Talk:Veganism/Archive 2

message: Right now only there is only positive analyses of Vegan ethics, i feel that some inconsistencies should be pointed out, maybe I went to far with suicide, but the paradox of eating fruit by vegans while 1000's of insects were killed in its production is relevant--Hq3473 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible for you guys to miss the point any more completely?  Vegans don't expect to get their impact down to zero.  The point is to dramatically reduce the amount of death and suffering.  I suppose you would criticize environmentalists who reduce their energy consumption by 99% to be failures because they're still consuming some infintesimally small amount. Michael Bluejay 17:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I've once again edited the paragraph that seeks to paint veganism as a contradiction, ignoring the point and spending far too many words on the opposition. It now explains the criticism and the vegan response, which is exactly what an article about veganism should do. --Joehaer 01:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fair enough.--Hq3473 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics NPOV

message: I see no reason to remove ny comment about cannibalism. Since product derived from humans are not considered "animal", veganism in prinicple does not prohibit cannibalism. In fact some vegans do argue that by not eating its own dead humans are wasting a valuable sustainable resourse. --Hq3473 01:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your comments to be utter tripe. Human Beings most certainly are animals, and slaughtering a Human for consumption is just as bad as slaughtering a Cow for consumption. I am a Vegan, and Violence, in any form, is not Vegan. If an act causes suffering directly or indirectly, then it is not a Vegan act, plain and simple. That includes killing.Canaen 02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how do you justify babies drinking Mother's milk, how about a baby drinking non-mother‘s milk if his mother is dead? They extract milk from another ANIMAL and drink it! What if the mother feels pain while breast feeding, (which often happens  pain while breastfeeding) then since the act causes suffering it is not vegan and the baby should not be allowed to drink the milk? And if you say that drinking someone’s milk is not a problem for vegans, then why do vegans think that drinking cow’s milk is wrong(if a cow has too much milk and is milked in a humane way)?  You need to come up with some good philosophical reasoning to distinguish why  Cow’s milk is not allowed and Human’s milk is allowed, while neither cow nor human meat is allowed. Just pointing at prevention of violence will not cut it. --Hq3473 14:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, as noted in the above paragraph discussion on Vegan Ethics the Veganism is not as simple as preventing  ALL suffering -- in that case vegans will not be able to eat bread - since a lot of insects were killed in the process of growing the grain.  The vegan ethic is about MINIMIZING suffering, and for humans to eat their fallen brethren seems like a good way to avoid more violence to animals.--Hq3473 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannibalsim

message: The section about health and veganism is absolutely flawed. There is for example no evidence whatsoever that meat is generally unhealthy - to the contrary. This article needs to be marked with a bias warning, it is a shame as it is to be part of an encyclopedia.
:There is however, massive amounts of evidence proving that all of the hormones and antibiotics that are present in meat that has come from Factory-Farmed cows, are extremely unhealthy. This makes said meat unhealthy. We shall make the article much clearer. Canaen 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Veganism is not unnatural; many humans, while still in their natural states, practice Veganism. Jainism is one example. Go back to Hippocrates, who's miracle cure for almost any ailment was a diet free of Milk and Meat. We've been doing it for a long time. What we haven't been doing for a long time is producing animals, as opposed to hunting them. Humans in their most natural states gathered nuts, berries, and other edible plant matter, and hunted whatever animals they could, when they wanted to prove a point, or were lucky.Canaen 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I've split the latter portion of "Vegan cuisine" off into this heading because it seems to be an entirely seperate subject. Though most Anarcho-punks do indeed cook somewhat distinctly in comparison to those of Le Cordon Bleu (spelling?), their motivations don't really fit under "cuisine." Canaen 05:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that all anarcho-punks are vegan/vegetarian is a gross exaggeration. - FrancisTyers 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. I don't think that anyone tried to say that, however. If you are referring to my comment above, I was referring to the commonly-held belief that most anarcho-punks don't have the most refined eating habits. Canaen 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar diets and lifestyles 

message: I don't see any consensus on this page for large-scale removal of content due to size concerns.  There is a documented process for dealing with this situation as outlined in Wikipedia:Article size.  The content removals should stop immediately.  --Viriditas 11:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: Do we have a cite that actually contests this statement, "A commonly cited (and contested) statistic is that it takes 14 times more land area to support a meat eater than a vegetarian.".  Otherwise I feel the paranthetical note should be removed, and will do it myself once I can get some time to research possibile articles that contest the statistic, or someone provides a cite. Shawn M. O'Hare 19:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite for contested statistic

message: I removed the statement 
:"Some have criticized the classist nature of "consumerist veganism" (that which is reliant on processed foods), arguing that a vegan diet is much more common among those with class privilege."
The same can likely be said about the diet of any developed nation.  Specifically, the criticisms deal with consumerism in general, and just happens to focus on a small subset of veganism, thus it is not really relevant to general veganism.  The vegan diet as a whole, being just a restriction on the set of all foods, is not inherently reliant on processed foods, but the statement almost suggests this.  If someone feels the need to put the statement back in, I suggest adding "However, consumerist veganism is a small subset of veganism proper, which has no inherent reliance on processed foods." or something more clever.  Though then the statement just becomes superfluous.  Shawn M. O'Hare 19:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consumer Veganism

message: The talk page has become bloated and it is time for an archive. One of the admins can archive the page. Tx Idleguy 08:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, anyone can archive the talk page. I'm trying to do it now, but I don't like to archive any discussion that has been contributed to in the past two weeks. And since people are still responding to comments made months ago, it's difficult to find discussion topics ready to be archived. --Angr (t·c) 00:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe refactor the headings? Although this may be a problem, people probably don't like their comments re-ordering. Could you archive sections of the Talk page? (i.e. sections that haven't been contributed to very recently?) - FrancisTyers 00:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I did. I archived those sections that had no dated comment later than November 19. If someone contributed to a section more recently than that but didn't date their comment, it's their loss. --Angr (t·c) 13:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving needed 

message: Have removed the links to these external sites as I understood that we are trying to keep the links section as lean and on-topic as possible. Whilst personally I agree that such calculators are useful I don't think that they belong on this page. quercus robur 12:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not already, that link should be added to the Environmental Vegetarianism page. I've yet to check. Canaen 08:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eco-footprint counters

message: Regarding the comments about the environment in the "Criticism and controversy" section - these charges may be true, but how are they directly related to people being vegans? They are more of a testament about bad farming practices and environmental concerns. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article talks about environmental considerations in this section Veganism#Environmental_considerations from a purely western notion. I decided to show that in the majority of the world, these environmental aspects hold little to no ground and that in fact it's quite the opposite. There is a lot of resentment among the educated and the scientific community that veganism/vegetarianism is being portrayed as being environmentally better in all places around the world, which is frankly not true. The environmental considerations and its criticisms are thus two sides of the same coin and in Wikipedia both have to be portrayed to get the full picture. --Idleguy 04:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other option would be to add a  tag until more information is found from non-US sources, see my comment above. - FrancisTyers 00:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental section revisited 

