Talk:Veganism/Archive 5

message: I've been scouring the other wikipedias and non-english websites for statistics relating to vegans. By and large, this has been a failure. There appear to be no/poor statistics for vegans (or even vegetarians) in Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Possibly useful:
===Germany===
Veganismus wikipedia article provides "between 250,000 and 460,500". This is cited to veganwelt.de, which itself cites no source. This number is repeated on a number of german vegan websites, but none of them (that I can understand) have an authoritative source linked or listed.
This source appears to provide an estimate for vegetarians, but I could not glean any info regarding vegans. Perhaps someone with better German could do so.
===Netherlands===
Veganisme wikipedia article provides "16,000 vegans." Sourced to veganisme.org, which I cannot understand, but which appears to be an estimate from the Netherlands vegan society.
===Russia===
Веганизм wikipedia article provides a bunch of statistics, and although most of them appear to be the UK/US/Germany stats that I've listed above. But maybe someone who can read Russian would be able to find something better. 
Yay. So in sum, the german citation is kind of crappy, and we might have a citation for the Netherlands. Anybody else have any luck? KellenT 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Netherlands and Germany estimates, though they're not very good. I also added an intro paragraph stating that data is not available for most countries. The wording could probably be changed. KellenT 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World demographics 

message: Веганизм wikipedia article provides a bunch of statistics, and although most of them appear to be the UK/US/Germany stats that I've listed above. But maybe someone who can read Russian would be able to find something better. 
Yay. So in sum, the german citation is kind of crappy, and we might have a citation for the Netherlands. Anybody else have any luck? KellenT 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Netherlands and Germany estimates, though they're not very good. I also added an intro paragraph stating that data is not available for most countries. The wording could probably be changed. KellenT 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I question the quality of this article based on the Good article criteria. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article review. Issues needing to be address are listed there and you are invited to comment. Regards, Tarret 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Review is here: Wikipedia:Good article review#Veganism KellenT 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am delisting the article based on the issues raised at GAR. However, as the discussion was not very well attended, I have added detailed comments of my own on what I perceive as points in which the article does not at present meet the good article criteria. These can be found at the archived discussion. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to achieve NPOV in articles on topics like this, but think it is a very important criterion for good articles, since the GA process is here endorsing compliance not just with a guideline, but policy. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]

message: Hello, my English is not really good but i have some qestions about this picture. Has this Picture  ,in this article an effect like a propaganda? Is it licensed to take it over, with the same text to the german veganism article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.211.12 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That;s exactly what it is. Propaganda. Why not show a photo of sustenance hunting? 59.167.144.15 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the intensive pig farm 

message: Byproducts are part of avoidance, animal right issues are moral issues and the nutritional statement is corrected now from a medical point of view. Please don't edit without justification.JennyLen☤ 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, everyone here edits with justification, so I don't understand what that means.  I restored the sentence in the intro about supplementation after thinking it over.  It more carefully summarizes the content of the rest of the article about supplementation, and does not take sides on the contentious issue of the relative health of vegans vs. vegetarians vs. omnivores.  We do, however, need to have a better cite at the end of this sentence, and I will look for one in the near future.  Cheers, Skinwalker 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sourced the supplementation sentence to this position paper by the American Dietetic Association.  The paper specifically lists each nutrient mentioned in the sentence in the context of veganism, not vegetarianism, and says that vegans should supplement.  Comments?  Skinwalker 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. KellenT 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits must be justified 

message: Sorry about my mistake. I wrongfully placed the report due to my confusion between veganism and vegetarianism. I moved it to environmental vegetarianism; so note that if you see its removal, it wasn't banditry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.165.22 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UICW-report moved to Environmental vegetarianism 

message: It seems that the source says ethical related with commitment in page 2 and moral related with convictions in page 17 so both should be under the same citation. Thank you for calling my attention to that JennyLen☤ 12:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to say both ethical and moral, I think.  My reasoning was that this article discusses Peter Singer's views on utilitarianism at length, which is based on how to make "correct" decisions (e.g. ethics) and not the decisions themselves (e.g. morals).  Cheers, Skinwalker 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, sorry I didn't see that. Anyhow, like this we cover it I think . Thanks for the explanation, it helps JennyLen☤ 13:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical and moral 

message: It suited well with the article and subject. This page is in desperate need of at least one of those pictures that illustrates animal suffering due to human neglect. More people than vegans are aware of animal cruelty, so a realistic picture can hardly be considered propaganda. Whoever removed it, put it back where it belongs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.226.96 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove picture of suffering farm animals?  

message: This article has lost its GA status. The article itself hasn't changed much since the original granting of GA, but issues were raised about its content. Here is the GA reassessment discussion, which includes specific concerns. KellenT 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry.  I have faith in your editorial abilities, and I'm sure you'll have this up to FA in no time. Give it another go. —Viriditas | Talk 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I closed the discussion and tried to add some specific concerns; I commented further above. For FA, the main additional challenge is probably comprehensiveness, since the article is quite well cited. Apart from more history, I could imagine FA might require more on non-dietary aspects of veganism, such as cultural aspects. Again, good luck. Geometry guy 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA reassessment result 

message: almost non of the vitamins in supplements are absorbed, vegans also have an increased risk of kidney/liver damage, also a increased risk of Thrombosis which can lead to strokes.
before you change about the way you eat you should talk to any "real" Nutritionist with masters or a PhD degree, as without any professional help you can kill yourself (as the internet isn't a reliable enough a way to find these things out.)Markthemac 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the assertions without citations; the vegan advocacy organizations have doctors and nutritionists who are making the recommendations which are cited here. KellenT 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Claims of vitamins not being absorbed when you take them using competing method X are a common canard of questionable nutrition statements.  If you can provide a reliable source, preferably from an aforementioned nutritionist, that documents this we can talk about including it, but I'm skeptical that one exists.  Cheers, Skinwalker 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Veganism and food Supplement advertisement wiki 

message: This part was recently added to the article:
: In the French language a végétalien is someone who practices a vegan diet, while a vegan is someone who practices a vegan lifestyle, specifically referring to the use of animal products in a non-dietary form (i.e. leather, wool, etc.).
While this is moderately interesting, it seems like a bit of trivia rather than something that fits well within the article. I am leaning towards removing it unless a better place can be found for it. Opinions? KellenT 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this. KellenT 12:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove French bit? 

