Talk:Veganism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Skinwalkers edits

I providing a linkable reference for someone to post in the article and get rid of this moronic claim that vegans have higher anorexic rates. Actually, it should be removed immediatly. The article main article I believe you are refering to is [[1]]. Another you refer to is [[2]] which has no reference to anorexia and the only reference to vegan simply gives a definition to vegan. The third article you refer to is [[3]] which also as absolutely no reference to "vegans".

There is absolutly no reference in any of these studies backing up what 'Skinwalker's claim "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder."

For example, the first article referenced here states: A retrospective study was carried out of 116 consecutive patients with anorexia nervosa to ascertain the extent and nature of vegetarianism in this population. Sixty-three (54.3%) patients were found to be avoiding red meat. In only four (6.3%) of these did meat avoidance predate the onset of their anorexia nervosa. Of the remaining 59 patients (best termed pseudovegetarians), 25 (42.4%) patients continued to avoid red meat by the end of treatment. Pseudovegetarianism was associated with a longer duration of anorexia nervosa, a lower weight during the course of their illness, and living away from the parental home. The reintroduction of red meat into the diet was more likely if vegetarianism were of a short duration.

Pseudo, by the way, means fake. I want data on vegan rates of anorexia. If this is your source material in which you were so elusive (obviously it is since you use similar wording on "meat avoidance predate the onset of their anorexia nervosa"), it indicates a patent attempt to subvert, with false data and week reference, the integrity of the Vegan article on Wikipedia. I don't believe after this you should have much of a say anywhere on this page. Once again let my reiterate, you knowingly provided false data Skinwalker. What is your responce to being deceptive. Skinwalkers Pal - 29 November 2005

Skinwalkers's latest edit is a revert stating that there is "no consensus on the talk page for removing this material" However, Skinwalker never talks but rather just does revisions as he sees fit. Apparently he spends much of his time on this as well. HMMM. Idleguyspal. 01 December 2005

Hey "pal" do us a favour and stop misquoting people. I never said "no consensus on the talk page for removing this material" and your tone is particularly aggressive/abusive against me both here and in my talk pages. If this continues I'm afraid I'll have to seriously look at something to curb you. Tx Idleguy 05:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out how Idleguy has snitched to the admins to defend himself here ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty, look for " I need some help ". Now tell me if that is unbiased?

Well that got you talking finally. I wouldn't say any of my response to you abusive, aggressive maybe (it's the way of the world right?) but not constituting vandalism or sourcing on false information or putting forth POV. You have attemped to subvert the intrgrity of the vegan and environmental vegetariansim pages time and time again. I am serving a reality check to you here and you don't like it. You are an interesting guy Idleguy, the others who have tried to politically attack these pages are mainly religous fundamentalists from the U.S. (The G.W.B. variety) of a non-eastern background such as yours. I am glad you have finally initiated discussion. I hope to hear more of it. Sorry for hurting you feelings once again. Namas Te or Allāhu Akbar and Subhān Allāh Idleguyspal. 08:50 02 December 2005

Ethics NPOV

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)

• incosistensis is spelled inconsistancies, Hq3473. They should be pointed out, yet I would imagine most vegans don't become vegan because they are killing a larger number (larger number being the key, as most vegans are thoughtful and pragmatic) of organisms by practicing a vegan lifestyle. Could you site source material please? Vaggot 02:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • a site detailing death to animals due to use of chemicals in grain production, yet you do not see vegans giving up bread.--Hq3473 05:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Maybe vegans should give up eating anything, or just eat the human kill of the day.

Do you really care about the destruction of the small animals? Why should I care so much as you? Vagot 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • By the way, I only support organic farming, no f-ing chemicals. That is great that you do however. Good for you, in that Australian kinda way.

Vagot 06:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • even in organic farming insects are killed, for example Colorado potato beetle maybe handpicked from potato plants(often because they are immune to pesticides), maintaining the product "organic", and yet destroying hundreds of beetles. And anyway the point of my mod. was no to save small animals but to demonstrate an inconsistency in moral justification for veganism by pointing out that a lot of animals are harmed in production of “vegan” products.--Hq3473 13:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Looks fair enough.--Hq3473 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cannibalsim

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)

• Could we see some source material on this? Vaggot 02:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Sure, for example in a published article By Richard Routley which you can be found at [4] canibalism is mentioned as an alternative to pure vegetarian options in food consumption. --Hq3473 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, I don't attend the prestigious University of Queensland, but doesn't eating humans seem a little extreme even to you? How many vegans would eat other human beings? How many so called omnivores eat other human beings? I have never met anyone who aligned themselves in such a way. Interesting, but it is doubtful this holds much consideration for the vast majority of vegans. Show me some more exploration on the subject or perhaps a viable study on how many vegans are so because of such a consideration. Vaggot 03:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Vegans may not be cannibals for reasons other then them being vegans. The point I am trying to make is that there is nothing in ethical VEGANISM itself (Cannibalism may be forbidden by health Veganism) that would forbid eating human flesh for VEGAN reasons. Most vegans are not in fact cannibals for other reasons, mostly because a lot of societies frown upon cannibals in general, and sometimes make cannibalism illegal.--Hq3473 13:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

How about we forget this cannibalisim nonsense and try some HuFu. The vegan souce for mock HUMAN meat.

This is ridiculous, we must eat something so we eat things that cause the least amount of harm. Can we at least have conversations with an inkling of common sense.

Idleguy and Donald Watson RIP

I am sorry to raise these two issues in the same breath but, firstly, as it directly relates to this topic, I would like to point out that Donald Watson founder of the Vegan Society and inventor of the world sadly passed away aged 95 (1910-2005) on 16th November at his home in the north of England.

It death is a great loss to us all and but reaching such a fine age, he was a great example to the world if the realities of the vegan diet and lifestyle. Donald had been vegan for more than 60 years. Dates added to topic page.

---

Please excuse the headlining of this edit but as one individual Idleguy seems to be using threats of reporting and accusation of vandalism to subvert this topic with his own politics, I would like to raise this to the top.

There has been much discussion of the inclusion by Idleguy of a environemental critique of veganism using a case statistics that are actually about deforestation caused by an increase in soya bean production when that soya bean production is for the meat industry and an argument against rice production in face of meat production on the basis that certain forms of rice production use a lot of water, ignoring that meat production uses as much as 10 times more. The non sequitors in his arguments have been pointed out many times by more than one source on both this and his own talk pages but he continues to ignore them

Now, simply put, neither soya nor rice are synonymous with vegan.

• Some vegan eat neither.
• Certainly non-vegan eat more of them and drive consumption of both - so primarily in the case of soya does the meat industry. You cannot blame vegans for that.

If there are issues arising from their production then they belong on a relative webpage not a disassociated one.

As much as I welcome a proper scientific environmental critique of vegan diet, this is not it. Indeed, I think an environmental critique is going to be one of the weakest critiques of veganism possible.

The vegan topic has grown too long and under the guidelines needs to be shorter. It cannot grow to accomodate every claim and rebuttal. The intention of the Wiki is to define topics, offer links and source for further study. It ought not be a political soapbox or discussion forum, there are plenty of those elsewhere. This current edit - without the meat industry's soya beans argument- is just under the maximum.

I have worked hard to remove many duplications, correct punctuation and remove unnecessary flab to get it back within the limits. No essential information is lost. There may be the odd typo but I suggest we work with it as it is. In truth, it would make a better contribution if it were shorter again

Question ;

• Would it not be better to hive off say " Vegan nutrition " to its own relative topic?

" All and everything " topics can only expand so far.

Idleguy, by your own userpage you are not expert in this topic either by scientific education nor personal experience. Stop trying to use terminology such as " vandalism " and threats of reporting to support your POV. Open your mind to take on board what is being said to you.

Thanks for the rest of your support in making the Wiki a cleaner, tidier place and raising the standards of intellectual integrity.

195.82.106.64 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy has nothing better to do than to single handedly try and bring down anything vegan, in a so called neutral environment.

He believes that vegans motivations for being vegan are based on positions from the likes of Foundation for Animal Use Education, or the Cattlemans Association. It may be that these organizations believe it is ethical to kill animals for food, vegans don't. The motivation section needs to be, once again overhauled, and any critisism should be moved to the Idleguy's beloved critisism section.

Biased edits

The addition of "Criticism of environmental motivations of vegans" is a meat eater activist attack and has no place in this article. After all, is it a motivation for those who have adopted veganism based on the fact that rice is a water hog? If any vegans have become vegan because rice is innefficient I would like to see some source material or a study backing it. Bink 18:20, 8 Nov 2005

This is my initiation of discussion for my edit. Please respond.

Please respond in a super clear explanation of why it is that vegans become vegan because it is environmentally irresponsible. Do you have source material? Most vegans do believe it is environmentally responsible to conduct their diet in such a way. The general effects of certain farming practices is an interesting subject, but does not relate to motivation of most vegans, which is the section in question as far as neutrality. Bink 17 Nov 2005

Respond

I agree with you strongly. It is a very weakly composed paragraph of little direct relevence. A very weak attempt by meat eaters to try and diminsh the vegan environmental position. I mean, what the heck is water supposed to do in a paddy field but seep out [!?!] and dont indigenous agricultural system develop in harmony with local conditions, e.g. paddy fields where there is lots of available water. What is the amount of water required to produce one kilo of steak and don't those beef cattle need to be fed on agrarian products? They dont just grow out of the earth. Its a fumble of non sequitors.

I think we could be pretty brutual with some of the edits on this article and keep it down to a description of what vegan is and not a flame war to argue the toss over it. There are enough of them. Face it guys, you will lose on the environmental argument every round.anon 18:20, 19 Nov 2005

indigenous agricultural system develop in harmony with local conditions. Nearly all of which include the use of animals. - FrancisTyers 20:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"keep it down to a description of what vegan is" except that some things that vegans claim are disputed by non-vegans. Whether a vegan diet is healthier than a non-vegan diet appears to be disputed. Whether being vegan stops exploitation and cruelty to animals is disputed. Whether crops are more environmentally friendly than livestock is disputed. If something is disputed, then the article must present the different points of view. In the course of describing what a vegan is, if you can do it without introducing any disputed facts, then there is no need to provide the countering non-vegan point of view. But the only way to do that would be to delete a lot of what vegans view as important to why they are vegan, and the article would be worse off. Better to report the vegan point of view and include the non-vegan view for disputed pieces than to not report at all. FuelWagon 16:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. anon 07:08, 22 Nov 2005

Agree. - FrancisTyers 20:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no functional that mandates for every group of people making a claim, dispute of said claim need be included in an article. Especially not in the abundance that FuelWagon wants. This only clutters the article. Further, I am of the opinion that most of the dispute is not genuine, in that it originates from lobbyist groups. This does not mean to disgard said disputes offhand, but as far as I am aware the body of evidence about the health detriments of meat centric diets (that is the typical North American diet) is substantial. We would be remiss if we simply mentioned disputes of this without a similarily hefty body of scientific work. Shawn M. O'Hare 20:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem with meat-centric, but the idea that any diet that includes meat is automatically less healthy than a diet that excludes it is not true. The article should make it clear in the wording exactly what manner of "meat eating" diet is unhealthy and not just tar all meat-eaters with the same brush, so to speak. - FrancisTyers 20:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Vegans, by defintion, do have a problem with a "meat-centric diet, and yes, do believe it is unhealthy." Anti-FrancisTyers 20:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

personal attack by user FarkinVigger removed --Doc ^ask? 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I was simply illustrating a point here. It was not a personal attack in anyway, as I was responding to the latest edit on the article by 64.203.165.126 who stated on the opening paragraph "All vegans are f--gots." This is the personal attack you should be concerned with. This is the type of thing perpetuated by these edit wars that is getting out of hand. FarkinVigger 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed a paragraph from Criticism and controversy section. It is POV and not backed by any source material: "Criticisms have also focused on the prevalence of eating disorders within people espousing a vegan lifestyle. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation. Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder." FarkinVigger 15:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I modified and reinserted the paragraph on eating disorders, with both pro and con references from peer-reviewed nutritional and medical journals. Is the formatting of the references correct? It seems a bit kludgy for wikipedia's format, but as I found these in a Pubmed search I can't link directly to the abstracts. If anyone wants to check these sources they are welcome to do their own Pubmed search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

Cheers, Skinwalker 23:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to edit out "Vegan, the New Black" as one of the big drawbacks, even larger than having to pay close attention to labeling is in fact discrimination. It is in fact a display of discrimination that you would even attempt to discredit that it as POV. It is a very big drawback and one that discourages some from veganism. Thus, should be attractive to you.

Is the following paragraph not a major drawback to veganism and thus a good critisism? The first four paragraphs of the Crit section must be "POV" then. Many vegans don't find the fact that reading labels, contacting companies for information, and foregoing a number of things that may include cruelty to animals, is a big enough inconveinience as to decide not to be. Many vegans are willing to go the extra step and deal with it gracefully. This is not a major drawback for many vegans.

Also, many of those who practice veganism have felt discrimination from individuals, employers and media assaults. According to a British article: After 60 years of ridicule, Vegan is the New Black. In other words, in the face of massive dicrimination of vegans for the last 60 years, it is finally gaining popularity and better understanding than ever before. [[5]]

Skinwalker, do you spell vegetarian vegitarian?

Chow, Fleshstomper 24:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't catch that spelling mistake. Thanks for mentioning it. It's been corrected in the article.

As for the "massive discrimination of vegans" stuff, shouldn't it be "massive discrimination *against* vegans"? Seriously, though, it's really, really offensive to compare perceived discrimination against vegans against 400+ years of documented enslavement and prejudice against people of African descent. Vegans are not economically marginalized in society. They are not ghettoized and forced to live in segregated communities. Vegans predominantly come from white, middle-class backgrounds where they have received little if any experience with race-based discrimination. To compare discrimination against vegans to discrimination against black people trivializes their protracted struggle against real and systematized discrimination.

Finally, why do you assume I'm anti-vegan? Skinwalker 01:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't, yet you lend yourself to it so well since you can't even spell vegitarian. What are you mysterious one? It is an enigma that I am dying to know. but lets stay on point here. I want some source material.

Finally, why do you assume I'm not African American? Big up to Brooklyn, Fleshstomper 2:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Discrimination is discrimination, my friend, no matter how protracted it is. Perception is reality. I'm sure you'll be able to to pick up the obscure reference here. Your a smart and quick smartstomper. No.

WishinWhite 4:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The following paragraph is part of the critisism that a certain percentage of vegans/vegetarians have been associated with eating disorders. Obviously there is a lot a non-linkable reference here. Could we have a good bit of corroboration on this or perhaps even some new articles? I have read that eating disorder rates are comperable in vegan/vegetarian/omni. There has to b solid reference here.

"Criticisms have also focused on the prevalence of eating disorders within the vegan and vegetarian communities. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders often predate the adoption of a vegan/vegetarian diet (O'Connor et al., Medical Journal of Australia, 1987;147(11-12):540-2). Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder. Studies of college women show that a significantly higher proportion of women who do not consume animal protein than those who do are likely to display distorted eating attitudes and beliefs (Klopp et al., Journal of the Am. Dietitic Assoc., 2003;103(6):745-7). Also, self-reported teenage vegans and vegetarians are more likely to be dissatisfied with their bodies and to be involved in both healthy and unhealthy weight control practices (Perry et al., Journal of Adolescent Health, 2001;29(6):406-16)." ::Chow, Fleshstomper 1:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why articles from peer-reviewed nutritional and medical journals are not "solid references". I admit that they're not linked at the moment, but anyone can do a PubMed search (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed) and read the article abstracts. I will try and fix the linking problems soon, but I don't see what the problem with this paragraph is, unless you are trying to suppress its content. I clearly stated that eating disorders "predate the adoption of vegan/vegetarian diets" and made it NPOV, without adding original research. Skinwalker 01:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am surely not trying to suppress content as to your assertation. I simply would like to see data backing it, that' all Skinnywalger. That is wonderful that you will link all of your sources in some way. Can't wait to see it. by the way, do you make the assumption that vegans have higher eating disorder rates?

Let's go ahead and reference studies on this website [[6]] that conclude vegans have a higher incedence of anorexia anorexia nervosa Fleshstomper 1:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am reviewing informaton from great veggie resource subsequently Everyone should take a look at this, thanks to Skinwalker. Let's see if we can finally link veganism to anorexia...nope no data. Are you sure it's there Skinwalker, as there is a lot of vegan/vegetarians in many studies, but not all, that conclude much of the world vegan/vegetarian population doesn't heed enough attention on B12. Some populations do however. HMMM. I would like to see some concrete data on vegan rates of anorexia nervosa. Simple enough. Find it!!!

Yeah, Fleshstomper 2:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, since I am black and a vegan, I have faced a level of discrimination I thought was non-existant in the U.S. today. I don't think it is overly offensive that I am discriminated by many caucasions as well as African Americans, as this is the path I've chosen. It is not a far stretch when we discuss any issue of discrimination in any level (it is alive and well), as well it is fact that there are numerous reports of vegan descrimination despite socio-economic statis or otherwise. I would hope that you would at least understand we are not "black people" but more appropriatly of African American desent. FIY I am still not finding any concrete "peer reviewed data." I must be a stupid Vigger :::Yeah, Fleshstomper 2:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You negative and taunting attidute is not helping you, and neither is your sockpuppetry (multiple IPs and signing comments with several nonexistent user names). I gave references that anyone can look up either in the cited journals or by *properly* using pubmed. Do you know how to look up scientific paper abstracts? Did you RTFM on article searching on pubmed? If you can rationally build a consensus on this talk page for removing my edits, go ahead. If that happens, fine, I won't complain. Otherwise, I consider this exchange pointless. I get the distinct feeling that I have unwittingly fed a troll. Skinwalker 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Me "attidute" as you say may not be helping me. My appologies Skinwalker. Your reference to troll is ironic and rather humorous in the context here. By the way, I didn't need to "read the f-ing manual" on article searching on pubmed, thanks a lot. Maybe you need to RTFM on linking because I have your link right here. But, let's stop patronizing each other and get to the bottom of this. By the way I will not make another change on the article itself until I establish a static IP on my router and create a login. I will however give a linkable reference for someone to post in the article and get rid of this moronic claim that vegans have higher anorexic rates. Actually, it should be removed immediatly. The article main article I believe you are refering to is [[7]]. Another you refer to is [[8]] which has no reference to anorexia and the only reference to vegan simply gives a definition to vegan. The third article you refer to is [[9]] which also as absolutely no reference to "vegans".

There is absolutly no reference in any of these studies backing up what your claim "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder."

For example, the first article referenced here states: A retrospective study was carried out of 116 consecutive patients with anorexia nervosa to ascertain the extent and nature of vegetarianism in this population. Sixty-three (54.3%) patients were found to be avoiding red meat. In only four (6.3%) of these did meat avoidance predate the onset of their anorexia nervosa. Of the remaining 59 patients (best termed pseudovegetarians), 25 (42.4%) patients continued to avoid red meat by the end of treatment. Pseudovegetarianism was associated with a longer duration of anorexia nervosa, a lower weight during the course of their illness, and living away from the parental home. The reintroduction of red meat into the diet was more likely if vegetarianism were of a short duration.

Pseudo by the way means fake. I want data on vegan rates of anorexia. If this is your source material in which you were so elusive (obviously it is since you use similar wording on "meat avoidance predate the onset of their anorexia nervosa"), it indicates a patent attempt to subvert, with false data and week reference, the integrity of the Vegan article on Wikipedia. I don't believe after this you should have much of a say anywhere on this page. Once again let my reiterate, you knowingly provided false data Skinwalker. What is your responce to being deceptive. Skinwalkers Pal - 29 November 2005

Bias

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)

I second that, this whole veganism page seems more of an advertism for veganism then a neutral article.

RESPONSE: Go take a health class at your community college. The human body has *adapted* to meat-eating, but we're not built for it (our intestines are too long, our saliva is acidic, etc), and therefore obtaining nutrients from vegan food is preferable to obaning the same nutrients in the same qualities from meat, not only due to the cholesterol and natural hormones present in meat, but also due to the added chemicals and growth hormones.

The human body has *adapted* to meat-eating

http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

Indeed, thousands of years of adapting (evolution perhaps?). Humans have always been omnivores, hunters scavengers if you will. Given that Chimpanzees are omnivorous, you would have a pretty good case for at elast 4 million. Is Gorilla hunting documented? I've heard rumours but never seen anything conclusive. If you could find that, you could easily double your timescale. (16/05/2005)

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo, only common chimps are really omnivorous, whereas pygmy chimpanzees or bonobos are primarily herbivorous. Given the minor anatomical and genetic differences between the two chimp species, and yet the relatively large difference in diets I'm not sure it makes any sense to use chimps as evidence that humans(with our more pronounced differences from chimps) were omnivorous throughout prehistory.

Might I even be so bold to say that veganism is unnatural?? Why you ask??? Ok......I'll give you a hint and another www.mercola.com/2005/apr/16/sunlight_vegans.htm HINT!]

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)

While not necessarily negating that theory, it has also been suggested that consuming vegetables with small amounts of dirt on them (which is how they most likely would have been consumed during most of human history) could provide enough b12 for a healthy human diet. It may also be that washing vegatables is "unnatural".

Go take a health class at Harvard

Strange, I think you made an enormous typo, don't you mean PETA College?

Check out an article on the natural human diet http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

Consumption of meat has been linked to heart disease, obesity, and some forms of cancer. The most effective treatment for a person with heart disease is a switch to a low-sodium, low-fat, vegan diet. Most reputable nutritionist' advocate a vegetarian diet, check the Physician's Committee for Responible Medicine (PCRM) if you dispute any of these comments.--Baumstev 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Physician's Committee for Responible Medicine is group that has been widely criticized for being associated with PETA. It is not a good source for use in an unbias article. Stop using goveg.com as a source for information either as it is obviously a pro-vegan website. Most scientists agree man is omnivorous. Man can not digest cellulose, a prime component in plants. (I never eat plants, especially grass with all that nasty cellulose, they're yucky) Just look at this and tell me man is a herbivore. [10] To say that man is a herbivore is nothing but propaganda created by vegetarians to convert man into a vegetarian creature. Evidence shows that people were hunter-gathers before the advent of agriculture. The head of the PCRM is not a nutritionist, he is a psychiatrist. He has written on nutrition but is really not a nutritionist. He don't know shit.

