This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
On November 11th 1950, the "constitution" of the Vegan Society declared that: "The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man... The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals... The Society pledges itself in pursuance of its object to seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man."
In 1979 the definition was further clarified as "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—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."
That 1979 definition is still the one in use today, and is generally accepted by vegans world wide. Veganism is based on this concern for the life, welfare and rights of animals. All vegans, every single vegan in the world, is a "ethical vegan", therefor this distinction between "dietary vegans" and "ethical vegans" in the beginning of the article is wrong. There are people who follow a plant based diet for their own health or for the environment, but to be a vegan is clearly more than that. Veganism means following a strict plant based diet, but it is ALSO a way of life, and having a real concern for the lives and wellbeing of animals. TheOriginalVegan ( talk) 12:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
References
The Vegan Society is not the sole arbiter of veganism and their view doesn't appear to be the general understanding of veganism. We reflect what reliable sources say about a topic and give due weight. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
TheOriginalVegan and other editors -- there've been multiple previous discussions around the topic of ethical vs. dietary veganism which you can find by searching on "ethical vegan" (I used the quote) in the archives. This archived discussion from 2017 is very relevant to this discussion: Sources for the dietary veganism distinction valereee ( talk) 13:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
___
References
Hey, SlimVirgin I'm sitting here looking at the page, and the full passage is
A 2006 estimate placed the number of vegans in the US somewhere around 1.7 million, and with "vegan movement organizations counting their membership in the tens of thousands, there are arguable more practicing vegans in the USA than there are members of vegan organizations." Indeed, despite the existence of the Vegan Society, which was founded in England in 1944, vegans tend not to constitute a unified group in possession of a cohesive ideological mandate; they tend not to be be joiners, but they do have 'a propensity towards alternativism in other areas of life...and eschewing the use of all animal products represents a change that necessarily involves all areas of life". While veganism does not constitute a unified social movement, as an ideology it is marked by conscious individual actions that nonetheless stand in stark opposition to the consumer mandate of US capitalism, and for this reason the actions of individual vegans pose a substantial -- if symbolic -- threat to such a paradigm. This book looks at..." (etc.)
How is the part I've bolded, which is what I added to the other section, taken out of context in any way that would be misleading? The context seems unremarkable to me. What am I missing? valereee ( talk) 19:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, SlimVirgin, what was wrong with including the PETA mention? It seems like the fact two (very) different sources declared a year in the 2010s 'the year of the vegan' is relevant to this section. valereee ( talk) 09:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC) SlimVirgin fixing ping valereee ( talk) 09:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I can see why not.
PETA announced it in Feb 2016 as a question, therefore - apart from PETA not being a very reliable source - it was crystal ball gazing. A campaigning rather than reportage.
Is the Wikipedia quieter than it used to be these days? I don't see much talk on talk pages. -- 82.132.229.79 ( talk) 00:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I read the sources given for the line, "Several vegetarian writers argued that the restrictions of a vegan lifestyle are impractical, and that vegetarianism is a better goal." and they don't appear to say that.
One, for example, is quoting a meat chef Bourdain, he of the "Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant" quote.
Another is an academic paper, I could see no indication the authors are vegetarian. I suggest the line is removed as unnecessary POV stuff.
Unless, of course, it could be balanced with another that says something equally silly like, "Several vegan writers argue that vegetarians are butt hurt because vegans make them look bad and like hypocrites for not walking their talk". </irony>
I mean, isn't a bit like a Colts fan sticking a line on the Patriots' page saying they should support them instead?
"Several Colts fans argued that the supporting the Patriots is impractical, and that the Colts are a better team.".
Seriously?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.230.209 ( talk) 01:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not a professional or governmental source when it comes to nutrition. It is thus undue weight to give it so much prominence. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC) " Harvard Medical School, which refers to vegans as strict vegetarians, and has stated, [1] Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses."
Harvard Medical School does sound nutritional research and outreach, and its nutrition researchers work closely with those from the dietetics associations. This quote represents the current direction of vegan/plant-based research quite well. Since there's no "academic association" section and considering that Harvard Medical School receives a good deal of professional and government funding, it would fall under the "professional and government associations" section. RockingGeo ( talk) 09:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Doc James: The way you changed the wording makes sense to me. I'm happy with that. RockingGeo ( talk) 22:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
References
These refs do not even mention the topic of this article?