message: I have a problem with this edit, which changes:
: Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.
to:
:Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animal derived products for food, clothing, or any other purpose.
I previously reverted this change, but it has been added back. The previous version was derived from the Vegan Society definition of veganism (although a direct quote would be better, imo). The problem with the change is (a) "use of animals" includes animal products (b) "use of animals" is clearer than "use of animal derived products" as it more directly locates the reason for veganism. The added citation does nothing for me, and doesn't really support a distinction between "use of animals" and "animal products." Finally, I object to the edit summary of "corrected definition and sourced" because the definition was blatantly not wrong to begin with. KellenT 05:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be changing this back unless anybody else cares to comment. KellenT 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, well if I wanted to be churlish about it, I'd say the second definition would allow a vegan to consume whole animals, but not any "product" (ill-defined term) made from them.  Please change it back to the correct definition, by all means.  This user had a habit of making smug edit summaries, IMO.  Cheers, Skinwalker 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro change 

message: Please excuse my previous changes (repeated changes) as I am brand new to Wikipedia.  This is my first attempt to edit an article and I may have broken protocol.
My intent is to alter slightly the way in which the potential for vitamin/nutrient deficiencies in a vegan diet is worded.  Currently, by saying that "vegan diets can be deficient...," the implication is that there is some diet (the assumption being the standard American diet, or the diet of the majority) that is not deficient in vitamins/nutrients.  That means that a vegan diet, when compared with the standard American diet, can also deficient in cholesterol, saturated fat, among other undesirable things.
It is true that a person on a vegan diet should be aware of vitamin B12, iodine and other nutrients...as should everyone.  I propose that where worded: "However, a vegan diet can be deficient..." it should be changed to "Just as any diet can be deficient in nutrients, an unplanned vegan diet may be deficient in..." (CraigWenner 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There allready was a debate and this version is the result of the compromise. The fact is that potential deficiency in nutrients is a characteristic of a vegan diet. If you follow the Standard American Diet, you are not at risk for this particular problem; You are however at risk from e.g. excessive cholesterol.CyrilleDunant 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous.  You'll have to excuse me for not being present during the first debate, but the potential for a deficiency in nutrients is a characteristic of all diets.  The potential deficiency in certain nutrients is characteristic of unplanned vegan diets (for example if all you're eating is bagels with peanut butter), but not of a well balanced or educated vegan diet.  If by "particular problem" you mean that on the Standard American Diet you are not at risk for nutrient deficiencies, then I have to disagree.  Americans on the standard diet may be prone to certain deficiencies as well (e.g. calcium, iodine, vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, magnesium).  Nutritional deficiencies have nothing to do with being vegan or otherwise, they have to do with eating well.  The way the article is presently written, ("vegan diets can be deficient...therefore encouraged to take supplements") it implies that if you are not deficient and not taking supplements, then you most likely are not a vegan.  This is bogus!  If anyone is deficient in anything, they need to eat better (barring extenuating circumstances where supplements may be needed). (CraigWenner 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your proposal weasels around the fact that vegans have a higher likelyhood of being deficient in these nutrients than other groups. Vegans are more likely to be deficient in B12 than omnivores, vegans in certain countries are more likely to be deficient in iodine, vegans are more likely to be deficient in calcium, vegans in northern latitudes are more likely to be deficient in vitamin D, vegans are more likely to be deficient in omega-3's. Pointing out that other diets are deficient in other things is actually irrelevant to this article. KellenT 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point well taken with regard to weasel words in my proposed change.  But I do still feel that the statement "However, vegan diets can be low in levels of calcium, iodine, and vitamins B12 and D. Vegans are encouraged to take dietary supplements to remedy this" found in the very beginning of the article is misleading.  It implies that the remedy to a particular deficiency cannot be to alter the diet appropriately rather than having to resort to a supplement.  I feel that saying something like: "Vegans are encouraged to plan their diet appropriately or to take dietary supplements to remedy this" would more accurately express the options for avoiding deficiencies.  Supplements are useful, but they are not necessary. (CraigWenner 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The recommendations you are criticizing are made by vegan advocacy organizations. KellenT 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrient Deficiencies 

message: This article lost GA status (unfairly, IMO - drive-by reviewing is bad) due in part to a lack of criticism.  Today I ran across a few articles  that I want to suggest we include in the "Resources and the Environment" section.  
The basic gist is that a diet with a limited meat and/or dairy intake (still far less that the standard American diet, FWIW) may actually be more environmentally friendly than a diet restricted only to vegetables.  This is due to land-use concerns - it is more efficient (on a calorie-per-area basis) to use marginally fertile land for livestock than vegetables.  The conclusion that the Slate article then draws is that if you live around poor farming land, then it is better to eat locally rather than import large quantities of vegetables - the transportation of which leads to higher CO2 emissions.  I'd like to see about integrating these references into the environment section and adding a short paragraph, but since this could be a contentious change I thought I'd bring it to the talk page first.  Cheers, Skinwalker 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting and should be added. Unfortunately, neither of these are ideal sources; better would be the article referenced by both, which unfortunately, is not freely available. KellenT 13:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles worth discussing 

message: It would be nice to come to consensus about whether or not the 'demographics' section indeed needs to be tagged with the "globalize" template. There simply isn't any data which we can cite to fulfill the ideal requirements for removing the "globalize" template. As such, it's not a failing of this article or wikipedia in general that we can't provide a wider view, and the template is therefore meaningless in this context. I would suggest we remove it and point to this decision in the future if the template is added. KellenT 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think you've exhausted all avenues of research into global statistics, and the article summarizes all the data that's out there.  Perhaps we should out a "commented out" comment at the start of the demographics section pointing to the numerous discussions of this topic and stating that there just isn't data about veganism prevalence in most of the world.  Cheers, Skinwalker 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove globalize template 

message: I found the article focused too much on the practice of not eating meat, not the practice of not consuming or using any animal products. For eg. the ethics section focuses on why vegans may choose not to eat meat. I would like to know why vegans choose not to eat any animal product.
220.245.158.49 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much on vegetarianism 

message: Really, do we need 18 paragraphs, 9 sections, to talk about Vegan nutrition, outside of the Vegan nutrition article? I dare say this section of Veganism is almost as long as the main article itself! When people constantly complain about the length of this article, is there any excuse to have so much information here? A line along the lines of "Certain vitamins and minerals, such as Iodine, B12, and Calcium, may be lacking in a Vegan diet," or a line talking about nutrients and mention those three specifically as examples. Honestly, this is just a waste of space, all this information clearly goes on the Vegan nutrition page. Vert et Noirtalk 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vegan nutrition article should be nuked. It was split off of this article as an attempt at cleanup. KellenT 09:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan nutrition 

message: I added a paragraph stating, as succinctly as I knew how to put it, that many vegans rely on soy as their main source of protein. A user called Keller removed it, saying that it was not appropriate for this article. I disagree, and have therefore restored the paragraph. Web-sites that evangelize for vegan diets almost always push people toward tofu and other soy meat substitutes, and I cited one, chooseveg.com, as a reference. If vegan diets often rely on soy, then the debate about the safety of soy consumption deserves to be noted on this page. I also cited a video by a nutrition author, which Keller seems to feel is an inappropriate source. I don't understand why a video by an author is a less authoritative reference than the author's book, which I just as easily could have cited. If Keller feels this is an inappropriate source, then I suggest he/she improve my contribution by finding another source. If he/she is, like many vegans, eager to downplay the risks of soy because it's a vegan staple, then I suggest he/she pound sand.--ManicBrit 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people on non vegan diets eat soy too, should we have paragraphs in every diet article that can possibly include soy? Many vegans do not eat soy at all, it's not a requirement of the diet and therefore this section is inappropriate. You also appear to be using the word 'many' as if it was 'most'. The place to mention the health concerns of soy is on the soy article page itself. Muleattack 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your sources are poor at best and the dangers of soy consumption belong in the article on soy, not here. KellenT 08:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Attacking me as an ideologue with no basis is unnecessary. Just citing the front page of a vegetarian advocacy site isn't enough to establish that "some vegan and vegetarian diets recommend eating soy-based meat substitutes such as tofu and textured vegetable protein as primary protein sources." For example, it's easy to cite the vegan society page on protein in which they recommend peas, beans, lentils, wheat, oats, rice, barley, buckwheat, millet, pasta, bread, brazils, hazels, almonds, cashews, sunflower, pumpkin, sesame in addition to soya products as sources of protein. Your sources doesn't directly support the statement you added to the article; and this is what I mean by "poor." KellenT 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Other editors, please weigh in on this subject. If there are no other responses, I'm going to remove the section. KellenT 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the section regarding the risks of soy consumption is appropriate in this article.  I am for removing it. Djk3 (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This canard about Soy damaging "the brain" or "sexual health" comes up frequently.  Specific to manic's edit, it is unsourced.  On that alone it should be excluded from the article.  If soy damages health, someone please tell this to the 2 billion asians who eat it daily.  Abe Froman (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soy Consumption 