? ?, ?, 2005 (UTC)

Goveg.com is not used enough as direct a source in the article, it should however. The Natural Human Diet article on goveg.com, by the way, has pleanty of source material backing it, as does the rest of the site. Just because you don't agree with PETA's marketing aproach doesn't make it a non-realiable source. There are pleanty of well educated and successful vegans (not associated with PETA) in the world, including scientists, docters, nutritionists, athletes, etc.

AntiIdleguy 15:18, 28 November, 2005 (UTC)

Similar diets and lifestyles

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)

To say that all anarcho-punks are vegan/vegetarian is a gross exaggeration. - FrancisTyers 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Definitions

Hey, TonyClarke, not trying to pick on you, but I noticed you changed seafood to sea animals. However, seafood != sea food. I mean, by definition (see Merriam-Webster for example) seafood is "edible marine fish and shellfish." I think this is people's understanding of the word as well and is more common than "sea animals" so it seems using this definition should be allowed. Doesn't need to be a big fight I wouldn't think. If no one changes it back I probably will, but I'll leave it for comments before I do it. Dictionary definitions should be allowed in most cases, I would guess. Superclear 22:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Though it may be more common, it is not neccessarily accurate, and it's definitely not neutral. It assumes that because it is possible to eat the animal, the animal must be considered food. I could eat a human, a lion, a wolf, an elephant if I wanted. However, I wouldn't call you daughter "LandFood."

"Sea Food" makes implications about the animals that are definitely POV. I could write a dictionary if I wanted, and fill it with "facts" that Nazi researchers "discovered," heavily influenced by their ideology. However, it wouldn't be NPOV, and this encycolpedia is for NPOV information. Canaen 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend, but seafood (one word) is a definition. You may not like the definition, but it exists independently of your politics. I agree not every word is defined so that its meaning is exactly how it sounds, but to keep NPOV we should try to use standards when possible. I also would agree that if vegans commonly began using the term seafood to include sea plants, it would be legitimate to point that out in the article. That seems to not be the case as of now, but in the future who knows? No definition is sacred, but it must be a verifiable use. Superclear 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why not edit it to " edible marine fish and shellfish " which is non-contentious and more specifically accurate? Sea animals does seem to be just as uncomfortable as seafood. This raises interesting cultural and linguistic issues as seaweed or sea vegetables seem to have been only recently removed from out of the definition seafood but yet traditionally they would certainly have been included as seafood and still are in cultures bound to the sea and more natural environments. The definition of " edible marine fish and shellfish " is the weaker and more recent, and dare I say, a " meatocentric " one.

Sure, I don't see a problem with using the definition. We should just be careful letting emotions get carried away when some of these things are involved. Suppose the word "whitefood" had come to mean and be defined in all dictionaries as "potatoes." It wouldn't be saying all white food is potatoes, just that a word - whitefood - somewhere, independent of how it was originally formed, has a well defined meaning. This brings to mind a recent discussion I've had where some with a creationist who objected to the word evolution as defined in the dictionary; I didn't make up the definition! I would hope that, in general, legitimately verifiable definitions and styles would be left to the original editor. However, if it is really important to vegans to not use the word seafood, I think that it doesn't hurt anyone to use the definition it has been changed to. Superclear 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I noticed someone changed all the headings from being capitalized, as is the norm in most style manuals, to only lead word caps. It is completely fine to lower case the later, non-leading words, but it is an unnecessary change ... I wouldn't even consider changing it back. I'm far from an editing pro ;-) From the Chicago Manual of Style (14th edition): "In regular title capitalization, also known as headline style, the first and last words and all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinating conjunctions (if, because, as, that, etc.) are capitalized. Articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title..." I have heard some people advocate the style that they were changed to, also, though the counter arguement in style manuels is usually that headings are not sentences (no punctation) and are rather, titles. Please forgive a totally uninteresting comment. Superclear 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings): Capitalise the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations". This has been discussed several times before on the Manual of Style talk page. Vclaw 17:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Then, whoever changed it did the right thing. Thanks for the heads up on wikipedia rules! Superclear 18:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Though this seems rather irrelevant as the term "Seafood" is no longer in use in the article, "standard" definitions aren't always NPOV. "Nigger" was a "standard" word used in the U.S. in say, the 1920s, but it sure as hell wasn't neutral. Wikipedia should strive for neutrality over Standardization. Canaen 03:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hooray for 30k

The heroic anon works his wonder to pull this article within the Wiki 30k limit according to the guidelines!

I have put in a lot of work to remove the numerous repetitions, punctuation errors and unnecessary conditionals. Note that in general there is no need for a comma before an and.

Now, there are a few of you both pro-vegan but mostly anti-vegan that are not going to like this but it makes for a better Wiki. It is a good time for less equally more. And, yes, those daft environmental criticisms and Beef Association references got the chop.

Now look, this is meant to be merely an encyclopedia. Not a discussion forum. Not a flame war nor a place to make personal or collective insults and not a personal website.

If you want to discuss the matter further or grind your own personal axe, go start your own webpage and if the sources are good enough we will link to it from here. There is not the room for all and everything.

In the meanwhile, enjoy your veggie-burgers.

anon 06:59, 22 November 2005 (GMT)

I'd appreciate if you stop the vandalism. Trying to pass it as pruning the article to fit the 30K mark isn't fooling anyone. I've responded clearly in a previous heading above. I think you should read it before you engage in needless edit wars. Tx Idleguy 13:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sumbission is removed again.

I perfectly welcome an educated environmental critic of vegetarian and vegan diets but, for the reasons given to you by many contributors, your is not complete as yet. Using soya beans destined for livestock feed is not a good example against the vegetarian diet and neither soya beans nor even rice are synonymous with vegetarian and veganism. Nor is the discussion of the merits of agricultural techiniques.

As a self-professed gun loving warrior, I think it is clear where you are coming from and what you are doing here is trying to debase a subject matter you find personally challenging. But to be honest, you are not even doing that well.

Please stop. This one is for the Brahmins not the Kshatriya!

If you think you can come up with an educated argument, develop it elsewhere and then have it peer reviewed.

anon 14:34, 22 November 2005 (GMT)

If this is an encyclopedia, then removing the critisisms is clearly not NPOV.The Scurvy Eye 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

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)

Cite for contested statistic

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)

While the number is fairly uncertain due to the ambiguous nature of the statement, the general principle of an approximately 10x inefficiency is extremely commonly accepted... Hmm. --Joehaer 03:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Consumer Veganism

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)

archiving needed

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wool and Idleguy.

Yesterday I fixed part of the article listing Wool as a by-product of slaughtered animals. Then, Idleguy reverted to his misinformation. Wool is not a byproduct of anything. Wool production is an industry in its own right, and sheep are raised specifically for wool production. When sheep become too old to produce wool, they are sent to slaughter. Wool is not taken from slaughtered sheep. Yes, this is out of place. However, I cannot just post this on Idleguy's talk page, as it would go unnoticed, and he would be free to ignore it. We cannot confine things like these to User talk pages; it just doesn't work. Issues like this must be brought to the attention of the community. Idleguy appears to have nothing to contribute to this article. All he has done is make trouble with his bias ideas. There has been far too much controversy over his actions, and I suggest something be done to prevent him from continuing this. However, I am not experienced enough in dealing with these issues within the Wikipedia, and thus suggest that someone who has dealt with similar matters on the Wikipedia take further action, after an attempt to reach some sort of consensus. Canaen 02:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean this revert then I suggest a thorough reading for you'll find that I actually reverted to a more neutral version that included wool unlike your edit. Infact Angr did us a favour and removed wool for it was self contradicting. And rightly so. So it begs the question: What are you really against? The truth or an editor who won't compromise on facts? Idleguy 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, you reverted to a version that referred to wool as a by-product of a slaughtered animal, which it isn't. It's neither a by-product nor taken from slaughtered animals. The self-contradictory sentence I fixed was "Ideals commonly held by vegans... include sustainable agricultural systems that exclude, or make use of animal by-products such as blood...". Exclude or make use of is self-contradictory. --Angr (t·c) 13:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "compromise on facts" is an oxymoron. I'm not sure if you're trying to say anything, or just make me read incomprehensible blather. If you mean referring to what Vegans view as torture as "caring for" when you use the word "neutral," I suggest you go to http://dictionary.reference.com and look up the word. The Meat and Dairy industries are in place to produce products, and nothing else. That is what, at their simplest levels, industries do.

The sentence "although a conscientious non-vegan can sometimes find uses for most animal by-products." has no relevance whatsoever in the economies we're dealing with in these articles. When you go to the store, there's no bin marked "extras," there's packaged meat, Jello, and Dog Food. ::The consientious consumer has no control over what get wasted; that's in the hands of the industry. That sentence isn't staying until you prove it.

Write more clearly, and stop irrelevent, false information. I'm Against many things. This is not the proper discussion forum for them. Canaen 03:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately many editors like you are Eurocentric with a systemic bias which reflects in your editing. I decided to substitute produce with "cared for" (admittedly not entirely neutral) since cattle in many parts of the world is not necessarily raised for eating and your underlying assumptions that they are always "produced" for meat is false. A better word would be "reared" since that would cover livestock produced for meat and also for other purposes like ploughing, transport etc. Idleguy 07:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, no, they are not always produced for meat. That's not anything I've assumed. However, the purpose of Humans keeping domesticated animals is to recieve some benefit from it. You can't argue that point. Not many (although, yes, I bet some) people keep domesticated Cows for companionship. The human has to gain something if they're going to use the resources needed to raise a cow. The entire concept of Veganism, as it applies to our Enlgish-Speaking readers, is a very Western-centric idea in the first place. No, Factory Farming isn't very common among Australian Aboriginees. However, that has no relevance at all when we're talking about the Factory Farming that does exist very obviously in Industrial and Service economies. Just as you've pointed out that conditions in the U.S. aren't the same in rural India, the reverse is true.

This part of the article has nothing to do with people who keep cattle for work purposes. It's about energy in terms of food. The point is that you waste a hell of a lot of energy when you raise cattle for food, especially when compared to raising plants for food.

I'm still not sure if you're simply ignorant and confused, or if you are consicously trying to muddle the article.

I will agree that "Rearing," or "Raising" is a better term to be used when it should cover the livestock that you mention, however this is not a case for that. Never, ever, are domesticated animals truly "cared for," and I will make it known in this article.

Maybe in your country you don't have a choice, but if so that should be made clear. Some of us in the world do have a choice. Should we rename this article "Veganism of people in the developed world who only have access to factory farmed food"? Furthermore, you presume that all meat must come pre-packaged, if you had ever kept animals you would know this is untrue. - FrancisTyers 13:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In Industrial and Service economies (the U.S.A., Canada, developed Mexico, Europe, Australia, South Africa, non-rural China, Japan; this area is growing larger and larger as the world "develops," making less and less room for traditional agriculture), Factory Farming is the most prevalent way of producing animal products. In this English Wikipedia, directed to the English-Speaking World (U.S.A., Canada, Britain, Australia, South Africa, everywhere else in the commonwealth, many other places, most of which are either Industrial or Service economies), we should be focusing on Veganism in these places. Perhaps a seperate section should be devoted to Veganism in non-developed sections of the world, and Veganism in History should've been one by now. Hopefully this will settle it, and stop people from trying to confuse readers. I do not presume what you say; I simply was leaving out completely irrelevant information. I will make everything a lot clearer soon enough. Canaen 03:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be predicting the future. I don't see why systematic bias should be applied in favour of the "developed" world (last time I checked a majority of the worlds population were in the developing world) and leave out information about other countries/cultures. This is an encyclopædia not a guide to the First world. It should be also noted that in case you weren't aware, English is an official language of India. - FrancisTyers 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Less prediction, more reasonable interpretation of circumstances. You raise quite a good point, and I thought about that after posting the above comments. However, the Veganism Movement, so-called (see below) exists almost entirely in the "first world," and so I think that some sort of distinction should be made (again, see below). I want information on Veganism worldwide to be in the article, don't get me wrong. However, people placing things sich as "However, in rural areas of West Papua, this doesn't happen" right after a description of the conditions of Hens in battery cages seems absolutely absurd to me.Canaen 08:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? - FrancisTyers 11:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Eco-footprint counters

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)

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)

Eating Disorder Section

I reverted anon's reworking of the eating disorder section, as I felt that his version was needlessly POV and gave a distorted view of the science on vegan/vegetarianism and eating disorders. Does anyone (other than anon) have strong feelings one way or another about the version I reverted to? Thanks, Skinwalker 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This info probably needs to be put on the Vegetarianism page, with a note on this page that the same problems apply. I don't see anything in any of the sources that mentions "veganism" explicitly. Agree with reverting the bit about "maternal..."

Because of the limited sample size, it was not possible to assess dietary patterns of vegans—individuals who reported no animal products in their recalls.

That should be re-added if the study is being quoted from. Although you don't seem to quote from it. My biggest problem with this is that the sources all seem to point to "vegetarianism". Presumably any kind of non-standard "wierd" diet would be a good excuse for anorexia?

All of that was pretty neither-here-nor there. So, If the source doesn't explicitly mention veganism, it shouldn't be used on this page. By all means add it to the Vegetarianism page and make a reference to it. Anons edits were POV and irrelevant, but then so were yours :) - FrancisTyers 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only does it not refer to "veganism", it only refers to pseudovegetarians and self-described vegetarians. The source here even states: "The reliance of dietary surveys on self-reported dietary information presents a major limitation of this study and an opportunity for bias in the results." Idleguyspal 4 December 2005 (UTC)

(following discussion has been moved from Skinwalker edits)

Skinwalker re-inserted false reference to his claims: "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder."

I rewrote it but it, Skinwalker then reverted it to his POV and he continues to misquote the evidence suggested in his source material. This is serious and others need to take a close look at this. Here is my rewrite of the paragraph which he claims POV:

There has been noted concern in studies on eating disorders within the self-described vegetarian communities. However, the only direct reference to veganism in the following sources states "Because of the limited sample size, it was not possible to assess dietary patterns of vegans." Another states "The reliance of dietary surveys on self-reported dietary information presents a major limitation of this study and an opportunity for bias in the results. [11]Although there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders often predate the adoption of a psuedovegetarian diet. Pseudovegetarianism was associated with a longer duration of anorexia nervosa, a lower weight during the course of their illness, and living away from the parental home. [12]. A study self-reported vegetarian college women may be more likely to display disordered eating attitudes and behaviors than nonvegetarians.[13].

This rewrite quotes perfectly, and is NPOV, the information contained the source material. True, written this way it invalidates his claim, but it also is 100 percent accurate to the source material. Idleguyspal. 4 December 2005

Your wording is better I agree, but could you define "Pseudovegetarianism"? You say pretty much what Skinwalker says but substituting "pseudovegetarian" for "veganism", which is fair enough considering his quoted source doesn't use it. - FrancisTyers 20:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

His sources refer specifically to self-described vegetarians and psuedovegetarians. Another word for this is pesco-vegetarian or even flexitarian, although this wording is not used in these studies. Vegetarian gives a better breakdown on vegetarian subcatagories. Just read the source material to see what I am talking about here. You will find two direct references to vegan. The only study that refers directly to "vegans" gives a defintion of veganism and later states that data was insufficient to assertain dietery habits of vegans. This is a simple matter of verification of source material. Idleguyspal 21:15, 4 December

Aren't all vegetarians "self-described vegetarians"? ;) Regardless this is not for the Veganism article if its talking about Vegetarianism. - FrancisTyers 21:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There are pretty specific definitions of vegetarian and it's subcatorgories. Reference to the exact catagory only lends credibility to the subject matter and secures it as undeniable NPOV. Idleguyspal 21:29, 4 December

I don't see anything on the Vegetarianism article about Pseudovegetarianism. It refers to Semi-vegetarianism, but then on the Semi-vegetarianism page there is also no reference to pseudovegetarianism. Does the article being quoted from define the term? - FrancisTyers 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Psudovegetarian is the term given by one of the studies sited here.[14] Maybe it should be added to the vegetarian page as a proper term since there is a valid source here. This source seems to indicate pseudovegetarians are avoiders of only red meat. Please review the source material here otherwise we could talk in circles for days. The definition of pseudo is: 1. False; deceptive; sham: pseudoscience. or 2. Apparently similar: pseudocoel. By this definition pseudovegetarian is either false vegetarian or possible vegetarian. I found only one other refence on a websearch so it looks as if it is not a usable term unless we reference and give credibility to newly defined word. It might be a listed as a word in a technical dictionary of some kind or another. Study is needed here obviously. Idleguyspal 21:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that search too and only came up with a couple of hits. If it was used, it would need to be qualified as a neologism and we'd have to find a concrete definition. I agree with your suggestion that in this article it seems to mean "avoiders of red meat", although it could mean either of the two definitions you've given. - FrancisTyers 22:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We could reasonably extrapolate that pseudovegetarianism is a subcatagory of semi-vegetarian. There is a page that does exist on [semi-vegetarianism] and this source material seems perfect in that context, not vegan however. I don't see any misquoted reference on many other pages. Defining morality is a very charged issue and seems to breed a certain amount of ulterior political motive in the edit war of these and similar pages, don't you agree? This is most certainly been used on both sides here. Therefore to maintain NPOV on this page sources need, at very least, to be referenced correctly. Idleguyspal 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a moral argument although I agree that sources should be referenced correctly. I don't think yo u can define someone as being moral by their choice of diet. In regard to the environmental questions, as far as I'm concerned the people who cut all non-human animals out of their diet have no higher ground than those who choose to eat non-human animals. It is possible to be both an environmentally (un)friendly vegan, and an environmentally (un)friendly meat-eater. There is no dichotomy between vegans (who are environmentally friendly) and meat-eaters (who aren't). :) - FrancisTyers 22:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree on all points here. I believe this section on "anorixia in vegans" should be removed (or perhaps moved to semi-vegetarian or vegetarain, although these studies give little to no reference to vegetarian as well as vegan) or rewritten to correctly reference it, don't you agree? I think the rest of this discussion could be in Eating Disorder Section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Veganism#Eating_Disorder_Section. Idleguyspal 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. - FrancisTyers 23:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to paraphrase our discussion here on the Eating Disorder Section and specifically agree on a consensus. Idleguyspal 23:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Environment Section

Environmental section revisited

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)

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)

The other option would be to add a {{globalize}} tag until more information is found from non-US sources, see my comment above. - FrancisTyers 00:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Environment Section factually incorrect???

The environment section is plainly being dominated by an anti vegan propagandist called "idleguy" who lists "guns" as one of his favourite things. The poor grasp of facts displayed in this section is breathtaking.

I added more data to the section, and our anti vegan gun lover simply changed it back. I have written him a letter challenging him to put up a factual basis for his arguments and as yet have recieved no response. Here is a selection from it :

"Your comment that the production soybeans is encouraging the destruction of the Amazon is correct. Everything you state from that point, that vegans eat lots of soybeans so meat eaters are more environmentally sound, is demonstrably false. A 2003 World Bank Study found in Brazil's Amazon "recent deforestation in significant parts of the region is basically caused by medium- and large-scale cattle ranching". The WWF who you quote as your source, in their Impacts of Soybean report plainly state "The market for soybean products is mostly driven by the livestock feed industry". So do you deny the evidence of the WWF when you mistakenly think it supports your case, but ignore it when it is shown to actually be directly against what you would like to believe? As for your using Greenpeace to give creedence to your argument, I have been a member and volunteer with Greenpeace for years, so if you would like the official position on this matter, which I am sure you don't because it won't agree with what you are saying, I will be happy to provide it.

The assertion in the criticisms section which you removed my reply to, that rice is the leading cause of methane output, also goes against the EPA figures. These figures show that7 rice produces 2 to 3 times less methane worlwide than animal products. If you actually read the report that you quote as backing up your assertions, you would find that the very first table used in the report Table 1 lists Enteric Fermentation (mostly cattle) and animal waste as combined producing well over twice as much methane as rice production. Even this table is old, if you read the IPCC report it states "For instance, intensive studies on emissions from rice agriculture have substantially improved these emissions estimates (Ding and Wang, 1996; Wang and Shangguan, 1996). Further, integration of emissions over a whole growth period (rather than looking at the emissions on individual days with different ambient temperatures) has lowered the estimates of CH4 emissions from rice agriculture from about 80 Tg/yr to about 40 Tg/yr (Neue and Sass, 1998; Sass et al., 1999).".

As for your assertion that rice is damaging because it uses 5,000 litres of water per kilo of grain, government studies in Australia show that a kilo of beef uses between 50,000 to 100,000 litres. Even the article you cite as evidence is talking about the increased use of more efficient methods of rice production which halve the water consumption you selectively quote from the article."

Personally I don't even understand why most of this sort of anti vegan garbage isn't in a "flesh eaters" section. If you want to make an argument about how great murdering defenseless animals and keeping them in factory farms is, create a section and contribute to it. Create your own anti-veganism page, just don't screw up what should be an informative page for everyone else.

People eat meat out of habit and greed, for no higher reason than that they like it. Any pretenses they have that this is some thought out rational, ethical position, come to after considering all the facts, is complete intellectual dishonesty.

Cameron Green

Cameron, proselytizing about veganism and demonizing meat-eaters isn't going to help your case, and that's not what this page is for. This page is to discuss the article, not to debate the merits of veganism. If you believe that the article contains demonstrably incorrect figures or statements then feel free to edit accordingly, including sources for any material you substitute. Michaelbluejay 04:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

However, his first and primary point is valid; I don't see any criticism from French Corsairs on the Royal Navy's page, and I believe that Catholics and Lutherans both have their own articles devoted to thier religions. If someone earnestly wants to create a non-bias, factual article filled with whatever benefits to eating meat that they can find, then they have a right to it. However, an article on Veganism is not the place to say "OMG! VEGANS SUCK SO HARD! I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY'RE SO STUPID!" As noted above, personal blogs exist for a reason. Canaen 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just checked the pro-life article and it includes rebuttals from the pro-choice side of things when certain ethical imlpications are made by the pro-life view. A simple example is that the pro-life article contains the following sentence.

Proponents for the usage of "anti-abortion" cite that "pro-life" is a loaded term implying the negative opposite "pro-death" or "anti-life" instead of "pro-choice."