"The use of antibiotics in livestock is a major factor in the development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and is something that some vegans wish to mitigate. There have been many well-documented events showing that antibiotic usage in livestock results in direct influence of antibiotic resistance in humans. In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended reducing antibiotic use in animals used in the food industry due to the increasing risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria. [1] HSBC produced a report in October 2018 warning that the use of antibiotics in meat production could have “devastating” consequences for humans. It noted that many dairy and meat producers in Asia and the Americas had an economic incentive to continue high usage of antibiotics, particularly in crowded or unsanitary living conditions. [2]"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The refs confirm that antibiotic resistance is transferable to humans. Like I said about the entire section, more refs need to be added about veganism specifically. I just haven't added them due to a lack of time, and would like some help. After a quick search, one for vegans against antibiotic resistance is here: https://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/antibiotic-resistance-through-our-food/, and there plenty refs regarding zoonotic diseases and veganism, like these ones https://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Foodborne-Illnesses-A-Problem-for-Vegans-Too https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/vegan-diets-healthy-humane/ https://www.vegan8in.com/2018/03/7-incredible-ways-veganism-can-help-you.html https://peoplefortheethicaltreatmentofanimals.wordpress.com/tag/salmonella/. RockingGeo ( talk) 09:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
References
RockingGeo: Those sources are unacceptable for the encyclopedia, as they are WP:SOAP soapbox organizations and the content is WP:PRIMARY advocacy. Further, the discussion is off topic and synthesis of your opinion, WP:OR, for the Veganism article. There is no high-quality review from a reliable medical source proving that use of antibiotics in animals or the general food supply transfers as antibiotic resistance in humans consuming those foods; for that you need scientific consensus, WP:MEDSCI, which doesn't exist. -- Zefr ( talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Zefr: You reverted edits on the ethical veganism section, stating they were "soapbox blogs/sources." However, according to WP:BIASED and WP:SOAP, one can use biased and soapbox sources to report on such actions/beliefs from a neutral POV, which is exactly what was done here. RockingGeo ( talk) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Zefr You removed a section I wrote on slaughterhouse working conditions. You said it was off topic, but I don't see how, considering that I cited multiple instances of vegans referencing slaughterhouse working conditions as a reason to go vegan. You also claimed the sources were poor, yet they consist of unbiased news article and scientific studies. I agree that the reference format wasn't great, but that's not a valid reason to remove the whole thing. I need help formatting references. RockingGeo ( talk) 22:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Zefr I spent my free time today making this little section much better referenced and formatted (without any help from you), and now you just removed it without any valid criticism? Why? It's not off topic. It's not poorly referenced. I asked for consensus when I published it. Then you threaten to block me. What's going on? RockingGeo ( talk) 02:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this is an attempt to build consensus. I want to get this settled quickly so we can focus on other things. Who here agrees or disagrees that the following material is appropriate for this page? RockingGeo ( talk) 21:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
===Slaughterhouse worker exploitation concerns=== (This is an old version. See one-sentence version below)
The Vegan Society has noted, “by extension, [veganism] promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans.”
[1] Some ethical vegans and vegan organizations cite the poor working conditions of slaughterhouse workers as a reason to reject animal products.
[2]
Mercy For Animals has especially been a leading voice, producing multiple publications that advocate for veganism to support slaughterhouse workers.
[3]
[4] In 2016, Maya Gibson, a representative of Vegan Australia, wrote, “Not only do animals suffer when they are treated as commodities, but so do humans, in many different ways. Please take the logical and compassionate next step and go vegan.”
[5] In a 2018 opinion piece by The Guardian, vegan journalist Chas Newkey-Burden has said, “Few are even aware of the plight of slaughter workers. But market forces are simple – every time you put meat in your shopping trolley, you are funding the slaughter, globally, of 70bn [sic] farmed animals each year, the destruction of the environment and yes, the exploitation of vulnerable workers.”
[6] In a report by
Oxfam America, slaughterhouse workers were observed not being allowed breaks, were often required to wear diapers, and were paid below minimum wage.
[7] In reference to this issue,
PETA has said, “Animal rights are human rights, too. … Whether out of concern for the animals or the workers, the conscionable choice that anyone shocked by this report can make is to go vegan.”
[8]
References
Some ethical vegans and vegan organizations cite the poor working conditions of slaughterhouse workers as a reason to reject animal products. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Ref 345, if someone could fix the doi, that would be great. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Jainism and Veganism should be merged because it is exactly same philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundakundakunda ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@ EllenV3gan: Can you lead a healthy life as a vegan? Yes, you can, but you are strongly advised that a visit to the nutritionist should become a habit (which most of carnist people don't have to). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@ BallenaBlanca and RockingGeo: Bone density tends to be lower because it contains less impurities. It fact the bones are stronger as the ratio of plant to animal goes up [2]. B12 deficiency resulted from eating root vegetables found in the soil, nothing to do with eating animals. Other animals produce B12 naturally in their gut, as they do vitamin C. [3]. Omega 3 is found in walnuts, kidney beans, soya bean oil... It's a horribly misleading archaic fear mongering section and I am going to delete it because it is contrary and unbalanced. ~ R. T. G 11:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Eliminating all animal products may increase the risk of deficiencies of vitamins B12 and D, calcium, and omega-3 fatty acids. [1] Vitamin B12 deficiency occurs in up to 80% of vegans that do not supplement with vitamin B12. [2] Vegans might be at risk of low bone mineral density without supplements. [1] Lack of B12 inhibits normal function of the nervous system. [3] [4]
In regard to bone-density, the link you gave is good and from 2019 [6], we should cite this on the article, we do not need to be citing an older study from 2009 to invent a false balance. The line "Vegans might be at risk of low bone mineral density without supplements", is supported by reliable sources. I see no reason to delete this content. There is no negative unbalance here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Protein uptake information is also non existent. Those who do not have the patience, for long study, refer to this page to settle interpersonal disputes. This page is being used in the long term, to beat vegan opinions down, in cases where it should lift them up in the wide world. Among the links above on bone density is information regarding nutrient uptake, but all forms of nutrient are listed. The intake of protein is determined to be several times the order of meat eaters. I am not seeing that anywhere. Anywhere... sheesh? ~ R. T. G 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
There are three odd sentences in the lede, the first two contain comparisons but they do not state what they are comparing against.
It is very important to state what diet these vegan diets are being compared to as it would be very different to state that vegan diets are healthier than eating a diet of Cheetos and Pepsi (a meaningless and obvious statement) than to say vegan diets are healthier than a normal healthy diet that included meat and dairy (a profound statement).
