![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
What's up with recent comments by Joseph2302? I think you are being strangely harsh with Vegan Bug who might be wrong but doesn't deserve the vituperation of your recent comments. Am I missing something here?
TonyClarke ( talk) 18:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@ TonyClarke:, maybe I was a bit harsh, but it was caused by repeated edits like this on another page. Joseph2302 ( talk) 01:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks. But just reverting with POV and unsourced might have been more in keeping with civility policy? TonyClarke ( talk) 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The current state of knowledge on the subject of the vegan diet seems to be that there is no generally acceped opinion on whether a vegan diet is beneficial or harmful. That is what this article should say. At present it is something of a battlground in which various editors quote selected studies to try to prove something (that the diet is a good one, or a bad one). To draw and suggest to our readers conclusions of this sort by assessing the evidence ourselves is original research. Summaries from independent high quality secondary sources showing what is the generally accepted opinion on the vegan diet are what is needed here. If there are no such sources then we should say very little or nothing on the subject. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I
made an edit after looking at the sources cited and finding out that they say the opposite to what is said in the article.
What the article says is "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people".[
126][
11]
Reverting my edit and saying "this is an article about veganism not vegetarianism" is a straw man argument, as I never said anything about vegetarianism, nor did the parts of the article I referred to. -- Rose ( talk) 11:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Not so clear patterns are observed for cancer outcomes. While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes. [my bold]
I would suggest something like "A vegan diet provides a moderate reduction in general cancer risk, although compared to non-vegetarians vegans are at greater risk of urinary tract cancers". The word "moderate" comes from "modest", from the source. -- Rose ( talk) 14:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I see original research and using lower quality sources being used to refute a secondary review; the failed verification tag should be removed, and primary and lower quality sources should not be used for text covered in higher quality or more recent secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Table 7 shows a relative risk of 0.86 for cancer overall, with a confidence interval of 0.7 to 1.00. Thus the study clearly finds a "statistically signficant" reduction in all cancers relative to the control group. On the other hand, this study exclusively includes non-randomized studies, and MEDRS speaks to the lower reliability of non-randomized studies. (Those who chose a vegan diet are probably less likely to smoke and probably make other healthy choices). The article explicitly discusses this limitation of the study, and asks whether the results are applicable to non Adventists. It is far from a ringing, highly certain endorsement that veganism has cancer benefits. I'd characterize the study overall as suggesting "a possible benefit". I certainly would not try to quantify any possible benefit from a non-randomized study conducted solely in Adventists, and I don't think the article's authors are encouraging that at all. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Can someone change that sentence and word it differently, based on the discussion above? If I try to do it, I'm afraid my edits will be reverted once again. --
Rose (
talk) 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
And in doing the above, I think we should avoid mentioning vegetarianism altogether if there's evidence of vegans being at reduced risk of cancer, and based on that, we obviously should not have the article say "there's no good evidence". --
Rose (
talk) 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I suggest a wider view of cancer and veganism. I think that the issue is not simply whether veganism protects from cancer. Instead, the cancer problem has arisen because of a huge increase in animal and high fat, high sugar products in our diets, as our western (and some eastern) countries have become more prosperous and less labour-oriented, and because of a reduction of plant based foods. So we are less active (cars, supermarkets, TVs, social media) and have more saturated fats, sugar and cholesterol circulating in our bloodstreams, so we have more cancer: and more high blood pressure, and diabetes, etc.. Veganism is not the main answer, although it is part of the answer. We need to eat less, be more active, eat more plant foods as our ancestors used to do, and reduce high fat foods. Veganism goes some way towards that, but it is misleading, for all these reasons, to say that veganism protects against cancer, since so much more is needed. One implication of this is that we will never be able to prove that veganism reduces cancer - so we are always going to have the kinds of arguments here if we focus on veganism alone. MHO, End of rant TonyClarke ( talk) 12:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, 99% studies about risks of developing cancer aren't worth befuddling encyclopedia readers with. Correlation guesswork. The other 1% are theoretical, because every rule has potential exception. Even if the most solid study ever done shows vegans/Mormons/Jacksons have a "significantly" increased risk for an unlikely thing (say, even by 200%), and it somehow holds absolutely true for people outside the study group, too, even in future cases (virtually impossible), the difference in actual risk is still too slight for a human mind to comprehend.
No specific advice here, just ignore all studies. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SandyGeorgia in this matter-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted this to a previous version as some problematic changes had happened, chiefly:
To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer. Although plant foods contain many chemopreventive factors, most of the research data comes from cellular biochemical studies.
While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes.