message: The following seems to be a rather useless indicator:
:A 2006 poll conducted by Harris Interactive in the United States listed specific foods and asked respondents to indicate which items they never eat, rather than asking respondents to self-identify. The survey found that of the 1,000 adults polled 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs and were therefore essentially vegan in their eating habits. The survey also found that about 1.4% of men and 1.3% of women have vegan diets.[6]
The problem there is that unless you are actively seeking to avoid certain things, you probably pay very little attention to whether eggs or butter were used in the bread you ate, or whether the soup you had was based in Chicken or Beef stock, or whether the Caesar Salad you had used an anchovy-based salad dressing.  I find it quite implausible to infer from the data that 1.4% of all Americans make an effort to avoid eating bread and crackers.  The poll isn't an effective way to determine the real numbers for vegans, because most people don't read labels as closely as vegetarians, vegans, or people with food allergies do. The passage seems misleading and suited for removal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.172.224 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The inference is made by the researchers. I agree that it's not an ideal poll, but it's one of very few polls done about vegans. As such, it belongs in this article. KellenT 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harris Poll 

message: The first sentence, "Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose," is incorrect. A philosophy cannot "seek" anything. Nor can a lifestyle. A person who holds a philosophy, or practices a lifestyle, can seek. But a philosophy itself, cannot. Veganism is a way of life (never use a "big word," or fancy schmancy word, such as philosphy, or lifestyle, when a "small word," such as way of life, will do. Following this rule makes for better communication, with more people. Veganism is a way of life that involves not using animals, or animal products, for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or any other purpose, as far as is reasonably possible; and vegans hold that in this day and age, in the industrialized world, food, clothing and shelter can easily be acquired without relying on animals or animal products. The first sentence needs to be changed. Nomenclator (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar, syntax, usage, thought 

message: "Usually" pronounced ?
This is the way I personally heard Jay Dinshah, the founder of the American Vegan Society, pronounce the word, in 1967, and he remarked about it being the correct pronunciation. He personally corrected me when I pronounced the word incorrectly. The correctness of pronunciation is determined by authoritative declaration, and not by repeated experimentation, repeated observation, and accumulation of empirical evidence, which is the way the correctness of scientific facts are determined. If Jay Dinshah said oranges had more sugar than grapefruits, I might want to measure sugar levels. If Jay Dinshah said vegan was pronounced , then  is the correct pronunciation. The sentence should be changed to read that "correct pronunciation is . --Nomenclator (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed more or less, and changed. KellenT 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I removed:
:Athletic achievements are also used as an argument about the nutritional benefits of a vegan diet. Vegan athletes compete in a variety of sports, including powerlifting, bodybuilding, martial arts, and long distance running. Multiple Olympic gold medallist Carl Lewis has stated that he became vegan in 1990 and achieved his "best year of track competition" in 1991 when he ate a vegan diet.
I think this section is rather poor. Yes, there are vegan athletes. There are two sources; one lists very few vegans (though many vegetarians) and the second lists around 20 athletes. Neither of these sources make claims about veganism leading to greater athletic achievement. Yes, Carl Lewis is/was vegan. So what? Without similar claims, by vegan advocacy organizations or a larger number of vegan athletes, I count this as anecdotal evidence. KellenT 01:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  vegan athletics 

message: If anybody has copies of Tom Regan's books, could someone please add a paragraph about his views on veganism in the "ethics" section, including some quotes. Alternatively paste links here to text available online (i've not yet found any that mentions veganism). KellenT 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Regan and veganism 

message: Kellen could be correct that a huge amount of these would be required to meet the RDA for calcium, but rephrasing it to say fortified soy milk or supplements amkes it appear that a vegan diet cannot in itself provide sufficient calcium without being supplemented. It also goes against some vegans who prefer to get their RDA's though "real" foods instead of supplements. Maybe there is a compromise that can indicate that while it might be difficult to get all the calcium needed without supplements, it is possible. For example, a cup of soybeans (180mg) has more calcium than a cup of cottage cheese (160mg)Bob98133 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you check out the calcium recommendations from vegan outreach, it is suggested that a vegan eat between 700 and 1000mg of calcium/day. This means, even with 180mg calcium coming from a cup of soybeans, you'd have to eat 3.5 - 5 cups of soybeans per day. This is probably why Vegan Outreach recommends eating fortified foods in addition to high calcium vegetables. Obviously you should eat these vegetables, but you probably have to supplement/eat fortified foods as well. KellenT 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I always believe that the RDA's are a bit exagerated but there's certainly no harm taking supplements. I don't know if Vegan Outreach are experts in nutrition but if a vegan really has to eat such huge amounts of veggies to get the RDA then the supplement text should stay as you suggest. Bob98133 (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The vegan outreach founder has educated as a dietician if i recall correctly. KellenT 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Leafy Vegetable Edits

message: The links supporting this sentence are broken:
*The EPIC-Oxford study showed that vegans have an increased risk of bone fractures over both meat eaters and vegetarians, likely due to lower dietary calcium intake, but that vegans consuming more than the UK's estimated average requirements for calcium of 525 mg/day had risk of bone fractures similar to other groups.
Michael H 34 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the link, but unfortunately a fee is now required for the full text of the article. KellenT 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: Hey,
Is it possible to describe that veganism has benefits to stopping emerging epidemics ?
See the Epidemic-article where I added the info and reference (reference being this WHO-document ).
Thanks.
KVDP (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the material you added to epidemic is directly supported or related.  In that article, under the heading of "Pre-emptive measures", you wrote" "To protect us against the emergence of new epidemics, several preemptive measures have been proposed by professor Nina Marano and Andy Dobson. These include...To eat less food containing animal protein (eg meat, milk, milk-derivates)".  Now, I understand that you are trying to summarize the study in your own words, but I just looked over it and don't see where it says that anywhere.  It does say that "anthropogenic factors such as agricultural expansion and intensification to meet the increasing demand for animal protein, global travel, trade in domestic or exotic animals, urbanization, and habitat destruction comprise some of the major drivers of zoonotic disease emergence."  It also attributes "increased demand for animal protein" as risk factors for the spread of avian influenza and "protein consumption" as a risk factor for SARS.  It does not say that we should "eat less food containing animal protein" nor does it say anything about vegetarianism or veganism. —Viriditas | Talk 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits of veganism to decrease risk of new emerging epidemics 

message: How does the picture of a fruit/vegetable market in Barcelona contribute to this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.163.100 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It adds beauty!  It also represents the major food sources of the vegan diet. Djk3 (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree actually; both the fruit stand picture and the one of soy beans strike me as 'filler' rather than images directly relating to the text presented. KellenT 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't feel strongly either way about either of those images.  The fruit one is actually sort of ugly, looking back at it.  The soy bean image looks nice, whether or not it is appropriate. Djk3 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barcelona Picture 