The other sentence I take umbrage with is "As with any poorly-planned diet, unbalanced vegan diets may lead to nutritional deficiencies that nullify any beneficial effects and may cause serious health issues." As most people are on a eat-what-you-want-to-eat diet (a poorly-planned diet) without running into nutritional deficiencies this sentence appears false. Perhaps the author meant to compare against poorly-planned extreme diets where whole groups of nutritional foods were being avoided for whatever reason rather than just unplanned diets which may of course led to malnutrition but rarely nutritional deficiencies. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:274:B0BC:DD16:18FA:C1B0 ( talk) 21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
:: |
When the article says that vegans do not eat animal-derived substances, should it put in that this includes honey? Vorbee ( talk) 20:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
RockingGeo, I ask that you stop bloating this article with unnecessary detail or trivial quotes like this one. Wikipedia is also not big on the quote form you used before I changed it. See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
If you reply, please do not ping me. This article is clearly on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this source, a Reddit source, be used for this text in the " Ethical veganism" section? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello,
The changes I suggest concern this phrase : A 2016 systematic review from observational studies of vegetarians showed reduced body mass index, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and glucose levels, possibly indicating lower risk of ischemic heart disease and cancer, but having no effect on mortality, cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, and mortality from cancer.[247]
1) the article was published in 2017 not 2016 2) Since the wikipedia page is about VEGANISM and not general vegetarianism, I don't think it is pertinent to reference it here. 3) Although, in the article have a phrase specific about veganism witch states the following : Similarly, although in a very limited number of studies, vegan diet showed a significant association with a reduced risk of total cancer incidence (¡15%). Johnnyyob ( talk) 10:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vegan Economics, has to be rubbish, by being overtly biased. unless the average yank eats 365 animals a year?? Highly improbable, therefore immediately remove or add a "caution" note. Even Homer Simpson needs help to eat a whole pig or piglet! 121.99.108.78 ( talk) 07:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to suggest an update to "Canada: In 2018, one survey estimated that 2.1 percent of adult Canadians considered themselves as vegans". To be replaced or updated with data from this more recent (2020) survey: https://vegfaqs.com/number-vegans-in-canada-survey/ . That recent survey shows an estimated 4.6% of adult (18+) Canadians are vegan. DCjazzy33 ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The article contains data from the Gallup Institute for 2012. These data should be replaced by data from the same institute for 2018. In 2018, 3% of Americans called themselves vegans.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-vegetarian-vegan.aspx
46.148.180.57 ( talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reuben.kkk ( talk) 11:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
So basically the extremists are worse than 1000 cows this means that going vegan is much worse than actually having a balance diet
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I request adding an additional section about vegan medications. A surprising number of common medications are not vegan, either due to filler ingredients, active, or something as simple as shellac (derived from insects) in the pharmaceutical dye used on capsules. I recommend adding the section after the "Vegan Diet" and "Personal Items" sections. Below is the suggested wording for a vegan medicines section.
==Vegan Medicine==
Most vegan certifications on medicines and supplements ensure that the product does not contain any animal byproducts. However, many pharmaceutical ingredients can be derived from either an animal or animal-free source. For example, the most common inactive ingredient in tablets or capsules is magnesium stearate. [1] Magnesium stearate can be derived either from animal fat or palm oil, but manufacturers do not often make the distinction on their packaging. [2] Organizations, such as the Vegan Society, PETA, and VeganMed, offer certifications that provide clarity for consumers. [3] [4]Certifications that provide in-depth laboratory testing as a component of their certification can differentiate between animal-based and plant-based ingredients, providing consumers with peace of mind. A second concern for vegans searching for medicine is that the FDA regulatory process for ingredients or drug creation requires animal testing. As such, vegan certifications can only ensure that the medicine or supplement is free of animal products, but not necessarily animal testing. [5] For this reason, terminology like animal-free is more accurate than vegan. [6] Forest2020vision ( talk) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Not done - this is unencyclopedic, promotional, soapbox content for "VeganMed" ( a retail sales company online); WP:SOAP for this article. No WP:MEDSCI source is offered (or exists, to my knowledge). -- Zefr ( talk) 20:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=File:Creamy_roasted_sprouts_and_pasta_(8200316502).jpg (nice picture but looks like plain cheese and the comment to the picture does not explicitly state that it is vegan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.176.110 ( talk) 18:52, 1 February 200 (UTC)
Someone changed the short description from "the practice of abstaining from animal products and a philosophy that rejects animal commodification" to "practice of abstaining from eating or otherwise using animal products".
There has long been a sense among practicing vegans that explicitly rejecting the practice of commodifying animals and its underlying presumption of not recognizing nonhuman personhood is part of what veganism is and ought to be. I think we need to deliberate about this 'change' (instead) AS a PROPOSED change and not as a mere clarification. The editorial intent may have been to clarify, but much is lost when the article discusses merely a diet. MaynardClark ( talk) 09:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 made this rollback: [13]. You tell: "sources state "animal products." but the 3 sources in reference [c] are clear that veganism is not just about not using animals as a product, but not use them in any way (also not for services, e.g. entertainment). I can live with leaving out "non-human". Timelezz ( talk) 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The section on Ethical Veganism /info/en/?search=Veganism#Ethical_veganism misses out a growing recognition in the courts of ethical veganism having the same protections as any religion in terms of hate speech etc. e.g. from January this year: “The judge ruled that ethical vegans should be entitled to similar legal protections in British workplaces as those who hold religious beliefs.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359 So attacking people based on their ethical veganism is the same as attacking people because they are Christian, Muslim, or any other religion. Should that be part of the article? It's quite important to the topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.35.40.230 ( talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The official definition of veganism as defined by the oldest vegan society is "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." The current definition on Wikipedia is strong, but it misses the key "as is possible and practicable." The page would be improved by having this phrase in either the opening sentence or paragraph for the following reasons:
1) Animal use is so widespread (in the tires in our cars, in camera film, in our medication etc.) that it is hard to maintain a regular quality of life in society and 100% exclude animal products. Of course, this should not dissuade us from not exploiting animals where we easily can, such as eating plant-based food rather than animal-based food, or not wearing leather and fur etc., but the recognition should be there that vegans are not advocating for people to remove themselves from society so as to avoid animal products.