message: Italicized lines are what I have removed.
In most Asian countries, where rice is the staple food, plant cultivation is the most prevalent cause of environmental damage. The cultivation of paddy requires far greater quantity of water than most crops grown in Europe/America. Cultivating a single kilogram of rice requires 5,000 litres of water  and thus places a huge stress on the water supply far higher than would be needed for animal husbandry. In fact rice cultivation is seen as the main culprit behind methane emissions. 
Rice is not inherently linked ot Veganism. Some Vegans, and some Ominvores, and someone of probably every such orientation, choose to omit rice from their diets for the above information, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Veganism as-is. It is perfectly good information (besideds the second-to-last line), but it just doesn't belong here. Furthermore, the large amount of Rice Cultivation is not present because of Vegans; it is present because of Asian cultures, who have used Rice as a dietary staple since antiquity.
No where in the article is Rice Cultivation promoted. I see no reason for a criticism of Rice Cultivation anywhere in this article. Canaen 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing up Environmental criticism: this is why the page is protected

message: Veganism, so-called, is primarily prevalent in Industrialized nations. To get my point acrossm let's look at this example:
Johnny is a Vegan. He lives in the U.S.A., and subscribes to PETA.
Patricia (I have a poor knowledge of names for Jains) is a Jain. She practices Ahimsa, and does simple work all day.
They have the same beliefs regarding the prevention of suffering, but the "Veganism" movement is certainly only prevalent in the first person; the second simply considers herself a Jain, not a Vegan. She probably has never even heard the term "Vegan.
I suggest, in the interest of Countering systemic bias, we either use "Similar diets and lifestyles" or create another section to include information that may be good, but irrelevant to Veganism so-called. I'm not saying this as well as I should be - hopefully I'll be able to on the morrow. Basically, I want to make sure that this article is not completely Western-centric, however I do not at all support the idea of muddling information relevant to Westerners with other information completely irrelevant. This article has had a tendency to do just that, I have noticed, giving a feeling of invalidity to many reasons that Vegans claim to be Vegans for. Canaen 05:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctions - "Veganism so-called" 

message: I protected this page due to this massive edit war that has developed. Please talk this out or use dispute resolution. Please. No more personal attacks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I hope that what has become the "opposing party" to me will agree to using words instead of reverts..Canaen 09:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read NPOV.  I am not an "opposing party" to you in any way, nor am I the author of the section you removed. --Viriditas 09:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that I've read NPOV several times by now, and I'm sorry that we seem to disagree about what equates to relevance, However, that does not mean that I was referring to you when I say "opposing party." Before I read your third or fourth suggestion that I read NPOV again, I was actually wondering why you had a negative feeling about you in my mind. Anyway, this isn't a conversation I want to pursue, much less here. Good day.Canaen 09:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a pretty tricky manoeuvre. - FrancisTyers 10:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Hi
once the protection is off, I'd like to propose the inclusion of a link to the subject page of Donald Watson (1910-2005)and photo of him. 
As Donald has recent died, if a moderator seeks fit to add it during these protected periods out of respect, the image is available as vegandonald.jpg.
There is another article just on Donald Watson that ought be linked to at the same time.
Thanks
Mitsu 18:10, 5 December 2005 (GMT)
:Theres already a wiki-link to the Donald Watson article from the Vegan page- also a photo of uncertain copyright origin (it would be good if explicit permission to use the pic could be gained from the Vegan Society quercus robur 20:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition of a picture of Donald Watson  

message: What is involved with the Environmental section in your view, regarding the vote below. Please specify:
# Moving it out completely with no placeholder pointing to a main article.
# Moving it out with a placeholder section pointing to the main article.
# Moving it out with a placeholder section pointing to the main article with one sentence supporting Environmental vegetarianism.
# Moving it out with a placeholder section pointing to the main article with one sentence from each side of the argument.
Just to be clear before I vote. I'm for either no's. 1, 2 or 4. - FrancisTyers 12:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the idea was to use 4. Canaen 21:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus2

message: Let's Make This Final. Please sign for both 1. and 2. in order to prevent confusion. Also, please do not discuss or comment in this section of the Talk Page. It will be moved to the discussion section. See above. Note: this vote refers to Proposition 4.
===1: Move "envrionmental critisism" to Environmental vegetarianism.===
====Support====
* Canaen 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Tally of Votes for the above Proposition 

message: ====Support====
* Canaen 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1: Move "envrionmental critisism" to [[Environmental vegetarianism]].

message: * Canaen 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
* Canaen 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2: Move "anorexia" to [[Semi-vegetarian]] or [[Vegetarian]].