message: Since vegans are very outspoken and seem to be very active in bringing their philosophy to others, would a section on vegan activism be germaine to the article? Bugguyak (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan activism 

message: I've heard claims of adverse effects when a person goes omnivore after a period of veganism. People say that some sort of meat-processing bacteria in your digestive system dies or somehow becomes inactive if you don't eat meat, so that you can't go back to eating meat after being a vegan.
Is there a Wikipedia article in which this claim is discussed? I've tried a little searching but I've found nothing on WP. I've heard this claim several times, so if (as I believe) it's not supported by the facts, shouldn't this myth be debunked in (for example) this article? 88.112.7.166 (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not seen any research on this, and I'd say it's probably bunk. KellenT 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect this is an urban legend.  Humans acquire their gut flora maternally (see Intestinal_flora#Acquisition_of_gut_flora_in_human_infants), and it is not substantially altered by diet, except in cases of outright food poisoning or heavy antibiotic use.  Also, intestinal bacteria play a much more substantial role in breaking down carbohydrate-rich food rather than protein-rich food, so if this theory is correct it would be more difficult (digestively speaking) to shift from a long-term carnivorous diet to a vegan diet.  This is just speculation on my part, and I don't think we need to mention this in the article.  Skinwalker (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I can personally attest that if you're eating healthy and low-fat, or fasting, if you suddenly resume a standard American diet, you will feel like crap and probably experience severe digestive distress for a few days.  Aside from that, the claim sounds bogus to me.  Mkcmkc (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects of going back to eating meat? 

message: I removed:
: The controversial term may be here a distinction between organic certified or naturally gathered honey, in comparison to honey originating from mass production (which involves mass breeding queen bees and removing their wings to suppress the natural migration, feeding the bees on sugar syrup after their honey outcome was taken away or even killing the entire population during winter).
I removed this because (1) the issue of honey is already covered by the previous sentence, (2) the citation doesn't support the "controversial term" sentence (3) this doesn't address why some vegans find honey acceptable (e.g. because they don't view bees as passing the threshold for sentience or what have you). Basically it's unnecessary. KellenT 09:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. That sentence was mostly speculation anyhow.Bob98133 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honey 

message: It appear that vegan advocate are insinuating that favourable health effect vegetarian automatically apply to vegan. This is not the case. Plus, some details of the quoted paper seems to be funked. There is no mention of reduced risk to cancer in the cited paper. A separate study which incorporate the same cited article also show that your mortality rate rise if you switch from vegetarian to vegan, to the level equivalent to regular meat eater. Vapour (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that vegan is different from vegetarian.  The 2003 British study, for example, should be omitted here, as vegans were not one of the studied populations.  Mkcmkc (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intor: health effect of vegan is not same as vegetarian

message: I removed:
:The Humane Society of the United States on the subject of a vegan diet as prevention of cancer:
"An exhaustive report on diet and cancer was released by the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund. Ten years in the making, reviewing more than 7,000 scientific studies, this 500+ page report is being considered the most comprehensive review ever published on the causal role of diet in cancer. The good news is that cancer is largely preventable. In addition to stopping smoking, exercising daily, and attaining a healthy weight, the expert panel recommends an overall limit on meat intake, and specifically singles out processed meat—bacon, hot dogs, ham and cold cuts—as a "convincing cause" of cancer. In general they conclude: "Eat mostly foods of plant origin". By choosing to eat a more humane, plant-based diet we can simultaneously attend to our own welfare, that of the animals, and that of our planet.".
I followed the source link (which is a link to a blog, not the report), found the main site for the study, searched here for "vegan," searched in the result PDFs for "vegan" and found mentions of vegan only in the context of defining what the diet is. Maybe the "plant-based diet" quote could be used somewhere else, but it borders on WP:SYN. KellenT 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human society 

message: I removed:
:Vegans like Peter Singer follow veganism for other reasons. Singer, who does not believe that all animal life is sacred, advocates veganism for utilitarian reasons, stating that the benefit caused by a good taste for the human who consumes animal products is more than negated by the pain felt by the beings who are consumed.Singer, Peter (1979). "The case against using animals for food is at its strongest when animals are made to lead miserable lives so that their flesh can be made available to humans at the lowest possible cost. ... In order to have meat on the table at a price that people can afford, our society tolerates methods of meat production that confine sentient animals in cramped, unsuitable conditions for the entire duration of their lives. ... To avoid speciesism we must stop these practices." Practical Ethics, Cambridge 1979. Chapter 3.
Because there's already a section on Singer and this paragraph mainly seemed to be used to rebut the Jarvis' argument, which gets into tit-for-tat POV in the text of the article, which we would be better off without. KellenT 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed singer fragment 

message: "Vegans do not use or consume animal products of any kind" is wrong for all practical reasons as animal products and their consumption by vegans (knowingly or unknowingly) is too large a list to retype here given that it was already in the article earlier with sources. I suggest it be reworded or something. Idleguy (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has now addressed this issue. -kotra (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening lines error. 

message: I just removed the following from the "Benefits":
::Conversely, based on a study in Japan, researchers suggest that increased consumption of some animal products coincided with a decrease in risk for some forms of cerebrovascular disease and stroke mortality.
While those findings are certainly noteworthy, it's too lengthy a reference to put right in the first paragraph of a section that deals with the benefits of a vegan diet. It really disturbs the flow of the paragraph. Maybe this would fit in somewhere else in the article (thought I couldn't find a proper place). Lodp (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits of animal-based Diets 

message: I suggest we delete the vegan nutrition article, which was a fork of a section of this article back in the day, but which has retained sections that we've excluded from this article, retained lots of bad writing, has poor citations, and overall is unnecessary since the major (i.e. encyclopedic) issues of a vegan diet are addressed here, and the minutiae is better left to the vegan advocacy websites (the vegan society, and vegan outreach's veganhealth.org). I'll put it up for AFD if there's some agreement here. KellenT 18:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got a couple.  I am indifferent about the vegan nutrition article.  Djk3 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Anybody else have an opinion on this matter? KellenT 10:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete [[Vegan nutrition]]? 