2) In addition, this phrase gives recognition to vegans from all walks of life who are all trying to reduce their consumption as much as possible. Some young vegans are threatened by their parents to eat animal products, some vegans are struggling to transition due to lack of time and energy if they are already struggling to make ends meet. While a whole-foods plant-based diet with beans and legumes is optimal for health and the wallet, it would be amiss to not recognize that it is easier to transition to a vegan diet with just beyond burgers and Miyoko's cheese which are both much more expensive than their animal counterparts (which is also in large part due to subsidies). "Possible and practicable" includes all individuals who are genuinely seeking to not harm animals, from all backgrounds, and all levels of accessibility to a transition to veganism.
3) As an active member of the vegan community, I believe this definition best represents vegans. The most prominent vegan activists use this definition, and as aforementioned, the most prominent and well-established vegan society operates on this definition. As a matter of the members of a group being empowered to define themselves, I believe this definition would be most apt as well.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MianOsumi ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change abstaining to refraining Peyono ( talk) 13:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The section "Animal Products", while containing good information and sufficient citations, is very disorganized and disjointed. Additionally it seems to have great overlap with the section "Personal Items". It doesn't read well as prose and is hard to navigate at a glance. It seems like this section was once well organized, but through small edits over time has ballooned out to the point where that structure is no longer sensible.
I think the best thing for this section would be to combine with the personal items section and rearrange the information found there into more subsections with possibly a single section header explaining broad strokes. I am currently thinking that the following section outline may be good:
Along with a section at the top differentiating between dietary and ethical vegans.
This layout would group things roughly by rationale (a vegan who does or doesn't abstains from honey likely does the same for silk so they are grouped together), while roughly order sections from one extreme (lax dietary veganism) to the other (extensive ethical veganism), while still trying to keep related sections adjacent (e.g. Animal testing and toiletries). Some things would likely be mentioned in more than one section (e.g. silk in both clothing and insect products), but I think this is fine.
This reorganization makes things overall flow better and makes it easier to find information on a specific product quickly.
I will probably do this edit in a day or two but I will post this here first in case anyone watching the page has any thoughts.
AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 14:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
High Priority. Immediate attention is needed!
The content in the section Veganism#Pet food is contradictory to the content in the four sections referred to in the "see also" section hatnotes: Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, Dog food#Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, Cat food#Vegetarian and vegan diet, Cat health#Diet and nutrition. There are 22 citations (includes combination footnotes) for 5 sentences, which is Wikipedia:Citation overkill and WP:REFBOMB. I checked one citation:
and the citation does NOT support the content it was hung from. The source includes many concerns about a vegan diet for pets including "caution must be exercised before drawing definitive conclusions from these results. Nevertheless, they do raise significant concerns." The "Conclusion" section of that study is full of "may", "but", "although" and other conditional words, several cautions to the health of pets on vegan diets, advisories for close monitoring by veterinarians because of the inherent nutritional deficiencies of such diets, and ends with the hope that further studies will lead to more information.
There are many policies within Wikipedia cautioning editors to not provide controversial content that could lead to readers following false advice, especially that which could lead to illness and/or death! WP:MEDRS comes to mind. (See also Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and WP:POVPUSH.)
Please fix this section immediately, or remove it until someone has time to work on it.
— Normal Op ( talk) 19:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I just added a two sentences about vegan animals to the History section (see below). I'm not sure that's the best place for it, though. Maybe those sentences should be expanded upon, and then moved to a separate section? If yes, then the beginning of the article should make clear that it deals mainly with human veganism, and refer to the section on nonhuman animals. My sentences: "Many animal species eat exclusively vegan ( herbivore) diets. For example, stomach contents of bison were found to be entirely vegan in present times [1] and at least 8,000 years ago [2]. In humans,... " Trimton ( talk) 00:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
___
Page 3 indicates the distribution of bison stomach contents across vegan food sources: "Overall, bison diets were composed (mean ± SEM) of 44.3 ± 3.5% grass, 37.7 ± 2.6% forb, 16.3 ± 2.3% browse, 1.1 ± 2.4% sedge, and 0.6 ± 1.3% rush" 44.3 +37.7 + 16.3 + 1.1 + 0.6 = 100%, hence the examined animals followed a fully vegan diet.
{{
cite journal}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 88 (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Can nonhuman animals count as vegan? Yes, because they match the definition. Anyone that eats only vegan food is vegan, whether they're a human baby, human adult or bison. Now you might say, but animals cannot reason about veganism" - human babies can't either, and their nutrition is well discussed in this article. Classifying consumption patterns (vegan/omnivore) should have nothing to do with the ability to reason.
Purely herbivore animals match the consumption pattern given in the opening sentence of the article: "abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet". So why is the article constrained to humans?
You seem to reason that animals cannot be vegan because veganism it a "dietary choice". Do you mean that animals do not choose what they eat? I'd say all land animals choose what they eat. You often hear "pigs are omnivores". But even pigs most likely have preferences and, given a choice, choose only a subset of all foods that they are anatomically able to digest. Almost all other animals have narrow diets.
Now veganism has two aspects: (1) consumption patterns and (2) their (ethical, nutritional, other) justification. Granted, wild bison do not "reject the commodity status of animals", and do not have philosophy. But this does not mean that, just like human babies, they cannot be included in the article. Trimton ( talk) 09:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This article should describe veganism in neutral terms. Using "abstain" in the definition sounds like restraint and discomfort when that is not what veganism is. Restraint and discomfort are things linked to going vegan, and they are the main factors that keep people from going vegan, which is fine, but should not be part of the definition. Compare the French version of this article which defines veganism quite accurately and succinctly as "not using animal products". Trimton ( talk) 09:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Most of what is under "prejudice against vegans" on this page should be moved to the article Vegaphobia. Trimton ( talk) 12:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The source for the British Dietetic Association's page on a vegan diet ([24]) is broken. I'd request to change the link to this one. https://www.bda.uk.com/uploads/assets/3f9e2928-ca7a-4c1e-95b87c839d2ee8a1/Plant-based-diet-food-fact-sheet.pdf Amffy ( talk) 22:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
On November 11th 1950, the "constitution" of the Vegan Society declared that: "The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man... The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals... The Society pledges itself in pursuance of its object to seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man."