I think this shows that the pro-life article or the "Catholic" article or Royal Navy article does not get carte blanche to advocate for their cause if advocating for their cause results in implications of wrongdoing or unethical behaviour on their opponents. That the term "pro-life" impies that to support abortion means you are "pro-death", requires some rebuttal from the "pro-choice" point of view. This is exactly what I'm seeing in the veganism article. There are bits and pieces of text in the article that implie unethical behaviour on the part of people who are not vegans, that they support "cruelty to animals" and "exploitation of animals", and that is sufficiently biased to require that the opposite poitn of view at least get mentioned in order to present their side fo the story. FuelWagon 15:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To Mr Green: I'm sorry I couldn't respond immediately as my PC was down during this time.

Let me start by saying that the current veganism article talks primarily about animal meat processed only in the developed world. Your talk about Australian beef also is the same path. Here's some news. In many countries in the developing world like India (which has the world's highest cattle population) cows are not bred mainly for the meat but for their milk. Now each cow produces anywhere from 5 - 20 litres per day. multiply that by the number of productive years in a milch animal and you'll understand that it's not just about a kilo of meat as you project it but tonnes of milk produced in its lifetime. Talking about the farm animals, the bulls and buffaloes are put to multiple purposes in such agriculture oriented economies. They are used in ploughing the fields, transporting people and produce through bullock carts etc. So merely stating that they are raised only to produce meat is also nothing but selective presentation of the same data from a purely western view of the world. Infact the combined uses of the animals far outweigh the problems, contrary to your thinking. The western world my dear friend is NOT the whole world. India has the highest heads of cattle in the world and is the world`s leading producer of carabeef and you would be astounded at the waste that they thrive on. They eat everything from regular paddy and other plants unfit for human consumption to discarded vegetables, waste including sometimes paper. The article if anything currently assumes that animals throughout the world are fed produce exclusively grown for them. The manure is used as a natural fertilizer and so doesn`t produce soil contamination or food residue to the extent produced by chemical fertilizers. Sure, they (manure) do contribute to a miniscule amount of overall methane production, but not greater than the burning of fossil fuel.

Rice emissions have been studied by many including IRRI and has been acknowledged as the leading source of methane gas and one source has been provided within the wikipedia article itself. The reference which you claim to show that the reverse is true, is with all due respects leaving out the "wetland" part which has since been mainly converted to rice cultivation. [15] is yet another newer source that explains clearly what really is the leading contributor of rice emissions.

While it is true that cattle ranching is one of the leading culprits, to project it solely as the main reason is false. Subsistence farming, logging, largescale intensive farming and "development" are, combined take a larger toll according to almost all sources in the amazon alone. Now that you want to expand, here's news that'll shock you. In tropics, the major reason for deforestation is the farming of such pristine forests and not as otherwise projected. [16] will show that they are the primary reasons for deforestation. Thus if one takes the whole world the cause is clear: agriculture takes the first place followed by animals and then others. [17] is another one that gives a global perspective. In fact the article should reflect not just the amazon but also a global perspective exposing that farming is the main culprit worldwide and I'll make changes accordingly.

I believe WWF despite their good intentions still point to only one reason for soybean production. That they are used for cattle feed. A less biased sourced would tell you that soybean contents cannot be consumed entirely by ruminants or humans alone. Both contribute to its production and in sheer dollar terms, the human consumption of soybean is higher than that goes to animal feed. [18] shows the varied uses not mentioned by Greenpeace or WWF If you cannot stomach the fact that your tofu or soy sauce comes from a rainforest being destroyed, then no amount of data can convince you otherwise. Sorry. The fact that I love guns does not inherently label me as a propagandist. I'm just here to correct facts .

Your line "People eat meat out of habit and greed, for no higher reason than that they like it" is a sweeping statement that intends to pass value judgements on entire populations few of whom you have had real contact with. A trip to Africa and Asia should clear many of those misconceived notions of how the world works.

Cheers Idleguy 18:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your line "A trip to Africa and Asia should clear many of those misconceived notions of how the world works" is a sweeping statement that intends to pass value judgements on entire populations few of whom you have had real contact with. More than likely, Many vegans have gone to Africa and Asia and many other third world countries. Do you see how childish this is Idleguy? Don't you have anything better to do?

Cheers Anti-Idleguy 26 November 2005

There is plenty of source material out there on the subject of the environmental degradation due to inefficient agricultural practices. In fact, livestock takes a lions share of it (directly or indirectly). I would like to compile a list of reputable sources, with the help of those interested in getting down the facts (vegan and non-vegan). Many vegans who factor environmental concern in their decision have seen statistics on meat to grain ratios, percentages of water usage in livestock production, percentages of land use in livestock prodution, comparative energy usage, top soil loss, fecal contamination of water supply, and even starvation rates.

Although Rice is produced at a rate of 1550 to 2000 litres of water to 1 kilo of grain, beef is produced at a rate between 50,000 to 100,000 litres of water to 1 kilo of meat. [19] How about a little veg/omni cooperation on this? Just the facts maam.

Sure, its difficult to find precise numbers though, the British Council puts that at 5000 litres of water per 1kg grain (the amount that you had down prior to your edit to change it to a lower value). Some sources put Chicken as low as 2,800 litres of water per 1 kilo of meat [20]. Most sites that feature this information however are clearly biased as pro-vegan/vegetarian. Animal aid raises that to 3,500 litres of water per 1 kilo of meat, whilst lowering rice to 1,910 litres of water per kilo. Furthermore, do these statistics take into account all the usable meat, or just the meat that people commonly use? Also, I think if we're talking about comparing like for like it is probably worth comparing nutrition content aswell as mass. Also, are we talking about cooked or uncooked values? Most people boil rice in water whereas you can cook most meat just by frying or grilling it. - FrancisTyers 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I made an edit on the ratios because it is quoting the Australian study. The list of references below should give clarification to some of the questions we all have. The chicken water usage quoted by FrancisTyers also quotes rice at 2,700 not 5,000 litres of water. It also states in this article that vegetarians use far less virtual water than non-vegetarians. Interesting article, thanks. Vigger 5:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Cornell Science News [21]

Australian government studies[22]

Time Magazine - Ed Ayres, "Will We Still Eat Meat?" [23] 70 percent of the grains and cereals we grow are used for livestock production

British Council [24]

• Nutrition information rice per 100g
• Nutrition information chicken per 100g
• Nutrition information beef per 100g

USDA land usage statistics [25] According to the United States Department of Agriculture growing the crops to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the water supply and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the United States.

Environmental and Nutritional Facts drawn from Diet for a New America by [John Robbins] There is a much needed article for this book that should be done.

Amount of soy grown in United States consumed by livestock: 90% Amount of corn grow in United States consumed by livestock: 80% Amount of total U.S. grain production consumed by livestock: 70%

Do we have figures for other countries? It would be a shame to base the environmental section of this article just on what the US stats are. Is the meat eating culture of West Papua more or less environmentally sustainable than that of the US? - FrancisTyers 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't, at least not for now. Groups who care enough to do this kind of research are usually based in the U.S. or Europe. As this is the English Wikipedia, it's not so much of an attrocity. Most of our readers are not from West Papua. Though such information would be interesting, it is not entirely relevant. Canaen 20:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the {{globalize}} tag be added then? I realise most of our readers aren't from West Papua, considering their internet access is probably restricted by violent occupation. However, how about China or India, or even Russia? I'm not saying that this tag is necessary for the whole article, but if the environmental section is going to rely solely on US data perhaps it would be appropriate. - FrancisTyers 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's neccessary. We could use a simple, tastefull opening line to the section. I do want to get other information in, but I find those tags to give off the wrong impression. Escpecially for this situation. Canaen 08:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ecological footprint calculator

• Another Ecological footprint calculator

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.2 PLANETS. ^___^ - FrancisTyers 01:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the best foot forward calculator link. The foreward slash at the end messes the link up somehow. Idleguyspal 05:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it works now. I got 1.5 PLANETS! - FrancisTyers 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Worldwatch This site seems to provide more "global" data that could be used to give a worldwide perspective.

Dairy ecological footprint study

GRACE Global resource action center for the environment

John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Global Food Security

Separate article

I think this almost warrants a separate article, Veganism and the environment. Has there been any research done into the airmiles used by the exotic foods that vegans (at least the ones I know) enjoy (I'm not talking just about tofu)? What is the total environmental impact of equal amounts of tofu-chicken versus a free-range organically produced chicken? I realise only a subsection of the vegan population eats "tofu chicken", but then there is a subsection of the meat-eating population that eats "only locally produced, free-range organic meat". - FrancisTyers 21:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I see there is already an article Environmental vegetarianism. Perhaps the Environment section of this article should be merged into that and we should just have:

Environmental veganism is the belief, based on ecological science, that the production of meat and animal products at current and likely future levels is environmentally unsustainable.

and a pointer to the Environmental vegetarianism article, perhaps with a qualification that not all vegans are environmental vegans? - FrancisTyers 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all vegans are environmental, dietary, ethical, sexual, feminist, or even other catagories not discussed here including hybrids e.g. environmental/dietary, dietary/religious, or ethical/spiritual/economic. It seems a little cumbersome to state this disclosure as it is already in the initial paragraph of Environmental vegetarianism. Maybe it could be expanded from "economic, philosophical, religious, cultural, or ecological." Idleguyspal 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that bit is mentioned in the lead. We can just shift the 'environmental criticism' section out too. - FrancisTyers 00:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also shift this particular discussion primarily to the Environmental Vegetarianism talk page. Idleguyspal 01:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearing up Environmental criticism: this is why the page is protected

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 [26] 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. [27]

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)

Furthermore, the increase in soybean consumption - a product used in many vegan and non-vegan foods and in US cattle feed - has led to concerns over its environmental impact. Greenpeace have complained that soybean cultivation in Brazil is encouraging Amazon rainforest deforestation. The increase in soyabean cultivation and extensive farming has led to losing large tracts of forest land leading to ecological damage as per WWF and other sources. In most of the tropical countries, farming is cited as the primary cause for forest loss [28]. According to the FAO, 90% of deforestation is directly attributed to unsustainble agriculture.

All of this Soybean cultivation is not for making Tofu; it's for making cattle feed. Do a quick Google Scholar search for "Soybean Cultivation" and "Cattle Production" and you'll find out soon enough. The top 5 or so are even specific to Brazil.The FAO, then they released that information, was including currect Cattle Production under the term "unsustainable agriculture." The Beef Industry, directly or indirectly. causes the vast majority of Amazonian Deforestation. Get you facts straight, people. Don't try to write anything which you don't understand. Canaen 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No where in the article is Soy Bean Cultivation promoted. I see no reason for a criticism of Soy Bean Cultivation anywhere in this article. Canaen 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Revisiting the section, the entire Environmental criticism is flawed. Someone please prove the rest of it, or else it will stay down.

Feed for animals in an agrarian economy is seldom cultivated for purposes of animal feed and is often the by-product of crops primarily grown for human consumption, thus creating a meat output from hay and other plant produce. Thus, factory farming is often limited only to poultry in many parts of Africa, Asia and South America. In these regions animals are often seen as a sustainable way of life providing much needed protein and milk. The recent outbreaks of avian flu, which spreads rapidly through close-packed poultry-pens, has caused some concern over the safety of current factory-farming practices.

The first line isn't an environmental criticism, though it is valid. If someone wants to make a new section for information like that, go ahead. But it doesn't bleong here, and the rest of that bit is just incoherent blather.Canaen 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy, and anyone else, stop adding these back in, until you explain yourself. At the very least, they need to be re-written. Canaen 07:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Distinctions - "Veganism so-called"

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)

Attacks in general

I think my patience has run out on these editors: anon with ip address: 64.105.20.237 and more recently User:Canaen who is abusive by calling me as "ignorant" in his edit summaries and threatening me with vandalism warnings. He and his coterie have constantly sought to present a very lop sided view and rubbish anything and anyone else as vandals when the opposite is true. Anon 64.105.20.237 has been going around in these and related talk pages signing off with a username "Idleguyspal" which is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. misleading username by anon and personal attacks by both are entirely out of spirit.

I suggest that someone stop these vandalistic editors and save me from these attacks. I'm also reporting these two for harassment or whatever is appropriate. Idleguy 08:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have told you, "ignorant" is not an abusive term. You simply seem to have a lack of comprehension. I won't ignore that for the sake of sounding polite. Please stop trying to connect me with other users, as I am connected in no way with them. I notced that you inform me of reporting me as soon as I gave you a final warning on your Talk Page. I also noticed that you deleted the warning, in violation of Wikipedia Policy. May I ask why? If you want your Environmental Criticism section to stay in the article, then tell me how exactly qualms about Rice and Soy Bean Cultivation are related to Vegans, and who criticizes Vegans for being Vegans because of this? Canaen 08:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to disguise yourself with innocence. You have implied that me and several other users who have called you on several flaws in the article of having ulterior motives, something which is far more offensive than an accusation of ignorance. Ignorance is something to be remedied; Ulterior Motives say negative things about a person's character. Canaen 09:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The environmental section and environmental criticisms should not be in this article, they should be in Environmental vegetarianism. Factory farmed chicken is not inherently linked with meat-eating in the same way that rice is not inherently linked with veganism. PS. trade in manure?? - FrancisTyers 10:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll state the obvious. When other sections (ethical/health) draw criticisms from all quarters, environmental motivations too are bound to have a flip side. What I added - with proper sources - were just that. Environmental considerations section is riddled with POV statments and dubious statements and thus it required an apposite critique. If you think that vegans are only in the west, it cannot be further from the truth. Vegetarianism on a mass scale was already on in India thousands of years ago and equally so were the first vegans in the form of Jainism and some other extreme sects of Hinduism. These religious motivations supercedes any western notion and so cannot be rubbished just because it doesn't fit with your concept.

Many such vegans therefore consume rice and soy and therefore the environemental criticism has been levelled on them. Remember, in terms of sheer dollar value, the human consumption of soybean produce places a greater stress with cattle feed being only one part. the difference is that in terms of volume, soybeans are consumed almost equally by cattle and humans taking into account the global production. In terms of value, human uses for soy is greater. That is the difference. I hope I've made myself clear. You are asking for your POV statements to stand without taking into account a global view or the negative aspects of such a diet/lifestyle. And please be polite and open minded. Good day. Idleguy 11:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Many vegans use computers, wear blue jeans, use electricity, write with pencils, why then - by your own logic - do you not write a paragraph criticising veganism because of them? you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest Idleguy. Are all those humans that consume soya products and rice vegans? No, of course not. Only a tiny percentage are vegan. So why not put your criticism in a page for humans or, say, Chinese because they each lots of soya? Where are your figures for soya consumption?

Idleguysucks 11:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what Idleguy is trying to point out is that: 1. Many vegans use soya products instead of animal products. (I don't think you can contest this, here is a ref anyway [29]), 2. Animal products have an environmental impact, 3. Soya products have an environmental impact. - FrancisTyers 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I note Idleguy and friends are now organising apersonal attack on Canaen who wishes to become an admin. Idleguy has also gone about complaining that he has been accused of vandalism, when he himself has been accusing others of the same. I agree that he is also ignorant. That is to say, quite correctly in English, that he is deliberately " ignoring " all the discussion and negative consensuses against his block repetative block inserts. I also strongly agree that the Environmental criticisms that he erroneously continues to attack to this topic have no logical place in the article. He is in short nothing more than a troll. He also contines the same weak defences against numerous other contributors, accusing others of being Eurocentric, which has to be essentially racialist in essence or of vandalism rather than actually answering to the discussion.

Check out what Idleguy has written to the admins to defend himself ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty, look for " I need some help "

Does stating that Idleguy is a troll help matters? I think it could be construed as a personal attack. I also think that the article is Western-centric, I wouldn't call it Eurocentric though. As I've stated above the Environment section and the Environment criticism section should be moved into the Environmental vegetarianism article, with a brief, one sentence pointer from this article. - FrancisTyers 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

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)

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)

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)

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)

That would be a pretty tricky manoeuvre. - FrancisTyers 10:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Swedish study?

Dr. Per-Olof Åstrand of the Swedish Karolinska Institute conducted an informal study of diet and endurance using nine highly trained athletes, changing their diet every three days. At the end of every diet change, each athlete would pedal a bicycle until exhaustion. Those with a high protein and high fat meat (carnivore) diet averaged 57 minutes. Those that consumed a mixed (omnivore) diet, lower in meat, fat and protein averaged 1 hour and 54 minutes: twice the endurance of the meat and fat eaters. The vegetarian, high carbohydrate diet athletes lasted 2 hours and 47 minutes, triple the endurance of the high-protein group. (Source: Åstrand, Per-Olof, Nutrition Today 3:no2, 9-11, 1968) [21]

I'm removing this as soon as the protection comes off. 1. The 'source' comes from www.filipinovegetarianrecipe.com, 2. The 'source' does not mention veganism.

Suggested addition of a picture of Donald Watson

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)

Skinwalkers snitching lies to the admins

Hi

I'd just like to flag up the dishonest snitching to the admins Skinwalker is using to mess around with this article.

It funny how meateater trolls like Skinwalker and Idleguy know and use all the tricky buzzwords, like "sockpuppet, the 3RR rule that they use whilst ignoring that they are doing.

This is Skinwalker snitching to Woohookitty

• • Hi... I've been harassed by this user as well. My contributions to Veganism have been reverted by this individual without consensus, and I've been subject to personal attacks on Talk:Veganism and my user talk page. He is editing in bad faith and misrepresenting other editor's positions to support his POV. In addition to User:Canaen and ip 64.105.20.237, he uses User:Mitsu, User:Bob3 (blocked) and the ip's 212.18.228.53 and 81.187.71.200 (among others) for sockpuppetry. This guy's been a thorn in our sides for at least a week, and the recent lock of Veganism has lead him to escalate his incivility on talk pages. Thanks for your help, Skinwalker 18:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How can he know all these folk are the same folk?

The biggest joke is that they are not!

Hi, please sign your posts. - FrancisTyers 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is really, really stupid. I strongly suspect that the user accounts and ips listed in my quoted "snitching" above are being used by a single editor with an axe to grind with Idleguy and I. I base this suspicion on several bits of evidence. First, the remarkable similarity of content and syntax of recent postings on Talk:Veganism and the style and content of edits and reversions to Veganism indicate that they are being written by one person. The writing style is consistent down to idiom and spelling/grammar mistakes, to say nothing of the belligerent and incivil attitude. Second, with the possible exception of Canaen, all accounts and ip addresses have very few edits aside from Veganism, Environmental vegetarianism, and related talk/user pages. I believe this user is taking advantage of open proxies to engage in sockpuppetry.

Today, both Idleguy and I had our user pages vandalized by this person. Idleguy was called an "ignorant pig", a "snitch", and had his page flooded with the phrase "vegan jihad". This person has repeatedly engaged in edit wars, resulting in Veganism being protected twice. He has edited in bad faith and ignored NPOV policies in favor of an aggressive POV campaign to eliminate any constructive criticism of veganism. He has engaged in personal attacks and threatening behavior. To top it all off, this individual requested adminship today at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Canaen, presumably so he can unprotect the page and exercise other admin powers over those who disagree with him. If Veganism is unprotected without something being done about this editor, I suspect the edit war will resume. I'd really like this abusive behavior to end, so we can have a constructive and respectful conversation about making this article complete and NPOV. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all points of the recent dialogue, limited as it is thus far, from Skinwalker, Idleguy, and FrancisTyers (FrancisTyers being the only one I have had constructive dialogue with thus far...Thank you very much by the way Francis).

Those opposed to Idleguy’s or Skinwalker’s edits, (I can not state this more emphatically) Do not vandalize the pages of these Wikipedians, this is beyond reasonableness, and gives a certain amount of perceive validity to certain stances on a number of levels.) Wikipedia, I believe (POV), is one of the most valuable contributions to human kind since Eienstein (POV), Srinivasa Aiyangar Ramanujan(POV...but a great...one of the greatest mathematicians of all time who happened to starve himself in the U.K. because of lack of vegetarian foodstuffs...he is ironically regionally associated with Idleguy), or sliced bread (Western-centric saying).

A note to all of you' (vegan, non-vegan, vegetarian, non-vegetarian, pesco-environmental-vegetarian, pro-gun pro-life pro-GMO vegan Jain activists, Indian anti-Euro anti-Western pro-gun pro-tort-reform pro-life anti-vegans, etc, etc, etc) please stop the attacks as I believe we can have some constructive dialogue here. I would like to clear the air here and state a few very important facts.

Patently, personal attacks have absolutely no place here. I however have been accused of this myself, by in stating my name as "Idleguyspal" which could be seen as "potentially offensive" at best. This was simply a method (all be it rather irritating) for the purposes of deviling up any dialogue with Idleguy. (Sorry for hurting your feelings Idleguy, it was wrong, and I will sign as some other name, OK?) Why doesn't Idleguy ever take part in any constructive dialogue here?

I do have a certain claim ignorance here, technically, and in protocol as I am new editor of pages on Wikipedia (I have used it for solid reference numerous times for other projects in my professional work). I am not particularly interested in editing (previously) the Vegan or Environmental Vegetarian Wikipedia pages. I was to locate reference for the sole purpose of writing an advertisement for a vegan company in the U.S. In fact, I am simply an advertising professional attempting to reference solid source material for a particular client. Ironically I am Idleguy's pal, in a number of ways, as I am a Western-vegan-Hindu. This is probably why I was chosen for the project. Additionally, I have never have been a vegan activist per se, as it is more a personal decision for me more akin to a spiritual decision.

As a footnote, I am very American, and very ashamed of this fact as well. I can not change that as well as I also can not change the color of my skin. I certainly don't intend to be Western-centric or Euro-centric in anyway however. Ironically, the largest polluters in the world are the U.S. and Europe. More ironic, is that organizations within them contain the lion's share of ecological data.