message: References to a 2007 UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have been removed.  This survey suggested that 2.24% of the England population had identified themselves as vegan, which is substantially higher than other survey results.  Subsequent recontacting of respondents who had given a positive response found that very few of them were vegan or had ever been vegan.  The conclusion is that some respondents did not know what vegan meant and had given a false positive response.
StevieBassBoy (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide references to back up the 'false positive' claim? No offence, but we can't just take your word for it.--Michig (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I appreciate what you say, but if this information is factually incorrect it is reprehensible for DEFRA to continue to have it on their website. Does this mean that all references in Wiki from DEFRA should be removed? As a government agency, it behooves them to present correct information, promptly remove incorrect information, and know the difference between the two. Until they issue a retraction of this data, I think it should stay in the article. It is properly referenced from a government website. Bob98133 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My two (euro) cents' worth is that if the DEFRA figure is at variance with other figures for the UK, it should be possible to present it in a way showing that it is an aberrant value. Perhaps the results of a few other surveys would help. And if the Vegan Society is alerted to the problem, couldn't they issue a press release or something somewhere on their website to that effect, and that we could cite? David Olivier (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should be qualified to indicate the variance if it's used. I was just horrified that a govt agency would leave a mistake that they knew about on their web site.Bob98133 (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: A 2007 survey for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the UK population's attitudes and behaviour towards the environment found that 2.24% of the population identified themselves as vegan. In the same study, vegetarians who did not also eat chicken or fish made up 2.7% of the population. The DEFRA study also indicated that slightly more men than women are vegan, that more vegans live in towns or cities than the country, and that people aged 16-29 were vegan more often than any other age group.
Hopefully StevieBassBoy can provide us with something we can cite, or at least use to agree upon excluding the study from the article. KellenT 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with survey questions on vegetarianism / veganism 

message: Discussion copied from User talk:kotra on 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of categories. Categories are to group articles that are directly about the same general topic, not to group articles that are tangentially or indirectly related to the same topic. For this reason you don't find Vomiting in :Category:Eating disorders, or Veganism in :Category:Herbivory. Compare Veganism with the other articles in :Category:Eating disorders, and you can see it doesn't match the others. All the others are types of eating disorders or subjects directly related to eating disorders. Veganism is not an eating disorder, and the most the article says is basically that "vegetarianism [note: not veganism, but vegetarianism] may be selected to camouflage an existing eating disorder." That is not sufficient for Veganism to be categorized under :Category:Eating disorders. Anyway, sorry for automatically assuming your edit was vandalism, I was not assuming good faith as I should have. Do you mind if I copy our discussion to Talk:Veganism, where other editors can weigh in? -kotra (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to copy the discussion into the talk page, thats not a problem. I understand that experienced vegans with a high level of nutritional education would be sensitive to having their choice classified as a disorder, that wasn't the purpose of the insertion - sorry about that. Zaphraud (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I wasn't offended though; I would have reverted it if I didn't have vegan leanings. The issue here in my mind is that Veganism isn't sufficiently related to eating disorders to merit its inclusion in that category. Actually, as I look at the other categories, I notice Veganism is in :Category:Nonviolence as well, when it probably shouldn't be, for the same reason. I've removed it accordingly. -kotra (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Eating disorders 

message: The paragraph in the Section "Resources and the Environment" in reference to the developing world was added in order to provide context to this section. Before my post, the section only covered the perspective of developed countries and excluded the actions of developing countries. Wikipedia has constantly requested from its contributors to provide a global perspective to topics. If we do not want to discuss a balanced approach to the topic "Resources and the Environment", then we should completely remove the section from the veganism page.
DivaNtrainin (talk) 10:22, 04 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I understand the logic of that, except that it starts moving this article very far astray from its topic. Could not the first couple of paragraphs in this section clearly state that these environmental problems are specific to animal agriculture in developed countries? It seems that that would exclude many developing countries, subsistance agriculture, etc. without having to actually go into explaining why. Bob98133 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources and the Environment (developing countries reference) 

message: Earlier in the discussion page we reached the decision to delete the Vegan nutrition article, since it's in a shambles, and its material is already covered in this article. However, it still has not been deleted. I propose that now is the time to voice objections to its deletion. If no one has any objections, let's go ahead and get rid of it. --N-k, 00:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've proposed deletion, so if there are no objections in 5 days, an admin should delete it. You can help by seconding the proposed deletion. KellenT 11:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kellen. --N-k, 14:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan Nutrition Article Still Exists 

message: I removed:
:However, inclusion of honey and silk are contrary to the definition of veganism given by the Vegan Society.http://www.vegansociety.com/html/downloads/ArticlesofAssociation.pdf
Saying this after explicitly noting that honey & silk are "by definition animal products" is redundant, bad writing, and an example of someone attempting to advance a personal agenda ("people who eat honey aren't vegan"). The citations are just references back to other sources already used in the article. KellenT 15:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "oh but that's against the vegan society definition" 

message: This was removed:
:The website VeganWelt estimates there to be between 250,000 and 460,500 vegans in Germany, or between 0.3% and 0.5% of the German population.
German WP cites both the veganwelt site and the study which replaced it here. KellenT 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German numbers 

message: I've shortened the Davis section and its rebuttal by Gaverick Matheny to one paragraph. It seems to me that Davis made an argument that was completely disproved by Matheny and the article should reflect this. As this happened in 2003 and as Davis has not countered Matheny's rebuttal in the intervening five years, I think we can say that Matheny has proved his point and that Davis accepts this, if only tacitly. If anyone knows of a defence made by Davis (or anyone else) to Matheny's rebuttal, I'd be interested in seeing it.
There's a case to be made for moving this and the Jarvis paragraph to a Criticism section. I may do that.  Steve3742 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davis Section 

message: Outstanding issues in the article:
* The german food consumption study numbers are extrapolated from a graph, see de:Diskussion:Veganismus#Verzehrsstudie. I'm not sure how to cite this properly and I'm think we might want to bring back the veganwelt.de stats. 
* Benefits subsection of Health needs more coherence and the PCRM food groups text should get integrated somewhere or nuked.
* Cite needed for "Benefits of vegetarian diets might be valid also for strict vegan diets"
* Resources and environment subsection needs heavy editing, less commentary, and better citations. 
* Critiques of veganism are mainly in (a) ethics and (b) environment sections, essentially challenging justifications for veganism on these grounds. The Davis/Matheny bit is awkward in the middle of the ethics section and the Jarvis critique is awkwardly presented and lacks context. Can anybody think of a better way to deal with these besides moving them into a "critiques and criticism" section, or is that the best option? 
Totally outstanding! KellenT 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any other editors have opinions on these things? Or want to do them? KellenT 09:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't recommend the VeganWelt Data as it is absolutely inscrutable, where it comes from. Being a private Homepage it might as well be made up. I also don't see any problems in the extrapolation from the NVSII. Eventhough it might not be a fully acurate figure it gives a good idea about the dimension of the proportion vegan population, which is what those polls are usually about.--Tom Bradschetl (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Anybody? KellenT 21:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, the DEFRA study. It was removed based upon the claim of a random WP editor, who never followed up. Anybody have any opinion on including that study again? KellenT 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outstanding issues 

message: This article is pretty biased, with all the talk about how great the diet is and no criticisms. 
Thewritingwriter17  —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice where it says how great the diet is. The benefits are listed as are the precautions. If there are valid, referenced criticisms of the diet please discuss them, or add them to the article in the appropriate place with refs. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can reference my own criticism. How about that vegetarianism is simply lowering the bar for the classification of sentient. It's a slippery slope form of thought. Do a thought experiment about the future discovery that plants are distributed networks and thus sentient on a whole. They still can't make an argument for how carnivores could become vegetarians (lucky we are omnivores). The best argument yet, the definition does not address using products made from third world countries where people work in sweat shops and are abused. Therefore is it logical to bypass sympathy on the highest rank in the sentient tree for lower sentient organisms? Another thought experiment. Suppose there was an sentient being that felt no pain or remorse or emotion, under the definition on Wikipedia, it would be ok to eat this being. That seems like a logical contradiction to me. Cflare (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your thought experiments aside, if you find a reliable source elucidating your criticism, feel free to include it in the article. Otherwise, it would constitute original research, which is inadmissible. -kotra (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