In 1979 the definition was further clarified as "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—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."
That 1979 definition is still the one in use today, and is generally accepted by vegans world wide. Veganism is based on this concern for the life, welfare and rights of animals. All vegans, every single vegan in the world, is a "ethical vegan", therefor this distinction between "dietary vegans" and "ethical vegans" in the beginning of the article is wrong. There are people who follow a plant based diet for their own health or for the environment, but to be a vegan is clearly more than that. Veganism means following a strict plant based diet, but it is ALSO a way of life, and having a real concern for the lives and wellbeing of animals. TheOriginalVegan ( talk) 12:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
References
The Vegan Society is not the sole arbiter of veganism and their view doesn't appear to be the general understanding of veganism. We reflect what reliable sources say about a topic and give due weight. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
TheOriginalVegan and other editors -- there've been multiple previous discussions around the topic of ethical vs. dietary veganism which you can find by searching on "ethical vegan" (I used the quote) in the archives. This archived discussion from 2017 is very relevant to this discussion: Sources for the dietary veganism distinction valereee ( talk) 13:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
___
References
Hey, SlimVirgin I'm sitting here looking at the page, and the full passage is
A 2006 estimate placed the number of vegans in the US somewhere around 1.7 million, and with "vegan movement organizations counting their membership in the tens of thousands, there are arguable more practicing vegans in the USA than there are members of vegan organizations." Indeed, despite the existence of the Vegan Society, which was founded in England in 1944, vegans tend not to constitute a unified group in possession of a cohesive ideological mandate; they tend not to be be joiners, but they do have 'a propensity towards alternativism in other areas of life...and eschewing the use of all animal products represents a change that necessarily involves all areas of life". While veganism does not constitute a unified social movement, as an ideology it is marked by conscious individual actions that nonetheless stand in stark opposition to the consumer mandate of US capitalism, and for this reason the actions of individual vegans pose a substantial -- if symbolic -- threat to such a paradigm. This book looks at..." (etc.)
How is the part I've bolded, which is what I added to the other section, taken out of context in any way that would be misleading? The context seems unremarkable to me. What am I missing? valereee ( talk) 19:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, SlimVirgin, what was wrong with including the PETA mention? It seems like the fact two (very) different sources declared a year in the 2010s 'the year of the vegan' is relevant to this section. valereee ( talk) 09:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC) SlimVirgin fixing ping valereee ( talk) 09:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I can see why not.
PETA announced it in Feb 2016 as a question, therefore - apart from PETA not being a very reliable source - it was crystal ball gazing. A campaigning rather than reportage.
Is the Wikipedia quieter than it used to be these days? I don't see much talk on talk pages. -- 82.132.229.79 ( talk) 00:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I read the sources given for the line, "Several vegetarian writers argued that the restrictions of a vegan lifestyle are impractical, and that vegetarianism is a better goal." and they don't appear to say that.
One, for example, is quoting a meat chef Bourdain, he of the "Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant" quote.
Another is an academic paper, I could see no indication the authors are vegetarian. I suggest the line is removed as unnecessary POV stuff.
Unless, of course, it could be balanced with another that says something equally silly like, "Several vegan writers argue that vegetarians are butt hurt because vegans make them look bad and like hypocrites for not walking their talk". </irony>
I mean, isn't a bit like a Colts fan sticking a line on the Patriots' page saying they should support them instead?
"Several Colts fans argued that the supporting the Patriots is impractical, and that the Colts are a better team.".
Seriously?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.230.209 ( talk) 01:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not a professional or governmental source when it comes to nutrition. It is thus undue weight to give it so much prominence. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC) " Harvard Medical School, which refers to vegans as strict vegetarians, and has stated, [1] Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses."
Harvard Medical School does sound nutritional research and outreach, and its nutrition researchers work closely with those from the dietetics associations. This quote represents the current direction of vegan/plant-based research quite well. Since there's no "academic association" section and considering that Harvard Medical School receives a good deal of professional and government funding, it would fall under the "professional and government associations" section. RockingGeo ( talk) 09:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Doc James: The way you changed the wording makes sense to me. I'm happy with that. RockingGeo ( talk) 22:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
References
These refs do not even mention the topic of this article?