message: * Canaen 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I've organized the Archives in accordance with Wikipedia Policy. It's also just plain cleaner, and avoids others having to go through and do this to many more Veganism archives in the future. I think that as soon as this vote is over, and the page is restored, I'm going to archive the talk page again. If anyone opposes, please explain. Canaen 06:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I just wanted to point out Skinwalker's dishonesty and favorite trick of spreading FUD through hysterical accusations of vandalism.
Above Skinwalker accuses me of " vandalising " his discussion page. I enclose a copy of what exactly I said for you to decide whether, a) it was vandalism and b) just how Skinwalker's integrity stands as he continues to use the same trick on others. You write anything, Skinwalker squeals it is vandalism in an FUD effort to frighten you off contributing any more. This may be useful as it is where this recent WikiWar started.
*Look at how Skinwalker responds to something well reasoned and polite.
And I have to say that despite his paranoia / psychic powers of IP address deduction, I am not connected with any Livejournal, any other contributor or any of the numerous identities Skinwalker tries to claim are one person in his paranoid and aggressive attacks! Personally, I find it fascinating to see how obsessed Skinwalker, Idleguy and Viriditas at trying to denigrate vegan or vegetarianism topics with false POVs. I am starting to wonder, given Skinwalker confession of professional and scientific interest in animal husbandry what his interests are and would like him to clarify this.
Both Idleguy and Skinwalker have gone too far to try and force their dishonest edits and campaign and have been uncovered for what they are. Viriditas seems also to enjoy playing the game of Wiki legalese and accuse vegans of being a " Meatpuppet campaign " when we happen to agree. Notice how clever he is to even include livejournal URLs and such inflammatory and unsustainable slanders in his edit summaries on the RFC page.
*Where is he hiding this RFC? He tries to get his slur in first by placing the RFC here ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society_and_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society_and_law&action=history\\
As a Requests for comment Skinwalker wrote ;
:*Talk: Veganism: Whether to include information about environmentally destructive agriculture of meat animals, and whether to include information about rates of eating disorders among vegans and vegetarians. Page has been subject to a Livejournal-based campaign (http://www.livejournal.com/community/veganism/840660.html?thread=9855444#t9855444) to eliminate information contradicting vegan dogma, among other nastiness.
:
Now what they are trying to do here is whip up support, probably from more anti-veggie trolls, to support and defend their POVs. They go to accuse Canaen of organising a campaign - which I donot believe for one second - but are, of course, organising their own campaign. The typical move of an accuser accusing someone innocent of what they themselves are doing first, getting the slander in first so that they cannot be accuse of it.
Below is where the problems started after a good effort to a reasonable tidy up of the topic, my post to Skinwalker discussion page ~ and his threatening response. 
Is this vandalism? It brings into question Skinwalker's credibility if it is not.
:Vegan
:The Wiki guidelines state articles are supposed to be 20 to 30K. The old article was becoming way too long and bloated. Talk pages document well document why. It need a good bit of editing down to remove duplications, correct punctuation and specifically the misplaced " environmental criticism ", the contributor of which was refusing to take on board the very fair and detailed counter-criticism.
:This criticism was founded on the original contributor's use of statistics that pointed out the deforestation caused by soya bean consumption was due to it being used for the meat industry. A point the contributor repeatedly refused to acknowledge on either the topic or personal talk page. I am happy to go into more detail about this but simply put neither soya nor rice are synonymous with vegan. If there are issue arising from their production that it best placed on their own topic pages. It is plain hypocritical to use criticism of the meat industry as a criticism of veganism.
:I'd go easy on accusation of " vandalism ". The definition of vandalism is simple and clear. What you have here is an edit to fit the topic within guidelines. Very little apart from duplications and a tiny inhouse politicking have actually been removed. It is par for the course that contentious topics becoming overweight and bloats as antagonistic parties chose to pad out their POVs with claims and rebuttals but at the end of the day, a wiki topic is just meant to define what something is and give you a few links to go find out more. Not a discussion forum or political soapbox. 195.82.106.64 09:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! Your aggressive edit warring and vandalism have resulted in Veganism being protected. There is absolutely no consensus on the Talk: Veganism page for your edits. Trimming fat is one thing; you are removing material that does not conform to your POV. It is disingenuous for you to claim that disagreements over agriculture are "tiny inhouse politicking", and you know it. Please stop vandalizing the article before your IP gets banned.Skinwalker 16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skinwalker's dishonesty and hysterical accusations 

message: User Skinwalker reported for persistent violations. See ; 
:There have been no such violations, nor is there such an RfC. Please do not make spurious accusations. --Viriditas 04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was one that an IP user was developing, until you deleted it, Viriditas, declaring it invalid (I don't remember your wording). Canaen 23:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment : User conduct Skinwalker reported. 

message: I haven't been able to read back through everything yet, but I'm already seeing a couple of interesting things:
*This article is supposed to be about Veganism but since it has already branched off into claiming that the current policies of the meat industry are environmentally destructive, then the counter-claims (if they are verifiable and cited) should be allowed.
*The more I read the article, the more I think its in desperate need of NPOVing -- both sides of the story are presented in most cases, but it looks like very POV sections were inserted and subsequently edited -- and they still need quite a bit of work.
*Statements such as "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder." seem more appropriate for an article on eating disorders -- I can't think of any good reason to label an eating disorder "semi-veganism".
*Other statements like "though how their extremely impoverished diets can be related to western dietary models is unclear." seem to be editorializing.
*The Environmental considerations section really needs some more sources - "In fact, humans appear to have subsisted for most of their history on near-vegetarian diets." for example.
This article could be incredible if both sides pulled back from the fringe a little and gave the article a less emotional tone. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice.  With all the admins currently watching the page, I'm in favor of an unprotect so we can get back to editing. --Viriditas 04:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the RfC 

message: I have posted this here in an attempt to grab everyone's attention. While its place here may be disputed, I ask that it remain, for the purpose of getting read by everyone who needs or likes to. 
To whom it may concern: I am Canaen. This is the only username I have ever edited Wikipedia under. A long time ago, before this account was created, I edited as my IP for a few edits, that were entirely grammatical. A bunch of users have come into this article without making accounts, simply using their IPs. I wish to proclaim, to everyone, in all sincerity, that I am in no way connected to any of them. 
As for any alleged "Meatpuppet Campaign," yes, I made posts on LiveJournal asking for people to come over and review the article. I invite everyone to review the posts. Skinwalker has conveniently gone through the trouble of tracking them down, and they are available in the RfC he's preparing agaisnt me. Several LJ Users voiced distress, and I offered advice. This happens all the time in Wikipedia's IRC channel. This is far from an organized campaign, and I dispute the claim firmly. 
I'm do not know where all of these IP users came from. In the event that they did come from LiveJournal, I have edited the LJ posts I made, asking any users who came to Wikipedia to read through an introduction to Wikipedia, and to create an account. I also put emphasis against Personal attacks. I can't do anything more about it. If you feel this is untrue, then please, please, bring it up to me, before your decide to take up other peoples' time with the issue. I know I make mistakes, and I try to fix them when I can. I like people to tell me when they think I make them, as obviously, I don't realize all of them. 
Personal Attacks: I called Idleguy "ignorant." In the atmosphere I've developed in, that's not anything close to an attack. I do apologize if anyone took offense to it, as they seem to have. I came out of the exchange feeling attacked as well. We seem to have had a cultural misunderstanding. I'll refrain from the practice of using that word as such in this environment (on Wikipedia). This is the only personal attack I remember anyone bringing to me. If you have others, please tell me. Otherwise, please stop saying that I am attacking anyone. It was an isolated incident, and we both seem to have gotten over it. Why can't you? Stop bringing it up. 
During the time I was gone, a bunch of anonymous users seem to have popped up here. However, none popped up at any of the other articles I am concerned with (Scottish Clans; view my contributions if you're interested). I refute any claims that are made to connect me with these users.
I in no way endorse the attacks that were made upon anyone in my absence, or any attacks for that matter. I want to make that clear, and final. If you have something against me, then be honest. Please. It's all I can ask of you. I want to work things out. I suggest everyone who wishes to contribute to the process of creating an encyclopedic article out of Veganism read through Intercultural communication principles. Canaen 09:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything that Canaen has done that can seriously be construed as a personal attack. Let's assume good faith, as per Wikipedia policy, and say that Canaen is working to improve this article. Nidara 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling someone ignorant is an attack, even though it may be factually correct, doing it repeatedly is worse. If I were to go upto someone in the street and call them ignorant for any reason they would be offended. If you disagree I suggest you try it. Acting like you didn't mean it as an attack is just not correct, unless the rules in Scotland are vastly different from the U.S., Ireland, Wales or England (which I doubt). The only time I can think that ignorant could be used and it not be an attack is by a person to refer to themselves. e.g. "I am ignorant of such matters". Just admit it was an attack and get on with it. This is not a cultural misunderstanding. Good apology though, these accusations and attacks should be put behind us. - FrancisTyers 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Canaen only used the term once and appologised for it. I agree that it should be put behind us and we should assume good faith. It seems that rather than make progress on this article this has been a juicier subject for some. This is tired and old and there needs to be some progress on this article. Nidara 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations directed at [[User:Canaen|Canaen]] 