text: 1. This is the article for veganism, not vegetarianism. 2. People are animals. 3. This is not the place for discussing silly hypothetical situations, as Kotra said, if you have something to add to the article that you can verify with a reliable source then please do. If not then why not try trolling some forums, I hear that vegetarian and vegan forums don't get enough people pointing out hypocrisies. Muleattack (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I also was irritated by the bias of the article. Here are a few suggestions for improval:
* Remove the "Ethical concerns" section. It is a random collection of pro-vegan quotes. It's also redundant as there is better content at Ethics of eating meat
* Rename "Precautions" to "Dangers": "Benefits and Dangers" is definitely more balanced than "Benefits and Precautions"
* Remove the "Addressing criticism of veganism, Dr. Amy..."  part from "Pregnancies and children", as this is irrelevant for all but one of the cited cases, but casts doubt on all of them. Also, there have been much more cases of childrens killed by a vegan diet worldwide, I can remember at least two prominent ones from my country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.86.107 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Really? Random collection of quotes? Really? KellenT 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think the "Ethical concerns" section should go. It's necessary to explain why people become vegan, and the article would be significantly lacking in coverage without it. It could maybe use reliably sourced counter-arguments (though I'm not totally convinced that would be appropriate), but that is a separate concern. As for the "Benefits and Precautions" section, I can see changing it to "Benefits and Dangers"; even though "Precautions" is more accurate in my mind, I agree that "Dangers" is more balanced, and balance (NPOV) outweighs my own understanding of the diet. As for the quote, it clearly states "the child" (singular), but I've changed the wording so it's even clearer anyway. Removing the quote entirely for the reason you give would be overkill. -kotra (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article on meat, the section on nutrition is titled “Nutritional benefits and concerns”. I think we can copy that and replace “precautions” by “concerns”. David Olivier (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. I've made a change based on your suggestion, adding "Nutritional" to be more specific. Feel free to revert, of course, if there's any objection. -kotra (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Good job! Much better than precautions or dangers. Bob98133 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The amount of plant material that would require to convert ALA to EPA to DHA used by the brain would amount to kilograms and likely has negligible effects. This is a severe deficiency in diets of vegans that seems to be understated in this article. http://dhaomega3.org/index.php?category=overview&title=Conversion-of-ALA-to-DHA Schnarr 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the minimum daily requirement for Omega 3s? I do not believe that one has been established, so declaring a deficiency for whatever reason would be a bit premature. Bob98133 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly premature since EFA deficiency is common in malnourished individuals, or those who choose not to eat foods containing bioavailable EFA's. See the Linus Pauling Institute page on the topic.--ThujaSol∆ 21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so a deficiency is possible, so what is the MDR? If there is no established MDR, I question how you can say there is a severe deficiency or even a deficiency except when symptoms appear. Are you saying that vegans exhibit signs of Omega 3 deficiency?Bob98133 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omega-3 Fatty Acids 

message: I think the opening paragraph confuses proponents of animal rights and vegans, which are not necessarily the same thing.  Veganism is dietary.  I don't think animal testing of cosmetic products is necessarily restricted for vegans, unless those vegans are specifically interested in animal rights.  Some vegans are concerned with their own health and not animal abuse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.177.214 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get this impression from the opening paragraph. Please quote more specifically, or propose an alternative. Xavier Shay (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Veganism is not only a diet, it is a lifestyle.  See the Vegan Society definition of "vegan" if you are confused: "A vegan is someone who tries to live without exploiting animals, for the benefit of animals, people and the planet. Vegans eat a plant-based diet, with nothing coming from animals - no meat, milk, eggs or honey, for example. A vegan lifestyle also avoids leather, wool, silk and other animal for clothing or any other purpose." (Vegan Society - What is a vegan?) Someone who is only concerned about the dietary aspects is generally considered a "strict vegetarian." 24.131.148.6 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it does. Yesterday I searched for the word "vegetable" - 7 hits, "meat" - 41 hits. How signifigant is the religion entry? 1 sentence. How important is the food itself? 4 sentences and bottom of the whole page. But hey, you can't beat good advertising space can you? ~ R.T.G 07:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal rights not necessarily the same as veganism 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit for Life. Badagnani (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: A section called "veganarchism" was recently added. As far as I can tell, this is not significant enough to have its own section, and probably belongs only as a link in the "see also" section. Also, the section on eating disorders was deleted, re-added, and then modified, so in its current form it presents only information that is detrimental to veganism. What should this section contain, if it should exist at all? I am not making any proposals on either of these topics, I'm just wondering what other editors think. --n-k, 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the history but I haven't seen any 'recent' changes to the eating disorders section. I don't read anything in the section to be "detrimental to veganism" either. Can you clarify? As for veganarchism, I'm a bit ambivalent. KellenT 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An eating disorder is usually detrimental. If you tried to portray as something else you would be misleading but maybe you have some sort of exception... unlikely. ~ R.T.G 07:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some recent changes 

message: What an active talk page! So, this line in the opening paragraph: "Vegans are therefore encouraged to plan their diet and take dietary supplements.[8]", seems to be much too strong for the refence given. In the article referenced, the strongest *conclusion* (I did read the whole article) regarding vegetarian (including vegan) diets and supplements is "In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients." I guess I don't see how 'In some cases', 'can be helpful' means all vegans should be encouraged to supplement their diets. (Especially as many of the other dietary articles referenced conclude that a well-planned vegan diet is healthy w/o supplementation.) Thoughts?
64.122.192.37 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. n-k, 04:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree. In particular, with B12, all vegans should be taking supplements (in the form of pills or fortified foods), all the time. As for planning the diet, this wording seems to have arisen from the american dietetic association statement on vegetarian diets in which they qualify their acceptance of vegetarian diets with the phrase "well planned." I suspect their reasoning is that "vegetarian diets" are quite varied and there's a lot of vegetarian-but-bullshit diets they wouldn't advocate. e.g. they'd probably not be that positive about strict raw veganism. KellenT 11:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but since there is only one supplement that vegans are strongly advised to take, perhaps the sentence, in which "supplements" is plural, is worded too strongly. n-k, 12:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also vitamin D, depending upon where you live. Though both of these could be listed explicitly, I think reverting to the older wording, which was "take dietary supplements as appropriate", might be more ... appropriate. KellenT 12:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am going to revert it to the older wording. n-k, 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplements 