"The use of antibiotics in livestock is a major factor in the development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and is something that some vegans wish to mitigate. There have been many well-documented events showing that antibiotic usage in livestock results in direct influence of antibiotic resistance in humans. In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended reducing antibiotic use in animals used in the food industry due to the increasing risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria. [1] HSBC produced a report in October 2018 warning that the use of antibiotics in meat production could have “devastating” consequences for humans. It noted that many dairy and meat producers in Asia and the Americas had an economic incentive to continue high usage of antibiotics, particularly in crowded or unsanitary living conditions. [2]"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The refs confirm that antibiotic resistance is transferable to humans. Like I said about the entire section, more refs need to be added about veganism specifically. I just haven't added them due to a lack of time, and would like some help. After a quick search, one for vegans against antibiotic resistance is here: https://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/antibiotic-resistance-through-our-food/, and there plenty refs regarding zoonotic diseases and veganism, like these ones https://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Foodborne-Illnesses-A-Problem-for-Vegans-Too https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/vegan-diets-healthy-humane/ https://www.vegan8in.com/2018/03/7-incredible-ways-veganism-can-help-you.html https://peoplefortheethicaltreatmentofanimals.wordpress.com/tag/salmonella/. RockingGeo ( talk) 09:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
References
RockingGeo: Those sources are unacceptable for the encyclopedia, as they are WP:SOAP soapbox organizations and the content is WP:PRIMARY advocacy. Further, the discussion is off topic and synthesis of your opinion, WP:OR, for the Veganism article. There is no high-quality review from a reliable medical source proving that use of antibiotics in animals or the general food supply transfers as antibiotic resistance in humans consuming those foods; for that you need scientific consensus, WP:MEDSCI, which doesn't exist. -- Zefr ( talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Zefr: You reverted edits on the ethical veganism section, stating they were "soapbox blogs/sources." However, according to WP:BIASED and WP:SOAP, one can use biased and soapbox sources to report on such actions/beliefs from a neutral POV, which is exactly what was done here. RockingGeo ( talk) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Zefr You removed a section I wrote on slaughterhouse working conditions. You said it was off topic, but I don't see how, considering that I cited multiple instances of vegans referencing slaughterhouse working conditions as a reason to go vegan. You also claimed the sources were poor, yet they consist of unbiased news article and scientific studies. I agree that the reference format wasn't great, but that's not a valid reason to remove the whole thing. I need help formatting references. RockingGeo ( talk) 22:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Zefr I spent my free time today making this little section much better referenced and formatted (without any help from you), and now you just removed it without any valid criticism? Why? It's not off topic. It's not poorly referenced. I asked for consensus when I published it. Then you threaten to block me. What's going on? RockingGeo ( talk) 02:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this is an attempt to build consensus. I want to get this settled quickly so we can focus on other things. Who here agrees or disagrees that the following material is appropriate for this page? RockingGeo ( talk) 21:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
===Slaughterhouse worker exploitation concerns=== (This is an old version. See one-sentence version below)
The Vegan Society has noted, “by extension, [veganism] promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans.”
[1] Some ethical vegans and vegan organizations cite the poor working conditions of slaughterhouse workers as a reason to reject animal products.
[2]
Mercy For Animals has especially been a leading voice, producing multiple publications that advocate for veganism to support slaughterhouse workers.
[3]
[4] In 2016, Maya Gibson, a representative of Vegan Australia, wrote, “Not only do animals suffer when they are treated as commodities, but so do humans, in many different ways. Please take the logical and compassionate next step and go vegan.”
[5] In a 2018 opinion piece by The Guardian, vegan journalist Chas Newkey-Burden has said, “Few are even aware of the plight of slaughter workers. But market forces are simple – every time you put meat in your shopping trolley, you are funding the slaughter, globally, of 70bn [sic] farmed animals each year, the destruction of the environment and yes, the exploitation of vulnerable workers.”
[6] In a report by
Oxfam America, slaughterhouse workers were observed not being allowed breaks, were often required to wear diapers, and were paid below minimum wage.
[7] In reference to this issue,
PETA has said, “Animal rights are human rights, too. … Whether out of concern for the animals or the workers, the conscionable choice that anyone shocked by this report can make is to go vegan.”
[8]
References
Some ethical vegans and vegan organizations cite the poor working conditions of slaughterhouse workers as a reason to reject animal products. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Ref 345, if someone could fix the doi, that would be great. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Jainism and Veganism should be merged because it is exactly same philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundakundakunda ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@ EllenV3gan: Can you lead a healthy life as a vegan? Yes, you can, but you are strongly advised that a visit to the nutritionist should become a habit (which most of carnist people don't have to). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@ BallenaBlanca and RockingGeo: Bone density tends to be lower because it contains less impurities. It fact the bones are stronger as the ratio of plant to animal goes up [2]. B12 deficiency resulted from eating root vegetables found in the soil, nothing to do with eating animals. Other animals produce B12 naturally in their gut, as they do vitamin C. [3]. Omega 3 is found in walnuts, kidney beans, soya bean oil... It's a horribly misleading archaic fear mongering section and I am going to delete it because it is contrary and unbalanced. ~ R. T. G 11:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Eliminating all animal products may increase the risk of deficiencies of vitamins B12 and D, calcium, and omega-3 fatty acids. [1] Vitamin B12 deficiency occurs in up to 80% of vegans that do not supplement with vitamin B12. [2] Vegans might be at risk of low bone mineral density without supplements. [1] Lack of B12 inhibits normal function of the nervous system. [3] [4]
In regard to bone-density, the link you gave is good and from 2019 [6], we should cite this on the article, we do not need to be citing an older study from 2009 to invent a false balance. The line "Vegans might be at risk of low bone mineral density without supplements", is supported by reliable sources. I see no reason to delete this content. There is no negative unbalance here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Protein uptake information is also non existent. Those who do not have the patience, for long study, refer to this page to settle interpersonal disputes. This page is being used in the long term, to beat vegan opinions down, in cases where it should lift them up in the wide world. Among the links above on bone density is information regarding nutrient uptake, but all forms of nutrient are listed. The intake of protein is determined to be several times the order of meat eaters. I am not seeing that anywhere. Anywhere... sheesh? ~ R. T. G 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
There are three odd sentences in the lede, the first two contain comparisons but they do not state what they are comparing against.
It is very important to state what diet these vegan diets are being compared to as it would be very different to state that vegan diets are healthier than eating a diet of Cheetos and Pepsi (a meaningless and obvious statement) than to say vegan diets are healthier than a normal healthy diet that included meat and dairy (a profound statement).
The other sentence I take umbrage with is "As with any poorly-planned diet, unbalanced vegan diets may lead to nutritional deficiencies that nullify any beneficial effects and may cause serious health issues." As most people are on a eat-what-you-want-to-eat diet (a poorly-planned diet) without running into nutritional deficiencies this sentence appears false. Perhaps the author meant to compare against poorly-planned extreme diets where whole groups of nutritional foods were being avoided for whatever reason rather than just unplanned diets which may of course led to malnutrition but rarely nutritional deficiencies. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:274:B0BC:DD16:18FA:C1B0 ( talk) 21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
:: |
When the article says that vegans do not eat animal-derived substances, should it put in that this includes honey? Vorbee ( talk) 20:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
RockingGeo, I ask that you stop bloating this article with unnecessary detail or trivial quotes like this one. Wikipedia is also not big on the quote form you used before I changed it. See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
If you reply, please do not ping me. This article is clearly on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this source, a Reddit source, be used for this text in the " Ethical veganism" section? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello,
The changes I suggest concern this phrase : A 2016 systematic review from observational studies of vegetarians showed reduced body mass index, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and glucose levels, possibly indicating lower risk of ischemic heart disease and cancer, but having no effect on mortality, cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, and mortality from cancer.[247]
1) the article was published in 2017 not 2016 2) Since the wikipedia page is about VEGANISM and not general vegetarianism, I don't think it is pertinent to reference it here. 3) Although, in the article have a phrase specific about veganism witch states the following : Similarly, although in a very limited number of studies, vegan diet showed a significant association with a reduced risk of total cancer incidence (¡15%). Johnnyyob ( talk) 10:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vegan Economics, has to be rubbish, by being overtly biased. unless the average yank eats 365 animals a year?? Highly improbable, therefore immediately remove or add a "caution" note. Even Homer Simpson needs help to eat a whole pig or piglet! 121.99.108.78 ( talk) 07:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to suggest an update to "Canada: In 2018, one survey estimated that 2.1 percent of adult Canadians considered themselves as vegans". To be replaced or updated with data from this more recent (2020) survey: https://vegfaqs.com/number-vegans-in-canada-survey/ . That recent survey shows an estimated 4.6% of adult (18+) Canadians are vegan. DCjazzy33 ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The article contains data from the Gallup Institute for 2012. These data should be replaced by data from the same institute for 2018. In 2018, 3% of Americans called themselves vegans.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-vegetarian-vegan.aspx
46.148.180.57 ( talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reuben.kkk ( talk) 11:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
So basically the extremists are worse than 1000 cows this means that going vegan is much worse than actually having a balance diet
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I request adding an additional section about vegan medications. A surprising number of common medications are not vegan, either due to filler ingredients, active, or something as simple as shellac (derived from insects) in the pharmaceutical dye used on capsules. I recommend adding the section after the "Vegan Diet" and "Personal Items" sections. Below is the suggested wording for a vegan medicines section.
==Vegan Medicine==
Most vegan certifications on medicines and supplements ensure that the product does not contain any animal byproducts. However, many pharmaceutical ingredients can be derived from either an animal or animal-free source. For example, the most common inactive ingredient in tablets or capsules is magnesium stearate. [1] Magnesium stearate can be derived either from animal fat or palm oil, but manufacturers do not often make the distinction on their packaging. [2] Organizations, such as the Vegan Society, PETA, and VeganMed, offer certifications that provide clarity for consumers. [3] [4]Certifications that provide in-depth laboratory testing as a component of their certification can differentiate between animal-based and plant-based ingredients, providing consumers with peace of mind. A second concern for vegans searching for medicine is that the FDA regulatory process for ingredients or drug creation requires animal testing. As such, vegan certifications can only ensure that the medicine or supplement is free of animal products, but not necessarily animal testing. [5] For this reason, terminology like animal-free is more accurate than vegan. [6] Forest2020vision ( talk) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Not done - this is unencyclopedic, promotional, soapbox content for "VeganMed" ( a retail sales company online); WP:SOAP for this article. No WP:MEDSCI source is offered (or exists, to my knowledge). -- Zefr ( talk) 20:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=File:Creamy_roasted_sprouts_and_pasta_(8200316502).jpg (nice picture but looks like plain cheese and the comment to the picture does not explicitly state that it is vegan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.176.110 ( talk) 18:52, 1 February 200 (UTC)
Someone changed the short description from "the practice of abstaining from animal products and a philosophy that rejects animal commodification" to "practice of abstaining from eating or otherwise using animal products".
There has long been a sense among practicing vegans that explicitly rejecting the practice of commodifying animals and its underlying presumption of not recognizing nonhuman personhood is part of what veganism is and ought to be. I think we need to deliberate about this 'change' (instead) AS a PROPOSED change and not as a mere clarification. The editorial intent may have been to clarify, but much is lost when the article discusses merely a diet. MaynardClark ( talk) 09:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 made this rollback: [13]. You tell: "sources state "animal products." but the 3 sources in reference [c] are clear that veganism is not just about not using animals as a product, but not use them in any way (also not for services, e.g. entertainment). I can live with leaving out "non-human". Timelezz ( talk) 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The section on Ethical Veganism /info/en/?search=Veganism#Ethical_veganism misses out a growing recognition in the courts of ethical veganism having the same protections as any religion in terms of hate speech etc. e.g. from January this year: “The judge ruled that ethical vegans should be entitled to similar legal protections in British workplaces as those who hold religious beliefs.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359 So attacking people based on their ethical veganism is the same as attacking people because they are Christian, Muslim, or any other religion. Should that be part of the article? It's quite important to the topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.35.40.230 ( talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The official definition of veganism as defined by the oldest vegan society is "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." The current definition on Wikipedia is strong, but it misses the key "as is possible and practicable." The page would be improved by having this phrase in either the opening sentence or paragraph for the following reasons:
1) Animal use is so widespread (in the tires in our cars, in camera film, in our medication etc.) that it is hard to maintain a regular quality of life in society and 100% exclude animal products. Of course, this should not dissuade us from not exploiting animals where we easily can, such as eating plant-based food rather than animal-based food, or not wearing leather and fur etc., but the recognition should be there that vegans are not advocating for people to remove themselves from society so as to avoid animal products.