message: Hi
This is a response to Skinwalker's RFC on Canaen.
Rather than straight talking language, some folk prefer to use clever legalistic attacks on individuals such as the way that Skinwalker is using on Canaen.
In the context of the Wiki, this is an ad hominem where his intellectual powers failed to persuade the consensus on the discussion page.
Skinwalker failed to get his way with regard to muddying of the waters with anorexia just as  Idleguy had done previously with the met industry's pollution. So what happened her is they conspired to attack Canaen with the use of a meatpuppet called  Viriditas employing all the trick they can like making false allegation, lying, official complaints and so on.
I would like to point out that in British English the word nark is non-pejorative and I understand that it has an objective meaning something akin to a " snitch " in American. That is, meaning someone that makes, often erroneous, allegations to authorities in order to personally benefit themselves in some way. It is certianly a lot less intentionally insulting than to be continuously called a meatpuppet or, I am sure, for user Canaen to be accused of having some connection with me when he has none.
The funniest thing for me is that Skinwalker is busy digging a hole in his own canoe because his allegations are outright lies of which he can in no way substantiate.
This conflict started because Skinwalker insisted on posting data refering to anorexics on the Vegan topic which had no relationship to veganism whatsoever.
Skinwalker is entirely wrong. I know this because I know who I am and I know with whom I have and have had connections and I take a very minor little offence at being accused by the likes of you of being something I am not. I state " very minor little offence " because you and your views genuinely are so unimportant. 
Skinwalker is an individual of very little decency and integrity. I do not state this as an insult but as an objective statement.  Skinwalker has been told on many occasions that I have no connection with this or the other individuals and yet he not only continue to go on making such allegations but  Skinwalker even uses them as the ground to make an attack on another individual.
195.82.106.78 22:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Skinwalker's personal attack on [[User:Canaen|Canaen]] via a RFC  

message: Personal attack by 195.82.106.78 removed.
:Please stop spamming the talk page. Man this is like a crapflood. If you have a complaint, take it throught the proper channels. --preceeding unsigned comment by FrancisTyers 
::What? MacDonald of Clan Ranald? Lord Huntly, off with his head! Canaen 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been blocked. And I plan on blocking any others in that IP range as sockpuppets. Going to put a notice on ANI. We gave him/her plenty of chances. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know Lord Huntly kept a cat... ;)Canaen 23:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skinwalker editing other user's discussion page !!!! In this case Canaen's 

message: For a change, I thought I'd like to examine a non-contentious part of the topic, the cuisine section. I have proposed an alternative edit that put veganism at the heart of it reather than meatism.
The bit I am not sure about is "  ... most vegans prefer to cook without reference to meat ... ".
This is not something that exactly warrants scientific references but from over 20 years personal experience I would say it is almost universally true.
Comments? 195.82.106.14 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. It was me that modified the article a day or so ago to make the point that we don't all exist on veggie versions of Chicken Mcnuggets and Turkey Twizzlers. some of us actually enjoy the whole slow food process of cooking and preparing meals with real, fresh, preferably locally (or home) grown ingrediants. quercus robur 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, so do people on a non-restrictive diet! ;) - FrancisTyers 00:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes indeedy. However the previous wording of the cuisine section seemed to imply (to me at least) that vegans tend to rely on largely soya or glutten based meat analogue products. Hopefully my edit rectified this impression, and hopefully it was put accross in a way that was non-contentious, non POV and non-critical or challenging towards those that choose an omnivorous diet? quercus robur 01:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think they're referring to people who have to go out with vegans to eat, I certainly give my vegetarian friends a lot of stick :) - My personal pet-hate with the catering industry is their lack of appreciation that some people would prefer to eat organic, non-death camp meat. Hence, I rarely go to restaurants and when I do I usually end up eating vegetarian, much to my chagrin. Conscientious meat-eaters are much less well served than vegetarians/vegans in the food industry. - FrancisTyers 02:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm too busy/lazy to wade through and read all of the talk page above (or even alot of the main article for that matter) to work out where you personally stand Francis, but i'm assuming you are an ethical meat eater/omnivore? It may surprise you therefore that despite being a strict vegan myself I don't actaully have any sort of a problem with folks who take responsibility for what they eat, despite originally coming from an animal rights background some 25 years ago my main issues nowadays are much more to do with the total inhumane-ity of what I call industrial pharming and what you call death camp meat. I'm sure we'd find we have alot of common ground, though maybe wiki is not the best place to explore it- what do you think about this article I wrote on permaculture and veganism? (it was due to be part of a larger article but unfortunately I gave away the old 386 I'd created it on without backing up!! Doh!!!) http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/veganperm/ quercus robur 02:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out my comments on the Environmental vegetarianism page. I'm fully pro-permaculture! :) I'll check out your page. I don't just find the meat aspect of industrial/intensive agriculture abhorent but the other aspects too. Huge monoculture isn't cool. - FrancisTyers 02:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuisine 

message: Vegans reject dairy and meat, though vegetarians consume all but meat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.30.130 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 December 2005.
:Vegetarianism and veganism have the same diet. However, many ovo-lacto vegetarians prefer to call themselves "vegetarian" in order to simplify communication and because of many omnivores' unfamiliarity with pure vegetarianism; these people are commonly accepted as "vegetarians;" however, egg/dairy itself is not vegetarian food. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joehaer (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 December 2005.
I agree that there should be some mention older terminology
* (True) vegetarian = Vegan
* ovo-lacto-vegetarian = (Modern) vegetarian
--Salix alba (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegans and Vegetarians 

message: I'm glad to see anorexia addressed in the article.  You seem like an excellent group of editors.  Regarding definitions of vegetarianism, what I see discussed here on talk I'm not sure I'd agree with.  Vegetarianism has many different definitions.  The situation is somewhat analogous to kosher diets: there's a spectrum of practice.  Those on the stricter side often regard more lenient practices as less than genuine.  Some self-defined vegetarians eat dairy, egg, fish, and poultry.  Some self-defined vegans who otherwise avoid animal products make an exception for the milk and egg ingredients in bread.  Best wishes. Durova 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is quite true in modern context. What the above editors were speaking of was that, in say, the 1840s, "Vegetarian" meant "plant-based"; essentially, it meant "Herbivore". The term "Vegan" was invented in the 40s because a bunch of Vegetarians were pissed off that the term had come to include the consuming of dairy products and eggs. Nowadays, Vegetarianism is certainly more of an unbrella term, with far too many varients to contain in any scientific categorization. Canaen 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because people who eat fish label themselves as vegetarians doesn't make it so.  For example, I consider myself a mass-murderer although I've never actually killed anyone.  Michael Bluejay 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one for some discussion forum somewhere else. It is not possible to be vegan and eat milk and eggs.195.82.106.127 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC follow-up