message: i read on the internet that Dr. james halsted  was working with persian iranian vegans who did not get b12 deficiency and discovered they were using humanure to grow there food.Username 1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's some info about this - it's called Indirect coprophagy - . Not sure if it's worth a mention, though. One would think that the human manure used would have to come from non-vegans, too. Bob98133 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not worth a mention; this is a very edge case source of B12, and has not been shown to provide adequately for vegan nutritional needs. KellenT 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree this is a bit bizarre, but if there are good refs for it (not the one I cited above), I don't think that a mention would be out of place. As you say, Kellen, it would require good research to prove that this method does provide adequate B12, but if that proof exists, a mention would be OK with me. If Username is interested in documenting this, maybe he/she can post the refs to talk and we can discuss this again. Bob98133 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: i'm looking for more than a mention. note that the b12 is not left over from the food remains of non-vegans, but from the bacteria in the large intestines in vegans before it is excreted. Vitamin B12 cannot be made by plants or animals as only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. Also on the internet i found a study in which scientist cured vitamin b12 def. in vegans by giving them concentrated doses of b12 from there own fecal matter, which proves there is enough b12 in the feces but that perhaps only barely enough b12 survives the second time through. I found this as well:
"Studies have shown that those eating an omnivorous diet require more vitamin B-12 than vegans. This is because the typical diet leads to digestive atrophy. Because vitamin B-12 is peptide bound in animal products and must be enzymatically cleaved from the peptide bonds to be absorbed, a weakening of all gastric acid and gastric enzyme secretions (due to a cooked food diet) causes an inability to efficiently extract vitamin B-12 from external food."
Username 1 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Username One - please see WP:CITE. "found on the internet" doesn't help other editors review the source. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Userone - Your citation above fails to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Please DO NOT insert comments above this. Bob98133 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it's not. It's bullshit. KellenT 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a little harsh, Kellen! It is an unsubstantiated theory and has no place in the article, but this B12 thing seems pretty important to vegans so research and theories continue. Bob98133 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, the tone of that article really irked me. It's written by "Dr Vivian V. Vetrano", obviously a pseudonym, obviously not a doctor. It's completely pseudo/non-scientific FUD mongering with respect to "traditional western science." The thrust of the article is to convince raw foodists and vegans not to take B12 supplements by frightening them off with scary words like "cyanide". The 3rd to last paragraph contains this bullshit: "Looking at it hygienically, no Vitamin B12 therapy can cause a recovery from any so-called deficiency disease. It may only hide the symptoms and cannot give an individual health." WHAT? And then the blog post has this: "It's disturbing to think that I'm putting cyanide into my body by taking a B vitamin." B12 research is obviously important to vegans, but this isn't research or even based on actual research, it's just fringe FUD. KellenT 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you, that sort of pseudoscience has no place in the article. TheLastNinja (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Kellen - not-so-obvious that this is a pseudonym. Google search indicates that she appears to be a chiropractor and lists credentials that include a PhD, so she's entitled to call herself doctor. I agree with you, as above, that her take is flaky science, not peer reviewed, and shouldn't be in the article; but history is full of people who were discredited during their lifetimes, yet later found to be correct, while some of those believed to be correct have been proven wrong. My point was not to support including her garbage, but just to consider it unsubstantiated, rather than bullshit which seems dismissive without addressing the reasons (which you have since done in this discussion). Nuff said, I think. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree you shouldn't have called it bullshit. There is a lot of B12 in bullshit, though presumably not the sparkling cyanide kind. I agree that those references to cyanide (why not Zyklon B, we should suggest that to Dr. Vetrano) are FUD, and that the reference should not be included as a reliable source. That said, the continued reluctance of a certain number of vegans to accept that B12 is an issue that should be addressed is, in itself, an interesting topic for the article. Someone (er... not me...) should add something about it. David Olivier (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  I stand corrected! KellenT 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  vitamin b12 

message: Hello,
I want to add a link to Low carbon diet, but I'm not sure if it should go in the "Similar diets" section or "See also" section... I tried the "See also" section once, but it got edited to 'Low carb diet' which is an entirely different page! (and a very non-vegan diet!) and then removed. Ideas? Jaybird vt (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be all PETA and the like talk about so it is back in the see also section now. ~ R.T.G 07:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low carbon diet? 

message: If anybody can get the fulltext of Larson 2001 and provide a relevant quote it would be appreciated. KellenT 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larson 2001 Public Health Nutrition 

message: Section for appropriate sources here. 
Haenfler, Ross. Straight Edge : Clean-Living Youth, Hardcore Punk, and Social Change. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers University Press, 2006.
This work also contains all of the veganism-related contents of: Ross Haenfler Rethinking Subcultural Resistance: Core Values of the Straight Edge Movement Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2004; 33; 406, which is often cited. The best quotes (I've searched the entire book) are:
* p16: By the mid-1990s, … thousands of kids adopted a strict vegan lifestyle, refusing to eat all animal products (often including honey); wear any kind of suede, leather, or wool; and support companies that tested products on animals.
* p36: Many sXers even shun caffeine and medicinal drugs, and a majority are committed vegetarians or vegans.
* p53: In the mid- to late-1980s, sXe became increasingly concerned with animal rights … At least three out of four Denver sXers are vegetarian and many adopt completely cruelty-free, or vegan, lifestyles. Veganism had become such a signiﬁcant part of sXe by the late 1990s that many sXers gave it equal importance to living drug and alcohol free. Many sXe vegans self-identify as “vegan straight edge” and some bands identify as “vegan straight edge” rather than simply straight edge. Veganism, while still widely practiced, has declined somewhat after 2000. Among the approximately seventy sXers I associated with regularly, only ﬁfteen ate meat. Several individuals had “Vegan” tattooed on their bodies.
These are all fine, but make statements better suited to the straight edge article rather than this one. 
Wood 2006: Straightedge Youth: Complexity and Contradictions of a Subculture
Has some minor mentions of veganism.
* p7: More recently, straightedgers are known for their highly political commitment to vegetarian or vegan lifestyles, as well as for their opposition to other perceived forms of animal exploitation (Haenfler 2004; Irwin 1999; Wood 1999a, 1999b, 2003).
* p8: By the late 1980s, vegetarianism and veganism were emerging to assume a near-equal prominence as defining features of straightedge culture and identity (Irwin 1999; Wood 1999a).
I've checked out a few of the sources mentioned in Wood's citations. I was unable to obtain copies of:
* Wood 1999a: "'Nailed to the X': A Lyrical History of the Straightedge Youth Subculture." Journal of Youth Studies 2, no. 2:133-51.
* Wood 2003: "Straightedge Youth: Observations on the Complexity of Subcultural Identity." Journal of Youth Studies 6, no. 1:33-52.
But in the copyright section of this book, it notes that both of these papers are used, at least in part, for the book itself. Perhaps it's a bit odd for the author to cite himself, I don't know... I obtained two of the sources mentioned on p7, there was no mention of veganism in:
* Wood 1999b: "The Indigenous, Nonracist Origins of the American Skinhead Subculture." Youth and Society 31, no. 2: 131-51.
And a minor mention of veganism in: 
Irwin 1999: "The Straight Edge Subculture: Examining the Youths' Drug-free Way." Journal of Drug Issues 29, no. 2:365-80
* He was the co-author of a book, In Defense of Reality (Cappo and Das 1993), in which he discussed Straight Edge and defined it as a 'music scene that began in the 1980s, propagating the philosophy of non-violence, vegetarianism, anti-prejudice and anti-drugs.'
All in all, not very strong citations for this article, though I note that the straightedge article could use some help. 
KellenT 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sXe/punk 

message: I would like to add research done by Dr. Dean Ornish, specficially a study on men with prostate cancer and addoption of "lifestyle changes".  Those lifestyle changes included a vegan diet.  Should I create a subsection titled "Cancer" under "Nutritional benefits" or just a paragraph on the research within "Nutritional benefits"?  (I'll post the proposed text here before I update the article.)<BR>--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make a normal paragraph under 'benefits'. KellenT 09:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The bold is unnecessary, as is the mention of which journal in which the study was published. If it's appropriate, mention prostate cancer explicitly. Also if there's some way on combining all of this into one sentence with less repetition, that would be good. And put the reference at the end of the sentence. KellenT 10:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it's still too detailed and verbose for a study which isn't focused on veganism. Gabbe (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I support including references to studies of that effect. The study you mentioned, however, is about "intensive lifestyle change" (a much wider concept), and not specifically about veganism per se. Therefore I don't think the Ornish study warrants more than a passing mention. Gabbe (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan diet and improvement in prostate cancer 