@ Alexbrn: Regarding the plagiarism issue, it was one short sentence, not a word of which could have been changed without being debated here, and I think it is de minimis and will not cause a problem. I find your distinction between "Health Effects" and "Health Research" a little bit nitpicky, and including laboratory research in the same context as it appeared in review articles about cancer rates in vegetarians, where it was explicitly used as evidence that vegetarian diets may be cancer-protective, is obviously not OR. All that being said, I understand you have tried to enlist other more knowledgeable people into the discussion and I'd like to wait for their opinions. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 17:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Strict vegetarians, such as vegans (who eat no animal products at all), must be careful to eat enough protein. Other nutrients that may be missing from some vegetarian diets include vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and iron (see Calcium, Vitamin B, Vitamin D, and Zinc). Some health care professionals consider vegan diets potentially risky, especially for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women.
— cancer.org
While there is a trend to less cancers it was not significant per [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Vegetarians tend to have an overall cancer rate lower than that of the general population, and this is not confined to smoking-related cancers. ... Although there is such a variety of potent phytochemicals in fruit and vegetables, human population studies have not shown large differences in cancer incidence or mortality rates between vegetarians and nonvegetarians (99,152).
— Position of the ADA: Vegetarian Diets., p. 1274
A lot seems to have been removed recently from the health section. I was wondering why this was removed. I didn't add this (as I recall), but I can't see what the problem is, apart from being a a bit laboured. It has been in the article for some time:
Between 1980 and 1984 the Oxford Vegetarian Study recruited 11,000 subjects (6,000 vegetarians and a control group of 5,000 non-vegetarians) and followed up after 12 years. The study indicated that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations than the meat-eaters, and that death rates were lower in the non-meat eaters. The authors wrote that mortality from ischemic heart disease was positively associated with higher dietary cholesterol levels and the consumption of animal fat. They also wrote that the non-meat-eaters had half the risk of the meat eaters of requiring an emergency appendectomy, and that vegans in the UK may be prone to iodine deficiency. [1]
A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing mortality rates in Western countries found that mortality from ischemic heart disease was 26 percent lower in vegans than in regular meat-eaters. This was compared to 20 percent lower in occasional meat eaters, 34 percent lower in pescetarians (those who ate fish but no other meat), and 34 percent lower in ovo-lacto vegetarians (those who ate no meat, but did consume animal milk and eggs). No significant difference in mortality from other causes was found between vegetarian/vegan and non-vegetarian diets. [2] In 2011 a study of self-reported diabetes-free people aged over 40 found a correlation between diet and cataract risk, with a vegan diet appearing the least risky. [3]
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)For the study, Paul N. Appleby, Naomi E. Allen, and Timothy J. Key, "Diet, vegetarianism, and cataract risk", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93(5), 28 February 2011, pp. 1128–1135.
Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The material about page views is interesting, because it's reflective of the surge of curiosity about veganism during the 2010s, which plenty of sources discuss. It is or was an interesting social movement (in the sense of why that and why then, and what will come of it). I know that Martin removed the text, but I see someone earlier removed the image. Can someone say why material like this is being removed? It seems a little gratuitous.
The interest in veganism in the 2010s was reflected in increased page views on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia article on veganism was viewed 73,000 times in August 2009 but 145,000 times in August 2013; articles on veganism were viewed more during this period than articles on vegetarianism in the English, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish Wikipedias. [1]
Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
More on the way ! Ben :), Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 17:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I have uloaded some images to the article but sadly my contribution has been reverted by User:Flyer22. It's a long article so I do it in stages... I don't know how to put here what we call in the Hebrew WIKI "Tavnit Aricha" ("Under construction" template); I just put the image now... I have yet to make small fixes and finishes and hence the Sandwhiching problems User:Flyer22 spoke about - I am ready and waiting to fix these problems also. The article is in desperate need of New images and sexier\more piquant images. Please tell me how to add this "Under construction" template... I need that time to work on the article. If there is no such template in the English Wiki, I'll just continue the work on a MS Word document and then upload it to here and make the finishes directly. Thank you, Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 05:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
One thing. The purpose of this article and any associated pictures is to give our readers accurate and up-to-date information about veganism; it is not to promote veganism. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not anti-vegan in any way but this article still reads like a promotional article for the Vegan Society. For example, we have, 'From the late 1970s a group of scientists in the United States – physicians John A. McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal D. Barnard, Dean Ornish, Michael Klaper and Michael Greger, and biochemist T. Colin Campbell – began to argue that diets based on animal fat and animal protein, such as the standard American diet, were detrimental to health'. That is, no doubt, true and well sourced but there is no mention of whether there were any papers published criticising the group of physicians or proposing a contrary view.
