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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
@ Zefr: You said my edit was undue when you reverted it. Why is it undue, considering it lists facts, not points of view? Please do refer to WP:UNDUE and check if what you mean is "undue". Perhaps you mean it violates some other standard? If so, please elaborate :) Trimton ( talk) 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: Why is the source "poor", considering :
Trimton ( talk) 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This article states at two locations that various dietetic associations consider "well-planned" or "adequately planned" vegan diets as healthy.
This seems a bit vague to me. What exactly do vegans need to plan? Could someone review their positions and try to sum up what they mean (at one location)?
It would seem reader-friendly to write up what they mean in two parts: 1) things any healthy diet should include (eating your vegetables, not too much junk food, vitamin D if you don't get much sun light) 2) what vegans need to watch out for that nonvegans don't have to (vitamin B12, maybe other aspects). Trimton ( talk) 19:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a commonly misunderstood subject, because while the word "vegan" can be used to describe food, people, and the diet that vegans follow, the word "veganism" is exclusively about the philosophy and way of life, about "seeking 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, promoting 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's why it is called veganISM... like capitalism, like socialism, like all other isms it is an ideology/philosophy, not a diet plan. It was Donald Watson of the Vegan Society that originally defined the vegan diet in 1944, and Leslie J Cross, also from the Vegan Society, that defined Veganism in 1949, and made clear that it was about ending "exploitation of animals", and not just about dietary choices. https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history
Donald Watson compared the vegan society to the fight against slavery, so obviously it was about much more than just dietary choices, veganism has always been ethical.
A 100% plant based diet can be called a "vegan diet", but following a plant based diet is not veganism, veganism is a lot more than just what we eat, it is the ethical worldview that unnecessarily harming, killing and exploiting animals is wrong, and that we as individuals at the very least should try to avoid contributing to such cruelty. Therefor vegans not only avoid animal products in food, but also avoid using clothes, furniture, and other items made of animal products(like leather, skin, lanolin, wool, fur, silk, suede), and oppose animal testing. The definition of veganism by the Vegan Society is universally accepted by vegans(or about 98-99% of them in my impression), but of course there are news articles that misrepresent what veganism is, many of those articles are written by people who are not vegans themselves and don't have full understanding of the term, and some are written by people representing large corporations that have an obvious interest in undermining veganism. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is being used to promote these incorrect definitions of veganism.
"Veganism is 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 animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
"Veganism is a stricter form of vegetarianism. Vegans avoid consuming or using any animal products or byproducts. The Vegan Society define veganism as “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.”
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325478#veganism
"Veganism is a lifestyle that excludes all animal products and attempts to limit the exploitation of animals as much as possible."
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-a-vegan#what-it-is
Veganism - "the practice of not eating or using any animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, or leather: Strict veganism prohibits the use of all animal products, not just food, and is a lifestyle choice rather than a diet."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/veganism
There is no "environmental veganism", there is no "dietary veganism", I have been vegan for 30 years, and those are concepts I have barely seen mentioned outside of this Wikipedia page. While many people follow a plant based diet for environmental or dietary reasons, that alone does not make them vegans and certainly does not in any way change the original definition of veganism. TheOriginalVegan ( talk) 01:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
As noted in an earlier discussion, I favor having Veganism and Vegan nutrition, with a concise presentation of nutrition issues in the first and that content enlarged upon in the second, with each article having a "See...". A similar approach can be seen for some of the minerals which also happen to be essential nutrients. David notMD ( talk) 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
David notMD, how would that solve what TheOriginalVegan is complaining about? At another page you were at, [3] someone pointed to the FAQ at the top about why this page talks about those who are vegans just for the diet. Some of these people aren't only vegans because of perceived nutrition. TheOriginalVegan is pushing a POV because they only see those who follow the philosophy as vegans. Academics contradict TheOriginalVegan. Psychologist Guy says "this has been discussed before on this talk-page." It has multiple times. I looked in the archives. I suggest people point TheOriginalVegan to those discussions, and keep it moving. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Content_forking#Unacceptable_types_of_forking indicates this shouldn't be two pages. ApproximateLand ( talk) 01:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Fixed my post that was missing a signature. [4]. ApproximateLand ( talk) 21:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The page associated with Veganism carries itself as the sole proprietary source of the term.
It is however not actually a word, it is more a conversational attribute and by adding -ism, for the literature understanding of Vegan it is not acceptable. Vegan is not philosophical in the sense it holds the same architecturally ideology.
What best to incapsulate "VEGAN." Is a fundamental truth.
As a Vegan you expect the reality of how unnatural it is for Humans to have associations with Animals in any fashion. If one says their diet is Vegan. (V) this symbol is most likely to appear on its label on labels in cafeterias. Diet though mentioned in Eastern Philosophy and Abraham Religions doesn't mention Vegan nor ancient Philosopher's. It simply isn't a Philosophy outside conversations. As a meal choice not diet a Vegan will make their best efforts to see to it their meal is exempt of Animals if I say no egg & dairy as well. I nullify "exempt of Animals." Egg is Animal. I would create a run on sentence.
To be Vegan is to make your honest to (yourself) attempt to unstaine from Animals in your food, fashion etc.
It is founded on Compassion, therefore a rigorous extrem dictated by Philosophy and Religion, is not compassion rather control.
People make mistakes a Vegan understands this.
Their is much to discuss because the whole of Wikipedia on Vegan is riddled with inaccuracies. It doesn't matter the source for which one cites to support anything other then your Pera Conscious Compassionate Attempts to leave Animals to live. Is creating confusion.
To be Vegan is to be of the highest tenet of living. It's not nor ever going to be allowed a Philosophy, Religion or Spiritual notion. Its individualistic.
[Definition of ism noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary
ism noun
/ˈɪzəm/ (usually disapproving)
used to refer to a set of ideas or system of beliefs or behavior You're always talking in isms—sexism, ageism, racism] Citizen Todd6 ( talk) 09:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Veganism&oldid=1009037724 fixes a misstatement of the law. Ethical veganism isn't a listed protected characteristic in EA2010 (for that matter, neither are "gender" nor "ethnicity", it's "sex" and "race") but it was found by the ruling cited in the article to qualify for protection as a belief under the "religion or belief" protected characteristic. The judge's wording at the end of the ruling is misleading. Juroreight ( talk) 11:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I replaced the mention of a supposed definition of 'vegan' by the EU parliament with the information from the actual legal act, which grants the European Commission the right to define the term when it comes to food information. The cited definition is found in a legislative resolution, which means it was part of the negotiation, but it did not wind up in the legislation ultimately. Hekerui ( talk) 11:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This article's section Vegan diet has roughly two parts: sections 1-4 treat what vegans eat, and sections 5-8 treat nutritional (meaning health) aspects. I propose two amendments: 1) Separate sections 5-8 into a "Health aspects" or "Nutrition" section 2) Shorten the content and move most discussion to Vegan nutrition, which covers the same aspects but is less extensive in some areas, e.g. dietetic association evaluations. Do other users agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimton ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This topic needs serious attention. To say B12 is not made by Animals but a bacteria which grows in Animals. Makes it something an Animal made, by supply the necessary parts for the bacteria to grew. What is inside or an Animal is still the Animal's property so it makes it Animal Made. Like protein at one point still kinda is, a Propaganda spread falsely. Lack of B12 from Vegan Food is not to be associated with rhetoric of a fearful attribute of Vegan as a food choice. This is harmful and scares people. When the availability of B12 is easy to acquire. Furthermore a large contribution to B12 losing is fight to grow in soil is based in part to the chemicals and pollution caused by the Meat & Dairy industry. Which entered our soil with blatant disregard to warnings. Don't put Vegan food negatively in this light. Citizen Todd6 ( talk) 10:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn I think we should use the {{Excerpt}} template here for Vegan nutrition to save us the work of updating both articles. Would you agree? The template would automatically insert the lead section of the nutrition article, nipping any WP:CONTENTFORKING or WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY problems in the bud. For an example, see Veganism#Prejudice against vegans. ⠀Trimton⠀ 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently, Veganism#Prejudice against vegans is more detailed than Vegaphobia in describing vegaphobia (prejudice against vegans). That doesn't make sense, so I'm going to move most material to Vegaphobia on 11 April. There's also some stuff on Vegaphobia that might need mention in a summary sentence on Veganism, I'll check. I'll familiarise myself with Template:Main and perhaps link Vegaphobia as "main article", instead of "further information". If there's any reason against my plan, please comment here :) Trimton ( talk) 09:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Where do I start? Countryboy603's edit was reversed [5] by Bodney because it didn't have a ref for corroboration. So Countryboy603 came back with a ref. [6] This would be fine if the contribution wasn't off-kilter, cite or no cite, for corroboration. Now I reversed the contribution, as it's confusing and off the usual definitional span, I think, to write "non-human animal products". Do refs usually consider human breast milk an animal product? I've seen no evidence of that. Nothing that comes from humans is usually considered an animal product. Thinking deeper: Is writing "non-human animal products" not then saying that cannibalism is vegan? I know that's an extreme thing to throw out there, but I think there are good reasons the definition of veganism isn't typically prefaced with "non-human" in refs. The ref [7] Countryboy603 added manages to debate itself about human breast milk's relation to veganism and says what it doesn't take as a literal definition.
Countryboy603, if you want to add something about human breast milk, please add it farther down the page rather than alter the usual meaning of veganism. ApproximateLand ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies if I was unclear. To answer your question about "nonhuman", I would add it for precision, ApproximateLand. WP:MOS advises against vague language. But since you were asking about refs: authors like Francione and Vegan Society themselves call nonhuman animals simply animals .