message: I removed:
:The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recommends what they call the "Four New Food Groups." They suggest that vegans and vegetarians eat at least three servings of vegetables a day, including dark green, leafy vegetables such as broccoli, and dark yellow and orange such as carrots; five servings of whole grains (bread, rice, pasta); three of fruit; and two of legumes (beans, peas, lentils)."Vegetarian starter kit", Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, posted on vegsource.com.
Because it didn't fit in the article where it lived and I don't see a particularly good place for it now. Suggestions welcome. KellenT 10:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. Looking at the ref, it seems that PCRM recommends this diet/food groups for everyone, not just vegans; and the New Food groups are generally credited as being healthier, but no specifics are cited which aren't cited elsewhere in this article. Bob98133 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCRM diet recommendations 

message: Wanted to say the citation and reference section of this article is one of the best I have ever seen. Well done --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:STAR ~ R.T.G 07:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: thumb
My edit of image thumbnails layout was reverted by User:Kellen` because he think "they don't all need to be on the right." But please look at my screen shot under 1024px-width screen resolution you will learn that the thumbnails sandwich the main article text. I suppose Kellen is using some greater screen resolution so he didn't see the problem, but this looks inappropriate in 1024*786px or smaller resolution. For more information, please check the WP:Layout#Images, MOS:IMAGES & WP:Picture tutorial. Thx. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see your point. I think remaking that energy consumption graph in a better scale might help. KellenT 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image thumbnails layout 

message: The Vegan Society seems to have broken all the links to this page most notably the citation [1] and the Donald Watson quote. I would try to fix them but I do not know what to search for, sorry. ~ R.T.G 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed these. KellenT 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan Society references 

message: The newest edits about people who say they are vegan not really being vegan by definition is really silly. Particularly since it is followed by "Vegans may avoid honey for moral [33], environmental [34], health [35] or a number of other reasons." According to the previous section, vegans don't avoid these products; if they use them they are not vegans, so no problem. The vegetarian article went through the same sort of nonsense with people who eat fish yet consider themselves to be vegetarians. The entire second ph of this section could be dropped, which would improve the article by removing the nitpicking that contradicts itself. Bob98133 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In this edit , the article is actually saying that users of honey and silk are vegans by the definition, "some vegans", rather than "possibly vegans". It draws a conclusion. Petty isn't it? Less so than keeping it from being fixed this one might suggest. If they are unconfirmed as vegans it is only a claim and it should offend no-one to be truthful. I do not expect any edit of mine to remain on the page for some reason but I could easily fix it. Who are we to be vegan when we might offend some larvae monsters? ~ R.T.G 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Bear in mind that this is not a general discussion forum on Veganism. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Please keep your posts concise and to the point. Gabbe (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democray of votes it is a fragile web of opinion at times and that is what we are discussing here, Gabbe, what is or not a vegan. Simple obviously isn't working. The article has one of the deepest saddle prints I have seen so far. What I typed was on topic, do what you will, there is no need to be brief when obviously the brief method is distorting things in a questionable fashion. BOO! ~ R.T.G 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is some confusion amongst me and others here. What is the basic point you wish to convey? Is it that there is an issue with consumers of honey being characterized as vegans, or is it something else? If we are to come to a consensus on change we must first understand what is at issue. -kotra (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It is difficult to discuss anything with you when you're always talking *around* the subject rather than directly about it. KellenT 10:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The weight of discussion was outweighing the ease with which to describe the item. "Vegan" has become a steady and singular dictionary definition. The bee thing may be worth mentioning but the how thing shouldn't be difficult because the dictionary makes it quite clear. ~ R.T.G 11:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done RTG, IMO you do talk in riddles but I think the edit you've made solves the neutrality problem very well Muleattack (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but it's still short on the religion and culture not to mention the "cuisine". ~ R.T.G 10:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I think WP:WTA would apply. How about saying "obliged to respect the well-being of mosquitoes", or "do not feel obliged to avoid harming (or killing) mosquitoes"? Something which avoids problematic words like "rights" and "alleged". Gabbe (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I removed it. It's totally unnecessary in that section. It's clear that "the rights of mosquitos" does not take a POV as to whether or not these rights exist, but is interpreted inside of this discussion as to whether or not they have rights at all. In articles like this it's insane to try to mitigate every single statement because there's so many different viewpoints at work. Presenting a NPOV does not mean writing every sentence like "there may OR MAY NOT be this person who ALLEGEDLY works as a philosopher OR MAYBE NOT who some consider to have rights BUT OTHERS DO NOT" etc etc etc. There might be better ways to phrase something which sidesteps all these petty POV side arguments. If so, go with that, but inserting mitigating words into everything is a disservice to our readers and to all of us trying to produce better content. KellenT 01:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be on this page. Mosquitoes are not vegetables and they arent replicated by any vegetable recipes I know or beleive in. This article should be based on a marketplace of beautiful grown food and dishes, instead it is a rant in a house of butchery. I know that is what veganism is reduced to in most places but it is not what veganism is. That is the animal rights and slaughter articles. Nobody made veganism up, they just named it. The idea of getting folk like Scales to question eating insects here is just off the scope. The Vegan Society, for instance, says "T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude" Let's minimise animal cruelty on the article and give up debating possible enhancements of it. Let's remove both the sections and redirect them to Animal rights and Animal products. Apropriate the thing about eating honey rather than slapping it into animal products and leave the animal junk where it should be except where it is pointing out examples that vegans are known for their liking or disliking of them. Ample supply for this. Only excuse not to is setting up another protest but you can't turn the inside of a home into a protest permanently and if you've nothing to advertise... ~ R.T.G 07:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honey, silk, nonsense 

message: I removed the following Chomsky text. I think Chomsky is interesting, and it's great that he makes any comment on vegetarianism at all, but it's not really very relevant to this article, and certainly out of proportion to the other sections. KellenT 13:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this is not the best place for it, but that passage definitely must not be lost. Maybe it should go in animal rights, or in Chomsky? David Olivier (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPS Gabbe (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The primary source is a longer transcript, so that's no problem. KellenT 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was thinking of the part that says: "In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts [...] should be kept to an appropriate length." Gabbe (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you quote Linda McCartney "If slaughter houses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian." The refs are on her article and Pauls video http://www.meat.org Aren't those kind of quotes truer advocacy and equally or more notable than activists who don't pursue the topic? ~ R.T.G 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Linda McCartney quote is irrelevant as well. Unless directly linked to veganism and extremely relevant, quotes such as these belong in biographical articles, if anywhere at all. n-k, 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it is not directed enough but it would be interesting if we could see some mention of who was notable vegans like also Carl Lewis and Cold Play and some of their quotes would make more applicable than Chomsky. Lewis claimed veganism helped him to run faster. Fastest man in the world without steroids for how long? 20 years? I must find it somewhere in a quote later. He does make his living today as a cuisine expert of sorts doesn't he? Or at least he does God-knows how many TV cooking shows and cooking equipment ranges. ~ R.T.G 03:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually seven years in total but more than 20 on the indoor long jump record. ~ R.T.G 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky