards of 30 years, according to some research. Additionally, higher vegan mortality may be attributed to diets that are not properly balanced, (very difficult to do, a few of my patients tried, and eventually reverted to ovo-lacto vegetarianism) and the fact the vegans must consume significantly higher amounts of nearly traditionally animal sourced nutrients in plant form. (Humans (like our closest ancestors, the chimpanzees) did not evolve for veganism, in fact recent studies suggest the so called "Mediterranean diet" to be the ideal form of nutrition for most humans) Perhaps we remove the sentence stating that all animal protient is toxic ans replace it with red meat can cause colon cancer, ans actual, supportable, medical fact. Ronk01 talk 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be very interesting to include if it's a WP:RS and you can find it. Where does it say animal protein is toxic?  BE——Critical__Talk 17:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Studies show that the health of vegetarians is better than that that of non-vegetarians.[91] Vegetarians avoid the negative health effects of animal protein [in reality, no respectable study has concluded that any animal protien, in reasonable amounts, causes significant health detriment, with the exception of red meat.] including red meat [an uncited claim]." essentially implies that animal protien is toxic (in fact, there is some rather compelling evidence for soy protien being rather toxic due to nitrate content) Additionally, this sentence is misleading when placed in an article on veganism, which is the extreme end of vegetarianism (the health benefits of a diet composed primarily, but not entirely of plant material are unquestioned). This this sentence does not accurately reflect veganism, so much as it does vegetarianism as a whole. Ronk01 talk 21:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I removed the sentence. BE——Critical__Talk 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  I wanted to "ditto" Becritical's reply:  Do you have sources for a lot of those?  One possible source:  the book "Becoming Vegan", co-written by two registered dieticians (Brenda Davis, Vesanto Melina, published 2000 by Book Publishing Company).  It has a discussion in chapter 2 summarizing research on vegan nutrition intake and status, noting "care must be taken to ensure sufficient energy, vitamin B12, and vitamin D ... Other nutrients that may require attention include protein, essential fatty acids, riboflavin, and certain minerals, particularly calcium, zinc, and in places where salt is not iodized, iodine." then noting that "many of the nutrients of concern are now being added to foods commonly consumed by vegans (i.e., calcium, riboflavin, and vitamins B12 and D to symilk, and iron, zinc, and vitamin B12 to meat substitutes").  Interestingly enough, the studies it cites mostly show that vegan diets were overall good on iron, despite the popular perception to the contrary.  I'd be interested in pointers to the study you mentioned re the "Mediterranean diet".  I'll also note that while claims abound about "the way" humans evolved to eat, I have yet to see non-conflicting and credible evidence beyond pointing to a wide range of potential omniverous behaviors, from "mostly vegan" with rare, opportunistic consumption of insects and animals, to "maybe ate lotsa insects and meat".  If you have more recent and precise studies to add, that'd be quite useful.  (If it helps clarify my POV on all of this, I've been doing a bunch of digging lately to try to figure out what the best diet is from a health perspective.  I've settled on "eat lots of plants, legumes, and whole grains, and avoid refined flours and sugars", but the question of, e.g., grass-fed meats and fish within that diet has proven harder to resolve, and I'm still interested in learning more.) DavidAndersen (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I should make clear that I'm a Cardiothoracic surgeon, not a nutritionist. However, Iron and B12 are problems in unbalanced vegan diets (balancing a vegan diet is extremely difficult, some of my patients have tried) Soy is another interesting case, with all of the conflicting research flying around, I tend to direct patients away from soy until more conclusive research is published. With regards to the Mediterranean Diet, I believe Wikipedia has an article on it with some great sources. In terms of human evolution, many anthropologists believe that the early hominid (i.e. Australopithecus) diet would have been similar to that of modern chimpanzees, with strong emphasis on fruits, and with vegetable matter, insects and meat in descending proportions. (Grains were absent from, or rare in, the human diet until comparatively modern times) It has been posited by many anthropologists that the cranial capacity of early hominids was allowed to develop through the consumption larger amounts of protien than typical of modern apes (neural tissue is very demanding to construct). Well managed vegan diets however, tend to fall just above omnivorous ones in terms of health, with the various, less strict forms of vegetarianism coming in higher, along with those diets that include regular, but sparing consumption of proteins like organic poultry and fish [Our own vegetarianism article]. I personally follow a diet composed of about 60% plant matter, 20% grain, and 20% animal protien (that is, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy). I also recommend a similar diet to my patients. In terms of legumes, the primary issue is bioavailability of the protein, you need to consume substantially more to equate the amount of protein acquired from animal protein sources (egg whites are best) [Merck Manual]. With regards to grass fed meats, I would recommend lamb/mutton over beef, owing to lower cholesterol levels (avoid pork like the plague, nothing redeeming about that stuff). If you're interested, I can dig around for the nutritional research if you are interested though. Ronk01 talk 04:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