All I meant to propose is "not use" instead of "abstain". I don't think the archived discussions touch on this word choice? By "given more prominence", I meant the Vegan Society definition should be mentioned in lead section before history, (not as a definitive of veganism though). The V.S. definition would in my view help readers understand ethical veganism better. As I explained, it is an influential definiton. Of course yes, there are vegans that don't follow the Vegan Society definition. As you say, there are dietary vegans (végétaliens). One could add vegans that don't think of animal use as exploitation. Trimton ( talk) 17:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok and what about "abstaining" to "not using"? Is there any reason that would justify the current connotations of abstinence? Trimton ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Feeding human babies human breast milk is a natural process, which ends when the mother decides. Veganism, as a life and dietary choice, is made by the individual themselves but not when they are babies. People who continue drinking milk or eating milk products, usually from a cow or goat, once they are weaned, may come to a point of questioning that choice, which is where the definition of 'vegan' comes into play. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:50, 22 April 2021 (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.
Veganism and Vegetarianism are, in practical terms, unrelated subjects. In contrast to vegetarianism - veganism is not simply a diet, a health fad, or a casual lifestyle.
Veganism is an All-or-Nothing proposition, a Worldview and an Ethos. The primary principle being non-harm.
Vegans stricly consume only plant-based food and products (including shoes and clothing) which use no animal sourced materials anywhere in the manufacturing process. The priciple applies to everything which a vegan owns or uses, including cars (no leather in upholstery, gear levers..), musical instruments ( no animal bone, hide glue, shellac, or gut strings..), and so on. Anyone who does not meet this criteria is not a vegan.
Vegetarianism, by comparison, can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Persons who (in addition to vegetables and fruits) also consume dairy products ( lacto-vegetarian), and may also eat fish ( pesco-vegetarian), or eggs ( ovo-vegetarian) and still call themselves vegetarian. Therefore the concept of vegetarianism is untenable for vegans. Vegans regard vegetarianism as hipocricy, as the dairy industry is an inseparable partner of the death industry. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 17:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC) NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 19:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The current state of the article is an atrocity agaist veganism. I reads like a bloody vegetarian cookbook. In fact it's really more of an extention of the article on vegetarianism than it is about veganism. It's quite enough to include the "vegetarian" reference within the vegan society history, which began as a vegetarian society. Also a cross link between the articles veganism and vegetarianism. This article needs to act as a hub for the vegan principles, not vegan recipes. Veganism is not about cooking, or diet, it is strictly an ethical worldview, where plant-based food is only a consequence and not the primary issue. Non-harm is the fundamental issue~ Also there is only one form of vegan, all true vegans are ethical vegans. By all appearances, the article bears all the signs of sabotage, possibly by anti-vegan lobby groups. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 09:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
"Lacto-vegetarians acknowledged the ethical consistency of the vegan position but regarded a vegan diet as impracticable and were concerned that it might be an impediment to spreading vegetarianism if vegans found themselves unable to participate in social circles where no non-animal food was available."has more to do with veganism than vegetarianism. Four lines from the vegan etymology sec [11] say that
The word vegan was invented by Watson and Dorothy Morgan, a schoolteacher he would later marry. The word is based on "the first three and last two letters of 'vegetarian'" because it marked, in Mr Watson's words, "the beginning and end of vegetarian". The Vegan News asked its readers if they could think of anything better than vegan to stand for "non-dairy vegetarian". They suggested allvega, neo-vegetarian, dairyban, vitan, benevore, sanivores, and beaumangeur.
ApproximateLand, this is the place for discussion on improving the article, so let's talk about improving it, without heated argument. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 11:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Bodney:, you claim to be an ethical vegan, and yet you betray every principle of veganism. Obviously there has never been a consensus on this talk page, which is why the article is a complete disaster. This is why there cannot and will not be a concensus here as long as non-vegans are involved. This WikiProject is doomed. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 12:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Czello: I am on the receiving end of ad hominem attacks by ApproximateLand, I am not the one attacking others. There is nothing to be accomplished here, no consensus is possible with non-vegans, so I will leave the WikiProject all together. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is verbose. I don't think the lead needs to be so large. Below, I've used "strikethrough" bold formatting to show the verbosity that (in my opinion) should be removed from the lead and moved to appropriate sections within the article. My reasoning is that leads should give an introduction to the article, not arguments or evidence. Somebody should be able to read the lead and "Ah, now I understand the jist of what this article is about, so now I know if I'm on the right page or if I'm on the wrong article."
Notice that the modifications I've suggested remove both "the good" and "the bad" about veganism, and leaves behind a plain overview. As for the phrase "moral vegetarian", I've never heard of it, so maybe it's not part of common Australian lingo. I'm surprised to read that it's a synonym of "ethical vegan", my intuition feels they're different (yet related) terms. It absolutely needs a citation if it's a true synonym or a "commonly known as" terminology.
Another example of verbosity, one of the sections of the article currently reads:
This seems irrelevant, reminiscent of an advertisement, or a precursor to a certain argument. It sounds like "Here's some information on biochemical metabolism relating to calcium. It's important. Now that you know this (about calcium), vegans get their calcium from this plant-based source and that plant-based source. They don't seem to have higher health problems…"
I think a more to-the-point way of communicating this kind of information should resemble something like: " Calcium, an essential nutrient,[1][2] is present in high concentrations in these natural (vegan) sources[3][4] and these processed (vegan) sources[5][6]". I think this style of writing is neutral, concise and encyclopedic.
I think it's better to isolate "health risks/malnutrition consequences" in its own section in this article rather than compounding it here. My reasoning is that, to pose a realistic example, if some child is interested in veganism, their parent might come to Wikipedia to address some of their concerns. Such a parent might think "How can I make sure my child gets enough calcium?" so they go to the nutritional section which, without verbosity, says "calcium is in this". The parent, being concerned, also notices a section in the Table of Contents that says "Health risks/Malnutrition". They click it, and then they read up about risks associated with veganism.
To have an organised article is to communicate effectively. Furthermore, by scaling down the quantity of information, it allows more opportunities for biased edits pushing an agenda to be noticed and removed/altered.
So. Verbosity. It's a problem. Less is best.
I don't intend to help solve the problem of editing this article, because I'm too lazy to deal with defending edits on a "controversial" topic. But these are my thoughts on what ought to happen. JKVeganAbroad ( talk) 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
"Various types of plant cream have been created to replace dairy cream, and some types of imitation whipped cream are non-dairy."
The sentence above seems to contain a bit of duplication, should it be rephrases as:
"Various types of plant cream or imitation whipped cream have been created to replace dairy cream." Jan Vlug ( talk) 12:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The sidebar image must be a vegan symbol, and not a bloody pizza. Displaying food is misleading, and is an insult to veganism. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 09:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The pizza belongs in a separate article, such as "vegan cooking". The main article should focus on animal ethics and non-harm, which is the basis of veganism, not cooking. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 11:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the image which replaced the pizza, until it was reverted back to the pizza. This image is the most appropriate for the article. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Clearly you are not a vegan, or it would be self-evident to you that this is the primary symbol which represents the vegan movement. This is complete futility - I am leaving the project. Enjoy your pizza. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 12:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Reopening this because I'm not sure the discussion was actually resolved, rather than closed on the basis of "it was made by a POV-pusher". I can actually see where OP was coming from here. As a non-vegan with a fair amount of experience with veganism, I actually agree that the symbol previously in the article was more appropriate, and that it's widely recognizable as a symbol of veganism -- perhaps moreso than food with fake meat that can be mistaken for real meat on it. (Although the current photos are aesthetically quite nice.) Vaticidal prophet 07:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I would like to weigh in that I have been dissatisfied with the sidebar images for a while.
In summary I would suggest a new mosaic of images, the bottom two images are fine, but I remove the top two since they both appear to have cheese. I would suggest adding a textile (perhaps cotton) and one more food which is culturally associated with veganism (perhaps tofu, beans or nuts). AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 11:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
When I clicked on this article for the first time today, I was quite surprised to see the collage of food as the poster-image of this article. My impressions where as follows:
Of course, I'm a vegan myself, and I've seen many various vegan logos on food packaging or restaurants. @AquitaneHungerForce above said that they're vegan but they weren't familiar with vegan logos. Perhaps, rather than a collage of food, the infobox could serve as an opportunity to inform readers, vegan and non-vegan alike, of these vegan logos.
Another point to consider is that when somebody is looking for a specific page on Wikipedia, the infobox image is an instant opportunity of recognition if they've found the right article. Seeing the food collage of arbitrary food does not help this recognition process, but logos are static and recognisable. I think it's a better choice.
In Japan,
this one is frequently used. In Australia,
this and the following logo are common on food products:
So, as such, I agree with the motion to replace the infobox image containing "examples of vegan food" with "examples of vegan logos". JKVeganAbroad ( talk) 14:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It's been a month and a week since the last entry to this talk. Because there appears to be no more objection to the notion, I'm changing the sidebar "food collage" picture to this:
for, as @JKVeganAbroad said, it is one of the commonly used symbols/logos in Vegan products. These are the three reasons why this symbol matters:
Do feel free to revert back this edit for I am nothing but a newbie editor. However, just like any other editor, I certainly hope that the editor in question have made sure that they read all the key points mentioned in this talk page with the usual neutral judgment and good faith, and are able to provide a logical reason that the food collage is, in fact, better suited to this article than a vegan symbol would. Otherwise, they'll become the "POV-pusher" in this situation, and no one else. Thank you for being considerate. WinterFanboy🌹 TALK 08:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Dyaluk08 - I was reviewing the changes you made recently to this article. Can I query a couple of your changes please?
I've reverted these particular changes; feel free to reinstate the 'exponential' word if it's credibly supported by one of the sources that I've missed, or use a different word; please don't reinstate the second change without further discussion. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I believe the explanation of veganism is fairly flawed. The definition of veganism should begin by stating that it is a philosophy versus a diet. If you eat a plant based diet that does not mean you care about animals, which is what veganism is. A vegan for example could consume animal products if those products were produced without animal exploitation, e.g. lab grown meat (without use of bovine serum), or by consuming road kill. A vegan could dumpster dive and consume the animal products that were thrown out (there is of course more debate here, for example one could argue that there is an obligation to donate these animal products to reduce economic meat demand). A vegan could buy second hand leather as it does not further exploit animals (though it is debated and mostly condemned).
I would refer to the vegan society for a definition: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
"Veganism is 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 animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Compare this to the current wiki definition:
"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.[c] An individual who follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan. Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans, also known as "strict vegetarians", refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances.[d] An ethical vegan, also known as a "moral vegetarian", is someone who not only follows a vegan diet but extends the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and opposes the use of animals for any purpose.[e] Another term is "environmental veganism", which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable"
There are many areas to criticize ->
"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products (only if you cannot source animal products void of exploitation. It should begin by stating that it is a philosophy that excludes animal exploitation as far as possible and practicable), particularly in diet (it currently includes diet because it is hard to source animal products void of exploitation, but it is not the definition of veganism), and an associated philosophy (it is not an associated philosophy, veganism is a philosophy, it should rather state that a plant based diet is an associated diet) that rejects the commodity status of animals.[c] An individual that follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan (a plant based dieter is not a vegan, you can eat exclusively plants without being a vegan, this line can be removed or changed to clarify that a plant based diet is not veganism). Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans (there is no such thing, veganism is a philosophy. A plant based diet could be mentioned here, but differentiated from veganism), also known as "strict vegetarians" (very uncommon phrase, it was used several times in old nutritional studies. It does not require this clarification in the intro), refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances.[d] An ethical vegan (there is no such thing, that is what veganism is), also known as a "moral vegetarian", is someone that not only follows a vegan diet (needs to be changed to plant based diet) but extends the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and opposes the use of animals for any purpose.[e] Another term is "environmental veganism" (there is no such thing again, veganism is a philosophy. This can include plant based dieters for the benefits of the environment, but going plant based for the environment does not entail caring for animals, which is what veganism is. For example environmental plant based eaters commonly argue for sustainable forms of animal products, such as sustainable fishing), which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable"
I would argue nearly the whole paragraph is incorrect and irrelevant e.g. most of the phrases used here are never used and are misleading. RBut ( talk) 00:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
O Syedalibangbang ( talk) 20:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes tallow refers to goat/sheep fat too, but it's still not the fat of random animals. 119.160.119.85 ( talk) 11:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Veganism&diff=0&oldid=1039150396 is an improvement. I think that the original version is clearer. The key point is that veganism is not only applicable to food, but also to for example clothing, furniture, i.e. other areas of their lives. Jan Vlug ( talk) 19:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
In regard to this [16], the media actually slightly misrepresented the study for example [17]. The study can be found here [18]. The study does not use the term "vegan" but "whole foods plant-based" but they combined those results with the vegetarian diet.
To increase precision, we analysed three dietary patterns after combining dietary patterns that are similar in terms of dietary intake. We combined ‘whole foods, plant-based’ diets and ‘vegetarian’ diets into one category (‘plant-based diets’, n=254). Then, we combined ‘whole food, plant-based’ diets, ‘vegetarian’ diets or ‘pescatarian’ diets into another category (‘plant-based diets or pescatarian diets’, n=294) to test if a spectrum of plant-based diets which include animal products are associated with COVID-19 severity. Due to the small number of cases (nine cases of moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 40 COVID-19 cases), we could not analyse pescatarian diets separately. We used plant-based diets to encompass plant-based diets and vegetarian diets, given that vegetarian diets are considered a subset of plant-based diets which minimise consumption of animal products (meat, fish, dairy).
In regard to the results the study found that "participants who followed plant-based diets had 73% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19... Similarly, participants who followed either plant-based diets or pescatarian diets had 59% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 compared with those who did not follow these diets." But the study basically lumped whole food plant based diet (vegan) with vegetarian diet (who consume eggs or dairy). Because of the combined results I don't think we can say that vegans were exclusively 73% less likely to develop severe symptoms from COVID-19 because that is original research. I don't doubt that vegans and vegetarians are less likely to develop severe symptoms of COVID because as the study reported these diets are higher in vegetables, legumes and nuts and its advocates are not eating shite like processed meats but not enough research has been done on this topic to separate the diets, they have not been isolated. I suspect the results would be similar for flexitarians or those who eat the Mediterranean diet. These results are not exclusive to veganism so I don't think they should be reported on this article, especially when some of the media sources have misrepresented the study. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 11:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The current logo used for veganism in the infobox is the symbol used for vegetarian products (used by EVU for their trademark V-label). Why would we support one trademark instead of another. Some profit economicly from this. I would argue there is not one symbol for veganism and would leave it out of the article. I don't know how to change the infobox. If someone could, thank you. Timelezz ( talk) 09:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
File:European Vegetarian Union Logo.svg If you want a new image in the {{ WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}, what would you propose to replace it? -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 11:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
~ BOD ~ TALK 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
{Edit semi-protected}} I wanted to quickly make a correction in the article, but as it is semi-protected I must bring it up here first. This section of the article is referencing the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. In the abstract the phrase used is "appropriately planned," not "well-planed." There is an important difference in connotation here as as "well-planned" implies a high degree of difficulty, when in reality this is simply not the case. Anyone who is vegan will tell you that it really is hardly any different from being non-vegan. We should update the article's phrasing to more accurately reflect the source material being cited. ReasonVEVO ( talk) 11:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to make the intro more balanced. It used only half of the abstract of the cited paper (only the cons, leaving out the pros). If we cannot decide to give a balanced view I will delete this intro as all nutrients are dealt with in the following sections anyways. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. Let's look into some more detail here.
All I'm saying is, we cannot use the first claim and leave out the latter. In my view no general claim should be made at all, because health benefits and risk depend on the nutritional profile, which will leave you with health benefits for one thing but health risks for another. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Have mentioned this discussion at the veganism-vegetarianism WikiProject. Hopefully editors there know of relevant sourcing. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
As the b12 supplement was able to produced by man until 1944 i seriously doubt anybody before then could have survived on a vegan diet, that's just one supplement as vegans need many other supplements and no archeology has ever unearthed any evidence of a vegan diet in any of the homo species. 2A02:C7F:6893:6700:493F:D6BA:8FFA:16BB ( talk) 22:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The article contains the following text "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada state that properly planned vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy and lactation.[252] The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council similarly recognizes a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age,[26][253] as does the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[254] British National Health Service,[255] British Nutrition Foundation,[256] Dietitians Association of Australia,[257] United States Department of Agriculture,[258] Mayo Clinic,[259] Canadian Pediatric Society,[260] and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.[261]
This is a name drop of various dietetic and government associations but if you take a closer look and examine some of the references they do not support vegan diets for all life stages nor mention anything to do with age. Just two examples (we can go through them all), Mayo Clinic is sourced to this link [22] which is on vegetarian diets, not vegan. It does mention vegan diets but it does not recommend them or mention anything to do with age and vegan diets, it even says "Vegans may not get enough iodine and may be at risk of deficiency and possibly even a goiter."
New Zealand Ministry of Health is sourced to this leaflet on vegetarian diets [23]. The leaflet is not on veganism and only mentions vegan a few times such as "Vitamin B12 deficiency is a serious condition with non-reversible effects. This is most likely to occur in periods of rapid growth, in pregnancy and when breastfeeding. Vegans are advised to have their vitamin B12 status assessed regularly by their doctor." Remember both these sources are cited on the Wikipedia article as "recogniz[ing] a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age". This is completely false, they do not such thing. From what is cited on the article if you actually read the sources, few of the dietetic associations advise a vegan diet for any age or all stages of life.
In the above discussion there has been strong mention about the American Dietetic Association (ADA) supporting vegan diets for all stages of life. I would point out the ADA statement does not represent every dietetic association in the world and much of the paper is on vegetarianism, not just vegan diets. The 2009 version appears to be the most 'recent' (over 10 years out of date) and it is online in full [24]. If you scroll down to the bottom to see who actually wrote the paper it was Reed Mangels. This is not a neutral party. Mangels is a well known vegan activist who writes vegan cookbooks. She is listed as a "nutrition adviser for the national, non-profit Vegetarian Resource Group and the nutrition editor and columnist for Vegetarian Journal. She is the co-author of Simply Vegan (with Debra Wasserman)", she currently works for the website "vegan health" [25]. The other co-author is Winston J. Craig he is a well known vegetarian activist. Now look at the section below at the "reviewers" of the paper which lists about 7 names. You can Google search these names and they are vegan or vegetarian activists. For example Cathy Conway is an adviser for the "Vegetarian Resource Group" [26], Mary Hager worked as a consultant for the Vegetarian Times, Tamara Schryver describes herself on her blog as a vegetarian [27]. None of this conflict of interest is disclosed. You would have thought they would have gotten some neutral reviewers but it didn't happen.
The source seems to have been cherry-picked because it supports vegan diets for any age but it needs to be known that this is a highly biased source with a massive conflict of interest. The authors and reviewers of the paper are all vegans and vegetarians, they are hardly going to present a balanced overview of the subject are they? In conclusion there is misinformation, misrepresentation and dishonesty in the "Positions of dietetic and government associations" section on the article. The deeply biased ADA do support vegan diets for all stages of life but many of the others cited do not. I suggest we go through these one by one, because most of the references cited in this section are on vegetarian diets, not specifically vegan. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"I don't see how we could possibly state that something does not exist without our looking for it."← you're aware of core policy on this, presumably? Alexbrn ( talk) 21:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This has previously been discussed several times and users did agree to this but it was never carried out. I would like to re-write the "history" section and remove the off-topic material about the history of vegetarianism. There is a history of veganism. I would like to re-write this section and include only history of vegans. Some of the earliest vegan history was in France. For example, Georges Butaud and Sophie Zaïkowska. There is no reason to be citing off-topic material about "Vegetarianism can be traced to Indus Valley Civilization in 3300–1300 BCE in the Indian subcontinent" etc. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hlc63.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This source is not a general assesment of all health related issues of vegan diets:
The paper makes absolutely no statements about bone health, mental health, inflamation markers, gut microbiom, dementia, or any other health aspect that has been researched with respect to a vegan diet.
Claiming that "The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits is inconsistent" is deliberate misinterpretation of this paper that deals only with CVD.
Tischbeinahe ( talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"In addition to the vegetarian diet, vegan diet, i.e. the total exclusion of any animal-derived substance, is a pattern that has been attracting an increasing interest among the public. Few studies have reported the health benefits of vegan diets and therefore no conclusive evidence can be proposed".
...some cohorts contained participants predominantly from specific ethnic backgrounds, questioning generalisability of results as well as the actual effect of this pattern on CVD outcome. For example, vegetarians ... In addition to the vegetarian diet, vegan diet, i.e. the total exclusion of any animal-derived substance, is a pattern that has been attracting an increasing interest among the public. Few studies have reported the health benefits of vegan diets and therefore no conclusive evidence can be proposed. Regarding intermediary risk factors of CVD, a recent meta-analysis of seven clinical trials
I have now written Zambelas to his corresponding email. Here is a copy of my mail, that I CCed to info-en@wikimedia.org. Let's see what he says.
Dear Mr. Azampelas,
I am an editor of the English language version of Wikipedia. We are currently including you study "Dietary patterns and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a review of the evidence" in the article on veganism.
Your article is summarized with the following statement: The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits is inconsistent.
However, it is my understanding that the intention of your article is to look only into CVD and not into all health related outcomes of a vegan diet. So I was wondering if the following statement would be a more accurate summary of your article: The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits with reference to CVD is inconsistent.
Thank you very much for your help.
Yeah, I messed up "with reference to" and "with respect to", but I think everybody gets the point. Best Tischbeinahe ( talk) 15:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Above there has been heated discussions about content in the "vegan nutrition" section, some of the content is unreliable, outdated or misrepresented. We already have an article on vegan nutrition, I am not sure why we have so much text on this article on nutrition. For example, on this article in the vegan nutrition section we have different sub-sections on critical nutrients, vitamin b12, calcium, protein, vitamin d, iron, iodine, omega 3s etc. Why is any of this relevant for the article when we have an article on vegan nutrition? This article's "history" section is very poor. It would be great to expand text on the history of veganism and I plan to do that. I am sure readers of the article would prefer this than information about calcium or iodine.
I suggest moving all the content in the "vegan nutrition" section (all sub-sections) apart from "health effects" and "Positions of dietetic and government associations" to the vegan nutrition article where all the same content is already covered. This way there is less information on this article in that section about nutrition which to me is undue on this article. This will make the article less controversial and all the irrelevant stuff can be merged to the vegan nutrition article (which we can also improve). Please let me know if you support this or not. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I have cross read both articles and done my best to contain all information in Vegan nutrition. I have deleted everything exept for a short summary from Veganism. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 09:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want a summary from the main article on vegan nutrition can you please make a suggestion on what aspects you want to have in this article. Please note that the text you reverted is outdated and the only current version can be found in the main article on vegan nutrition. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 13:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: if you want the content in this article, please copy the whole article on vegan nutrition here. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 13:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Picking „educational“ aspects is misleading as all aspects on vegan nutrition are of same importance if one takes a NPOV. I also ask the other editors to revert the article back to what has been decided here. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 13:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Randy Kryn:, as you are concerned about „busting the protein myth“ (and have so far not brought forth any other arguments to include the whole section on nutrients) may I suggest we add a sentence on protein? The ADA states:
A concern that vegetarians, especially vegans and vegan athletes, may not consume an adequate amount and quality of protein is unsubstantiated. Vegetarian diets that include a variety of plant products provide the same protein quality as diets that include meat.
If we add „Adequate amount and quality of protein can be derived from plant foods alone.“ to the end of the „Critical Nutrients“ section would that help to mitigate the issue you see? Tischbeinahe ( talk) 07:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vegan athletics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Vegan athletics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Edenic Diet and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Edenic Diet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Junk food vegan and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Junk food vegan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
this article has a lot of repetition that could be removed/moved to dedicated sections/articles 41.133.68.216 ( talk) 16:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It is assumed this is to update the paper, but whatever the reason, the reference to that endorsement should either have a caveat written with it, or it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.76.245 ( talk) 14:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris exemption and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Paris exemption until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tartar Torte 18:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris exception and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Paris exception until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tartar Torte 18:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Paris Exemption and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#The Paris Exemption until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tartar Torte 18:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Copy-pasted direct wording under “Demographics” on Wikis “Veganism” page.
“Demographics- In the United States, vegans (making up 2% of the population) tend to be middle-class, white, female-identified, educated, agnostic or atheist, and urban-dwelling.”
This has no legitimate citations other than a political opinion book called “Trump Veganism: A Survey”- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321142376. This is not a fact or verified source and is being used in a derogatory way to misguide information about true Veganism.
Based on the previous citation and wording alone, clearly it has been edited to be biased and political.
It needs to be changed to “ 1 in 10 Americans say they don’t eat meat. About 10 percent of Americans over the age of 18 consider themselves vegan or vegetarian as of January 2022. An online survey administered to 930 Americans, selected to be representative of the US population in terms of gender, education, age and income. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percent.” Citation- https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/1-in-10-americans-say-they-dont-eat-meat-a-growing-share-of-the-population/ Ijenspace ( talk) 02:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
In the United States, 1 out of 10 Americans over the age of 18 consider themselves vegan or vegetarian. I have also opted to use this source rather than the one provided since Alliance for Science took it directly from The Conversation. — Sirdog ( talk) 00:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Stating that vegans need a steady supply of vitamins and minerals is not WP:COI, but this is medical science (mainstream science). Wikipedia does have a WP:GOODBIAS. Vegans who pretend to live without such products are simply engaging in denialism, to the extent that for them raising a child is often equal to child abuse (children need vitamins and minerals which vegetables and fruits cannot provide). tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Kreyren has been alerted of discretionary sanctions, because of their WP:Advocacy for the WP:POV that selling vitamins to vegans is WP:COI. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
you evidently misunderstood that my contribution with cite_check is somehow motivated by denialism to the consumption: of course I have misunderstood your point of view, since it was not at all apparent what you mean just going by your edits. You knew you don't oppose the sale of vitamins to vegans, I had no way of knowing that you don't oppose it.
Could we split this into 2 pages, one for the diet and one for the philosophy? An ethical vegan doesn't necessarily follow the diet. Countryboy603 ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I thought an ethical vegan is just someone who doesn't eat, wear, or use animal products. If someone who only avoids eating animal products is a dietary vegan, and an ethical vegan is someone who follows a lifestyle devoid of harm and exploitation, what do you call someone who avoids animal products altogether but doesn't follow the lifestyle? 2601:282:C00:ABB0:F4C9:A650:D887:71B4 ( talk) 00:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
On the article in the lead is the following text "Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life, including infancy and pregnancy, as said by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,[f] the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council,[24] the British Dietetic Association,[25] Dietitians of Canada,[26] the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[27] and the Italian Society of Human Nutrition.[28] The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency—does not recommend vegan diets for children or adolescents, or during pregnancy and breastfeeding."
The same text is pretty much duplicated in the section on this article "Positions of dietetic and government associations". All health agency and organizations agree that a well-planned vegan diet is safe for adults that is not up for any dispute. However, many do not agree it is safe for infants and children.
The consensus that vegan diets is safe for infancy and pregnancy is clearly not as clear-cut as this article makes out as the majority of paediatric organizations do not recommend the diet or only support it under medical guidance. There definitely is some POV in the lead because it says "The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency". Any reader coming to this article will be under the impression that every organization in the world supports a vegan diet for children and infants and only one "non-profit organization" disagrees. This doesn't appear balanced to me and is a case of cherry-picking. Any thoughts about what to do here? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, the current article is quick to categorize veganism into Ethical veganism vs. Dietary veganism, while I feel there are some serious flaws that need to be resolved:
Can you reflect on this and suggest what we could do to improve the article? Timelezz ( talk) 12:48, 10 February 2023 (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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
@ Zefr: You said my edit was undue when you reverted it. Why is it undue, considering it lists facts, not points of view? Please do refer to WP:UNDUE and check if what you mean is "undue". Perhaps you mean it violates some other standard? If so, please elaborate :) Trimton ( talk) 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: Why is the source "poor", considering :
Trimton ( talk) 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This article states at two locations that various dietetic associations consider "well-planned" or "adequately planned" vegan diets as healthy.
This seems a bit vague to me. What exactly do vegans need to plan? Could someone review their positions and try to sum up what they mean (at one location)?
It would seem reader-friendly to write up what they mean in two parts: 1) things any healthy diet should include (eating your vegetables, not too much junk food, vitamin D if you don't get much sun light) 2) what vegans need to watch out for that nonvegans don't have to (vitamin B12, maybe other aspects). Trimton ( talk) 19:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a commonly misunderstood subject, because while the word "vegan" can be used to describe food, people, and the diet that vegans follow, the word "veganism" is exclusively about the philosophy and way of life, about "seeking 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, promoting 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's why it is called veganISM... like capitalism, like socialism, like all other isms it is an ideology/philosophy, not a diet plan. It was Donald Watson of the Vegan Society that originally defined the vegan diet in 1944, and Leslie J Cross, also from the Vegan Society, that defined Veganism in 1949, and made clear that it was about ending "exploitation of animals", and not just about dietary choices. https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history
Donald Watson compared the vegan society to the fight against slavery, so obviously it was about much more than just dietary choices, veganism has always been ethical.
A 100% plant based diet can be called a "vegan diet", but following a plant based diet is not veganism, veganism is a lot more than just what we eat, it is the ethical worldview that unnecessarily harming, killing and exploiting animals is wrong, and that we as individuals at the very least should try to avoid contributing to such cruelty. Therefor vegans not only avoid animal products in food, but also avoid using clothes, furniture, and other items made of animal products(like leather, skin, lanolin, wool, fur, silk, suede), and oppose animal testing. The definition of veganism by the Vegan Society is universally accepted by vegans(or about 98-99% of them in my impression), but of course there are news articles that misrepresent what veganism is, many of those articles are written by people who are not vegans themselves and don't have full understanding of the term, and some are written by people representing large corporations that have an obvious interest in undermining veganism. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is being used to promote these incorrect definitions of veganism.
"Veganism is 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 animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
"Veganism is a stricter form of vegetarianism. Vegans avoid consuming or using any animal products or byproducts. The Vegan Society define veganism as “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.”
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325478#veganism
"Veganism is a lifestyle that excludes all animal products and attempts to limit the exploitation of animals as much as possible."
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-a-vegan#what-it-is
Veganism - "the practice of not eating or using any animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, or leather: Strict veganism prohibits the use of all animal products, not just food, and is a lifestyle choice rather than a diet."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/veganism
There is no "environmental veganism", there is no "dietary veganism", I have been vegan for 30 years, and those are concepts I have barely seen mentioned outside of this Wikipedia page. While many people follow a plant based diet for environmental or dietary reasons, that alone does not make them vegans and certainly does not in any way change the original definition of veganism. TheOriginalVegan ( talk) 01:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
As noted in an earlier discussion, I favor having Veganism and Vegan nutrition, with a concise presentation of nutrition issues in the first and that content enlarged upon in the second, with each article having a "See...". A similar approach can be seen for some of the minerals which also happen to be essential nutrients. David notMD ( talk) 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
David notMD, how would that solve what TheOriginalVegan is complaining about? At another page you were at, [3] someone pointed to the FAQ at the top about why this page talks about those who are vegans just for the diet. Some of these people aren't only vegans because of perceived nutrition. TheOriginalVegan is pushing a POV because they only see those who follow the philosophy as vegans. Academics contradict TheOriginalVegan. Psychologist Guy says "this has been discussed before on this talk-page." It has multiple times. I looked in the archives. I suggest people point TheOriginalVegan to those discussions, and keep it moving. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Content_forking#Unacceptable_types_of_forking indicates this shouldn't be two pages. ApproximateLand ( talk) 01:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Fixed my post that was missing a signature. [4]. ApproximateLand ( talk) 21:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The page associated with Veganism carries itself as the sole proprietary source of the term.
It is however not actually a word, it is more a conversational attribute and by adding -ism, for the literature understanding of Vegan it is not acceptable. Vegan is not philosophical in the sense it holds the same architecturally ideology.
What best to incapsulate "VEGAN." Is a fundamental truth.
As a Vegan you expect the reality of how unnatural it is for Humans to have associations with Animals in any fashion. If one says their diet is Vegan. (V) this symbol is most likely to appear on its label on labels in cafeterias. Diet though mentioned in Eastern Philosophy and Abraham Religions doesn't mention Vegan nor ancient Philosopher's. It simply isn't a Philosophy outside conversations. As a meal choice not diet a Vegan will make their best efforts to see to it their meal is exempt of Animals if I say no egg & dairy as well. I nullify "exempt of Animals." Egg is Animal. I would create a run on sentence.
To be Vegan is to make your honest to (yourself) attempt to unstaine from Animals in your food, fashion etc.
It is founded on Compassion, therefore a rigorous extrem dictated by Philosophy and Religion, is not compassion rather control.
People make mistakes a Vegan understands this.
Their is much to discuss because the whole of Wikipedia on Vegan is riddled with inaccuracies. It doesn't matter the source for which one cites to support anything other then your Pera Conscious Compassionate Attempts to leave Animals to live. Is creating confusion.
To be Vegan is to be of the highest tenet of living. It's not nor ever going to be allowed a Philosophy, Religion or Spiritual notion. Its individualistic.
[Definition of ism noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary
ism noun
/ˈɪzəm/ (usually disapproving)
used to refer to a set of ideas or system of beliefs or behavior You're always talking in isms—sexism, ageism, racism] Citizen Todd6 ( talk) 09:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Veganism&oldid=1009037724 fixes a misstatement of the law. Ethical veganism isn't a listed protected characteristic in EA2010 (for that matter, neither are "gender" nor "ethnicity", it's "sex" and "race") but it was found by the ruling cited in the article to qualify for protection as a belief under the "religion or belief" protected characteristic. The judge's wording at the end of the ruling is misleading. Juroreight ( talk) 11:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I replaced the mention of a supposed definition of 'vegan' by the EU parliament with the information from the actual legal act, which grants the European Commission the right to define the term when it comes to food information. The cited definition is found in a legislative resolution, which means it was part of the negotiation, but it did not wind up in the legislation ultimately. Hekerui ( talk) 11:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This article's section Vegan diet has roughly two parts: sections 1-4 treat what vegans eat, and sections 5-8 treat nutritional (meaning health) aspects. I propose two amendments: 1) Separate sections 5-8 into a "Health aspects" or "Nutrition" section 2) Shorten the content and move most discussion to Vegan nutrition, which covers the same aspects but is less extensive in some areas, e.g. dietetic association evaluations. Do other users agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimton ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This topic needs serious attention. To say B12 is not made by Animals but a bacteria which grows in Animals. Makes it something an Animal made, by supply the necessary parts for the bacteria to grew. What is inside or an Animal is still the Animal's property so it makes it Animal Made. Like protein at one point still kinda is, a Propaganda spread falsely. Lack of B12 from Vegan Food is not to be associated with rhetoric of a fearful attribute of Vegan as a food choice. This is harmful and scares people. When the availability of B12 is easy to acquire. Furthermore a large contribution to B12 losing is fight to grow in soil is based in part to the chemicals and pollution caused by the Meat & Dairy industry. Which entered our soil with blatant disregard to warnings. Don't put Vegan food negatively in this light. Citizen Todd6 ( talk) 10:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn I think we should use the {{Excerpt}} template here for Vegan nutrition to save us the work of updating both articles. Would you agree? The template would automatically insert the lead section of the nutrition article, nipping any WP:CONTENTFORKING or WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY problems in the bud. For an example, see Veganism#Prejudice against vegans. ⠀Trimton⠀ 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently, Veganism#Prejudice against vegans is more detailed than Vegaphobia in describing vegaphobia (prejudice against vegans). That doesn't make sense, so I'm going to move most material to Vegaphobia on 11 April. There's also some stuff on Vegaphobia that might need mention in a summary sentence on Veganism, I'll check. I'll familiarise myself with Template:Main and perhaps link Vegaphobia as "main article", instead of "further information". If there's any reason against my plan, please comment here :) Trimton ( talk) 09:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Where do I start? Countryboy603's edit was reversed [5] by Bodney because it didn't have a ref for corroboration. So Countryboy603 came back with a ref. [6] This would be fine if the contribution wasn't off-kilter, cite or no cite, for corroboration. Now I reversed the contribution, as it's confusing and off the usual definitional span, I think, to write "non-human animal products". Do refs usually consider human breast milk an animal product? I've seen no evidence of that. Nothing that comes from humans is usually considered an animal product. Thinking deeper: Is writing "non-human animal products" not then saying that cannibalism is vegan? I know that's an extreme thing to throw out there, but I think there are good reasons the definition of veganism isn't typically prefaced with "non-human" in refs. The ref [7] Countryboy603 added manages to debate itself about human breast milk's relation to veganism and says what it doesn't take as a literal definition.
Countryboy603, if you want to add something about human breast milk, please add it farther down the page rather than alter the usual meaning of veganism. ApproximateLand ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies if I was unclear. To answer your question about "nonhuman", I would add it for precision, ApproximateLand. WP:MOS advises against vague language. But since you were asking about refs: authors like Francione and Vegan Society themselves call nonhuman animals simply animals .
All I meant to propose is "not use" instead of "abstain". I don't think the archived discussions touch on this word choice? By "given more prominence", I meant the Vegan Society definition should be mentioned in lead section before history, (not as a definitive of veganism though). The V.S. definition would in my view help readers understand ethical veganism better. As I explained, it is an influential definiton. Of course yes, there are vegans that don't follow the Vegan Society definition. As you say, there are dietary vegans (végétaliens). One could add vegans that don't think of animal use as exploitation. Trimton ( talk) 17:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok and what about "abstaining" to "not using"? Is there any reason that would justify the current connotations of abstinence? Trimton ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Feeding human babies human breast milk is a natural process, which ends when the mother decides. Veganism, as a life and dietary choice, is made by the individual themselves but not when they are babies. People who continue drinking milk or eating milk products, usually from a cow or goat, once they are weaned, may come to a point of questioning that choice, which is where the definition of 'vegan' comes into play. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:50, 22 April 2021 (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.
Veganism and Vegetarianism are, in practical terms, unrelated subjects. In contrast to vegetarianism - veganism is not simply a diet, a health fad, or a casual lifestyle.
Veganism is an All-or-Nothing proposition, a Worldview and an Ethos. The primary principle being non-harm.
Vegans stricly consume only plant-based food and products (including shoes and clothing) which use no animal sourced materials anywhere in the manufacturing process. The priciple applies to everything which a vegan owns or uses, including cars (no leather in upholstery, gear levers..), musical instruments ( no animal bone, hide glue, shellac, or gut strings..), and so on. Anyone who does not meet this criteria is not a vegan.
Vegetarianism, by comparison, can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Persons who (in addition to vegetables and fruits) also consume dairy products ( lacto-vegetarian), and may also eat fish ( pesco-vegetarian), or eggs ( ovo-vegetarian) and still call themselves vegetarian. Therefore the concept of vegetarianism is untenable for vegans. Vegans regard vegetarianism as hipocricy, as the dairy industry is an inseparable partner of the death industry. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 17:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC) NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 19:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The current state of the article is an atrocity agaist veganism. I reads like a bloody vegetarian cookbook. In fact it's really more of an extention of the article on vegetarianism than it is about veganism. It's quite enough to include the "vegetarian" reference within the vegan society history, which began as a vegetarian society. Also a cross link between the articles veganism and vegetarianism. This article needs to act as a hub for the vegan principles, not vegan recipes. Veganism is not about cooking, or diet, it is strictly an ethical worldview, where plant-based food is only a consequence and not the primary issue. Non-harm is the fundamental issue~ Also there is only one form of vegan, all true vegans are ethical vegans. By all appearances, the article bears all the signs of sabotage, possibly by anti-vegan lobby groups. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 09:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
"Lacto-vegetarians acknowledged the ethical consistency of the vegan position but regarded a vegan diet as impracticable and were concerned that it might be an impediment to spreading vegetarianism if vegans found themselves unable to participate in social circles where no non-animal food was available."has more to do with veganism than vegetarianism. Four lines from the vegan etymology sec [11] say that
The word vegan was invented by Watson and Dorothy Morgan, a schoolteacher he would later marry. The word is based on "the first three and last two letters of 'vegetarian'" because it marked, in Mr Watson's words, "the beginning and end of vegetarian". The Vegan News asked its readers if they could think of anything better than vegan to stand for "non-dairy vegetarian". They suggested allvega, neo-vegetarian, dairyban, vitan, benevore, sanivores, and beaumangeur.
ApproximateLand, this is the place for discussion on improving the article, so let's talk about improving it, without heated argument. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 11:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Bodney:, you claim to be an ethical vegan, and yet you betray every principle of veganism. Obviously there has never been a consensus on this talk page, which is why the article is a complete disaster. This is why there cannot and will not be a concensus here as long as non-vegans are involved. This WikiProject is doomed. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 12:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Czello: I am on the receiving end of ad hominem attacks by ApproximateLand, I am not the one attacking others. There is nothing to be accomplished here, no consensus is possible with non-vegans, so I will leave the WikiProject all together. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is verbose. I don't think the lead needs to be so large. Below, I've used "strikethrough" bold formatting to show the verbosity that (in my opinion) should be removed from the lead and moved to appropriate sections within the article. My reasoning is that leads should give an introduction to the article, not arguments or evidence. Somebody should be able to read the lead and "Ah, now I understand the jist of what this article is about, so now I know if I'm on the right page or if I'm on the wrong article."
Notice that the modifications I've suggested remove both "the good" and "the bad" about veganism, and leaves behind a plain overview. As for the phrase "moral vegetarian", I've never heard of it, so maybe it's not part of common Australian lingo. I'm surprised to read that it's a synonym of "ethical vegan", my intuition feels they're different (yet related) terms. It absolutely needs a citation if it's a true synonym or a "commonly known as" terminology.
Another example of verbosity, one of the sections of the article currently reads:
This seems irrelevant, reminiscent of an advertisement, or a precursor to a certain argument. It sounds like "Here's some information on biochemical metabolism relating to calcium. It's important. Now that you know this (about calcium), vegans get their calcium from this plant-based source and that plant-based source. They don't seem to have higher health problems…"
I think a more to-the-point way of communicating this kind of information should resemble something like: " Calcium, an essential nutrient,[1][2] is present in high concentrations in these natural (vegan) sources[3][4] and these processed (vegan) sources[5][6]". I think this style of writing is neutral, concise and encyclopedic.
I think it's better to isolate "health risks/malnutrition consequences" in its own section in this article rather than compounding it here. My reasoning is that, to pose a realistic example, if some child is interested in veganism, their parent might come to Wikipedia to address some of their concerns. Such a parent might think "How can I make sure my child gets enough calcium?" so they go to the nutritional section which, without verbosity, says "calcium is in this". The parent, being concerned, also notices a section in the Table of Contents that says "Health risks/Malnutrition". They click it, and then they read up about risks associated with veganism.
To have an organised article is to communicate effectively. Furthermore, by scaling down the quantity of information, it allows more opportunities for biased edits pushing an agenda to be noticed and removed/altered.
So. Verbosity. It's a problem. Less is best.
I don't intend to help solve the problem of editing this article, because I'm too lazy to deal with defending edits on a "controversial" topic. But these are my thoughts on what ought to happen. JKVeganAbroad ( talk) 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
"Various types of plant cream have been created to replace dairy cream, and some types of imitation whipped cream are non-dairy."
The sentence above seems to contain a bit of duplication, should it be rephrases as:
"Various types of plant cream or imitation whipped cream have been created to replace dairy cream." Jan Vlug ( talk) 12:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The sidebar image must be a vegan symbol, and not a bloody pizza. Displaying food is misleading, and is an insult to veganism. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 09:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The pizza belongs in a separate article, such as "vegan cooking". The main article should focus on animal ethics and non-harm, which is the basis of veganism, not cooking. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 11:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the image which replaced the pizza, until it was reverted back to the pizza. This image is the most appropriate for the article. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Clearly you are not a vegan, or it would be self-evident to you that this is the primary symbol which represents the vegan movement. This is complete futility - I am leaving the project. Enjoy your pizza. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 12:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Reopening this because I'm not sure the discussion was actually resolved, rather than closed on the basis of "it was made by a POV-pusher". I can actually see where OP was coming from here. As a non-vegan with a fair amount of experience with veganism, I actually agree that the symbol previously in the article was more appropriate, and that it's widely recognizable as a symbol of veganism -- perhaps moreso than food with fake meat that can be mistaken for real meat on it. (Although the current photos are aesthetically quite nice.) Vaticidal prophet 07:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I would like to weigh in that I have been dissatisfied with the sidebar images for a while.
In summary I would suggest a new mosaic of images, the bottom two images are fine, but I remove the top two since they both appear to have cheese. I would suggest adding a textile (perhaps cotton) and one more food which is culturally associated with veganism (perhaps tofu, beans or nuts). AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 11:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
When I clicked on this article for the first time today, I was quite surprised to see the collage of food as the poster-image of this article. My impressions where as follows:
Of course, I'm a vegan myself, and I've seen many various vegan logos on food packaging or restaurants. @AquitaneHungerForce above said that they're vegan but they weren't familiar with vegan logos. Perhaps, rather than a collage of food, the infobox could serve as an opportunity to inform readers, vegan and non-vegan alike, of these vegan logos.
Another point to consider is that when somebody is looking for a specific page on Wikipedia, the infobox image is an instant opportunity of recognition if they've found the right article. Seeing the food collage of arbitrary food does not help this recognition process, but logos are static and recognisable. I think it's a better choice.
In Japan,
this one is frequently used. In Australia,
this and the following logo are common on food products:
So, as such, I agree with the motion to replace the infobox image containing "examples of vegan food" with "examples of vegan logos". JKVeganAbroad ( talk) 14:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It's been a month and a week since the last entry to this talk. Because there appears to be no more objection to the notion, I'm changing the sidebar "food collage" picture to this:
for, as @JKVeganAbroad said, it is one of the commonly used symbols/logos in Vegan products. These are the three reasons why this symbol matters:
Do feel free to revert back this edit for I am nothing but a newbie editor. However, just like any other editor, I certainly hope that the editor in question have made sure that they read all the key points mentioned in this talk page with the usual neutral judgment and good faith, and are able to provide a logical reason that the food collage is, in fact, better suited to this article than a vegan symbol would. Otherwise, they'll become the "POV-pusher" in this situation, and no one else. Thank you for being considerate. WinterFanboy🌹 TALK 08:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Dyaluk08 - I was reviewing the changes you made recently to this article. Can I query a couple of your changes please?
I've reverted these particular changes; feel free to reinstate the 'exponential' word if it's credibly supported by one of the sources that I've missed, or use a different word; please don't reinstate the second change without further discussion. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I believe the explanation of veganism is fairly flawed. The definition of veganism should begin by stating that it is a philosophy versus a diet. If you eat a plant based diet that does not mean you care about animals, which is what veganism is. A vegan for example could consume animal products if those products were produced without animal exploitation, e.g. lab grown meat (without use of bovine serum), or by consuming road kill. A vegan could dumpster dive and consume the animal products that were thrown out (there is of course more debate here, for example one could argue that there is an obligation to donate these animal products to reduce economic meat demand). A vegan could buy second hand leather as it does not further exploit animals (though it is debated and mostly condemned).
I would refer to the vegan society for a definition: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
"Veganism is 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 animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Compare this to the current wiki definition:
"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.[c] An individual who follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan. Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans, also known as "strict vegetarians", refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances.[d] An ethical vegan, also known as a "moral vegetarian", is someone who not only follows a vegan diet but extends the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and opposes the use of animals for any purpose.[e] Another term is "environmental veganism", which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable"
There are many areas to criticize ->
"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products (only if you cannot source animal products void of exploitation. It should begin by stating that it is a philosophy that excludes animal exploitation as far as possible and practicable), particularly in diet (it currently includes diet because it is hard to source animal products void of exploitation, but it is not the definition of veganism), and an associated philosophy (it is not an associated philosophy, veganism is a philosophy, it should rather state that a plant based diet is an associated diet) that rejects the commodity status of animals.[c] An individual that follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan (a plant based dieter is not a vegan, you can eat exclusively plants without being a vegan, this line can be removed or changed to clarify that a plant based diet is not veganism). Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans (there is no such thing, veganism is a philosophy. A plant based diet could be mentioned here, but differentiated from veganism), also known as "strict vegetarians" (very uncommon phrase, it was used several times in old nutritional studies. It does not require this clarification in the intro), refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances.[d] An ethical vegan (there is no such thing, that is what veganism is), also known as a "moral vegetarian", is someone that not only follows a vegan diet (needs to be changed to plant based diet) but extends the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and opposes the use of animals for any purpose.[e] Another term is "environmental veganism" (there is no such thing again, veganism is a philosophy. This can include plant based dieters for the benefits of the environment, but going plant based for the environment does not entail caring for animals, which is what veganism is. For example environmental plant based eaters commonly argue for sustainable forms of animal products, such as sustainable fishing), which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable"
I would argue nearly the whole paragraph is incorrect and irrelevant e.g. most of the phrases used here are never used and are misleading. RBut ( talk) 00:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
O Syedalibangbang ( talk) 20:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes tallow refers to goat/sheep fat too, but it's still not the fat of random animals. 119.160.119.85 ( talk) 11:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Veganism&diff=0&oldid=1039150396 is an improvement. I think that the original version is clearer. The key point is that veganism is not only applicable to food, but also to for example clothing, furniture, i.e. other areas of their lives. Jan Vlug ( talk) 19:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
In regard to this [16], the media actually slightly misrepresented the study for example [17]. The study can be found here [18]. The study does not use the term "vegan" but "whole foods plant-based" but they combined those results with the vegetarian diet.
To increase precision, we analysed three dietary patterns after combining dietary patterns that are similar in terms of dietary intake. We combined ‘whole foods, plant-based’ diets and ‘vegetarian’ diets into one category (‘plant-based diets’, n=254). Then, we combined ‘whole food, plant-based’ diets, ‘vegetarian’ diets or ‘pescatarian’ diets into another category (‘plant-based diets or pescatarian diets’, n=294) to test if a spectrum of plant-based diets which include animal products are associated with COVID-19 severity. Due to the small number of cases (nine cases of moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 40 COVID-19 cases), we could not analyse pescatarian diets separately. We used plant-based diets to encompass plant-based diets and vegetarian diets, given that vegetarian diets are considered a subset of plant-based diets which minimise consumption of animal products (meat, fish, dairy).
In regard to the results the study found that "participants who followed plant-based diets had 73% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19... Similarly, participants who followed either plant-based diets or pescatarian diets had 59% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 compared with those who did not follow these diets." But the study basically lumped whole food plant based diet (vegan) with vegetarian diet (who consume eggs or dairy). Because of the combined results I don't think we can say that vegans were exclusively 73% less likely to develop severe symptoms from COVID-19 because that is original research. I don't doubt that vegans and vegetarians are less likely to develop severe symptoms of COVID because as the study reported these diets are higher in vegetables, legumes and nuts and its advocates are not eating shite like processed meats but not enough research has been done on this topic to separate the diets, they have not been isolated. I suspect the results would be similar for flexitarians or those who eat the Mediterranean diet. These results are not exclusive to veganism so I don't think they should be reported on this article, especially when some of the media sources have misrepresented the study. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 11:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The current logo used for veganism in the infobox is the symbol used for vegetarian products (used by EVU for their trademark V-label). Why would we support one trademark instead of another. Some profit economicly from this. I would argue there is not one symbol for veganism and would leave it out of the article. I don't know how to change the infobox. If someone could, thank you. Timelezz ( talk) 09:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
File:European Vegetarian Union Logo.svg If you want a new image in the {{ WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}, what would you propose to replace it? -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 11:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
~ BOD ~ TALK 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
{Edit semi-protected}} I wanted to quickly make a correction in the article, but as it is semi-protected I must bring it up here first. This section of the article is referencing the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. In the abstract the phrase used is "appropriately planned," not "well-planed." There is an important difference in connotation here as as "well-planned" implies a high degree of difficulty, when in reality this is simply not the case. Anyone who is vegan will tell you that it really is hardly any different from being non-vegan. We should update the article's phrasing to more accurately reflect the source material being cited. ReasonVEVO ( talk) 11:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to make the intro more balanced. It used only half of the abstract of the cited paper (only the cons, leaving out the pros). If we cannot decide to give a balanced view I will delete this intro as all nutrients are dealt with in the following sections anyways. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. Let's look into some more detail here.
All I'm saying is, we cannot use the first claim and leave out the latter. In my view no general claim should be made at all, because health benefits and risk depend on the nutritional profile, which will leave you with health benefits for one thing but health risks for another. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Have mentioned this discussion at the veganism-vegetarianism WikiProject. Hopefully editors there know of relevant sourcing. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
As the b12 supplement was able to produced by man until 1944 i seriously doubt anybody before then could have survived on a vegan diet, that's just one supplement as vegans need many other supplements and no archeology has ever unearthed any evidence of a vegan diet in any of the homo species. 2A02:C7F:6893:6700:493F:D6BA:8FFA:16BB ( talk) 22:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The article contains the following text "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada state that properly planned vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy and lactation.[252] The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council similarly recognizes a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age,[26][253] as does the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[254] British National Health Service,[255] British Nutrition Foundation,[256] Dietitians Association of Australia,[257] United States Department of Agriculture,[258] Mayo Clinic,[259] Canadian Pediatric Society,[260] and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.[261]
This is a name drop of various dietetic and government associations but if you take a closer look and examine some of the references they do not support vegan diets for all life stages nor mention anything to do with age. Just two examples (we can go through them all), Mayo Clinic is sourced to this link [22] which is on vegetarian diets, not vegan. It does mention vegan diets but it does not recommend them or mention anything to do with age and vegan diets, it even says "Vegans may not get enough iodine and may be at risk of deficiency and possibly even a goiter."
New Zealand Ministry of Health is sourced to this leaflet on vegetarian diets [23]. The leaflet is not on veganism and only mentions vegan a few times such as "Vitamin B12 deficiency is a serious condition with non-reversible effects. This is most likely to occur in periods of rapid growth, in pregnancy and when breastfeeding. Vegans are advised to have their vitamin B12 status assessed regularly by their doctor." Remember both these sources are cited on the Wikipedia article as "recogniz[ing] a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age". This is completely false, they do not such thing. From what is cited on the article if you actually read the sources, few of the dietetic associations advise a vegan diet for any age or all stages of life.
In the above discussion there has been strong mention about the American Dietetic Association (ADA) supporting vegan diets for all stages of life. I would point out the ADA statement does not represent every dietetic association in the world and much of the paper is on vegetarianism, not just vegan diets. The 2009 version appears to be the most 'recent' (over 10 years out of date) and it is online in full [24]. If you scroll down to the bottom to see who actually wrote the paper it was Reed Mangels. This is not a neutral party. Mangels is a well known vegan activist who writes vegan cookbooks. She is listed as a "nutrition adviser for the national, non-profit Vegetarian Resource Group and the nutrition editor and columnist for Vegetarian Journal. She is the co-author of Simply Vegan (with Debra Wasserman)", she currently works for the website "vegan health" [25]. The other co-author is Winston J. Craig he is a well known vegetarian activist. Now look at the section below at the "reviewers" of the paper which lists about 7 names. You can Google search these names and they are vegan or vegetarian activists. For example Cathy Conway is an adviser for the "Vegetarian Resource Group" [26], Mary Hager worked as a consultant for the Vegetarian Times, Tamara Schryver describes herself on her blog as a vegetarian [27]. None of this conflict of interest is disclosed. You would have thought they would have gotten some neutral reviewers but it didn't happen.
The source seems to have been cherry-picked because it supports vegan diets for any age but it needs to be known that this is a highly biased source with a massive conflict of interest. The authors and reviewers of the paper are all vegans and vegetarians, they are hardly going to present a balanced overview of the subject are they? In conclusion there is misinformation, misrepresentation and dishonesty in the "Positions of dietetic and government associations" section on the article. The deeply biased ADA do support vegan diets for all stages of life but many of the others cited do not. I suggest we go through these one by one, because most of the references cited in this section are on vegetarian diets, not specifically vegan. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"I don't see how we could possibly state that something does not exist without our looking for it."← you're aware of core policy on this, presumably? Alexbrn ( talk) 21:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This has previously been discussed several times and users did agree to this but it was never carried out. I would like to re-write the "history" section and remove the off-topic material about the history of vegetarianism. There is a history of veganism. I would like to re-write this section and include only history of vegans. Some of the earliest vegan history was in France. For example, Georges Butaud and Sophie Zaïkowska. There is no reason to be citing off-topic material about "Vegetarianism can be traced to Indus Valley Civilization in 3300–1300 BCE in the Indian subcontinent" etc. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hlc63.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This source is not a general assesment of all health related issues of vegan diets:
The paper makes absolutely no statements about bone health, mental health, inflamation markers, gut microbiom, dementia, or any other health aspect that has been researched with respect to a vegan diet.
Claiming that "The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits is inconsistent" is deliberate misinterpretation of this paper that deals only with CVD.
Tischbeinahe ( talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"In addition to the vegetarian diet, vegan diet, i.e. the total exclusion of any animal-derived substance, is a pattern that has been attracting an increasing interest among the public. Few studies have reported the health benefits of vegan diets and therefore no conclusive evidence can be proposed".
...some cohorts contained participants predominantly from specific ethnic backgrounds, questioning generalisability of results as well as the actual effect of this pattern on CVD outcome. For example, vegetarians ... In addition to the vegetarian diet, vegan diet, i.e. the total exclusion of any animal-derived substance, is a pattern that has been attracting an increasing interest among the public. Few studies have reported the health benefits of vegan diets and therefore no conclusive evidence can be proposed. Regarding intermediary risk factors of CVD, a recent meta-analysis of seven clinical trials
I have now written Zambelas to his corresponding email. Here is a copy of my mail, that I CCed to info-en@wikimedia.org. Let's see what he says.
Dear Mr. Azampelas,
I am an editor of the English language version of Wikipedia. We are currently including you study "Dietary patterns and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a review of the evidence" in the article on veganism.
Your article is summarized with the following statement: The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits is inconsistent.
However, it is my understanding that the intention of your article is to look only into CVD and not into all health related outcomes of a vegan diet. So I was wondering if the following statement would be a more accurate summary of your article: The evidence that a vegan diet confers health benefits with reference to CVD is inconsistent.
Thank you very much for your help.
Yeah, I messed up "with reference to" and "with respect to", but I think everybody gets the point. Best Tischbeinahe ( talk) 15:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Above there has been heated discussions about content in the "vegan nutrition" section, some of the content is unreliable, outdated or misrepresented. We already have an article on vegan nutrition, I am not sure why we have so much text on this article on nutrition. For example, on this article in the vegan nutrition section we have different sub-sections on critical nutrients, vitamin b12, calcium, protein, vitamin d, iron, iodine, omega 3s etc. Why is any of this relevant for the article when we have an article on vegan nutrition? This article's "history" section is very poor. It would be great to expand text on the history of veganism and I plan to do that. I am sure readers of the article would prefer this than information about calcium or iodine.
I suggest moving all the content in the "vegan nutrition" section (all sub-sections) apart from "health effects" and "Positions of dietetic and government associations" to the vegan nutrition article where all the same content is already covered. This way there is less information on this article in that section about nutrition which to me is undue on this article. This will make the article less controversial and all the irrelevant stuff can be merged to the vegan nutrition article (which we can also improve). Please let me know if you support this or not. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I have cross read both articles and done my best to contain all information in Vegan nutrition. I have deleted everything exept for a short summary from Veganism. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 09:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want a summary from the main article on vegan nutrition can you please make a suggestion on what aspects you want to have in this article. Please note that the text you reverted is outdated and the only current version can be found in the main article on vegan nutrition. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 13:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: if you want the content in this article, please copy the whole article on vegan nutrition here. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 13:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Picking „educational“ aspects is misleading as all aspects on vegan nutrition are of same importance if one takes a NPOV. I also ask the other editors to revert the article back to what has been decided here. Tischbeinahe ( talk) 13:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Randy Kryn:, as you are concerned about „busting the protein myth“ (and have so far not brought forth any other arguments to include the whole section on nutrients) may I suggest we add a sentence on protein? The ADA states:
A concern that vegetarians, especially vegans and vegan athletes, may not consume an adequate amount and quality of protein is unsubstantiated. Vegetarian diets that include a variety of plant products provide the same protein quality as diets that include meat.
If we add „Adequate amount and quality of protein can be derived from plant foods alone.“ to the end of the „Critical Nutrients“ section would that help to mitigate the issue you see? Tischbeinahe ( talk) 07:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vegan athletics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Vegan athletics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Edenic Diet and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Edenic Diet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Junk food vegan and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Junk food vegan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
this article has a lot of repetition that could be removed/moved to dedicated sections/articles 41.133.68.216 ( talk) 16:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It is assumed this is to update the paper, but whatever the reason, the reference to that endorsement should either have a caveat written with it, or it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.76.245 ( talk) 14:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris exemption and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Paris exemption until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tartar Torte 18:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris exception and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Paris exception until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tartar Torte 18:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Paris Exemption and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#The Paris Exemption until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tartar Torte 18:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Veganism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Copy-pasted direct wording under “Demographics” on Wikis “Veganism” page.
“Demographics- In the United States, vegans (making up 2% of the population) tend to be middle-class, white, female-identified, educated, agnostic or atheist, and urban-dwelling.”
This has no legitimate citations other than a political opinion book called “Trump Veganism: A Survey”- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321142376. This is not a fact or verified source and is being used in a derogatory way to misguide information about true Veganism.
Based on the previous citation and wording alone, clearly it has been edited to be biased and political.
It needs to be changed to “ 1 in 10 Americans say they don’t eat meat. About 10 percent of Americans over the age of 18 consider themselves vegan or vegetarian as of January 2022. An online survey administered to 930 Americans, selected to be representative of the US population in terms of gender, education, age and income. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percent.” Citation- https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/1-in-10-americans-say-they-dont-eat-meat-a-growing-share-of-the-population/ Ijenspace ( talk) 02:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
In the United States, 1 out of 10 Americans over the age of 18 consider themselves vegan or vegetarian. I have also opted to use this source rather than the one provided since Alliance for Science took it directly from The Conversation. — Sirdog ( talk) 00:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Stating that vegans need a steady supply of vitamins and minerals is not WP:COI, but this is medical science (mainstream science). Wikipedia does have a WP:GOODBIAS. Vegans who pretend to live without such products are simply engaging in denialism, to the extent that for them raising a child is often equal to child abuse (children need vitamins and minerals which vegetables and fruits cannot provide). tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Kreyren has been alerted of discretionary sanctions, because of their WP:Advocacy for the WP:POV that selling vitamins to vegans is WP:COI. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
you evidently misunderstood that my contribution with cite_check is somehow motivated by denialism to the consumption: of course I have misunderstood your point of view, since it was not at all apparent what you mean just going by your edits. You knew you don't oppose the sale of vitamins to vegans, I had no way of knowing that you don't oppose it.
Could we split this into 2 pages, one for the diet and one for the philosophy? An ethical vegan doesn't necessarily follow the diet. Countryboy603 ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I thought an ethical vegan is just someone who doesn't eat, wear, or use animal products. If someone who only avoids eating animal products is a dietary vegan, and an ethical vegan is someone who follows a lifestyle devoid of harm and exploitation, what do you call someone who avoids animal products altogether but doesn't follow the lifestyle? 2601:282:C00:ABB0:F4C9:A650:D887:71B4 ( talk) 00:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
On the article in the lead is the following text "Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life, including infancy and pregnancy, as said by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,[f] the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council,[24] the British Dietetic Association,[25] Dietitians of Canada,[26] the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[27] and the Italian Society of Human Nutrition.[28] The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency—does not recommend vegan diets for children or adolescents, or during pregnancy and breastfeeding."
The same text is pretty much duplicated in the section on this article "Positions of dietetic and government associations". All health agency and organizations agree that a well-planned vegan diet is safe for adults that is not up for any dispute. However, many do not agree it is safe for infants and children.
The consensus that vegan diets is safe for infancy and pregnancy is clearly not as clear-cut as this article makes out as the majority of paediatric organizations do not recommend the diet or only support it under medical guidance. There definitely is some POV in the lead because it says "The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency". Any reader coming to this article will be under the impression that every organization in the world supports a vegan diet for children and infants and only one "non-profit organization" disagrees. This doesn't appear balanced to me and is a case of cherry-picking. Any thoughts about what to do here? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, the current article is quick to categorize veganism into Ethical veganism vs. Dietary veganism, while I feel there are some serious flaws that need to be resolved:
Can you reflect on this and suggest what we could do to improve the article? Timelezz ( talk) 12:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)