I am not Canaen, Anon, Mitsu, Bob3, 212.18.228.53, 81.187.71.200, or "among others", as per Skinwalkers claim (Skinwalker tends to surface quite a bit of material without giving any properly quoted source material. (Anything goes as long as Skinwalker sais and I have requested numerous times for him to back his claims on mainly source material but now "open proxy sock-puppetry". He bases his so-called evidence of open proxy (I am not entirely familiar with what a proxy is let alone an open proxy, but I will become so since I have a new interest in actual editing of pages on Wikipedia) by stating: "I base this suspicion on several bits of evidence. First, the remarkable similarity of content and syntax of recent postings on Talk:Veganism and the style and content of edits and reversions to Veganism indicate that they are being written by one person. The writing style is consistent down to idiom and spelling/grammar mistakes, to say nothing of the belligerent and incivil (misspelt uncivil or in civil?) attitude.") As far as Skinwalkers "sock-puppetry claim" I only have one IP and that is 64.105.20.237. I have stated numerous times that I want solid reference. In other word, specifics please???? Wait, is that a personal attack? Wait...is "that" a personal attack?

Idiom - 1. A speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on.

2. The specific grammatical, syntactic, and structural character of a given language.

3. Regional speech or dialect.

4. a. A specialized vocabulary used by a group of people; jargon: legal idiom.

4. b. A style or manner of expression peculiar to a given people: “Also important is the uneasiness I've always felt at cutting myself off from my idiom, the American habits of speech and jest and reaction, all of them entirely different from the local variety” (S.J. Perelman).

5. A style of artistic expression characteristic of a particular individual, school, period, or medium: the idiom of the French impressionists; the punk rock idiom.

Once again I have to claim some ignorance on Wikipedia protocol and the technical end of things (I tried to sign in and it didn't work for some reason, I pay other people to do this sh*t). I have signed my IP as Fleshstomper, Vaggot, and Skinwalkers Pal not to mention Idleguyspal. Do a search on the page and see what I have restated time and time again under these names and tell me if it is an attack. Be very specific please.

Let me reiterate. My names were not intended to be misleading (they were in context) and I will not do anymore edits, other than this, without a proper login name.

Also, let me make this very clear to Skinwalker. I am extremely opposed to your edits on claims to prevalence of anorexia in the vegan community. Where is the beef?(Western-centric pop culture of an advertising origin) There is plenty of constructive dialogue between myself and FrancisTyers on the subject in which a non-vegan and vegan have come to consensus on. I am sure others will see this as it catches up to you. You have blatantly misquoted your own source material to make POV claims (e.g. "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder.") Everyone, please refer to Eating Disorder Section. There are no personal attacks from me other than irony and ignorance. Is it a crime? Pay me more money than my job and I'll go away. Just kidding. I'll play nice on the playground, I promise. Sorry once again for hurting Idleguy's and Skinwalker's feelings. I intended no offence. Who knows, maybe we'll be pals after all. By the way, What would all of you say I call myself once I am not an anonymous contributor? Answer one paragraph at a time please(1-10). 64.105.20.237

How about IMakeALivingFromAdvertising ? Not very catchy I know ;) PS. Sorry, but I'm writing an essay on advertising at the moment and its infuriating >:| On a more serious note, my username is just my real name, can't really go wrong with that :) - FrancisTyers 13:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The point here is, all corporate whoredom aside, Skinwalker and Idleguy have laid down false claims against me here. That last question was the most retorical in comparrison to the entirety of the rest of it. I am fully aware of the evils of advertising and yes it is infuriating, you can't imagine how much so. That being said, this page needs to be unlocked and we all need to come to consenus on some of these issues. You and I have had constructive dialogue on both "anorexia" and "envirionmental critisism" and I believe we are on the same page here.64.105.20.237

1. Move "anorexia" to semi-vegetarian or vegetarian.

2. Move "envrionmental critisism" to environmental vegetarianism.

Concur. - FrancisTyers 10:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on: Proposition to get this Article Running again

1. Move "envrionmental critisism" to environmental vegetarianism.

2. Move "anorexia" to semi-vegetarian or vegetarian.

Let's Vote. Canaen 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. Look, you two trolls can keep this circle jerk going between the pair of you for as long as you want but the fact it, the moment you insert anything, we are going to waste it. You cannot block every non-fixed IP, all public internet access nor the increasing number of proxies. I suppose this is only going to last until Idleguy gets a job and gets over his weird fixation with veganism.

VeganJustice 21:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Anonymous user.

Support Canaen 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Nidara 11:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC) a.k.a 64.105.20.237 or I.G.P.

Support Joehaer 00:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose on "1." Moving the entire "environmental criticism" from here is not OK. It would be best to ensure continuity by having a small lead up paragraph of the said criticism here and move the rest to the environmental vegetarianism. On the same note, it must be balanced by having just one or two paragraphs in the article about "Environmental considerations" instead of having such a huge section. The choice is clear: Either both stay, or both get pruned to provide a balanced view. Idleguy 04:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the Environmental Considerations section is already only 3 paragraphs, and refers to Enviromental vegetarianism as it's main article (which is much more substantial). If your Environmental Criticism is at all relevant to the Environmental section on this page, then it would be appropriate to keep a short bit on this page. I do not support a criticism of Environmental Vegetarianism on this page. Canaen 10:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That was the plan. We move both of the sections over to Environmental vegetarianism and then have two sentences on this page, one supporting, one criticism. At least thats what I understood as the plan. If the info is moved, it must be pruned from this article. I thought that was clear? - FrancisTyers 11:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Support on "2." Idleguy 04:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose on "1." I don't have a problem with moving most of the material to Environmental Vegetarianism, but the Veganism article makes questionable claims about the environmental motivation of vegan diets. These claims may be true in the context of western factory farming, but they clearly do not apply to developing nations, and we need to represent a worldwide view. As a compromise, I would like to implement FrancisTyers' suggestion that we keep two sentences, one supporting, one opposed. I suspect the proposal for "1." is somewhat disingenuous, since there is a minor war going on there about whether to keep this info in THAT article.

Compromise on "2." I propose a similar solution to that in "1.": move the information to Vegetarianism, but keep two sentences here, one supporting, one opposed. I will admit that there is a lack of vegan-only research on eating disorders. And, to be perfectly clear, I must state as I have before that a vegan diet does not cause eating disorders, and that a properly balanced vegan diet does not cause malnutrition. However, veganism is a subset of vegetarianism. In fact, vegans restrict themselves to fewer dietary options than vegetarians. Does anyone have a problem with these two statements? There is conclusive research showing that anorexia is correlated with a vegetarian diet, especially in college-age women living in developed nations. College nutritionists are trained to recognize a self-reported vegetarian diet as a risk factor for an eating disorder. Indeed, half of diagnosed anorectics are vegetarian. I don't think it is unfair or illogical to extrapolate these results from a poorly-balanced vegetarian diet to a poorly-balanced vegan diet. We need to stress nutritional adequacy as a counter to these arguments and dangers.

Therefore, I propose we move the paragraph on eating disorders to Vegetarianism, but insert the following sentences in the health criticism section in Veganism:

"Critics have expressed concern over the correlation between poorly balanced vegetarian diets and anorexia nervosa (see article Vegetarian/Eating disorders# or some such link), especially among college-age women. These concerns may apply to vegan diets, though no scientific study has been done to determine the prevalence of eating disorders in the vegan-only population. The nutritional adequacy of a vegan diet must be planned carefully, and the reasons for beginning a vegan diet or lifestyle should not include drastic weight loss."

Finally, I would like to thank Canaen et al for toning down the rhetoric and offering positive suggestions for breaking the deadlock on the article. If we can continue assuming good faith, and making rational arguments, and not impugning each other's motives, I think we can make this article much better. I will continue to assume good faith unless personal attacks, vandalism, and/or sockpuppetry resumes. Please make honest arguments, and be willing to listen and compromise. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support per Skinwalker and Idleguy. Suggest rephrasing as follows:

"Critics have expressed concern over the correlation between poorly balanced vegetarian diets and anorexia nervosa (see article Vegetarian/Eating disorders# or some such link), especially among college-age women. These concerns may apply to vegan diets, though no scientific study has been published that determines the prevalence of eating disorders in the vegan population."

I don't think the the last sentence needs to be included, it sounds preachy and that isn't what wikipedia is about. Could someone make a subsection to this talk page outlining the current proposals and run another vote? Just to be crystal clear? - FrancisTyers 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not attached to that last sentence; it is a little preachy, I agree. Skinwalker 23:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

How many times does the validity of of the "anorexia sources" need to be rehashed without close examination of the sources. Could everyone just read the source material please. Extropolation doesn't work when there the only wording relating to vegan is: "Because of the limited sample size, it was not possible to assess dietary patterns of vegans" Obviously the scientists here were not willing to extrapolate that data, and I don't believe Skinwalker is expert to do so in that case.

This is Skinwalkers extrapolation: "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder." Could everyone read the source material please and find out where this is contained or if it can be reasonably extrapolated. There is something wrong here in this approach. It is simply dishonest. Nidara 23:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not call me dishonest; that can be interpreted as a personal attack, and I've had quite enough of that recently. It doesn't seem like you've been around here for long, perhaps you came in from LiveJournal. I suggest you read Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks before commmenting on this issue any further. I am attempting to do the same thing you are: improve this article.

If you read my proposed compromise above, I don't propose keeping the sentence: "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse...". I don't even propose keeping the citations in Veganism. I propose keeping two sentences, and moving the rest, along with the citations, to Vegetarianism as you can see above. Non-extrapolation in a scientific paper is not the same as a refusal to extrapolate. Wouldn't you agree that the dietary aspects of veganism are a subset of vegetarianism? Isn't it possible that a poorly-planned vegetarian diet would be a poorly-planned vegan diet if all animal-derived ingredients are removed? Yes, I am extrapolating, but if you agree with these two questions I don't see how you can disagree with the extrapolation.

And, FYI, I have a significant professional background in animal and human nutrition and biochemistry. Among other things, I read scientific papers for a living. Please don't make snap judgements about who is and who isn't an expert just because you don't agree with them. These citations are perfectly valid. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If it is not dishonest to misquote sources then what is it? I am not saying you’re a bad person, but you did misquote sources. Lets assume good faith here and say it was a well-intentioned error. Honestly, you have made it a little difficult to assume good faith here however. You have been corrected time and time again and have been generally uncompromising on these false claims. By the way, you can't tone down your POV, by saying "These concerns may apply to vegan diets, though no scientific study has been published that determines the prevalence of eating disorders in the vegan population." It's like saying "Although there is no scientific data, I believe bla bla bla. Who is it exactly that has these concerns other than you? This is the source I would like review.

Thanks for that heads up on "good faith" by the way, despite the undertones. I won't refer to it as dishonesty and will use the proper protocol and rhetoric to label it for what it is.

All diets can be poorly planned. Thus, No, I don't agree "poorly-planned vegetarian diet would be a poorly-planned vegan diet if all animal-derived ingredients are removed." Poor diet is not intrinsic in the removal of animal based food or not. Diets are poor when there is a removal of essential nutrients or addition of to many bad ones. This is not inherent in any specific dietary category. Nidara 01:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

How about if we also add something to Omnivore about not eating just junk food? That seems to be about the only compromise I can see. It would be bias to place even something such as "As with any diet, Vegans need to pay attention to what they eat," if we don't place something similar in every single article deatiling a diet.

In reality, Vegans live in perfectly fine health conditions without paying a whole lot of attention to their diets. They just make sure that they eat more vegetables. Obviously, you don't just remove animal products from your diet: you replace them with plants. Canaen 03:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care either way on the anorexia issue, we can either include it or not. Just trying to work with the consensus building here. - FrancisTyers 01:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly are we voting on? The environmental reasons for going vegan, or the anti-vegan propaganda that tries to counter that? Michael Bluejay 17:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

See above for discussion #Consensus2. - FrancisTyers 17:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Idleguys Environmental criticism have no place in either the vegan or vegetarian topics because they relate to the meat industry and omnivores. He still reuses to address this matter. If it is included just becuase some veggies do it, then why not included enviroment criticism of vegan flying, vegan automobile driving, vegan house painting and everything else that any vegan or vegetarian does that might be in any way environmentally damaging. If it is about anorexia then move it to anorexia. 217.147.85.6

It seems so blatantly irrelevant to both--I suppose there is perhaps a bit closer, though— Joehaer 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if two sentences remain: one for, one against, as I discussed above. Skinwalker 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Anorexia is an eating disorder. It is not "semi-vegetarianism". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This refers to the section in the article that talks about eating disorders being linked to self-reported vegetarianism/veganism. The proposal is that the section is moved to the semi-vegetarian or vegetarian article because it doesn't explicitly mention veganism. - FrancisTyers 14:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus2

What is involved with the Environmental section in your view, regarding the vote below. Please specify:

1. Moving it out completely with no placeholder pointing to a main article.
2. Moving it out with a placeholder section pointing to the main article.
3. Moving it out with a placeholder section pointing to the main article with one sentence supporting Environmental vegetarianism.
4. 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)

I believe the idea was to use 4. Canaen 21:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Resource Jackpot

Someone, or a group of someones, went through all the trouble of creating a factsheet out of John Robbins' "Diet for a New America" : http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm

I think it's worthy of being added to the links section, but I remember some hissy-fitting over an over-extensive links section. Would someone mind either explaining, or telling me under which archive said discrepency might be found? Canaen 10:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this fact sheet, or to give it the correct title: "How to Win an Argument With a Meat Eater:" should be kept out of the links section. Two reasons come immediately to mind: 1. the lack of sources (only one, offline, dubiously titled source). 2. the fact sheet is filled with non sequiturs. Unless of course we're going to have a humour subsection within the links section.  :) - FrancisTyers 11:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the title is dubious for the direct online source, it is one of the only online resources consolidating data extrapolated from the U.S.D.A by John Robbins, M.D., Pulitzer prize winning author for this material. Naturally, it is all well referenced material. And yes, all the data is concerning the biggest pig headed drainer of world's resources, the good ol' U.S.A. It is a little confusing because the original source material goes a few tiers back. It is a great resource for vegans and not so great for non-vegans I am sorry to say. It should be added or we should all start writing an article on this material (which should be done anyway, I don't have any time at the moment because a am a corporate goon) Nidara 21:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose Diet for a New America would be a good place to start, its linked off of John Robbins. The link shouldn't be added directly, no problem with creating an article for the book and then linking to the book article though. - FrancisTyers 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Or you can get some of it from the horses mouth. Perhaps an external link to Robbins' page would fit nicely without the meat eaters like to argue with us rhetoric. [30] Nidara 21:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There is only one source as all information listed comes from a single source. The Data's good, though I do agree that the title is blatantly honest in telling the factsheet's intended use. You can't expect everyone skimming through these pages to go to every "see also," annd every "see also" from every one of those, which is why I'd like to see this straight on this page. an article on the book seems like somewhat of a compromise, though I still don't understand the policy of keeping such a limited links section. Canaen 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Data's good. Could you provide the sources to verify that?. - FrancisTyers 11:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Not online, off the top of my head, and I believe I would have to hunt down a copy of the book to do so. The internet isn't the world. John Robbins is widely respected, and his word should have at least some standing. Canaen 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"...it is one of the only online resources consolidating data extrapolated from the U.S.D.A by John Robbins, M.D., Pulitzer prize winning author for this material."

John Robbins is neither an M.D. nor a Pulitzer prize winner. Also, in most cases the data that the statements are based on is over twenty years old. Michael Bluejay 18:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

However, he is a recipient of the Rachel Carson Award, the Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award, and the Peace Abbey's Courage of Conscience Award. Canaen 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: It is one of the only online resources consolidating data extrapolated from the U.S.D.A by John Robbins, Pulitzer prize nominee and...M.D., Dean Ornish (pasting accident, uh oh, thanks Michael.) Sure the data is a dated a couple of decades, but has modern agriculture gotten so much more efficient, while we haven't been looking, that it is considered sustaianable? How about some data backing that up from the USDA. One thing your correct on in your assumption, meat to grain ratios have and are expected to reduce when bovine growth hormones are brought to their full potential. However, not by much. Nidara 10:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that agriculture has not become much more efficient in the last 20 years. My point is just that Wikipedia can do better than to quote a source that's 20 years old. Surely there are better references. I know there's a new book out by Rex Bowlby that Robbins has praised, and Robbins himself has authored at least one book since Diet for a New America. Michael Bluejay 16:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to include idea that human intelligence is linked to the acquisition of meat.[http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s6549.html The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior Craig B. Stanford

Even if that were true, how would it be remotely relevant to this article? It's hardly an argument against modern veganism, given that humans have already evolved. Michael Bluejay 21:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to sign comments, as per the big bold reminder at the top of the page. I second Michael. Canaen 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of on the same level as the one Caenan posted. - FrancisTyers 21:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would dispute that heavily, noting that the entire thing is nothing but personal opinion (the titlebar says "Lloydian Opinions: Vegetarianism"), whereas Robbins got much of his information from the USDA, other bits were at least backed-up. Nothing except the title of the sheet is biased. Canaen 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You miss my point. The point being that both articles rely on burning a series of straw men. - FrancisTyers 02:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I saw skimming through once more, the closest would be the two lines, "Common belief: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection

Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues." Yet, even these are just a simpler way to put the fact. The answer to the second could stand alone. I do not miss your point; I challenge it. Canaen 02:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55
Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13
Percentage resistant in 1988: 91
Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban
Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support

If this is an "argument", it seems to be quite shallow.

1. I don't live in the US
2. I don't eat meat from animals that have been routinely fed antibiotics
3. I live in the EU
4. The EEC has banned routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock
5. The problem is with routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock
6. Feeding antibiotics to livestock is not a fundamental part of animal husbandry

This "argument" presumes that I live in the US and eat meat that has been fed antibiotics, then goes on to argue that the only solution is to stop eating meat. This is a false dichotomy, there are many more solutions besides just "becoming vegetarian". I think you get the idea, but if you like I'll take apart all the arguments in succession. I'd prefer not to do it here because it would just clutter up the Talk page. Its quite interesting, because most of these "arguments" support my case as much as they do yours. I might even consider using them with some of my friends who still eat death camp meat. - FrancisTyers 12:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Environmental considerations in the vegetarian communities, including Europe, are present whether or not you choose to do so or not. Many of us believe that the more vegetarians or vegans there are in the world, the better off it will be. I don't believe there is any illusion that everyone will be however. Environmentalism is primarily a response to industrialized pollution, therefore, the U.S. should be at the top of the list for environmental protest in general. For instance, since I live in the U.S., when I set all of my perameters into an ecological footprint calculator Ecological footprint calculator, I use about 9 acres (2 planets needed for everyone in the world to live like me and a lot better than the typical American which can be as much as 9 planets). However, if I specify Europe rather than the States, it is at about 4.5 acres (1 planet). Europe is doing a lot better obviously. However, to get a "1 planet footprint" as opposed to a "1.5 planet footprint" you have to live in Europe as a vegan. Therefore veganism is the optimum individual response to sustaianability. Questions of permaculture and sustainable organic farming are concerns to many environmenatal vegans. I am a vegan, live in the U.S., buy all organic and locally grown (as much as possible), avoid certain commodities such as plastics (as much as possible), bannanas, cashews, rice from asia, and gmo products. However, my ecological footprint is much higher than I would like it to be simply because I live in the good ol' U.S. of A. Fancis, don't become vegan as that is not what these pages are intended to do. This is just an article on environmental considerations within the veg community. Nidara 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Therefore veganism is the optimum individual response to sustaianability.

That is simply not true. That particular test is exceedingly shallow, and, among other things does not take into account trash diving for clothes etc., reuse of technology, the area you come from (where I lived in Ireland had doorstep recycling before where I live in England), hitchiking and many other alternative economic practices, hell it doesn't even included how many times you eat per day and how much, let alone your body/size/weight. It merely exists to make vegans (or whichever group the test is targeted at, I'm sure I've seen ones that leave out the vegan/meat option and add in one about separating your recycling) happy about their choices. The form of this kind of test smacks of the same kind of social function as confession in catholicism, you offer up your sins and receive absolution. LOL, that would make a good essay, I'll have to make a note. I'm not trying to get on at you, but these calculators really are useless for any kind of real comparison. :) You'll note that someone isn't vegan if they eat meat once per year, the amount of detail that would have to go into a proper comparison of lifestyle choices is pretty much insurmountable. - FrancisTyers 18:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The calculators are not fully inclusive, your right. There is a discaimer at the bottom of the page of the particular calculator I cited. You see veganism as extreme, and I see digging in the trash for everything as extreme. All of that aside, none of your arguements negate environmental concerns in the vegetarian community or the degree of adverse environmental impact of most of the livestock industry, which is what this article is about. Write your critisism and lets be done with it. Nidara 19:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire. I don't believe that veganism is extreme. If you want to hear more about my views you can enquire on my talk page, i'm not going to clutter up this page any more :) - FrancisTyers 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does, for the most part. Obviously, facts from Diet for a new America do not apply fully to Europe, nor to India. However, it does apply to people who are living in the U.S.. If every article has nothing that is not relevant to every single person on the planet, then every article is going to be damned dull, and not very usefull. We need to make a distinction somewhere. Obviously, a lot of reasons that people become vegetarians in industrialized nations do not apply in primarily rural nations. However, that doesn't mean that the reasons should not be included on the page. Factory Farming doesn't exist on Santa Rosa Island. Does that mean that nothing should be mentioned of Factory Farming on this page?Canaen 08:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. My concern is that it should be made very explicit when we are talking about factory/intensive farming and when we are not. - FrancisTyers 11:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And I completely agree. Perhaps a disclaimer either at the top, or at the beginning of every relevant section? It seems like something that should be done. I'll play around with something when I have more time. Canaen 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great thanks :) If you don't get the time I'll look into it - FrancisTyers 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Final Tally of Votes for the above Proposition

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)

• Nidara 04:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Joehaer 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• FrancisTyers 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

2: Move "anorexia" to Semi-vegetarian or Vegetarian.