message: I think that if a contentious contributor Skinwalker  is maing statements such as calling vegans " veggie-brandishing hordes " on another user finally comes out on Member user page calling's page. 
This is an issue to be discussed as it clearly sets out a bias especially if that other member has attacked without consultation, see ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Member#NPOV_on_Veganism	 
Member is the contributor that came along and slapped a "  " on the topic without so much as engaging consensus claiming that " The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed ".	 
When Skinwalker went to try and find an ally on his discussion page and warn him , we are " really nasty ", the only reason for slapping a " totallydisputed " tag on us Member could state was;	 
" I can't name any specifics other than the "pigs in crates" picture. Overall the artcle seems to exhibit a form of pro-vegan bias. I'll look at it more ". Member had not even read the topic! Skinwalker did not like the photo either. Perhaps too close to the truth?	 
The "pigs in crates" picture is seems fair enough to illustrate the argument between the so-called " animal welfare " of the meat industry against the argument of extending " rights " to animals and humane lifestyles. 
What is the consensus on this? I have moved the imaged next to the ethics paragraph where it seems ot relate better.
	 
The " totallydisputed " tag said " Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. " But I cant see any comment from Member.195.82.106.127 05:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Skinwalker's Attack on " veggie-brandishing hordes " and pigs in crates image. 

message: Since there appears to be some confusion about how talk pages are used, I'm going to post the following links for those who are interested in reading further:  
WP:TP: Talk pages are used to discuss how to improve the article. Talk pages are not a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia. Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research.
--Viriditas 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages 

message: "Vegetarianism" in this context, refers to veganism, which is often described as "strict vegetarianism" (see Mosby p.1797)  or in the case of the ADA, as a "total vegetarian".  --Viriditas 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of vegetarian by ADA

message: Due to six reverts by an anonymous editor who engages in nothing but personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring, I've added the totally disputed tag as a result of the removal of sourced criticism from this article.  The anonymous vandal claimed that the content has nothing to do with veganism, but that is false.  Brenda Davis is a vegan dietitian, and her book that is quoted concerns  vegan diets. The content about vegetarian female atheletes refers to ADA's use of the term which includes veganism, as does the ADA's warning about adolescents with eating disorders, specifically their opinion that "vegetarian diets may be selected to camouflage an existing eating disorder".  This refers to veganism.  --Viriditas 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed tag

message: I was wondering if we could add a blurb under the second-to-last paragraph in the ethical criticisms section about how, because vegans typically eat on a lower trophic level than non-vegans, less crop land would need to be cultivated if everyone were vegan.  (of course this completely ignores problems with crop subsidies. Also, about the 1.8 billion animals figure, more than ten billion animals are killed for food in the US.  I think putting these counterpoints are important because they are required to give depth to the issue and give some way for readers to see how good his arguments really are (especially since, if it is true how he states it, it undermines the reason most people are vegan).  (RedBLACKandBURN 01:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Yes, some of these things should be added as part of Gaverick Matheny's response to Davis (and in turn Davis is responding to Tom Regan).   You can find an external link to the information you are looking for in endnote 31.  I've actually asked other users to add this information (Canaen on his talk page), but so far, nobody has stepped up to bat (or has time).  Since you pointed it out, perhaps you have the free time to do it.  If you have questions, comment here or on my talk page.  I'm currently on wikiholiday, but I'll check in ever so often. --Viriditas 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am really not sure why whenever I add the part about the overall number of animals killed in America for food and contrast that to the amount of animals killed by crop harvesting, it keeps getting taken out of the article, even though it appears that people agree it is relevant to the article.  I'm going to put it back in, post comments if you want to change it please. (RedBLACKandBURN 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: i added an "important point" referencing Matheny's response along with an addition in references. D4v3r5 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethical criticisms crop harvesting kills animals 

message: People also choose veganism to minimize their impact on the earth.  Several friends of mine use this ecological footprint argument.  Could that be included under the ethics section?
:Why not, I have some decent criticism of this argument too. - FrancisTyers 16:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  What?  I'm new here.  Was that a bad idea?  JamieJones 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all :) - FrancisTyers 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis, as a prime contributor(critic) to environmental vegetarianism, is patronizing all of you, or should I say patronising. Nidara 05:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in good humour though :P - FrancisTyers 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In case people are still reading this strain: the ecological footprint argument has been included under the Resources and Environment motivation. --TimTL 00:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choose veganism 

message: Jerrymander, I'm sorry to revert your edits, but the language wasn't consistent with our editing policies, which say we have to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV), and not state point of view (POV) as fact. It might help if you were to review some of our policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for my revert 

message: My question is, avoid insects. Are Vegans allowed to eat insects, because in reality, its impossible to avoid consuming all living things. A lot of insect material gets into vegan foods, and the government has controls for how much is allowed in, but none the less, it gets in. How does this play a part in vegan culture?
P.S. I am not vegan, or vegi, nor am I downing the culture, just honestly curious as to this question.
:Some hardcore vegans will wear masks to avoid accidentally swallowing insects.  See Jainism.  But, you make a good point.  Insects are everywhere, and impossible to avoid. —Viriditas | Talk 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegans are opposed to the intentional consumption of insects, but (should and generally do) recognize that unintentional consumption of animal products of varying kinds will occur. This is unavoidable and therefore it is difficult to see how one could make it that much of an ethical issue, as veganism makes no claim to be a pure ethical system but an ethical improvement over a normal diet. Kellen T 18:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's usually regarded as just unavoidable, and it will probably make a Vegan feel bad if they accidentally kill an insect, but it's something to get over, not to dwell on. That said, Vegans don't intentionally cause suffering to any animals, including insects. I know what you're talking about with the government standards; they also have them for lizard heads and tails, bird beaks, etc. Especially in the canned food industry. Appetizing, eh? Canaen 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I know that this particular thread has not been posted to in a while, but I haven't noticed it before, and felt like I had to contribute another perspective. Although I fully understand that insects may not have the nervous system necessary to "suffer", an insect dying is none-the-less a life that has been lost. Veganism is not only about "not killing things that can feel pain", Veganism is about preservation and respect for life. --Sometimes 06:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insects 