2) In addition, this phrase gives recognition to vegans from all walks of life who are all trying to reduce their consumption as much as possible. Some young vegans are threatened by their parents to eat animal products, some vegans are struggling to transition due to lack of time and energy if they are already struggling to make ends meet. While a whole-foods plant-based diet with beans and legumes is optimal for health and the wallet, it would be amiss to not recognize that it is easier to transition to a vegan diet with just beyond burgers and Miyoko's cheese which are both much more expensive than their animal counterparts (which is also in large part due to subsidies). "Possible and practicable" includes all individuals who are genuinely seeking to not harm animals, from all backgrounds, and all levels of accessibility to a transition to veganism.
3) As an active member of the vegan community, I believe this definition best represents vegans. The most prominent vegan activists use this definition, and as aforementioned, the most prominent and well-established vegan society operates on this definition. As a matter of the members of a group being empowered to define themselves, I believe this definition would be most apt as well.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MianOsumi ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change abstaining to refraining Peyono ( talk) 13:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The section "Animal Products", while containing good information and sufficient citations, is very disorganized and disjointed. Additionally it seems to have great overlap with the section "Personal Items". It doesn't read well as prose and is hard to navigate at a glance. It seems like this section was once well organized, but through small edits over time has ballooned out to the point where that structure is no longer sensible.
I think the best thing for this section would be to combine with the personal items section and rearrange the information found there into more subsections with possibly a single section header explaining broad strokes. I am currently thinking that the following section outline may be good:
Along with a section at the top differentiating between dietary and ethical vegans.
This layout would group things roughly by rationale (a vegan who does or doesn't abstains from honey likely does the same for silk so they are grouped together), while roughly order sections from one extreme (lax dietary veganism) to the other (extensive ethical veganism), while still trying to keep related sections adjacent (e.g. Animal testing and toiletries). Some things would likely be mentioned in more than one section (e.g. silk in both clothing and insect products), but I think this is fine.
This reorganization makes things overall flow better and makes it easier to find information on a specific product quickly.
I will probably do this edit in a day or two but I will post this here first in case anyone watching the page has any thoughts.
AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 14:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
High Priority. Immediate attention is needed!
The content in the section Veganism#Pet food is contradictory to the content in the four sections referred to in the "see also" section hatnotes: Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, Dog food#Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, Cat food#Vegetarian and vegan diet, Cat health#Diet and nutrition. There are 22 citations (includes combination footnotes) for 5 sentences, which is Wikipedia:Citation overkill and WP:REFBOMB. I checked one citation:
and the citation does NOT support the content it was hung from. The source includes many concerns about a vegan diet for pets including "caution must be exercised before drawing definitive conclusions from these results. Nevertheless, they do raise significant concerns." The "Conclusion" section of that study is full of "may", "but", "although" and other conditional words, several cautions to the health of pets on vegan diets, advisories for close monitoring by veterinarians because of the inherent nutritional deficiencies of such diets, and ends with the hope that further studies will lead to more information.
There are many policies within Wikipedia cautioning editors to not provide controversial content that could lead to readers following false advice, especially that which could lead to illness and/or death! WP:MEDRS comes to mind. (See also Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and WP:POVPUSH.)
Please fix this section immediately, or remove it until someone has time to work on it.
— Normal Op ( talk) 19:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
I just added a two sentences about vegan animals to the History section (see below). I'm not sure that's the best place for it, though. Maybe those sentences should be expanded upon, and then moved to a separate section? If yes, then the beginning of the article should make clear that it deals mainly with human veganism, and refer to the section on nonhuman animals. My sentences: "Many animal species eat exclusively vegan ( herbivore) diets. For example, stomach contents of bison were found to be entirely vegan in present times [1] and at least 8,000 years ago [2]. In humans,... " Trimton ( talk) 00:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
___
Page 3 indicates the distribution of bison stomach contents across vegan food sources: "Overall, bison diets were composed (mean ± SEM) of 44.3 ± 3.5% grass, 37.7 ± 2.6% forb, 16.3 ± 2.3% browse, 1.1 ± 2.4% sedge, and 0.6 ± 1.3% rush" 44.3 +37.7 + 16.3 + 1.1 + 0.6 = 100%, hence the examined animals followed a fully vegan diet.
{{
cite journal}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 88 (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Can nonhuman animals count as vegan? Yes, because they match the definition. Anyone that eats only vegan food is vegan, whether they're a human baby, human adult or bison. Now you might say, but animals cannot reason about veganism" - human babies can't either, and their nutrition is well discussed in this article. Classifying consumption patterns (vegan/omnivore) should have nothing to do with the ability to reason.
Purely herbivore animals match the consumption pattern given in the opening sentence of the article: "abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet". So why is the article constrained to humans?
You seem to reason that animals cannot be vegan because veganism it a "dietary choice". Do you mean that animals do not choose what they eat? I'd say all land animals choose what they eat. You often hear "pigs are omnivores". But even pigs most likely have preferences and, given a choice, choose only a subset of all foods that they are anatomically able to digest. Almost all other animals have narrow diets.
Now veganism has two aspects: (1) consumption patterns and (2) their (ethical, nutritional, other) justification. Granted, wild bison do not "reject the commodity status of animals", and do not have philosophy. But this does not mean that, just like human babies, they cannot be included in the article. Trimton ( talk) 09:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This article should describe veganism in neutral terms. Using "abstain" in the definition sounds like restraint and discomfort when that is not what veganism is. Restraint and discomfort are things linked to going vegan, and they are the main factors that keep people from going vegan, which is fine, but should not be part of the definition. Compare the French version of this article which defines veganism quite accurately and succinctly as "not using animal products". Trimton ( talk) 09:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Most of what is under "prejudice against vegans" on this page should be moved to the article Vegaphobia. Trimton ( talk) 12:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The source for the British Dietetic Association's page on a vegan diet ([24]) is broken. I'd request to change the link to this one. https://www.bda.uk.com/uploads/assets/3f9e2928-ca7a-4c1e-95b87c839d2ee8a1/Plant-based-diet-food-fact-sheet.pdf Amffy ( talk) 22:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)