Support

• Canaen 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nidara 04:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Michael Bluejay 05:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• FrancisTyers 12:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Joehaer 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

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)

Request for Comment

I believe that with a vote of 4:0:0 for 1., and 5:0:0 for 2., we can safely assume that the vote is affirmative. It's been a full two days. Does anyone dispute? If not, I will go on to finding an admin to unblock the page. Canaen 03:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to file a Request for comment to obtain opinions from disinterested third parties. This article and associated talk page have been flooded with new users whose only edits are on this topic. Canaen, I know you've gotten your LiveJournal friends to pile in on this article. Please do not request deprotection before a RfC is filed. I would like this to be a true consensus, so that edit wars do not resume. Skinwalker 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any "LiveJournal friends" are irrelevant to this topic. If you are referring to myself telling Nidara that I had asked some people to review the article, yes, I did. However, 1) they weren't friends, and 2) the didn't "pile on"; they simply reviewed it and commented on it. I don't see what you're trying to accomplish by pointing this out. Have you filed the RfC yet? I will if you have not. Canaen 03:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, your livejournal friends are quite relevant to this discussion, especially when they've been told in detail what to say and how to say it.[31] Yes, I've filed the RfC. Do not modify my summary of the RfC; I consider that a violation of good faith. Cheers, Skinwalker 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for filing the RfC. Please do not mention Good Faith to me. Review your own talk with me on the subject if you wonder why. I didn't know it was your summary: It was unsigned, as it should be. I simply updated it. I added the current situation, and a time. Judging by the fact that it was at the top of the section, I figured it had been filed awhile ago -- a new RfC should've been placed at the bottom of the section. Once more: any user who comes in here from that community is not neccessarily my friend; I simply put out an ad for more people to come in and edit. If you note, I made damn sure to tell people to keep things neutral: "Remember though, this is an encyclopedia; don't go about posting propaganda..." Are you saying that attracting new editors to Wikipedia is a bad thing. I didn't tell them what to say; I suggested ways to get their words heard, as anyone would do for a newcomer. If you are attempting to aggrivate me, I must again ask you to cease; it doesn't get either of us anywhere.Canaen 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Skinwalker has decided to threaten me, I will not edit the Request again. However, I strongly suggest that:

1. You add a date to it. The Project Page asks you to do it.
2. You follow the other guidelines as well:

• To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
• Only with the date, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
• On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute.

Thank you. Canaen 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Skinwalker's dishonesty and hysterical accusations

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)

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)

195.82.106.62 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas continues his personal attack against Canaen - ban in place!

Interesting, Viriditas - who defends the trolls - is continues his erroneous personal attack against Canaen accusing his of using "Meatpuppets". Oh so funny irony considering we are talking about a vegan article and the trolls are pushing meat industry propaganda. Same admin Woohookitty is called upon to do the dishonest deed.

For the record, I have no connection with Canaen nor susbcribe to any Livejournal. I just know this subject recognising dishonesty and hypocrisy when I see it.

Try engaging Viriditas in discussion on this topic, he just ignores you. How can there be any progress in such a situation? 195.82.106.62 19:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't reply to personal attacks, except to correct the author or remove them. --Viriditas 04:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

See quote below ;

• Meatpuppets

Based on the LiveJournal campaign that you've initiated, I'm going to respectfully ask that you review the Meatpuppet section on WP:SOCK. --Viriditas 07:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your request.

1. It is not a campaign.
2. Feel free to read the post. Skinwalker hunted it down through google, and posted it on the Veganism Talk Page.
3. I have read that page. I was trying to attract attention to the article, yes. That community is full of knowledgable folk, and is an excellent resource for finding things out. Many, many people are members. I'm sorry if you view attracting others to Wikipedia as a bad thing. I did not order them to do anything. They aren't friends. I was bringing in outside voices. I have argued consistently on many topics with many of them, and I repsect the community as a good place for discussion. I do not converse with any of them other than in that community. What you see on that page is all that has happened between me and any of them in regards to Wikipedia. If you see a distinct problem with it, please let me know. None of them are meatpuppets, and I expect they'd all be fairly offended at the accusation. Feel free to contact them; they probably have contact information on their Live Journal User Info pages. Again, thank you for your request. I'm sure that you are only doing what you think is best for the encyclopedia. Canaen 07:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

You have been blocked

For 24 hours for continued personal attacks. You are free to continue in discussions once you return, but please cease personal attacks or meatpuppet activies. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The meat puppets are a damn fine band - FrancisTyers 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Skinwalker threatens to " kill the messenger " when he cannot kill the message

Interesting two pronged attack by the usual suspects Viriditas and Skinwalker who threaten to aggressively attack Canaen by filing a " user conduct RfC ". Note this quote from admin's Woohookitty discussing page.

User Skinwalker cant get it into his heads that vegans think and act by themselves - but just happen to agree on number of subjects. They are accusing us all of being organised in a campaign by Canaen now !!! And Canaen is suffering by being banned.

Funnily enough, this is just the same tactic as they use to destroy our environmental and animal rights campaigns. Tellng the same lies until some of it sticks in the general publis's mind, singling out individuals and giving them undue punishment as an example to others - and like Viriditas especially, never actually engaging in direct conversation or democractic votes where it is obvious their arguments will fail.

I note Skinwalker withdrew his vote from the poll. 195.82.106.62 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to respond to your continued personal attacks. --Viriditas 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

==Veganism update==

FYI...Canaen has initiated a meatpuppet campaign to remove criticism from the veganism article. [32] [33]. --Viriditas 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You probably remember the anonymous attacks that Idleguy was being subject to in various places. Well, Skinwalker appears to be the latest recipient [34]. I don't have all the facts, so I'm hoping you'll contact him if you have the time. Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WWK, thanks for stepping in. I intend to file a user conduct RfC later today. Would you be available to look over my RfC before I post it? This situation has seriously gotten out of hand. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment : User conduct Skinwalker reported.

User Skinwalker reported for persistent violations. See ; [35]

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)

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)

From the RfC

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)

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)

Came here via RfC. If someone has solid info about rates of eating disorders, why would that not be included? The same goes for "destructive agriculture of vegetables." I am impressed with the article! Once this conflict is cleared, I would nominate if for featured article. Sethie 16:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: RfC, if there are verifiable sources to affirm the claim that some anorexics claim veganism as a cover then by all means address that with citations. Durova 00:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Accusations directed at Canaen

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)

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)

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)

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)

Response to Skinwalker's personal attack on Canaen via a RFC

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)

• This is where Skinwalker boasts to Canaen he has made a complaint about him on Canaen user page ;

User conduct RFC

Please be advised that I have filed a user conduct RFC on you. It can be found here. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is where I - as one of the erroneiously accused " meatpuppets " respond ;

Just out of interest, who do you think this nark Skinwalker is and why is he so motivated to go about doing what he is doing? I put this record up in the open for you and them to see because I have no and have had no connection with you nor any of the journal pages and, frankly, I take offence at being called a meat or sockpuppet of yours when I am not. I am sure that you are just or even more upset as being accused of a connection with me when you have none.

Unfortunately though, that is the depth of Skinwalker's lies and the shallowness of Skinwalker's integrity.

• Where he has no grounds he invents them and he is, oh, so clever at playing WikiTricks with all these technical terms and methods.

I am starting to feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany being hunted down, connected to individuals which I have no connection with and their so-called crimes and accused of crimes which are not mine.

And what of Viriditas? He just seems to get off on throwing around his weight whilst avoiding entering into the actually factual discussion.

For the record - and let them love every minute of their persecution syndrome, let them avidly copy and paste and make little weblinks to this as they are so good at Wikitricks - I am a vegan of 20 years or more standing and, arguably, MacDonald of Clanranald. I became involved in editing the vegan article before you returned to it recently. I am entirely responsible for kicking this whole thing off because I refused to let Idleguy get away with his ridiculous domination of the article and I put Skinwalker in the same category for his anorexic stuff.

From my point of view, my objections are largely literary. The article became too bloated and required editing down. It is merely meant to be a definition of what vegan is. I don't see any point in actually engaging in those that oppose veganism. I don't even support vegan's trying to counter counter-vegan propaganda on the Wiki. It is best to keep it short and simple and give a few links so that folks that are interested can go find out more.

I approached Skinwalker reasonably and got the same sort of response as you did, see ; [36]. When Viriditas started to engage in his revisions without consultation, I tried to engage him in reasonable discussion, see ; [37]. But he just ignores it.

Fine. I showed respect, they showed themselves for what they are.

I find it weird in a way that individuals can become so obsessed by something that they obviously do not love but instead want to demean or destroy - and that means you now - and are willing to invest so much time and energy into it.

I could understand it if Skinwalker was a paid employee of the meat industry - he says he has professional scientific interest in animal husbandry. That would just make him a paid publicist. But if he is doing this and attacking you in his own free time, I pity him deeply.

"What were you doing all this evening on your computer, darling?" His wee wifie asks him.

"Oh, I spent hours trying to stomp on vegans on the internet, made a really good complaint against one and tried to mess up their article with references to anorexics who think they are vegetarians "

"That's nice."

195.82.106.78 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Veganism and anorexia

• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NAH/is_7_31/ai_80115031

You are quite right, however, that some people use veganism to hide anorexia nervosa (popularly known as anorexia).

• http://www.danoneinstitute.org/objective_nutrition_newsletter/on75.php

The consequences of veganism on growth and health in adulthood still poorly understood but, logically, are likely to be greater than in lacto-ovo-vegetarians. Vegan adolescents and there parents must be informed of the deficiency-related risks and monitored on a regular basis.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7496649&dopt=Abstract

Comparisons were made between two groups of anorectic patients, 'non-white' and 'white' ... and practice veganism slightly more commonly; ...

• http://www.network54.com/Forum/214821/thread/1030016269/last-1133494428/Your+Story

From then on, i changed my vegetarian diet to a strict Vegan diet and started running and running. Soon, bullimia wasnt enough for me, I wasnt losing enough weight, so Ana became my new friend. I am only a new Ana recruit. and After suffering from binge-eating disorder and weighing as much as 239 pounds, I easily and very successfully have switched to anorexia. I started with the McDougal diest -- these prepackaged meals, vegan meals, that you just add boiling water to...

• http://jaoii.lunarpages.com/faq.html

Q : How can I hide my anorexia from my parents? ... Is there some other, more acceptable way to control your food? Like becoming a vegetarian or vegan? That way the rules you set won't look like anorexia as much, and it's easier to eat mostly low-calorie things like vegetables without drawing too much attention. And a plateful of plain steamed veggies has fewer calories than, say, a few bites of pizza. Stealthorexia.

While it seems there is no link demonstrated by scientific study between veganism and anorexia, it appears that some pro-ana internet communities do support it as a method of "hiding" anorexia. Note: I still don't care if anorexia is mentioned or not in the article as my previous vote suggests. Just thought the information should be there... - FrancisTyers 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There are millions of cases of anorexia and eating disorders. Outside of one mothers concern of eating disorder because of vegetarianism, yes vegans tend to be less hefty than the average obese individual in the first world, hmm. Wikipedia is under attack by the media right now for having a lower standard for accuracy than other sources. Let us not maintain that myth. Nidara 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, check this, who cares about some U.S. politician when we have "props" from Nature! :) - FrancisTyers 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent article to point out Francis, props to you. Subversion is key on correct info. Britannica had on average three incorrect facts whereas Wikipedia had four. Let's keep it going. Nidara 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this debate suffice to say that i've been vegan for 21 years now, and have actually come accross very few of the 'painfully thin' vegans of steroetype- if you look at my user page you will see that I'm hardly skin and bones! I'd never even heard of the phenomena of anorexic vegans until I saw this debate! There is actaully a 'Vegan slimmers' yahoo elist for those vegans who'd like to shed a few pounds (I'm on it, for all the good its ever done me!)! If there is going to be stuff on vegan anorexics in this article how about a counter-paragraph on 'pie-eating' vegans like myself and many others I know... or better still why not leave it out totally- there are probably some vegans with eating disorders, but there are many omnivores with eating disorders as well... quercus robur 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As you might expect, I will get involved. And I add my direct experience of 20 years involvement in veganism as well. It has no validity and should be entirely left out.

Putting aside the vegan pie-eatstas point of view, amongst whom I count myself, would - for an example - a con-artist dressing up as a police officer be comsidered as exampe of police officer or would an alcoholic that called themselves a born-again Christian to mask their alcoholism be a true example of what a Christian is - or would they still be an alcoholic?

The words the social scientists here are using is " psuedo " or " self-reported ". That is to say, those writing the studies are making a differention between "psuedo " or " self-reported " and ' actual ' vegans. Even those vicitims of the disorder are making it quite clear in their writing that they are looking for masks for their anorexia not to become actual vegans.

Where you lack sound scientific data from reliable sources - and here you most certainly do - you have to look at the intent of these individuals. They are anorexics trying to hide behind something else not ' become ' vegans.

It has to stay out until you present basic statistics to show the spread of body mass / weight amongst vegans. These at least will be available.

• I think you will find anorexia is under represented vegans because we are largely a very healthy lot. If you have to post it somewhere post it under anorexia because it is nor representative of veganism.

195.82.106.14 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Skinwalker editing other user's discussion page !!!! In this case Canaen's

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)

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)

I didn't know Lord Huntly kept a cat... ;)Canaen 23:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

anorexia in pseudovegetarians

This paragraph is marked for removal to vegetarian or semi-vegetarian. Nidara 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms have also focused on the prevalence of eating disorders within the vegan and vegetarian communities. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders often predate the adoption of a vegan/vegetarian diet (O'Connor et al., Medical Journal of Australia, 1987;147(11-12):540-2). Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder. Studies of college women show that a significantly higher proportion of women who do not consume animal protein than those who do are likely to display distorted eating attitudes and beliefs [38]. Also, self-reported teenage vegans and vegetarians are more likely to be dissatisfied with their bodies and to be involved in both healthy and unhealthy weight control practices [39].

I am going to rephrase this content and reinsert it, with a link to Vegetarianism. The references that FrancisTyer and I found show that:

• Clinical nutritionists view veganism in adolescent women as a risk factor for anorexia.
• Pro-ana communities advocate a vegan diet as a cover for anorexia.
• Vegan and vegetarian teenagers have a high occurrence of unhealthy weight control practices.

These are vegan-specific references that belong on this page. In light of RFC responders suggesting that it's OK if it has references, I'm adding it back in. I'll post a draft later today that we can talk about. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here's my proposed draft:

"There is some concern over the incidence of vegan and vegetarian communities. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders usually predate the adoption of a vegan or vegetarian diet [40]. However, pro-ana communities advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [41] [42], and nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a risk factor for anorexia among young women.[43] Also, self-reported teenage vegans and vegetarians are more likely to be dissatisfied with their bodies and to be involved in both healthy and unhealthy weight control practices [44]."

This eliminates the "pseudovegetarian" reference and adds FrancisTyers' refs about pro-ana and nutritionists. Does anyone other than Nidara take issue with inserting this paragraph under health criticisms? Cheers, Skinwalker 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend that if you were to include this, you only use sources that mention veganism or self-reported veganism. [45] does not mention veganism at all and so shouldn't be on the veganism article. I haven't checked the others. - FrancisTyers 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. New draft, with that ref chopped out and some copyediting:

"There is some concern over the incidence of eating disorders among young women who report a vegan diet. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders usually predate the adoption of a vegan or vegetarian diet [46]. However, pro-ana communities advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [47] [48], and nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a risk factor for anorexia among young women.[49]"

The first ref IS the "pseudovegetarian" reference, but it states that meat avoidance occurs after the onset of eating disorders in all but 6% of cases, so I am including it to emphasize that veganism does not cause eating disorders. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Still I don't think you're going to be able to get it in. Stick to what the sources state.

Some nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a risk factor for anorexia among young women.[50] and pro-ana communities have been known to advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [51] [52].

I think thats about as far as the sources go. Having said that, I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find some proper references in journals. Did you see my one from NIH above? Basically I think that the above paragraph is as far as you're going to be able to go without providing a real reference. To be honest I think the whole article should be scientifically referenced. - FrancisTyers 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's an article[53] that quotes a pro-vegetarian nutritionist as saying:

"(T)he large majority of vegetarian or vegan anorexics and bulimics chose this eating pattern after the onset of their disease"

I think this justifies the sentence about cause vs. correlation, since it specifies vegan anorexics. The article is also a good resource for discriminating between healthy and unhealthy vegan eating habits.

I'm also concerned that we shouldn't dismiss a reference just because it refers to vegetarians, and not vegans. As I stated above, vegans restrict themselves to fewer food options than vegetarians. Veganism can therefore be viewed as a subset of vegetarianism. What's your opinion? Is there anything fundamentally different about a vegan diet that sets it apart from a vegetarian diet, other than the removal of all animal-derived ingredients? Cheers, Skinwalker 19:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, this article should only use sources which specifically refer to vegans and veganism, not to vegetarianism or other supersets. After all, vegetarian is a subset of a non-restrictive diet. This doesn't just go for the anorexia, but any issue where we need sources. Lets make this page specifically about veganism and keep the vegetarian stuff to vegetarianism. I also think we should look at the quality of sources for this page. Nidara has a point when [s]he says that Wikipedia needs more scientific sourcing. - FrancisTyers 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. What about this ref?[54] Does the opinion of a professional nutritionist, as quoted in a nonscientific article, qualify as scientific sourcing? Or should we stick to peer-reviewed references only? If we apply the peer review only standard, we will need to remove a lot of references from the article. Here is my current proposal for the anorexia section:

"Some nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a warning sign for anorexia among young women,[55] and pro-ana communities have been known to advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [56] [57]. However, though there may be a correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders usually predate the adoption of a vegan diet.[58]"

I changed "risk factor" to "warning sign", so that it is clear that the diet does not cause anorexia. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats much better, I think the argument about scientific sourcing is one that needs to be thought about carefully. If we stick to scientific sourcing then it is true we would not be able to include your section, however we would also need to remove many parts and probably find better references for a lot of the article. If we allow non-scientific sourcing then I don't see why your section could not be included. Again I don't really care either way, but we should be consistent. Any input from contributors on the other side of the fence? - FrancisTyers 21:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

More peer reviewed source material can only help. The main function being the integrity of the already battered reputation of Wikipedia. I believe that should be the consistency here as much as possible. This page is one of the most edited articles on Wikipedia already. Let's get it right. Nidara 03:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection to my most recent draft of the anorexia section, I am putting it in. Comments? We need to talk more about which sources are allowed for this article. I won't insert any source in the future that does not refer specifically to vegans, but we should come to a consensus on what we consider a "good source". There aren't a lot of good guidelines for what Wikipedia considers a proper citation, especially in cases where scientific sources are used. Here are some questions we should consider:

• Is something from PETA a good source? Is something from the UN a good source? Is something from the Foundation from Animal Use Education a good source? Should the political motivation of sources be taken into account?
• Should we cite sources that do not cite their sources (e.g. many of the politically biased sources, many nutrition sites, etc.).
• Is peer review a "gold standard"? That is, can we always cite a peer-reviewed source if it is relevant?

Cheers, Skinwalker 21:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As this is a contentious issue, I'd favour sticking to peer-reviewed journals and books where they cite peer-reviewed sources. This would mean however cropping a lot from the article while we find proper sources. PETA would not be a valid source. The UN, FAO, WHO etc. would as they normally cite peer-reviewed stuff. Notmilk.com would not be a valid source, neither would vegsource.com unless they quoted peer-review stuff, and in that case it would be better to quote the actual study. Of course this only applies to factual stuff like nutrition, etc. Opinion could come from any source, but it would need to be clearly noted that it was opinion and not fact. Sources of this type probably shouldn't be valid.

Thats my 0.02€, and in response to the third point I would classify peer-review as "gold standard". It doesn't mean its necessarily correct, but its the best there is. - FrancisTyers 21:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This anorexia argument is really weak material. At best it is conjecture or chat room back and forth. I can not believe you used chat room material as a source. Your best source is offline in Becoming Vegan. I couldn't tell you if the assertions here are even from peer reviewed study. I don't have a problem with it however, it just makes the criticism section look rather foolish. How about I start going through other articles and citing chat rooms. I'm sure I'd be a laughing stock. Nidara 05:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the article. And some of the other stuff already makes the article look pretty foolish ;) - FrancisTyers 10:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed on not including this link you point out as foolish. It is only foolish in title as the source material from this link is solid government statistics. Are chat rooms a good standard for citations, seriously? Point out the other flaws if you would be so kind. Nidara 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Until decent references and a weight of evidence can be supplied, this inclusions has to be limited. I agree with Nidara, others and my own experience of 20 years. Vegan anorexics are very thin on the ground. And an anorexic knowingly passing themselves off as a vegan to avoid criticism is not the same as a vegan. Refering to the initial article quoted where one mother states her teenage daughter is "very thin", what does that mean in scientific terms? Thin by whose standards? It is hardly worthy of inclusion. What other sources can the proponents provide? One FAQ written by a non-vegan and a couple of discussion boards entries?

If it is such a big, widespread issue, which I do not believe at all, can't you come up with statistics from either the vegan societies or anorexic organisations?

Fighting the trend for the first edit to be the deepest, I am changing the emphasis of this paragraph to represent the reality of the sources as stands. Frankly, I can imagine that you could find more " specialists " who consider the entire vegan community to be suffering from the same eating disorder than sustain veganism being a warning sign for anorexia. Medically, you would need more than just veganism as a symptom before you could jump to such an conclusion. Ditto, although more rare, anorexia is not just limited to women, so I am neutering it too.

I am swopping a non-pejorative version that represents the facts of the quotations ;

• Non-vegan anorexics [59] and pro-ana communities have been known to suggest using a poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [60], the eating disorders predating the adoption of a vegan diet. Although there is no evidence to suggest that eating disorders are widespread amongst vegans, some nutritionists consider that a self-reported vegan diet can also be a warning sign for anorexia where other symptoms exist.

for currently sexist and pejorative version ;

• Some nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a warning sign for anorexia among young women,[61] and pro-ana communities have been known to advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [62] [63]. However, though there may be a correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders usually predate the adoption of a vegan diet.[64]195.82.106.14 02:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The old version is neither sexist, nor pejorative, and I resent that mischaracterization. I restored my version. I solicited comments from other editors and was very careful to state that veganism does not cause eating disorders. Please find another axe to grind. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is sexist because it characterises only young women as anorexic although anorexia is suffered by both sexist. Or do your sources claim that self-reporting veganism is ONLY a warning sign amongst female anorexics and male anorexics do not present it !?!

Or it just that you could only find one and they happened female?

Look above for the solicitations of other editors and, yes, please find another axe to grind.

Let's go for the independent peer review science on this one, as even single interest groups are not reliable where there are vested interests.