message: I see no mention of the eating disorder (also known as "righteous eating").  GreatGatsby 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you explain how Orthorexia nervosa is relevant to this article?  If you think it's relevant to general veganism, then anyone else who's simply trying to eat healthy could also be accused of having this particular pathology. -MichaelBluejay 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a fairly extensive argument over the mention of eating disorders in this article (see the talk archives).  While it is tempting to discuss an obsession with "correct" eating habits in the context of alternative diets, I'd rather not include orthorexia in this article.  Orthorexia, at this point, is at best a fringe term among eating disorder specialists, and does not enjoy wide acceptance in peer-reviewed literature.  It would be best if we held off on discussing it until 1)  it is included in the DSM as a recognized eating disorder and 2)  there is peer-reviewed literature that connects orthorexia with veganism or vegetarianism.  Cheers, Skinwalker 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bluejay: No, they wouldn't be accused of it, because most people who try to eat healthy still keep animal products in their diet (moderation =/= restriction).  Anyway, one could make the same argument that anorexics are 'just' trying to lose weight.  Skinwalker makes valid points, though.  GreatGatsby 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a belief that Veganism is an eating disorder.  Whether you agree with it or not is absolutely irrelevant, an NPOV article would discuss it, but this article isn't even allowed to have an external link? Mbac 21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as there is a belief that Omnivorism is an eating disorder when it comes to humans, and often other animals as well. Also, among humans at least, that Omnivorism, especially eating meat, is a mental, social, and economic disorder. Pacifists are sometimes considered mentally ill. As are militarists. Generally, two people on opposite sides of a given ideological spectrum (or other spectrums, for that matter) will try to discredit the other as much as possible, and make great claims supporting their own side of the spectrum. Wikipedia's job is to stay in the middle of the spectrum, but document both sides in a NPOV, encyclopedic fashion. Canaen 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthorexia nervosa 

message: Someone, since the last time I bothered to read much of this article has changed the intro, and the definition section, so that the article gives the impression that Veganism is nothing more than a diet. The full quote from the Vegan Society's Articles of Association describing the definition is as follows:
:"In this Memorandum the word "veganism" denotes 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.
:In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
It seems very much to me that The former, rather than the latter should be used as the main defenition in the article, with mention that some self-described Vegans are only so in the Dietary aspect.
In addition, the American Vegan Society's full defenition is as follows:
:"Veganism is an advanced way of living in accordance with Reverence for Life, recognizing the rights of all living creatures, and extending to them the compassion, kindness, and justice exemplified in the Golden Rule."
The current text of our article calls this defenition similar to the British Vegan Society's defenition. To me, at least, this seems much more similar to the full defenition than simply the dietary one.
If whoever removed the full defenition from the article has good reason, I'd like to hear it; otherwise I plan to bring it back. Canaen 02:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure that 5 days is enough time, and I couldn't find anything about either on this page or on the most recent archive. Canaen 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Discrepency / abscence of Lifestyle  

message: Veganism featured on the front page of the UK newspaper The Independent
 An ethical diet: The joy of being vegan a firly interesting read. Key points
*"There are estimated to be at least 600,000 vegans in the UK, although there may be up to one million."
*"the market for vegan food is thought to be growing by up to 15 per cent a year."
*Latest study shows a "vegan diet is better than a veggie or carnivorous diet for staying slim."
*The vegan movement was started by a woodwork teacher, Donald Watson, in 1944 because of a desire to improve animal welfare.
*Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has a veritable roll-call of celebrity vegans. Woody Harrelson, the actor, is a vegan, as are his fellow Hollywood stars Joaquin Phoenix and Alicia Silverstone.
There may well be info worth includeing from the article. --Salix alba (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the great tip! —Viriditas | Talk 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in the Independant 

message: If this is an inappropriate place for comment, if someone could move it I would appreciate it.. as a casual reader of the article, it seems that the "full British definition" is mentioned way, way too often. I think we have understood it by the first two or three times we've read it. -- Kitsune818 12:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: Maybe it's just me, but it seems kind of strange to have vegetarian sushi as an example of vegan cooking - there's not much cooking there beyond making the rice. Maybe change the caption to vegan cuisine or get a picture of a different dish?
In any case, minor complaint.
--220.9.84.29 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed caption "vegan cuisine". Femto 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan cooking - vegetarian sushi? 

message: just in case no one has noticed. this article contain three times the same definition sentence. you really hammered it home here
trueblood 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  you guys are funny 

message: I'm taking out the stuff on Sylvester Graham. My rationale:
While Graham did caution against low-quality milk, "marketplace milk, much of which came from cows fed on leftover distillery mash (swill), with the anemic, liquor-inflected product made presentable by the addition of chalk, plaster of Paris, and molasses",  he did not advocate a vegan diet. "Butter should be used "very sparingly." Fresh milk and eggs were frowned upon but not proscribed. Cheese was permitted only if mild and unaged."  "Enjoy pure milk, fresh cheeses and eggs in moderation."  "Modern dieticians aren't as strongly opposed to meat as he was (although they'd certainly advise fish and poultry rather than red meat), and they'd go easy on the fat- and cholesterol-laden milk, cheese, and eggs he recommended."  Coelacan 16:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sexual motives" and Sylvester Graham's non-vegan diet 

message: just thought i point this out again, the definition comes three times in different paragraphes and it gives the impression of brainwashing. i don't wanna mess with this since there so many devoted vegans here but i think the article would benefit from deleting two. trueblood 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some pruning is in order. The "origin of the name" bit could go into the "definition" section, and even then the content in the definition section would be appropriate for the first paragraph, with some trimming all around. The article would go from introductory first paragraph straight into the "ethics" section, and get to the point rather than mire in the details. I'm reminded of this article... Anyway, thanks trueblood, good suggestion. -- Coelacan | talk 22:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  three times definition  

message: The "Environmental Vegetarianism" article that is linked to in this section is well flushed-out, but the relationship to veganism is not made.  I plan to re-write it to frame the linked article and tie it into veganism.  I'm posting this first since this is a controversial topic and I haven't been part of the discussion up to this point.  Any comments before I get underway? --TimTL 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section needs work (as does that following section, "Feminism"). I say go ahead and expound upon what you can. Whatever controversy you might inadvertently introduce will be ironed out, err pounded out here on the talk page, you can be sure.   -- Coelacan | talk 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-wrote the section, and I hope it is more clear and factual now.  My main concern is that the environmental vegetarianism article is parellel enough that it isn't worth re-writing it for veganism, but I want to make sure people who want more information will follow the link to that article. --TimTL 21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a start. I do think that style and clarity would be aided by retaining the  tag right under the section header. -- Coelacan | talk 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this change, which puts the e.v. link closer to the beginning? --TimTL 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, either way is fine. It's just that the  template makes it very clear to the reader that there is another whole article that discusses this section's topic. It's also good wikistyle. See this guide -- Coelacan | talk 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I agree.  Thank you for posting the relevant guide section; I looked for it briefly when I took off the -main- template originally and failed to find it.  This general format should encourage interested readers to go to the e.v. page, which is a good one. --TimTL 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Motivation 