text: There are references, [18] and [19].Muleattack (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick review of the sources for V and RS is in order. Ronk01 talk 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The text is taken from the sources provided, 'are' and 'healthful' are in the references, it's not an editors wording. The other side uses the word 'can' because it's the correct word to use. Muleattack (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found the following two sentences. I highlighted some relevant aspects:
* "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
* "A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients."
Note that the papers themselves present those views as their positions. These are not facts, and the Wikipedia article should not be stating them as facts, and rather state that they are the ADA's position, just as the references do themselves.
Also, please address the inclusion "but as with any diet" in the sentence. I maintain that it is not providing anything factual is not found in any of the cited articles for that sentence. 24.68.70.4 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, again 

message: The article references citation 89 a bunch, in many places to justify very very bold claims such as: "Nonetheless, well-balanced vegetarian and vegan diets can meet all these nutrient requirements and are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." 
However, the text under 89 is: "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named ada; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text"
This article can be used a perfect example of why Wikipedia is not a good source of objective information on controversial topics.
24.68.70.4 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a small fault, fixed now. Muleattack (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very bold claims, no citation number [89] 

message: I'm having trouble confirming what we say about the DRI for choline:
The American Institute of Medicine has set the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) of choline at 425 mg (milligrams) per day for women and 550 mg/day for men."Choline", taken from Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline, Institute of Medicine, 1998, p. 390.
:*Summary of the above available here, accessed February 4, 2011.
*"Dietary Reference Intakes: Vitamins", Institute of Medicine, 2001.
;Notes
Can anyone see those figures in the sources we cite? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 12:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll remove them for now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choline 

message: It says in the article "Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against obesity, heart and renal diseases, cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis." However, in one of the sources it says: "Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians." I know that one of the other sources say that there are indeed a difference, but given these contradictions and uncertainties, I think it would be appropriate to exclude cancer from the list mentioned in the article. I would also like to note that the sources commenting about the nutrition, are talking about vegetarians, which means that their conclusions may not apply to veganism.
Not directly related, but I think the article should be more neutral, it feels like a one-sided promotional article.Benjaminsf (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement condracting source [4] 

message: It looks to me that the prominent people are only prominent in part of the english speaking world(and latin america), although i'm not really that well informed. 190.51.139.145 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: Wikiman, what is your point here?  Are you arguing that vegans would oppose the drinking of human milk by human babies too? Or something else? (Also note, we don't do dictionary definitions; we use reliable sources who have written about issues.) SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making an argument either way on that, its quite irrelevant. What I am saying is that reliable sources do not say "non-human animals," the vegan society simply says animal products as do other advocacy groups. Don't try to define vegans without reliable sources to do it as anything but what they call it. Unless you have reliable sources to show otherwise, self definition is the way to go. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 21:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious that it's non-human animals, not all animals, WM, and there are lots of sources in the articles who may that clear (not that it needs to be made clear). SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not obvious to me. Vegans wouldn't go eat this ice cream. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 22:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethical vegans would almost certainly eat it if they knew it had been donated with informed consent and no exploitation. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a reliable source for that? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably but I haven't looked, because it's not needed. Ethical vegans argue against humans using the bodies of other animals who can't give informed consent. They would use human breast milk if they could be assured the consent was real (and if they wanted to use it, which is a separate issue). Continuing to question this isn't going anywhere; it's like asking whether Paris is the capital of France. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually this isn't. I realized this was the case because people were complaining about wikipedia being inaccurate onn the Vegan list I subscribe to as a Vegan. It is not backed up by reliable sources. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which list is that? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human milk 

message: This is a term coined by those who are ex- or as they see it, 'recovered' vegans. Some members of this small, but increasingly large group describe themselves as orthorexic, or having an unhealthy obsession with the purity or righteousness of their diet. Chief among their concerns is that those who insist on dietary purity or ultra restrictuve healthfood diets, develop feelings of disgust or contempt towards those who do not follow such a dietary regime. This is a syndrome similar to those who become members of extreme religious or New Age cults.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.189.111 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Vegan 

message: Is the current picture for the vegan info box really the best we can do? It just looks like someone showing off some fancy vegan dish they made. I feel like something akin to vegetarianism (minus the dairy products) would be much better. I seem to recall a similar picture on this page a while back. --MosheA (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to have a picture of vegetables and fruit, but it was pretty dull. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I think it's fine, if you had one like on the vegetarianism page but without the dairy products it would just be a big pile of fruit and veg, better suited to the raw veganism page. It's going to be near on impossible to encapsulate the full spectrum of vegan foods in a picture that size so an example dish seems sensible to me. I don't think it looks fancy at all by the way, I have pictures of much fancier fare. I'm more worried about the picture of a burger half way down the page, it looks like a rodent with diarrhoea has crawled over it. Muleattack (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the diarrhoea is mayonnaise. :) SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The real issue is whether rodent diarrhoea obtained by letting free-living rodents freely crawl over a vegan hamburger can be considered vegan. What does Gary say about that? --David Olivier (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Change the Vegan Info Box Picture 