I will also explain to you why your edit is lacking, nutrionalist would not JUST consider an individual as an anorexic BECAUSE they reported themselves to be vegan. There would have to be other symptoms present! And one mom worrying about one teenager being skinny does not make a scientific case. It that clear? 195.82.106.127 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

*OK. Skinwalker is back to their usual business of reverting edits whilst denying the existence of ongoing discussion ... 195.82.106.127 20:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored the section. I did take the concerns of other editors into account, and removed the "pseudovegetarian" reference. I also toned down many of the statements, removing altogether the "attractive cover for eating disorder" sentence. Your claim of "anorexics who are not in fact vegan" is not supported by peer-reviewed science itself, you know. I found sources that include a pro-vegetarian/vegan nutritionist cautioning about poorly balanced vegan diets in young women, and included it.

Also, you should know that the current DSM-IV definition of anorexia nervosa specifically exempts males from diagnosis, since the sufferer must have not menstruated for at least three months in order to be diagnosed. Of course, this requirement is controversial, as there are certainly cases of anorexia in males. The sources I reference are specifically about women, so that is why I refer to them.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm arguing with someone who repeatedly vandalized my talk page with a picture of an erect penis.[65] Please stop reverting the section; you already have enough bad faith with admins. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, read what other folk have to say. And read the website YOU chose as a reference. The author clearly states that she is not an anorexic herself. If you note, I changed the link to a more explicit page on her policy towards the vegan diet. If anorexia is only as you assert only female, therefore you dont have to state it.

The more recent edit is actually closer to the facts you present as truth from your own. And it is pretty damned obvious that one would have to have other symptoms rather than JUST " self-report " as being vegan.

Additionally, there is not enough sufficient evidence to state that that penis was erect. Its angle of dangle has not been brought into question. Indeed I was merely offering to raise with you the issue of vegan smegma being one of an few acceptable animal product and a chance to make it inclusion. So consciencious you were in debasing this topic.

Look to your self Skinwalker and let others see how you respond to reasonable and polite approaches [66]. Your constant need to attack and accuse, use WikiTricks and edit out what other say - even off other peope's discussion pages [67] - is a weak defence from ignoring discussion and consensus rather than rubbing home your anit-vegan stance.

Go cry to mommy admins if that is the only way you think you can win, if you are lucky will find an anti-vegan one. Otherwise , get over it and join into create a consensus.195.82.106.127 05:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

citations needed

I removed this until citations are found or it even has any relevance. To have any relevance it should be proved here that vegan diets cause more death than non-vegan diets.Nidara 07:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph removed:

Some critics argue that many animals are also killed in the production of vegan foods. For example, enormous numbers of insects, rodents, and snakes are killed in the production of grain. Many vegans counter that a truly harmless lifestyle is impossible in their situation, and note that raising livestock requires more field animals to die than plant-based subsistence.

The critisism section looks more like a talk page and not an article. It needs to be cleaned up. I am marking this page for a cleanup, primarily the criticism section. ThanksNidara 07:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review NPOV as well as WP:NOT. I am in the process of adding citations. --Viriditas 07:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All citations, grammer, and spelling have been corrected. I am removing the cleanup tag. Nidara 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, as the edit history demonstrates, it is still being cleaned. I'm adding the tag back in. --Viriditas 22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not all grain is produced by vegns, for vegans nor produced in a vegan manner. I think that we should apply the " Idleguy Soya Bean Rule " here. The vegan manner of production reduces to a minimum or completely avoids all animal murder or suffering.

• What the author and antagonists also chose to miss is that the primary difference between deaths recorded as being caused by a vegan diet and the deaths caused by the omnivorous diet is that in the vegan case, the deaths and animal suffering are not intentional whereas in the omnivorous case, they absolutely are.

Does this make any difference? By extension, in legalistic terms, without a doubt yes. It is the difference between a murder and a manslaughter or accidental death. In practical terms, from the vegan point of view, we would wholly adopt a position of seeking to avoid any such accidental deaths or suffering and if there were alternatives, as technologies become available we will support and adopt them. But at present, vegan attention is focused on the grossest forms of animal murder and torture. Give us time and we will get there. I am sure all vegans would agree on this.

As such, this whole debate as a contradiction of veganism is very weak especially as it fails to take on board that veganism is not a fixed destination but the beginning of a journey in much the same way, e.g. " democracy " is. 195.82.106.14 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Anything I do you will turn around and undo Viriditas. So I might as well not do anything right? Nidara 03:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Cuisine

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)

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)

Wow, so do people on a non-restrictive diet! ;) - FrancisTyers 00:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Hey, heres an an ironical way of making my point (or maybe its off topic and colouring my brandy soaked 'NPOV' judgement???) - my 20 year old life-long vegan daughter has just this minute come back from her work Xmas meal for which she paid £45. Despite weeks ago requesting 'nut roast' which was supposedly on the menu (but would still have been a rip-off if you ask me...) she had to make do with a 'vegetable platter' of brussel sprouts, cabbage, boiled carrots, etc. Complaining about discrimination in the morning?? You bet we will be... Then theres all that shit in the article in the 'critisisms' section about how some non-vegans may resent the extra effort of accommodating the vegan diet. Maybe they shouldn't be in the fucking catering trade if they can't fucking 'cater' then????? quercus robur 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

American punctuation, and

I have a question about American punctuation as I realise that the majority of contributors to the Wiki appear to come from North America and many are college age.

Now, I can cope with a 'z' instead of a 's' here and there and so on [ and I am grateful for my own typos being picked up ] but in British English - and let's face it, we invented it - we have a rule against placing a 'comma' before an 'and' in general use.

I went through this article to remove these once before but notice them creeping back in. Special purposes, yes. Generally, no.

Do you guys allow this or is it just as bad punctuation as it looks to us? Thanks. 195.82.106.14 01:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I write English English and ignore prescriptive grammar for the most part. There is no problem with putting a comma before an and. - FrancisTyers 01:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the rule is usually thus: keep the page consistent. Since the title is supposed to keep the original dialect's version (if there is a cross-dialect difference), follow the title. That isn't so apparent in this article, though. I'm fine with English English (for this purpose), and I'll alter any new spelling accordingly. However, my grammar will probably stay what is natural to me; if someone wants to edit it accordingly, I wouldn't have a problem. Canaen 06:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm British, and I can assure you that the Oxford comma (as it is often known) is not an Americanism. It's a somewhat contentious issue, but it's been around a long, long time, and is (of course) OED house style. And the Z instead of an S in -ize words isn't an Americanism either. It's very old, and represents a division from the French -ise. It's quite normal in words like 'realize'; note, though, that words like televise (from television) and analyse (analysis) must take the S.

You will find that most usage condemned as Americanism by British people turns out to be of British coinage, and those same people use American words and usage that would have horrified their grandparents. RattusMaximus 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Vegans and Vegetarians

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)

Clean up status?

I read this article through, and apart from odd parts where syntax and spelling might need looked at, it looks ok to me. I made some corrections.

Could somebody please say why it has a clean up tag? It looks balanced, with various points of view expressed in a considered way, so some of the intensive editing has been worthwhile I think, allowing the recording of what can be very opposing points of view. Veganism is a fairly revolutionary idea, in the context of established eating and social habits and ideologies, so it is going to get a lot of edits.

It's great that we haven't really failed completely to express and consider all of the relevant points of view.

TonyClarke 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the points in the article require a little more meat on them? ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dainamo (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 December 2005.

${\frac {d}{dx}}[{\frac {1}{3}}r^{3}]$ —Joehaer 01:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes very good, ha ha TonyClarke 08:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vegan nutrition

Should we not move more of the Vegan nutrition section off to the Vegan nutrition topic and replace it with an introductory paragraph?

At present the so called main article is a lot smaller than the section in the Vegan topic.195.82.106.14 02:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold! I agree. Canaen 06:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, unless there are any strong and rational voices against, I will move towards doing so. I will state that apart from the logical reason for doing so, shortening the current Vegan topic page will allow both subjects to be expanded on if so desired. Personally though, I think shorter is better - more definitive - all around.195.82.106.127 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly care one way or the other where the nutrition info goes... sticking it in its own article could improve the page. However, I'm not sure about this "complete protein myth" stuff. I didn't like the PDCAAS discussion before (too technical, and technically unsound at that), and I'm not convinced either for or against the complete protein "myth". Both sides seem to come from fairly pseudoscientific sources. I suppose a "complete protein" would be one that provides all essential amino acids in adequate amounts? I don't see why one single vegetable ingredient (like beans, for example) couldn't meet that standard if its amino acid content is known. On the other hand, if one ingredient doesn't provide enough of or all of the essential AAs, you have to supplement it with one other ingredient to get full nutrition. I'd like to see some verification of this, preferably from a nutrition journal, and not from "scientists" who make a living selling diet books. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support moving majority of 'vegan nutrition' info to seperate page. At present I start to read the article then my eyes glaze over and I lose interest when I reach that section. Keep main article as an encyclopedic over view that has relevant links to more in-depth sub-pages. A brief paragraph or 2 on nutrition should be enough for the main article, much as the 'vegan cuisine section touches on the subject but directs readers to the wikibooks section if they want to go there. quercus robur 00:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. As there have been no strong opinions against, I will work on it.

• Of course, expect Viriditas to reverse constantly it as a matter of course. ;-)195.82.106.69 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to make it simple and not too technical without compromising my argument too much. A human newborn doubles his weight in only 3 months. And babies have been found to grow fastest and remain healthiest when breast-fed. But the average protein content of human milk is only 6% of total calories (for comparison: cow's milk: 21%, rice: 8%, pasta: 15%, lentils: 29%, spinach: 30%, tomatoes: 10%, sesame seeds: 11%). A study on malnourished African children has found that oedema attributed to "protein-energy deficiency" healed equally quickly in two groups: one which was given a 12.5% protein diet meeting energetic needs, and one which was given a 2.5% protein diet (lower than protein content of apples!) meeting energetic needs. Average protein intake for vegans is 14% (omnivores: 16%) according to one source I stumbled upon (can't find it now). So even if total PDCAAS was sometimes lower for vegans than for non-vegans, there is just so much buffer zone in total protein intake, that it doesn't matter in cases where the diet is reasonably varied and doesn't depend heavily on empty calories (e.g. alcohol; sugar and vegetable oils in isolation).

The USFDA recommends consuming 10% of calories as protein. The way they arrived at this figure is by taking results from the United Nations on daily nitrogen loss. This research led to a minimum of ca. 3% protein calories at a biological value (the protein completeness score used before PDCAAS was invented) of 0.6 to maintain nitrogen balance, which is a figure taken from highly unbalanced diets in developed countries where people can't afford much variety. The FDA then almost doubled that figure as a buffer for protein completeness (the UNO numbers are already based on highly "incomplete" protein!), then doubled the result again to make sure that even people with unusually high protein needs relative to total calories are covered (mind you that pregnant women and bodybuilders have higher than usual caloric needs and thus can get more protein simply by eating more of the same!). This double-doubling of an already doubled score seems overcautious to me, but the thing that annoys me personally is when people who don't know how the USFDA numbers came about say that vegans need more protein because of "protein incompleteness", because the number was already adjusted for "incomplete" proteins. Twice! Aragorn2 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC follow-up

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)

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)

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)

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)

Skinwalker's Attack on " veggie-brandishing hordes " and pigs in crates image.

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 " {{totallydisputed}} " 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)

Viriditas's editing off others user's comments from discussion page

I have a problem with Viriditas consistently editing off my comments from the discussion page and understand this is against etiquette.

It would not seem to be democratic to me and a challenge to freedom of speach.

• Viriditas has also gone back to stuff the topic with references to vegetarianism.
• I thought we had agreed that vegetarian content would be kept off the vegan page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.18.228.53 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 December 2005.

The "comments" you are referring to were personal attacks, and they were removed. If you can't refrain from personal attacks, don't edit this page. The "stuff" you refer to in regard to vegetarianism, has a direct bearing on the section in question, and presents both sides of the issue. "Vegetarianism" in this context, refers to veganism, which is often described as "strict vegetarianism", or in the case of the ADA, as a "total vegetarian". [68] --Viriditas 01:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't even remotely see how it is appropriate to edit anyone else's comments for any reason on a public talk page. If it is your personal page, that's another thing. But a public page? That's censorship. If you think what someone else said was wrong or personally offensive, then I suggest you convince them to remove it. If they won't, then you'll simply have to learn to live with it. --SpinyNorman 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are misinformed (as well as appealing to ignorance). Please review Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. The user in question has not been editing in good faith, and has engaged in vandalism, personal attacks, and edit wars under many different names and anon addresses. --Viriditas 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the part of Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks where it said that this isn't official policy? It still isn't right to censor another person's opinions just because you find them personally objectionable. --SpinyNorman 07:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the official policy WP:NPA? Nobody has been censored. This page is for the discussion of the Veganism article. It is not for discussing or attacking other editors. I'm sorry you disagree, but that is official policy. --Viriditas 09:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks is considered a guideline, albeit a disputed one. On another note, Wikipedia is not a democracy. - FrancisTyers 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Another user described it as "semi-policy". --Viriditas 01:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That may be, however there is no consensus on removing anything. It is not required, simply an idea that many Wikipedians agree to. If someone has a problem with you removing their comments on a talk page, I suggest you cease. As well, I suggest you stop assuming that every anonymous IP is the same person. There are clear differences between several, including the beginning 2-3 numbers. For instance, my IP always starts out with 209 because it is the Area Code assigned to the area in which I am.Canaen 02:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Area code, lol! I suggest you read up on IP addresses. :) - FrancisTyers 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is something I've been meaning to do. I've just noticed that my IP always starts with 209 when I'm here. Canaen 04:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you SpinyNorman. You are too right it is censorship. I also consider that if active contributors with a particularly strong bias / POV such as Skinwalker - and let us face it " nasty ... veggiebashers " are clear insults to vegans " is found to be conspiring with others to alter the trend of a topic then far more worth to discuss matters between contributors rather than to go the route that Skinwalker and Viriditas have already done of attempting to censor other individuals, use their friendly admins to ban erroneous opposing editors and even conspire to attack and damage with libel such an individual as Canaen wishing to become an admin.

This is not a personal attack. This is a very serious matter we face with a two or three editors who seek to dominate this article with their often topic unrelated POV.

Regulars and newcomers should be aware of the history of this page and it not be edited off by those who wish to hide the their actions. When time allows I will provide references but I am not so egotistical, vain or immature as to go to the effort complaining to admins or brewing up falsified RFCs. If we are not adult enough to sort it out here consensually, then we do not deserve the Wiki. (--preceeding unsigned comment by 195.82.106.47)

Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Your comments do not have anything to do with the Veganism article in any way. If you can't discuss how to improve the article, then please remove your comments. Thank you. --Viriditas

Talk pages

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)

Use of vegetarian by ADA

"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". [69] --Viriditas 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

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)

ethical criticisms crop harvesting kills animals

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))

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)

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))

i added an "important point" referencing Matheny's response along with an addition in references. D4v3r5 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Choose veganism

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)

Huh? What? I'm new here. Was that a bad idea? JamieJones 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not at all :) - FrancisTyers 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Only in good humour though :P - FrancisTyers 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Vitamin D

I just read in the news that a deficiency of Vitamin D (which comes mainly from animal sources, except for UV sun exposure) could produce similar symptoms as B-12 deficiency. Could someone add this to the article? It's worth looking into. Badagnani 06:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Badagnani is referring to the risk of cancer, not the typical symptoms of vitamin deficiency. As far as I can tell, the relationship between B12 and the reduction of cancer is unclear, whereas current evidence suggests that vitamin D may reduce the risk of some cancers. Apparently most people get their requirements for D met from a combination of artificial food enrichment (often times fortified milk and cereals) and exposure to sunlight. Most vegan drinks - like soy milk, almond milk - are fortified with D. If you can get it, less than 15 minutes of of sun exposure two times per week provides adequate amount of D, although this doesn't work for everyone, especially infants. D deficiency typically results in rickets, osteomalacia, osteoporosis, and osteodystrophy, whereas B12 deficiency has been associated with hyperhomocysteinemia, stroke, dementia, and neuritis. --Viriditas 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for how much sunlight people need per week? Also is this whole body exposure? Or just face? Or face and arms? I hear this figure for sunlight a lot, but never with a proper citation.

Also while some non-dairy drinks are fortified with Vitamin D, some of this is D3 (i.e., of animal origin) and is not vegan. On D2 is suitable for vegans. patrickw 12:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"An initial exposure to sunlight (10 -15 minutes) allows adequate time for Vitamin D synthesis and should be followed by application of a sunscreen with an SPF of at least 15 to protect the skin. Ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen is usually sufficient to provide adequate vitamin D." [70]. Source: Holick MF. (2002) "Vitamin D: the underappreciated D-lightful hormone that is important for skeletal and cellular health." Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes 9:87-98. "Thus, exposure to suberythemal doses of sunlight on the hands, arms, face, or back two to three times per week is more than adequate to satisfy one's vitamin D requirement. A study of New Zealand nursing home residents exposed to 15 or 30 minutes of sunlight three times a week resulted in a significant increase in blood levels of 25 (OH)D (Fig. 8)...Thus, judicious exposure to sunlight (suberythemal exposure) in the spring, summer, and fall is a good source of vitamin D3." See also: "Since the cutaneous production of vitamin D3 is dependent on so many factors, including season, time of day, latitude, and the person's sensitivity to sunlight (i.e., amount of skin pigmentation), no one recommendation can be made. If a person knows that he/she will develop a mild sunburn minimum erythemal dose (MED) after 30 minutes of sun exposure, then exposure of the face, arms, hands, and legs for 20% to 25% of that time (i.e., 6 to 8 minutes) 2 to 3 times a week is more than adequate to satisfy the body's requirement. A sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 15 can then be applied to prevent the damaging effects of excessive sun exposure. We observed that adults in a bathing suit exposed to 1 MED of tanning bed radiation raised their blood levels of vitamin D to levels equivalent to those achieved by ingesting between 10,000 and 25,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D. The adequate intake for vitamin D as recommended by the Institute of Medicine in 1997 is 200, 400, and 600 IU of vitamin D for ages up to 50 years, 51 –to 70 years, and 71+ years, respectively.11 However, in the absence of any exposure to sunlight, there is mounting evidence that at least 800 to 1,000 IU of vitamin D is required daily to prevent vitamin D deficiency." Source: Holick, MF. (2002). "Sunlight and Vitamin D: Both Good for Cardiovascular Health". Journal of General Internal Medicine 17:9, p.733. Sept. --Viriditas 13:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This figure is for face, hands, back or arms, according to the reference Viriditas supplied (ok, that doesn't seem to clear things up much). However, the amount of time depends on whether the sky is overcast or there is fog/smog, it depends on the angle of the sun over the horizon, which can be a problem in northern climes. Skin color matters a lot, too, the lighter, the less time required (but be careful to avoid sunburn, of course). Age matters, the older you are, the less vitamin D your skin can produce. Sunscreen can greatly reduce vitamin D production. Baldness may help by increasing the area of skin exposed to direct sunlight significantly when dressed. Bright, light clothing lets more sunrays pass through than dark or heavy clothing. All of this affects vitamin D production. If one or more risk factors cannot be compensated by longer exposure, or exposure of greater skin area, dietary sources such as mushrooms, fortified foods and supplements are absolutely necessary. Aragorn2 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Other websites mention several other risks of Vitamin D deficiency besides cancer, including high blood pressure, depression, immune system conditions, osteoporosis, etc. Had no idea that fortified non-dairy beverages could have Vitamin D of animal origin. Scary. Badagnani 09:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case, what did you mean by "similar symptoms as B-12 deficiency"? --Viriditas 10:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, depression comes into both fields, though I'm not Badagnani. Canaen 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Serious question

How stringent are most vegans? I mean, do they use plastic products, even though plastic is made from petroleum, and petroleum is an animal product? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Most vegans aren't stringent at all in this regard. The ideology allows for it.

Since the founding of that Vegan Society, however, the term veganism has come to mean people who seek to eliminate all animal products in all areas of their lives, as opposed to those who simply avoid eating animal products.

They only have to seek to eliminate animal products. If it's too inconvienient it isn't required. - FrancisTyers 01:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Francis. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

According to vegans, there are a few things to consider. Were animals exploited, enslaved, treated in a cruel manner, or experience suffering in order to produce plastic products? One could argue that people were exploited to produce the plastic, but that doesn't appear to fall under the scope of veganism. --Viriditas 07:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There are an infinite amount of things to consider. Humans are animals, as they are not plants, minerals, or fungi, and exploitation of any animal if not a Vegan thing, though many Vegans do not consider this. Canaen 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's be realistic. There aren't an "infinite" amount of things to consider in this instance, and if there were, one couldn't consider them. Veganism is well defined, even if some aspects provoke disagreement or controversy. --Viriditas 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not about what we "have" to do; things aren't required, or decided by the Vegan Society. They're simply respected as group with a long history of opposing animal exploitation. Every Vegan makes their own decisions. Canaen 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, veganism is well-defined. --Viriditas 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Every Vegan is unique. Two major areas of debate are usually Honey and Refined sugar: Some self-proclaimed vegans don't see Bees as animals, and therefore consume Honey. Though there is no animal product contained in the final refined granules of sugar, about 1/4 of commercially available refined sugar was processed with cow bones, and it's all mixed in with its Vegan counterpart (Beet Sugar). Some Vegans don't consider this to "count" as an animal product.

Some Vegans avoid intensive crop production, on account of countless small animals harmed by the use of industrial machinery in the harvesting. Others dismiss this as too inconvenient. As well, many Vegans avoid non-organic produce because of the bugs killed with pesticides, and the damage chemicals do to ecosystems.

It really depends on the Vegan. Some Jains, who at their best are extremely strict Vegans, wear face masks to avoid inhaling living organisms, carry brooms to sweep away living organisms before they step, and even starve themselves to death because they are not willing to cause any suffering. We're all different. Canaen 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There are more similarities than there are differences, and as such, we can define what veganism is or isn't. Jainism has its own set of precepts. --Viriditas 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they take into account human exploitation either. There are enough vegans going around drinking coca cola and wearing GAP clothing. But of course that is outside the scope of the article and I will try to keep my personal beliefs out of this ;) - FrancisTyers 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is another example, Viriditas of Veganism not being a set of rules. Many vegans do go around without regard for human exploitation, buying diamonds, drinking coke, and supporting many other cruel institutions. However, many also take human exploitation into account (myself, for example; all those other dirty vegan hippies in San Francisco), see it as a form of suffering, and so cease support for it.

Francis: Why should it be outside the scope of the article? I can't find a reason. Veganism is not just a diet, after all. I think it would be fitting. Canaen 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to include it in the Criticism section, I think you're wrong by the way, veganism is a set of rules and it is a lifestyle. The rules are "don't eat meat or use animal products", the rules are interpreted in different ways by different people, this is the lifestyle part. - FrancisTyers 11:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to kill myself for coming back to this article, but I don't think that Veganism can be narrowed to a set of rules; especially not the set that you put forth. A lot of us would prefer the Vegan Society's explanation over your's; if something that which we can reasonably cease causes suffering, it's not Vegan of us to continue that thing/action. I think the the interpretation is mostly about what's "reasonable" and what's not, though some does go into what's considered to be suffering, or a cause of suffering. Canaen 06:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Veganism doesn't require people to take into account human suffering, unless you are going to say that people who "don't eat meat or animal products" but do buy sweatshop clothing and drink coca cola are NOT vegans. Don't use a No true Scotsman on me now. Veganism isn't "avoiding suffering" it is "not eating or using meat or animal products". Perhaps you'd like to tighten the definition but then you'll need to decrease all the numbers of frequencies of vegans in the world as I imagine most studies go by my definition not yours. - FrancisTyers 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course veganism requires people to take into account human suffering. Humans are animals too. It is true that veganism is "not eating or using meat or animal products" as you stated, but you're trying to reduce to infinity. In actuality, you are the one trying to us a No True Scotsman here. The REASON vegans don't eat or use animal products is to "avoid suffering". That is simply a fact across the board, as far as I can tell. - Sometimes 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Och, tae be fair, nae true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.

The way Veganism is as a movement means that it is impossible to say all "true" vegans do one thing or another. The only defenition we can possibly apply is an agreement to strive to decrease suffering as far as is practical and possible. Different people interpret that in different ways. I don't eat refined sugar, because animal products are used in it's production; many other Vegans do, and they're still Vegans. I have actually broached the subject of human rights and labor-related issues in Vegan communities, and I've seen it done by others. Many Vegans don't take such things into account in their interpretation of Suffering, but that doesn't mean they're not Vegans.

Most studies approach Veganism as a diet, a strict form of vegetarianism, which is incorrect. That's why they go by your defenition. Canaen 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Allen's Study and a Reminder

While my personal opinion is that the current wording of the article makes the Criticism sections superfluous (if not just short of invective), I have a specific concern regarding the paragraph about Prof. Allen's study.

1) There is no reliable reference to the study. A great many internet sources claim the study was essentially bogus, and there was wording to this effect in the article sometime in the past.

2) If the study is bogus, what in the world is it doing in the article, much less in its current, unqualified form?

3) I suggest we remove the paragraph until we can ideally read the study ourselves. It seems to be too controversial a study at the moment to be included, unqualified, in the article.

In general most of the Criticism section just makes for a really bad encyclopedia article. Most of the paragraphs are highly duplicitous (the Allen example above), inflammatory, or irrelevant.

I urge all involved in this article to cool their passions and abide by logic and aesthetic tastefulness. This is not Usenet. We are not trying to convince anyone to become vegan, nor are we trying to prove its depravity. We merely are trying to inform people about what constitutes the vegan philosophy and lifestyle. The current article smacks of controversy a bit too much to do this.

The stretching that goes on in this article belies mal-intent. I close with an example. Operating under the assumption we are merely trying to inform, rather than discuss and debate, there is no reason that the article happens to mention a theological argument that animals feel no pain just because earlier the article mentions vegans are motivated by reducing what they see as animal suffering. A scientific argument might, just barely, be relevant, but a theological one?

Remember, we don't need to add paragraphs about the philosophical and scientific errancy of sexism and racism in every article about a sexists or racist person. Cheers to all. Shawn M. O'Hare 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You claim there "is no reliable reference to the study"? Yet, I suspect most people here would accept the BBC as a reliable source. As for the "great many internet sources" questioning the study, can you give any examples of these? --SpinyNorman 21:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Below I include some links. I have also found the actual study. The links I include claim

• the study was set up to obtain its conclusions (I have done ecology field research before and it is a bit frightening how easy it is to manipulate studies, and also statistics). Basically, the points most the references make are that the children were highly malnourished to begin with, so anything would have improved their diet. The abstract of the study itself suggests the normal diet of the control group was in fact inadequate, and ergo non-representative of a typical vegan diet.

• the conference where the study was presented was funded by Global Livestock-CRSP. Maybe this indicates intent for a quite specific result, maybe not.

• some of the research quoted in the study's abstract is not referenced. Minor point.

• Prof. Allen was quote mined in the BBC article. Here are her own words, from one of the links below (bold emphasis mine). The news reporter “hyped” my concern about vegan diets for pregnant/lactating mothers and infants/children by not adding the sentence I was emphatic they keep in, namely that vegan diets were unethical UNLESS those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods. I completely agree that it is possible to add back those missing nutrients and have stated this in a position paper on nutrition in pregnancy for the American Dietetic Association. I also agree that well-managed vegan diets, plus supplements plus fortified foods to get those missing nutrients, are probably healthier for adults and even many children than the average US or UK diet.

• Allen' Study
• VegSource - A site for veganism, so take with grain of salt, ignore the hype. Does have a response by two dieticians to the BBC article though, and some links.

• VegSource - link from above, about the funding of study.

• Guardian Unlimited - basically information contained in above.

• Buzzle - similar as above, slightly different light.

• The Oven - this contains Allen's comments that she was misquoted.

Conclusions

You say, SpinyNorman, that Yet, I suspect most people here would accept the BBC as a reliable source. It is unfortunate that people would put any significant trust in mass media for controversial issues, esp. nutrition, religion, environmentalism (i.e., areas people are fervent about and also not wont to change). Science in general is very poorly covered in non-specific mass media.

Always take bombastic claims from mass media with a grain of salt, and demand the original study. Clearly we don't have time to read every study of interest, but as a rule of thumb, don't accept mass media as the Truth on any scientific topic.

This goes for both sides in this particular article. Some media outlets will tout the amazing benefits of a vegan diet, claiming it to be a near cureall. Doubt this, and try to find the actual research. You will find many articles that speak about how a meat-based diet basically is a death-wish. Also doubt this, and try to read the original research. Clearly articles exist that say the opposite.

In closing, I suggest we remove the paragraph. It and the BBC article appear grossly out of context and non-informative. Regards to all. Shawn M. O'Hare 09:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shawn. It's good to see this kind of voice in here. Canaen 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Allen study is not a valid study of veganism. The BBC article itself explains that the experiment consisted of giving malnourished children either 2oz of meat, 1 cup of milk, or an equivalent amount of OIL. Because children did best on the meat as compared to drinking pure fat, she concludes veganism is unhealthy. Who can possibly think this has any scientific value? It should be pulled or a comment added about its flawed comparison. AstroVegan 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now read the original papers. (The paper cited above is just the experimental and baseline discussion. The results after the first year are found here.) The BBC and VegSource give a very poor description of the actual study. (Just reiterates a previous point about not blindly trusting media outlets to get their facts straight.) Despite their claims, the study did not merely give children a piece of meat, cup of milk, or a little oil. In reality they gave each of the 3 groups a vegetable stew with the addition of meat, milk, or oil to provide identical caloric (and mass) intake. As a result, the "oil" group (called the Energy group in the study) actually got larger portions of the stew, so the comparison isn't so blatantly silly as the BBC represents (and I originally believed). The problem remains, though, that the "vegan" group was eatting a nutritionally deficient diet; adding meat or milk would obviously lessen the deficiency, as would adding any number of vegan foods other than vegetable oil. Still, after one year, the only difference found was higher B12 in the children given the meat or milk. Not surprising given the total absence of B12 in the stew itself.

Given the questionable value of the research with regard to veganism, the known issues with B12 covered elsewhere in the article, Allen's own objections to the BBC article's misrepresentations, and the apparent consensus of people here, I will delete the paragraph about the research. I will leave her criticism of veganism in place as it seems a fair criticism from a researcher in the field and leads in well with the next paragraph about breast-feeding mothers needing to get plenty of B12. AstroVegan 03:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethical criticism: Intensive farming

It seems very much to me that the following would be much better fitted in a criticism of Intensive farming:

"Critics like Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production. Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed. [29] Davis gives a small sampling of field animals in the U.S. that are threatened by intensive crop production, such as: opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, grey partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, grey-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians. In one small example, an alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the grey-tailed vole population. According to Davis, if all of the cropland in the U.S. were used to produce crops for a vegan diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually."

As I believe I've mentioned to several current editors, Vegans don't neccessarily utilize Intensive farming, and are usually more inclined toward small-scale, organic farming methods, for many reasons. These include the unneccessary death of insects due to pesticides used in intensive farming, the small animals killed in production mentioned above, along with many other reasons specific to individuals.

So... why is this bit here? Canaen 02:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Canaen. The section in question is a criticism of vegan ethics, not intensive farming. See the references for further information. In other respects, I'm not sure if Idleguy was correct to remove Gaverick Matheny's counterargument, [71] merely because he was a graduate student. The reference in question was a published, peer-reviewed journal article, and I think it stands on its own merit and not on Matheny's educational status. As such, I think it should be added back in to the article, but I'll wait for Idleguy to respond, first. —Viriditas | Talk 10:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. As per Wikipedia official policy, "The fact that a statement is published in a peer-viewed journal does not make it true." probably would apply here given the dubious credentials of the person who prepared that paper. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Beware_false_authority. Most would be hesitant to use an undergrad's research paper in Wikipedia or anywhere else as a source. Idleguy 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Idleguy. There appears to be some confusion. Gaverick Matheny is a published, academic author whose opinion on vegan ethics is topical and relevant, especially in the context of a criticism of vegan ethics by S. L. Davis. Davis and Matheny are both discussing the same issue, namely Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle", as outlined in A Case for Animal Rights (Matheny authored the chapter "Utilitarianism and Animals"). Both Davis and Matheny published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, with Davis rebutting Regan's LHP and Matheny providing a counterargument to Davis. In this instance, there is no issue with "false authority", as Davis and Matheny are both discussing animal bioethics, in relation to the ethics of veganism. Both Davis and Matheny are qualified to comment on this issue (Matheny is currently publishing from the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland while Davis was at the Oregon State University Agriculture Experiment Station). This may not be obvious to the casual reader. --—Viriditas | Talk 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include the paper. In academic science (at least in the US), it's very common for graduate students to be listed as first author on peer-reviewed papers. It's slightly less common for graduate students to publish their own papers, independently of their research advisor, but far from unheard of. In fact, people's most highly cited papers tend to come from their graduate or postdoctoral work, before they are considered an "expert" in the field. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is indeed a very close call. But from what Skinwalker has to say it seems that papers published by graduate students are pretty well received. But in some parts of the world, a graduate student's paper would hardly be given importance, especially on such a contentious subject. Since Wikipedia caters to a global audience I feel we should be sending the right message in maintaining a uniform standard and exclude these (unless the author is now well recognized and the paper was made when he WAS a graduate etc.). Therefore I propose we get a better source that will be seen as more credible for a reader from Asia. Hope I have not confused anyone. Idleguy 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

At present, I don't see any issue with the quality or credibility of the source, and the author in question has published (and continues to publish) on the same topic. See also: [72]. Furthermore, it is important to include Matheny's opinion for the purposes of NPOV. —Viriditas | Talk 11:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Matheny continues to publish after his graduate work, and is a recognized scholar in the field. This stuff needs to be there for NPOV, as well. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see which ethics it's criticising. Where does the article say that vegans ignore this, or don't care? Who's to say we don't? Do you have a source to say we don't?

I'd also like to note that I see no Criticism of Christianity on the Christianity page whatsoever. Nor on Judaism or Jainism, Ahimsa, Spanish people, or a number of other articles I could relate to this. Canaen 22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the criticism of the ethics, did you look at the references? I explained above. I'm not sure what your comment about religion has to do with this. I intend to expand the criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at the references. I saw a book, which I don't have in front of me. Therefore, it doesn't tell me anything. I'm not saying that the information isn't good; it very well may be, and I believe you in that respect. However, it just doesn't belong here. By placing it where it is, the article is assuming that all Vegans make use of Intensive Farming, which they don't. Some, but not all. Canaen 09:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Christianity page has been experiencing an ongoing edit war, and is tagged NPOV presumably because of its lack of criticism, so I don't think that's a good example. Indeed, what does religion have to do with this, apart from some esoteric thoughts on Jainism? Canaen, are you implying that vegans are above criticism because of their personal beliefs?

Any subject which has a body of relevant criticism as a primary or secondary source needs to have this criticism discussed in its article, in order to give a reader a full understanding of the topic. This is also a way to promote counterarguments to the criticism. One of the fundamental tenets of veganism is that avoiding animal products eliminates animal suffering. Documenting a counterclaim to this tenet is appropriate to this article, and should not be moved off to a secondary page. If animal suffering is inevitable, even with organic farming methods (which is demonstrably true), the central argument for veganism could revolve around some sort of "harm reduction", rather than the elimination of all suffering. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the Vegan Society's definition again. That's what most of us use. We don't think we're ever going to eliminate suffering entirely; Veganism, in general, does indeed revolve around reducing harm, as far as possible and "practical"; this leaves it open to many people on different levels. I'm not saying the article should be without criticism, I'm just trying to say that:

1. Vegans don't claim to live without causing suffering. Simply to strive to reduce it as much as possible and practical.
2. Talking about animals killed as a result of intensive farming simply doesn't have anything to do with Veganism. Not all of us make use of intensive farming, and to assume so is insulting.
3. This bit about intensive farming might be criticizing what many percieve to be Vegan ethics, but not what they are in actuality. It seems entirely out of place to me, and would be much better suited at Intensive farming as a problem seen by Vegans and others concerned with non-human life. This is an issue that Vegans are concerned with; indeed, it is one of many reasons why many Vegans strive to avoid products of intensive farming. It just doesn't fit. It's like criticizing Anti-War activists because U.S. Government is driven by Imperialism. It makes no sense for this to be used here. Canaen 09:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The actual moral arguments are not particularly focused on intensive farming. Other aspects, such as the principle of "least harm", the "logic of the larder", "act–utilitarianism", and "animal welfare" are essential. A discussion of vegan ethics is relevant to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. What I'm getting at is that when I read this bit of the article, it seems to me that Davis is saying that because many Vegans eat products of Intensive farming, Veganism is a bad thing. It doesn't at all seem to be criticising anything in the article. Perhaps it would seem more relevant to me if someone who recognized exactly which part of Vegan ethics Davis is criticising would write something promoting that ethic first. Canaen 07:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem. Imperialism? Eh? We're not assuming that vegans don't avoid products of intensive farming. I understand that most vegans try to reduce suffering, and recognize that completely eliminating it is impossible. However, I think you're conflating several issues here. One, that vegans are opposed to factory farming, or, as you put it, intensive farming. Two, that vegetable production itself, whether factory or organic/earthfriendly/etc, inevitably kills small animals, insects, and so on.

I am not aware of a reputable source that describes the impact of non-intensive farming on local fauna. If you know of one, please enlighten us. In the absence of a credible primary or secondary source that discusses this specific topic, we should include criticism of "least harm", while acknowledging that the critter death toll from non-intensive farming is probably, but not certainly, lower than it is from intensive farming. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Skinwalker, Intensive farming refers to industrial agriculture; you might consider reading the article. While Factory farming is definitely linked, they are not mutually-inclusive; one refers to the production of animals, the other (primarily) to the production of crops.

I'm wasn't aware that Davis included small, organic farming in his criticism. The quote from the article is as follows:

"Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed."

Small-scale, organic farming generally would not utilize a large tractor (on roads at most), and wouldn't generally be supporting a monoculture (utilising fields of the same crop, or even the structure of a field at all). Nor would they be using chemical fertilisers (what does manure kill?), or pesticides. Crops are generally harvested by hand, reducing the death rate of mice and other small animals to a negligable level (they'd only die as a result of an accident such as a shovel falling on their head, or because of an irrate farmer). So, what part of Davis's criticism applies to small-scale, organic farming?

As for a source explaining the impact of non-intensive farming on local fauna, that would obviously depend on what flora was being grown. However, I will get back to you, realizing that not everything may be considered if it is not seen by all of us. Canaen 07:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You could be dead-on correct, but you're ignoring an essential metric: yield. Inarguably, producing the same crop yield organically requires more land and labor. How does the friendliness of these methods compare to the increased area of the damage? And a final ethical question: could you even feed the world using organic methods? Would they be efficient enough? However, I think the organic question is technically orthoganal to the veganism one. They do not necessitate each other. --Davidstrauss 11:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for my revert

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)

On vegan health

I noticed that the health section of the article says,"Vegetarians have been anecdotally reported to have favorably lower body mass indexes than people who eat flesh, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease. However, no cause and effect relationship between vegetarian diets and these health benefits has been scientifically established."

I'm not sure that the facts are anecdotal in nature. For instance, in the book The China Study, after rather convincingly linking the consumption of animal protein to the growth of cancer, an increase in the risk of heart disease, and other western diseases such as diabetes, Collin Campbell goes on to say, on page 242, "The findings of the China Study indicate that the lower the percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits-even when the percentage declines from 10% to 0% of calories. So it's not unreasonable to assume that the optimum percentage of animal-based products in zero..."

This is hardly random spouting, but rather information backed by a decades long study of the relation between diet and disease.

The article could probably afford to be slightly less conservative given the weight of the evidence. Plenty of published medical doctors such as Dr. John McDougall and Dr. Joel Fuhrman say the same thing.

What do you think?--Rustic Bohemian 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah...So no opinion? I guess I can go and make the change then? --64.72.76.6 23:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if you found the actual study cited in The China Study and included it. Dr. Campbell is a well-known vegan activist, so like any activist-derived material (including meat-eater activist!) I would treat it with a grain of salt. Aside from that, I am not convinced we should present popular diet books as authoritative in nutritional discussions. Is the citation given in the book? If so, please find the original paper, read it, and decide if it supports this argument. Cheers, Skinwalker 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Campbell is a nutrition scientist and project director of the Cornell-Oxford-China Diet and Health Project, which studied tens of thousands of people over two decades, and "The China Study" is his summary of the results. Campbell is certainly an authoritative source concerning the results of that research. Therefore, I would hardly call "The China Study" a "popular diet book" as if it were unscientific dribble like Atkins. AstroVegan 18:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's nice. We cannot blindly appeal to authority, no matter how "authoritative" a source is considered. Is the China Diet peer reviewed? Certainly the studies Dr. Campbell cites in it are. To reiterate, please find the original studies (published in a peer-reviewed journal) and decide if the conclusions support including this study in the article. The China Diet is being marketed as a popular diet book (check its entry at Amazon), and like the Atkins diet, we need to treat any nutritional info from them as suspect, unless the info is backed up by peer-reviewed research. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree primary, peer-reviewed articles are better than published books, but it is not an appeal to authority to cite a scientist discussing his/her own published research. In the context of the scientific veracity of a claim, though, I concede that it is correct for Wikipedia to insist on using the peer-reviewed articles. AstroVegan 23:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are all quite incorrect, Dr. Campbell is not a vegan or animal rights activist by any means. The man grew up on a dairy farm and was/ is a very respected nutrionist. He along with top nutritionist in China did a 15(something along those lines) year study funded by the US and Chinese governments. After all of that time and sifting through thousands and thousands of pages of data he came to the conclusions stated above (understated at that) to say now that he is a "vegan activist" because he know advocates a plant based diet is ridiculous. Not everyone who disagrees with the conventional science of the time is a liberal nut, you sound a bit like the people who would stone me for saying the earth is not the center of the universe. Baumstev

Unfortuately, that's how all things which challenge the status quo are treated in established Western society. A lot of people can't look back in time, and make those connections; it's something we've come to accept as standard. Canaen 06:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Campbell is Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. "He has received more than 70 grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers. "The China Study" was the culmination of a twenty-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine." He was also involved in the discovery of "dioxin". To discredit this scientific study and to instead leave the definition of veganism claiming that "there has been no evidence to support this claim" - is astonishingly ignorant and invalid.

An Oxford University study [(article)] showed that in comparison to meat eaters, vegetarians had a 24 per cent reduction in mortality from heart disease even when other lifestyle factors such as smoking, exercise, and socio-economic class were taken into account.

No matter what you say about statistics about vegetarians, it doesn't mean a vegetarian diet is inherently healthier. Vegetarians probably, as a whole, care more about eating healthily than Joe American. But it's not logical from the assertion you make to conclude that the exclusion of meat or animal products itself is the source of the health.