message: I changed the sub-headers under "Motivations" to all be nouns.  For example, the sub-header for the last topic was "Feminist motivations" and I changed it to "Feminism", which is less redundant and conforms to the other sub-headers.  --TimTL 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header Parellelism 

message: The beginning of the Criticism section was particularly disorganized with no introductory statement.  It launched right into some of the hard aspects of a vegan diet without context.  I added a difficulty section and organized the concerns into areas of life that are affected by the vegan diet.  I did some minor amount of text editting as well; I'm happy to discuss changes : ]  --TimTL 01:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entirety of the Criticism section is pretty much redundant and pieced together in a strange hodge-podge of low level writing. In fact, it probably deserves its own page given the verbosity. I believe it must be rewritten correctly for conciseness and readability. A lot of the information is cherry-picked and somewhat biased if one cares to further review the sources as well. Nidara 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty Subsection of Criticism 

message: Why has  been removed as linkspam?  It seems appropriate enough.  If I don't see a compelling argument to the contrary then I will add it back myself. -MichaelBluejay 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because User:Justbutler is "Dr Justine Butler: health campaigner of the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation and author of the White Lies report." . It is inappropriate to use wikipedia as a platform to promote your own organization. Also note that the link was not just added in isolation; twice it was added with huge accompanying text which was akin to spamming. Furthermore, WP:ISNOT a web directory; we have culled *lots* of other links, and this one is not notable. Kellen T 08:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is vegetarian.org.uk "linkspam"? 

message: regarding legality of 100m records, see Ben Johnson --frymaster 03:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific, what regarding the 100m record in the Ben Johnson article? - Solar 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  michaelbluejay rv'd the reference to carl lewis being the first man to legally break 9.9 fore the 100m. his edit comment was 'previous efforts to break the 100m were illegal?'. i rv'd that edit becaus, yes, ben johnson's break of the record was illegal and he was disqualified. the talk entry is to provide the link to the johnson article. anyway, 'legally' has been changed to 'officially'... which is a better word by far -- frymaster 15:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 100m

message: :Products of human origin that are obtained involuntarily -- such as infant human foreskin used for treating burns -- are not considered acceptable.
This is hardly a standard vegan position. I suggest removing it. Kellen T 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some vegan people might not object, but it's certainly not vegan to take/use any animal (including human) product without consent. --Joehaer 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that consent is given by the child's human guardians. I contend that this is completely semantic and that any vegan burn victim who rejects a treatment with (now useless) foreskins on grounds of non-consent is treading deeply into pseudo religious fundamentalism. Do we have any documentation of vegans rejecting foreskins? Is the foreskin removal industry kept afloat by burn victims? Are there other "human animal products" which I should be avoiding; are there human breast milk dairies for which no consent has been given by those who are milked?! Kellen T 23:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that consent is given by the child's human guardians.  The same is true of other animals.  Their human guardians give consent, and they are slaughtered.  I fail to understand why it is a problem for animals, but not for infants.  Are animals imbued with "rights" that infant humans don't have?70.115.211.122 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please. You can recognize the difference between consent given by a member of the same species who has deep pschological and emotional bonds to their newborn child and consent given by a "legal guardian" to kill an animal that they had raised explicitly for that purpose. Additionally, these foreskins would otherwise be a waste product; any vegan who accepted treatment with them would not somehow be causing more circumcisions to happen that would not have already occured. This is beside the fact that cirumcision is stupid, which it is. Kellen T 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  foreskins? 

message: This whole articles is rife with citations that either 1) only claim to support standard vegetarianism or 2) claim health benefits to certain practices that vegans have but are not exclusive to veganism. For example,  is not an argument for veganism itself. It's an argument against drinking dairy milk. Worse still, this citation is used against an omnivorous diet, which doesn't itself contain many dairy products in most of the world or require consumption of dairy products anywhere.
This is analogous to implying that because Kosher Jews can't eat bacon, that non-Kosher Jews must eat bacon and concluding that a Kosher diet must be healthier because it lacks bacon. That's clearly flawed logic.
I'm honestly tempted to gut half the cites from this article and throw up  templates. --Davidstrauss 11:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the article is an argument against drinking dairy milk, yes, and vegans do not drink dairy milk. This would be a reason why vegans might "suggest that their diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet." (emphasis mine) This is a perfectly acceptable citation. Secondly, you are correct that many sources do not specifically include veganism when they are talking about vegetarianism. In many cases, however, the same background and reasoning applies. If you are seriously concerned that the citations here are out of order, why don't you go through them, make up a list of the ones you think are questionable and we can talk about them here? I suspect that you are correct that there are a few shoddy ones. Kellen T 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "[vegan] diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients" doesn't mean notably healthy. Steak meets almost all nutritional requirements, but it's not "healthy." Meeting nutritional requirements is generally jargon for "meets minimum nutrition standards without regard to excesses." --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle". Kellen T 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You cannot claim something is better than something else without proving that the other thing is different on that aspect. An omnivorous diet does not say anything about dairy consumption other than not forbidding it. Hence, you cannot claim a vegan diet is healthier for banning something that most omnivores the world over don't even consume. It's like saying a diet that bans consumption of feces is healthier than a diet that allows it, regardless of the fact that pretty much no one eats feces, ban or not. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So are you claiming that the vast majority of 'omnivores' do not eat dairy products? What about the vast majority of 'omnivores' in the 'west'? Got any citations? In any case, again this is "vegans claim that this diet is healthier" based upon avoidance of these items. Kellen T 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Vegans seem to consider anything against their arguments "results of industry lobbyists." Where's the standard? Furthermore, vegan avoidance of hormones is dubious. Do they eat things fortified with vitamin D? Case closed. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may find it dubious, but the fact remains that certain vegans make these claims and that they need to be represented in the article. You don't have to be convinced of their argument, but it exists and we are here to document their reasons. Kellen T 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's obviously not primary source material as it merely quotes other sources (unless you consider the selection of quotes and disorders itself the "primary source"). It fails WP:RS because the quotes are taken out of context, put on a personal site, and poorly cited. If Xenu.net fails WP:RS (which it did), this does too. They are also copyright violations because they fail fair use criteria; they're not used to discuss the topic. They're merely paragraphs copied without permission. Cite the original sources if you must. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, (1) they're cited excerpts from longer articles, not the whole articles therefore not copyvios (2) any copyvio is notmilk.com's problem, not ours (3) point me to where xenu.net fails WP:RS as a primary critic of scientology rather than a source of scientology documents. Kellen T 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I must have missed the "Vegans suggest" part. This one is indeed okay.
*  Passes WP:RS but is clearly sensationalistic: "More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes."
* "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians": True, but this isn't a benefit of veganism, as the section claims. This section should be about why someone would be vegan as a choice beyond regular vegetarianism. Throwing vegetarian claims in this section is like citing the health benefits of lettuce when talking about hamburgers.
*: Eh, kind of. I'm ambivalent about this. An article on veganism necessarily must cover many of the things an article on vegetarianism does. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But then how does this section differ from one on common vegetarianism? It's also a real problem because plenty of people maintain that common vegetarianism is healthy, but veganism crosses the line. A better analogy would be using the merits of a V6 engine to argue for a V12. "Vegetarianism is good, so veganism must be better" just isn't supported here. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said above, vegans are usually included when people are discussiong vegetarianism in general. Veganism is rarely singled out for study. And again, we shouldn't expect people to go read the vegetarianism article, then come here and read the veganism article then compare and contrast. We necessarily cover some of the same material. Kellen T 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But it doesn't establish veganism as healthier in itself, certainly no more than common vegetarianism. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong. "That conclusion is being drawn by some scientists after reviewing results from the latest survey of diets, lifestyles and disease mortality among Chinese populations -- this one comparing current dietary habits in Taiwan and mainland China -- and measuring them against a time when fewer meat and dairy products were available in rural China." (emphasis mine). In any case, vegans have no obligation to establish that their diet is healthier than common vegetarianism. Kellen T 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's no more an argument for going vegan than dirty city water is an argument for dehydrating yourself. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter if you are convinved by arguments for going vegan. What matters is that people do go vegan for these reasons. Anyway, your analogy fails in that dehydrating yourself is detrimental to your health, but avoiding eating meat and dairy is not. Kellen T 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically, I think you're misreading that whole section. It seeks to establish motivations, related to perceived health benefits, for someone to become vegan. The linked articles do not need to specifically say "X means someone should be vegan." Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the sentence. Most of the citations are for assertions that vegans use to movivate themselves. Such statements must be well cited. There's a big difference between "Vegans believe that they improve their health by consuming milk produced by cows raised without hormones." and "Vegans believe that avoiding the hormones present in milk produced by hormone-treated cows improves their health." The latter sentence makes a factual assertion, that the hormones end up in the milk. That would have to be cited with a high standard of scientific reliability. The former sentence only needs a primary source document. --Davidstrauss 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe, someone should review the word "motive" in the dictionary. This should be quite a simple mute point. It would be nice to include more clinical study directly involving vegans. There are more and more coming out every year as the medical community sees this diet as a viable option. PubMed is a good place to start. However limited the study, the best frame of reference on the subject is generally under the vegetarian title. Suffice to say, vegans are vegetarians. Nidara 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful citations 