message: Hello. I'm the guy who posted the note above about there being no such thing as "ethical veganism". 
There's clearly been a lot of discussion above about this, and the article has been reverted to stating that all vegans split into two camps: ethical and dietary. 
This simply does not reflect the reality out here in the real world. I know nobody at all who calls themselves an 'ethical vegan', and I run one of the largest vegan groups in the UK. I'm really sorry if this clashes with your views, and I realise you can provide lots of sources to prove me wrong, but I'm basing my views on reality.  
This article is clearly trying to set an agenda. Somebody coming to it to learn about veganism will not learn the truth, but a distorted, constructed version of the truth. 
To make this clear: 
Veganism: Rejecting all animal products for any purpose (from food to leather seating)
Strict vegetarian: Somebody who doesn't eat meat or consume any other animal product, but sees no issue using animal products elsewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.72.70 (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We hear you, but the problem is that Wikipedia's articles have to be based on sources, and not on our own experiences or even reality itself. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR. Gabbe (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of reliable sources that explicitly reject this distinction. Can you name any? Then, i guess, we could add this view.-goiken 15:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be shifting the burden of proof. We shouldn't ask ourselves "Are there sources that disagree with this view?" but rather "Which sources back up this view?". Lack of opposition from reliable sources is, by itself, an insufficient criteria for inclusion. Please see WP:ONUS. Gabbe (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was addressing the IP and I was asking him/her for sources that back up the claim that there is no distinction. --goiken 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Sorry! :) Gabbe (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article simply does not reflect reality 

message: Why is there a photograph of "Lard from pigs" on a plate in this article? How is it relevant? It seems like it was posted just to be provocative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.171.49 (talk • contribs) 
:In what way is it provocative? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph inappropriate 

message: Nirvana, I'm going to restore H.Jay Dinshah to the lead and how he linked veganism to the concept of ahimsa, as that seems quite important and central to the movement, and it's what the source says.  SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the information, it is just that the sentence is worded very clumsily. It currently reads like that both he and Watson coined the term, rather than just stating his link of veganism to ahimsa. Perhaps the sentence is too long and needs to be split into two. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It currently says: "The term was coined in England by Donald Watson, who founded the British Vegan Society in 1944, and in 1960 H. Jay Dinshah started the American Vegan Society, linking veganism to the Jainist and Buddhist concept of ahimsa, the avoidance of violence against living things." I don't think that suggests Dinshah coined the term too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Nirvana, it would sound better if it were split in two. It's just too long at the moment. TheLastNinja (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinshah 

message: I am not sure what is happening here, but from Archive 7 to Archive 15 is blank. It seems the archive system, automatic or otherwise, is not working. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Per SlimVirgin's request at User talk:Misza13, I have consolidated the archives and the current one is #6. The others are there for the moment pending someone to doublecheck my work and they need to be deleted for housekeeping. If you check the index, you will see that it is current with all old threads excepting the one that was just archived (will be indexed within 24 hrs.) Nothing is awry. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving talk page 

message: The way this reads is that veganism involves stopping others from using animal products rather than it being a personal endeavour. Muleattack (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems to exclude dietary veganism from the definition of veganism — which is fair, given the many sources that defines veganism that way. But the next sentence of the lead then looks a bit strange. TheLastNinja (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry if my previous comment was a bit off-topic to the issue you are raising. I propose to rephrase the sentence to say: Veganism is the human practice of eliminating one's use of non-human animal products. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree. It also sounds a bit clumsy. I prefer "Veganism is the human practice of eliminating the use of non-human animal products" or "Veganism is the personal practice of eliminating the use of non-human animal products." Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Nirvana's second proposal, so I'd be happy to use that. TheLastNinja (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Nirvana's second proposal would be fine with me. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I also concur and have made the change, hopefully without anyone's objections. BernieW650 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Nirvana's second sentence that people were agreeing to, Bernie, so I'm just going to tweak your edit a bit. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, SlimVirgin! I agree its even better now. BernieW650 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Veganism is the practice of eliminating the use by human beings of non-human animal products." 

message: As I wrote earlier, this article has been plagued for a long time—more than most—with the problem of editors adding their own opinions, and removing material they personally disagree with, no matter how well-sourced it is. To do that is to misunderstand what Wikipedia does. Our articles are simply supposed to document what reliable sources who have written about veganism have said, preferably secondary sources. That is, we offer an overview of the relevant literature. See our three core content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.
We must, per WP:NPOV, offer a neutral overview of this, which means we include views that we agree and disagree with, the majority- and significant-minority views of the reliable sources. It's a violation of the neutrality and sourcing policies to remove views simply because we don't like them, or because they don't fit what we personally believe "veganism" is or ought to be. For Wikipedia, veganism is defined by the reliable sources who write about it, and we simply tell our readers what those sources have said.
As for the issue of "dietary veganism" and whether it exists, of course it does, and always has. There are committed animal rights advocates who self-identify as dietary vegans (e.g. Robert Garner, source, plus he avoids leather). To deny this is to fly in the face of significant evidence. I understand that some vegans feel dietary restrictions aren't extensive enough to earn the label "vegan," and I respect the reasoning behind that. But it's personal opinion, and it simply isn't borne out by the sources, so it's not a view Wikipedia can adopt.
We can, of course, include reliable sources who say dietary veganism isn't really veganism, if such sources exist. But that would involve the addition of a view, not the removal of the view that dietary veganism is real. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that this is a particularly problematic issue for this article. KellenT 18:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of Wikipedia