Consider an analogue argument. According to insurance statistics, drivers of red cars are more likely to speed and get in accidents. That's why their insurance rates are higher. But it would be ridiculous to say it's the red color itself that is the source of the accidents. That's basically what you're saying with vegetarianism/veganism. Bottom line: correlation is not causation. --Davidstrauss 11:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The quantity is also important: Eating meat in huge quantities is unhealthy as is eating bread, however many would rather eat two-three greasy meat pizzas or hamburgers than a kilogram of bread & legumes - Eating meat doesn't make anyone automatically fat or unhealthy, nor does eating vegetables make anyone slim and healthy. Overall, if nutritional additives are indeed required then I'd have to say strictly natural vegan diet is less healthy. - G3, 15:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Let's get the promotional fluff out of this article. --Davidstrauss 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Insects

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)

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)

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)

Insects can't suffer - Some don't even have any memory, infact most have probably seen insect repeatedly burn itself to a normal lamp. Saying an insect suffers ie. acknowledges & recognizes pain is pure anthropomorphism (as some would argue is animal suffering and veganism in general). - G3, 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Orthorexia nervosa

I see no mention of the eating disorder (also known as "righteous eating"). GreatGatsby 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Definition Discrepency / abscence of Lifestyle

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)

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)

Prejudicial picture

This picture promotes an emotional response. It implies that the ethics of veganism are correct. It makes the article biased without adding any useful information about veganism. It should be deleted. --Jeblis 19:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a photo which illustrates a situation which might cause someone to be vegan. It does not imply that the ethics of vegansim are correct, unless you agree with vegans that such a situation is unethical. The caption describes exactly what is occuring in the photo. Lastly, removing something just because it evokes an emotional response is stupid. Not to Godwinize, but please see Holocaust#Death_squads_.281941-1943.29 for just such an example. Kellen ^T 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

By that reasoning we should also post a picture of an obese person, since that also may cause someone to decide to be a vegan. This is not truly descriptive of most vegans since while they do not want to use animal product no matter how humanely the animal was treated. And yes something that evokes an emotional response that seeks to bias the article should be removed. It's the logical fallacy "Appeal to Emotion"--Jeblis 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In my experience with vegans, most are swayed by concern for animal wellbeing rather than for some sense that they'll be slimmer. I have also personally met many vegans who would probably not be vegan if milk, eggs, etc came from more humane processes. I will reiterate that I do not think that the picture seeks to bias the article. It is essentially a statement of fact. There is also no logical fallacy at play. That would be along the lines of: "Does this picture gross you out? If so, then you should be vegan." But we have no such situation here. We have: "Vegans generally oppose what they see as violence and cruelty involved in the meat..." and a picture illustrating said cruelty, with no conclusion, thus no logic involved, and thus no logical fallacy. Kellen ^T 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The photo is clearly pushing a POV, and its relevance to this article is merely tangential. It would be perfectly apposite in the factory farming article, but it doesn't belong here. Nandesuka 11:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Treatment of animals (especially factory farming) is central to the ethical basis of vegansim. What we have is one picture that is relevant to the specific section with which it is aligned. Kellen ^T 12:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Are you saying that if I replaced that picture with one of some happy animals cavorting on a free-range farm, you wouldn't view that as emotion-laden and POV? Of course you would. The picture is absolutely inappropriate in this context because it is implying n point of view on the part of Wikipedia on whether or not the beliefs of those vegans are correct. By contrast, a picture of some vegans protesting treatment of animals in factory farms would not be POV, because that would address the article directly and is documentary of the subject of the article, rather than presenting the beliefs of the subjects as objective truth. Nandesuka 12:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm making no claims about whether the picture evokes an emotional response. Whether it does or does not is irrelevant. The photo illustrates this section:

Vegans generally oppose what they see as violence and cruelty involved in the meat, [10], dairy, non-vegan cosmetics, clothing, and other industries.

Just as the photo of vegan sushi illustrates the vegan cuisine section. You're not complaining about how delicious the sushi looks and therefore how POV it is. A photo of vegan protesters in this article would indeed be relevant, but perhaps to a controversy section or a section about vegan activism or activists, but not to a section about the fundamental ethical basis for veganism. Finally, a photo of free range animals may also be relevant, but would be more appropriate in the criticism section, where arguments are made that eating free range animals mitigates the fact that they raised and killed exclusively for human consumption. Kellen ^T 12:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As Kellen has stated, it's just a picture of the conditions which exist in modern factory farms. There's nothing biased about it. If you don't like it, fine, but that's no reason to remove it from the article. Not everyone's emotions are evoked by the image. If your's are, that's no fault of the article's. Canaen 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture should stay. Factory farms suck and they are the reason many people adopt veganism. - FrancisTyers 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep the photo due to relevancy. —Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The photo should be deleted, it DOES promote an emotional response, you have to remain neutral here, you're taking activism into the article and that should not be allowed. --The Beorn

Did you bother to read the responses above? Do that, then comment. Kellen ^T 09:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

vote to retain picture - it's relevant to the article quercus robur 11:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't vote here, but yeah. Kellen ^T 12:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture is IMO completely irrelevant to veganism and misleading - The only case it makes is one for more humane treatment of animals. This aspect should be mentioned in the caption too. For that matter, if human treatment of animals is primary concern for vegans, then would they eat meat of naturally died animals like for an example an antelope killed by a lion and left half uneaten? - G3, 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To G3: I think that most vegans would agree that eating an antelope already killed by a lion in a situation where plant foods were not available would be entirely condoned by the philosophy of veganism. For example, I wear leather, because I purchased it before I became vegan. Additionally, a friend of mine gave me some shoes he didn't wear because they didn't fit him will, made of leather, and I now wear them almost every day. There is, in fact, NOTHING more vegan than making sure that if an animal had to die, we should in the least utilize the products from their body. I do not purchase leather products, but if a cow had to die for the shoes my friend owned, and he wasn't using them, it is in my opinion extremely vegan to at least make sure that those shoes are used instead of sitting in the back of a closet.--Sometimes 06:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, having read the arguments for keeping the photo, and those against keeping it, I have to say the "keep" contingent is unconvincing. The photo is clearly intended to provoke an emotional response, while at the same time failing to provide insight into the subject. More importantly, the photo does not in any way depict suffering animals. Please save your rhetoric, there is nothing in the photos suggesting that the animals pictured are suffering. They are simply pigs in a small cage. No argument can be made that the photo definitively depicts ANYTHING other than pigs in a small cage, and one can assume said pigs are unhappy, but absent psychic powers, it is only an assumption. More importantly, please stop being disingenuous. It is frustrating when a group uses contrived arguments in obvious attempts to push their POV. We all know what the intent of including the photo is, so stop acting like we're idiots please.

Article in the Independant

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)

Thanks for the great tip! —Viriditas | Talk 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Repetition

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)

Vegan cooking - vegetarian sushi?

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)

Changed caption "vegan cuisine". Femto 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

User:CountZ put a NPOV tag on this article, saying "The "motivations" section reads like a puff piece for veganism, especially in how it extols the vegan diet. Requires rewrite for neutral point of view." However, the points made in the motivations section are countered in the criticisms section, which is nearly twice as long. I suggest removing NPOV. Kellen ^T 09:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's generally considered inappropriate to apply the NPOV tag without pointing out what, specifically, is POV. That being said, let's give User:CountZ a day or so to specifically identify the offending sentences and suggest a remedy before removing it. Nandesuka 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the offending sentences, extracted from the health section. In particular, it makes a false comparison between veganism and vegetarianism. The evidence used isn't comparable. As far as I can tell, veganism means no animal products, period. Vegetarianism means no meat, but dairy and eggs are okay.

Vegan diets bestow several nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, no cholesterol, no animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been anecdotally reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. Thousands of scientific studies demonstrate the benefits of consuming whole plant foods, and concomitantly, the dangers of eating animal-based foods. The "Grand Prix" of dietary studies, The China Study, reveals that even very small amounts of animal products significantly increases disease risk.

CountZ 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these read like puffery. Anyone want to take a crack at rewriting them to sound a little less breathless, and to refer to reliable, verifiable sources as appropriate? Nandesuka 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

put a citation on the body mass index claim and noticed an increase in citations in the health section in general. do we feel we are moving to a more npov or is a rewrite still requested? frymaster 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinions on the problems with this paragraph, in no particular order: -"anecdotally reported?" by whom? If it's not a verifiable statement from a reliable source, we shouldn't be including it in our encyclopedia. What does it mean that the China Study is the "Grand Prix" of dietary studies? Who calls it that? What does that even mean -- that's the sort of thing I call "puffery"; it has no specific meaning but carries emotional connotations. For that matter, how about a citation to the China Study?

Even worse, the citation you added (properly -- I am not complaining that you added a citation!) actually contradicts the claims we make in the very next sentence (they say "Our study has also shown that there is no significant difference in blood pressure results between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.") Now, surely there are other studies that may find such differences, but it is a bit jarring to read a study we cited that says "no significant differences" and then read, one sentence later in Wikipedia the (uncited) claim "Vegetarians also show...lower blood pressure." To be frank, it looks like cherry-picking. Added to this is that the paragraph is written from an omniscient-observer point of view, so it sounds like Wikipedia is saying this, and not, say, Drs. Smith and Jones.

So yes, I think this paragraph still needs to be rewritten. Nandesuka 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember when one of the first articles about the China Study came out, it was in 1990 in the New York Times by noted nutrition columnist Jane Brody. It was there that I saw them refer to the study as "the Grand Prix of Epidemiology". I was actually able to find it in my files in less than two minutes. It's funny what we remember. Here's an excerpt:

Huge Study of Diet Indicts Fat And Meat'

In the 'Grand Prix' of epidemiology, scientists tracked eating habits of 6,500 Chinese

by JANE E. BRODY, Tuesday, May 8, 1990

Early findings from the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease are challenging much of American dietary dogma. The study, being conducted in China, paints a bold portrait of a plant-based eating plan that is more likely to promote health than disease.... -MichaelBluejay 09:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And this is the problem with uncited sources. See the difference? On the one hand we have a study which we say is "the" Grand Prix of dietary studies, which implies (a) it's the best, (b) it's the best objectively (c) it's a common belief that it's the best, and (d) that belief is still current, and on the other we have the actual facts, which is that it is a study that one reporter called the "Grand Prix" which is about 16 years old. Nandesuka 11:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In any event, I've taken a crack at rewriting the paragraph. Feel free to add your citation to the new york times article. Nandesuka 12:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

added a few citations. i think if a cite is included for the china study we can be in a position to remove the npov label frymaster 16:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think (a), (b), (c), and (d) are actually true. I don't think there has been another comparable study conducted in the intervening years, and I think this study is generally very well respected by professionals in the field, though if someone knows otherwise they're certainly free to cite that. There's also a big book out about this study, you know. Anyway, you wanted a source, I was just trying to provide one, since I happened to remember where the quote came from and it was readily accessible in my files. -MichaelBluejay 22:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

right, Nandesuka has done a rewrite, we've thrown in some citations for the rest and i for one, think the health section is a lot stronger.

i vote remove npov

frymaster 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

you guys are funny

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)

Gestcrate caption

Lest the edit warring should continue, I wonder if those who quibble over how the caption ought to be formatted might explain their reasoning here, in order that a consensus should be sought; the dueling versions, incidentally, are here. I think the shorter version to be preferable, principally for two reasons: (a) it does not draw a conclusion apropos of whether the pigs can move (even as I am confident that Canaen's version is accurate, we oughtn't to draw conclusions where such drawing is unnecessary; a reader can surely ascertain the condition of the pigs without the caption's saying it, and our saying it verges on WP:OR); and, (b) it better focuses on the subject of the article (were the topic of the article animal abuse, Canaen's version might well suffice; here, though, animal abuse is discussed only tangentially, as a reason for one's veganism--the caption, then, ought to focus on the abuse-vegan nexus, and Canaen's version omits any reference to such nexus and doesn't attempt to conflate the picture and the topic of the article). The image exists to illustrate a reason for which some people lead a vegan lifestyle, not to offer commentary as to that reason (even if the commentary is, as in this case, altogether in accord with my sentiments); whether the pigs can turn around is largely irrelevant to veganism, inasmuch as most would nevertheless oppose factory farming even were the pigs permitted to turn around, and so the detail is unnecessary and unencyclopedic, especially/at least for this article. Joe 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ought to focus on the abuse-vegan nexus, then it isn't really a vegan issue, as a vegetarian issue. This article shouldn't be about vegan moralizing about issues already covered by a vegetarian article. Vegetarians already don't eat pigs. What it is that makes vegans go further in their dietary restrictions than vegetarians has nothing to do with pigs and factory farms. SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The major reasons for vegetarianism and veganism are the same and the articles necessarily cover similar territory. Kellen ^T

Of course they do. But this article should summary style and refer back on issues that overlap and then move on to the vegan specific issues. What does this picture add to an understanding of veganism that isn't already covered by its (or a similar picture) appearance on vegetarianism? Nothing. That kind of un-necessary repetition of emotional photos makes it seem like propaganda. SchmuckyTheCat 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That only makes any sense if you assume that people are reading Vegetarianism and then come here to read this article, which blatantly isn't how people use an encyclopedia. Also, and this is an important distinction, though vegetarians avoid eating meat, they are generally unmoved enough by factory farming of animals to avoid dairy. Kellen ^T 09:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is an image, it should have a caption that describes things from a vegan angle, otherwise it's useless. So shouldn't we altogether try to find an image that is more characteristic to the vegan view? Of a dairy cow with a veal calf, with a caption that meat and milk aren't produced separately. Of chicken sexing and the culling of males from egg-laying strains because they're useless for eggs and inefficient for meat. Something like that. Femto 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That would indeed be more appropriate. Kellen ^T 12:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Vegans oppose milk because its production is inextricably linked to meat production.

How's this one from the WikiCommons. The caption is open for improvement, but this is the basic point that I would make. Femto 12:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good except that a photo of a cow does not illustrate "Vegans generally oppose what they see as violence and cruelty involved in the meat, [9], dairy, non-vegan cosmetics, clothing, and other industries." That, and the caption is wrong. Kellen ^T 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cruelty free options exist for dairy. Insisting that it is the cruelty mistakes the intentions of many vegans. SchmuckyTheCat 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Two points. (1) Vegans would insist that raising animals in captivity for the sole purpose of extracting something from them is inherently cruel. (2) "Cruelty-free" dairy is hardly representative of mainstream food production, and indeed many of the criticisms leveled at factory farming apply to "free range" (i'm assuming that's what you mean) animals as well. [73] Kellen ^T 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try and speak for all vegans. "Vegans would insist" is a generality that isn't true. Not all vegans care about cruelty at all and might simply be doing it as a diet, temporarily eating vegan, or religious reasons. SchmuckyTheCat 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but we're talking about the ethical motivations for being vegan, which are predominantly based around cruetly. Religion, diet, etc are distinct issues. Kellen ^T 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that the opinions of "Kellen, Wikipedia Editor" do not qualify as a verifiable, reliable, third party source. We should not be captioning pictures based on your opinions. (Or mine). Nandesuka 16:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention to do so. My comment was setting the context for my previous comment, since Schmucky seemed to take it in the context of "all vegans" rather than "people who are vegan for ethical reasons" which is what I was talking about and indeed what this whole thread is about. That one of the ethical reasons for being vegan are related to cruelty is documented throughout the article. Kellen ^T 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't make the milk without making the cows, which is reason enough for vegans wanting to avoid the whole thing. Some see a happy milk cow with her young, some see a calf that sure isn't going to live in a retirement home. A seemingly unconnected image may bring across a better point about the perceived cruelty than one that does make a real point but which is not related. Femto 13:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The current picture of the pigs makes a real point which is obviously related. A caption for it that we can compromise on is all that's needed. Coelacan 01:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've put up a proposed compromise caption... "Female pigs in factory farms used for breeding, confined to gestation crates. [74] Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism " I'm sure someone will revert it soon enough, but I thought I'd put it up so we can try it out and get new reactions. Coelacan 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(moved from User_talk:Viriditas) Hi, Viriditas, I'm confused. What do you mean by "Link and caption are on the photo page. This page is about veganism"? I was trying to provide a compromise caption to the edit war (Talk:Veganism#Gestcrate_caption) as there are so many people insisting that a more detailed explanation of the picture be given. I took out the language about not being able to turn around because someone pointed out that was arguably original research as it pertains to the this specific picture. But anyway, I'm not sure what you mean about the "link and caption" bit and why it gets a revert? Thanks for your time. Coelacan 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The caption, "Female pigs in a factory farm. Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism" is in accordance with Wikipedia:Captions, and accurately describes the photo. Your content, "Female pigs in factory farms used for breeding, confined to gestation crates" is based on the full quote on Image:Gestcrate01.jpg from factoryfarming.com: "Female pigs used for breeding (called 'breeding sows' by industry) are confined most of their lives in 'gestation crates' which are so small that they cannot even turn around. The pigs' basic needs are denied, and they experience severe physical and psychological disorders." This is not a factory farming article, and we do not need to comment about the photo, other than to mention the relationship to veganism. For the purposes of NPOV and relevance, I would prefer to limit the caption to only, "Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism", and leave it at that. Anyone interested, can click on the photo and read the quote from factoryfarming.com. —Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point now. Coelacan 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would still like to suggest a slight change: "Pregnant female pigs in a factory farm. Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism", because "pregnant" puts into context the reason we're mentioning at all that they're female. -- Coelacan | talk 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me. Kellen ^T 08:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The indenting is all screwy here, so this looks out of place:

"Female pigs in factory farms used for breeding, confined to gestation crates. [75] Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism "

But I'd be fine with this. Mainly I want the crates labelled, and a link to factory farming in with it. We could use an article on Gestation Crates, for that matter. Canaen 06:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sexual motives" and Sylvester Graham's non-vegan diet

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", [76] 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." [77] "Enjoy pure milk, fresh cheeses and eggs in moderation." [78] "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." [79] Coelacan 16:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

three times definition

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)

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)

Environmental Motivation

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)

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)

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)

That's a start. I do think that style and clarity would be aided by retaining the {{main|Environmental vegetarianism}} tag right under the section header. -- Coelacan | talk 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What about this change, which puts the e.v. link closer to the beginning? --TimTL 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, either way is fine. It's just that the {{main}} 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)

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)

Header Parellelism

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)

Difficulty Subsection of Criticism

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)

Looks good to me PrettyMuchBryce 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Why is vegetarian.org.uk "linkspam"?

Why has [80] 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)

Because User:Justbutler is "Dr Justine Butler: health campaigner of the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation and author of the White Lies report." [81]. 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)

100m

regarding legality of 100m records, see Ben Johnson --frymaster 03:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, what regarding the 100m record in the Ben Johnson article? - Solar 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

meaningless "ethical"/"animal rights" distinction (?)

the article says: "People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including a concern for animal rights, health benefits, religious, political, ethical, environmental, and spiritual concerns.". but i cannot understand how the 'animal rights' reason to be a vegan is different from the 'ethical' reason.

maybe there's some ethical reason to be a vegan that has nothing to do with animal rights that i never heard of.

i would prefer just "ethical" (not "animal rights") were left in place if this subissue gets sorted out. lakitu 05:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that 'animal rights' should remain in the sentence as it is probably the key reason for becoming vegan. A survey on all-creatures.org found 41% stating 'concern for animals' as their key reason for becoming vegan. I have changed the sentence to:

People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns such as animal rights and the environment, as well as more personal reasons such as health benefits and spiritual or religious concerns.

Let me know what you think. - Solar 10:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

'Concern for animals' implies animal welfare rather than animal rights (you wouldn't call the civil rights movement of the 60s 'concern for blacks'). The new wording seems to cover both reasonably well. Henry^Flower 10:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

foreskins?

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)

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)

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)

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)Nunya

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)

Awful citations

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, [82] 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 {{fact}} templates. --Davidstrauss 11:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Okay. Here are some questionable citations and claims:

• [83] This citation is used to support vegan diets as a distinctly healthful choice. However, the citation actually says that vegetarian diets are notably healthful. The article even states concerns particular to people on vegan diets. Citations supporting veganism need to uniquely support veganism unless the cited statement clarifies the scope of the claim. For example, statements should say things like "as with other vegetarian diets," "as with other low-fat diets," or "as with other diets containing abundant fruits and vegetables." This sort of reasoning is why the U.S. FDA distinguishes labeling a product "fat free" versus "a fat-free food." The former implies a distinction versus other comparable products; the latter implies that the product is fat free because it is by nature fat free. In the same way, we need to clarify where veganism actually distinguishes itself and where it merely inherents attributes by virtue of being a subset of many other diet options.

  From the article "A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients. Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." (emphasis mine). The article is clearly including vegan diets. Kellen ^T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"[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)

"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)

• [84], [85] These citations make claims against dairy products. First, the avoidance of dairy products is not unique to veganism, so it can't be implicitly claimed as a unique benefit of veganism. Second, the claims here seem to contract the claims in the previous citation, which included greater bone depletion in vegans.

  Both are used to support this sentence in the module "Vegans suggest that their diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet." As I have explained above, these are perfectly reasonable citations to support such a statement. It is irrelevant whether avoidance of diary products is unique to veganism. Were the statement "Veganism is healthier than an omnivorous diet," then we would need different citations. I do agree, though, that that particular statement would benefit from more citations than ones just about milk. Kellen ^T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• [86] Claims about rBGH affecting the actual milk product are routinely debunked. In fact, it's against FDA rules to claim the non-use of rBGH in dairy production affects the final product. An organic milk company in New England also failed in its efforts to force rBGH users to put warning labels on their milk for this reason. This source also fails WP:RS.

  This supports the sentence "They also argue that additional health benefits are gained by not consuming artificial substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to farmed animals." rBGH is clearly fed to many farmed animals and its usage is not labelled, as you say. Vegans will not consume these hormones. That the FDA does or does not require labelling tells us nothing; many people consider the FDA to be influenced by industry lobbyists. In any case, this supports a sentence in the motivations section, which speaks to the variety of reasons someone might become vegan. Concern over eating rBGH and other hormones is certainly a reason people give for becoming vegan. You, me, and the FDA may disagree with these people, but the fact is that it is still a motivation. This is therefore, again, a citation which is okay in my view as it is explicitly describing the mindset of some vegans rather than claiming a health benefit outright. Kellen ^T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• [87] Clearly fails WP:RS.

  I disagree. A primary source for establishing the opinion of vegans. Therefore passes WP:RS. Kellen ^T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• [88] Clearly fails WP:RS.

  I disagree. A primary source for establishing the opinion of vegans. Therefore passes WP:RS. Kellen ^T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed the "Vegans suggest" part. This one is indeed okay.

• [89] 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)

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)

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)

• [90] [91] Using these in a veganism article is downright deceptive. First, the eastern conception of "vegetarian" is non-predominance of meat, not lack of it. Second, veganism is part of a large class of diets that fulfill the "China Study" criteria. Finally, the problems with increased meat consumption weren't based on a start of zero meat consumption, so it's not an argument for veganism.

  Huh? Again, this is a perfectly reasonable cite to establish perceptions of veganism as more healthy than a meat-based diet. It doesn't matter if other diets would qualify for the study's findings. As for the eastern conception of "vegetarian": the study was conducted by western scientists with their own definitions. Kellen ^T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't establish veganism as healthier in itself, certainly no more than common vegetarianism. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

• [92] This has absolutely nothing to do with veganism. It's a question of meat production quality controls.

  This is a crappy link as it provides nothing interesting that the fellow said. But once again, an article on poor meat production quality controls would be valid here since it illustrates a motivation for someone to become vegan. Kellen ^T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is just an analysis of two sections. I'll try to cover more soon. --Davidstrauss 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Politically charged article?

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)

Indeed, veganism appears to be more of an ideology than merely a "healthy" choice. --Davidstrauss 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Honey

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)

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)

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)

Citations Needed?

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)

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)

Movement for Compassionate Living link

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)

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)

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)