message: ok, many people eat exactly like a vegan but don't care at all about "philosophies", "ideologies", "spiritual enlightments", and that stuff and they usually do it for health reasons. what are those people called. "nothingarians"?, "would-be-vegans-but-we-don't-want-them-to-be-because-we-like-politics-ians"? or what --fs 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, veganism appears to be more of an ideology than merely a "healthy" choice. --Davidstrauss 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: These people are also vegans. As the intro states, people are vegan for many different reasons (sometimes overlapping reasons) including perceived health benefits. Kellen T 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems to me dietary vegans are discussed somewhat here. It is hard to say what percentage of vegans are so for what motivation. This is a study I would like to see someone do and back up claims on it on these pages. There is nothing in the article about the percentages because they don't exist. Nidara 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically charged article? 

message: A bit of googling reveals that not all self-called vegans agree whether veganism excludes honey since it may be theoretically consumed without harming insects or plants or because more insects may be harmed in the production of sugar and that may even make its avoidance  anti-vegan, and similar reasons. I think it deserves to be mentioned that it's not a clear area  even though it's probably excluded in a "primary" definition. --fs 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definatly agree. Honey eating and non honey eating vegans seem to fall in equal measure. I seem to recal that in one of the societies that honey eating was left as a personal choice. I've not heard the argument that avoiding honey is anti-vegan though. --Salix alba (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK Vegan Society used to leave 'the honey question' as 'personal choice', but have since changed their stance. personally I have issues with their current 'honey' leaflet as it doesn't differentiaite between commercial and small scale honey production... quercus robur 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honey 

message: I have recently completed (or started, depending on your point of view) a major research paper regarding veganism. This talk page is constantly changing, and very long, but if anyone is looking for citations regarding virtually anything in regards to veganism, let me know. I have hundreds of primary sources sitting in a file of photocopies next to me, most of the involving nutrition, but also about issues as diverse as cancer rates, biblical passages and the societal pressures of eating meat.
It has been difficult for me to tell which areas still need more citation, so if anyone is looking for a piece of academic work to support our cause, I probably have an example sitting next to me right now. Let me know. --Sometimes 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read some criticisms of the citations for nutrition/health claims here. So more thorough citations would be useful in quelling some objections. Kellen T 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed? 

message: I would dispute the removal of the link to Movement for Compassionate Living (though am not prepared to go to war over it... :)
MCL were formed by kathleen jannaway who was secretary of the UK Vegan Society, and an important pioneer of the British vegan movement from the 40s onwards. She founded MCL as a 'breakaway' from the Vegan Society in 1984 when the VS decided to become more 'mainstream', ie, much of the money that was held by the VS with the intention of eventually creating some kind of vegan based land project got ploughed into making the Vegan magazine more glossy and 'accessable' and various other marketing projects. Jannaway felt that this was not the direction she wanted the society to move in and consequently set up MCL, which promoted the 'ecological veganism' that the 'old' vegan society held up as an ideal. The publications of the MCL such as 'Abundant Living in the Coming Age of the Tree', which argues for the phasing out of animal farming in favour of tree crops that can meet all human needs are visionary and important though currently under-recognised contributions to the wider debates around not only veganism but ecological sustainablity. 
In terms of their ideas and what they add to the development of vegan thought and philosophy MCL have a long pedigree and are at least as important as some of the other oranisations linked to such as Vegan Outreach etc.
I strongly feel the link is appropriate in this article and should be re-instated, but will abide by consensus on the matter. quercus robur 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I am an American, so this influences my familiarity with non-US organizations. I'm currently in the UK and I don't think I've seen any of thier pamphlets, but you have provided good justification for keeping the link. Try to keep in mind that we should maintain a minimalist set of links (WP is not a web directory). One thing to consider is the visibility of the organizations to which we link; e.g. I see vegan outreach pamphlets everywhere, even in the UK. Kellen T 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kellen, MCL are not that visible, they are perhaps a little 'quietist' (must be that Quaker thang...) but none the less impotrtant for all that, they do usually have an understated presence (stalls, etc) at most UK vegan events. Personaly  I feel that in these brash, marketing oriented times they are the quintisential definition  of speaking truth to power...   quercus robur 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement for Compassionate Living link