I have removed a section which uses WP based data to provide content for WP. This is used for promoting veganism and in my opinion sets a dangerous precedent. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just removed a section arguing the ethical case for being a vegan and not consuming eggs or milk. Much of it is incorrect but even if it were true, we must keep in mind that most people are not vegans. If we are going to have ethical arguments on this page then we must fairly represent the non-vegan ethical and animal welfare position. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I find that the article at present gives excessive attention to historical and dietary information, which is not consistent with topics of academic research about veganism according to a Google Scholar search. It seems that there is a significant amount of research on the health effects of veganism, but academics give more attention to veganism as a philosophy or social movement. Few sources seem to endorse the who's-who type approach of this article, and the prominence of some persons mentioned here should be reduced. I would like to move the "Philosophy" section to the top and split it into three sections, on ethical, environmental, and dietary veganism, built mainly from academic papers. I would also like to remove many of the excessive images of food, and the one of elemental iodine. Since this will surely invite resistance, I'd like to solicit opinions before making major changes to the article. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sammy, I'm fine with I and II. Not sure I understand III. I'm also fine with IV (I'm in the process of condensing it). Agree with V. I was reading a paper the other day that argued veganism is a religion, and was thinking of adding it. Re: VI, I would oppose a separate criticism section because it will be a magnet. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Martin, again, please stop removing text. Here is the latest (your removal in bold). This was not only well-sourced. It was important to mention Gandhi's position because it flows into later points that mention the health v. ethics tension.
The first known vegan cookbook, Rupert H. Wheldon's No Animal Food: Two Essays and 100 Recipes, appeared in London in 1910. [1] Historian Leah Leneman writes that there was a vigorous correspondence between 1909 and 1912 within the Vegetarian Society about the ethics of dairy and eggs; [2] to produce milk, cows are kept pregnant and their calves are removed soon after birth and killed, while male chicks are killed in the production of eggs. [3] The society's position remained unresolved, but its journal noted in 1923 that the "ideal position for vegetarians is abstinence from animal products." [4] In November 1931 Gandhi gave a speech, "The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism", to the society in London (attended by 500 people, including Henry Salt), arguing that it ought to promote a meat-free diet as a moral issue, not only in the interests of human health. [5]
Rupert Wheldon, No Animal Food, Health Culture Co, New York-Passaic, New Jersey, 1910.
C.P. Newcombe, editor of TVMHR, the journal of the society's Manchester branch, started a debate about it in 1912 on the letters page, to which 24 vegetarians responded. He summarized their views: "The defence of the use of eggs and milk by vegetarians, so far as it has been offered here, is not satisfactory. The only true way is to live on cereals, pulse, fruit, nuts and vegetables."
Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This image situated at "Animal products" chapter seems to me just superfluous... I see no reason to have it here. Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 00:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot of
alternative text for images that is not really helpful for screen reader/disabled users. In particular, many of the alt texts just state "paragraph", as in |alt=paragraph
. Could these alts be either removed or made useful?
Epic Genius (
talk)
± 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This photo appeared in the article for about 2 months (I think a bit more). I uploaded it, and I have no clue why it was deleted from the "Demographics" chapter. I think it is good for the readers (which most of them aren't even Israelis); It gives English-speaking readers surprising data about Veganism in a rather remote country like Israel... (Remote compared to their homelands yes?) :) Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
1. I don't understand why this article features a Black strap Molasses image... Molasses are NOT the main Iron source (or one of the main sources) for many if not most Vegans worldwide. No self or society proclaimed Vegan I've ever met, wherever in this planet, has ever admitted to me that his main source of Iron is BSM. This is enough for me to suggest the removal of this very nice image (I must say) from the article.
2. The Cochineal image at the chapter "Vegan toiletries" also seem redundant to me... Even if at least most of the Vegans worldwide won't use Cochineal, I don't see why an image of it should appear in the article - I think that a nice internal link from that chapter, to the Cohcineal article would do better... For example:
Many Vegans would prefer cosmetics that includes Material XYZ (say Paprika oleoresin) instead of the more common Cochineal.
Blessings, Ben, Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 04:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
As for the cochineal image, maybe it could be replaced with an image of a collection of non-food items that are advertized as vegan? Although I don't have such an image, there are probably vegan websites that would happily license one. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just noticed that someone has restored the image of pigs in gestation crates after I removed it. I do not want to edit war but I think that it is important to agree the principle that it is not the purpose of this page to promote veganism.
There is no direct connection between veganism and the prevention of bad farming practices such as that shown in the picture. It is not even necessaray to be a vegetarian to improve the treatment of farm animals and veganism is most certainly not necessary. In the UK at least, there is a strong movement to free range pork. Showing bad farming practices is improper promotion of veganism. If you want to show pictures of animals relating specifically to veganism than show some cows grazing in pasture; this is what only veganism would prevent. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not the job of this page to help people become vegans by listing commerial suppliers of vegan products. We should state that vegan products are available and I see no harm in mentioning vegan organisations that will provide lists of commercial vegan product suppliers but we should not list specific companies.
There is a great fuss made in some places about paid-for editing and how companies are said to pay people to promote them in WP. Here we have unpain editors giving commercial organisations free adverts. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is also advertising and should go. We have Veganz, the first ever; that has encyclopedic value. We do not need one particular brand of vegan restaurant in one particular place as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
What's up with recent comments by Joseph2302? I think you are being strangely harsh with Vegan Bug who might be wrong but doesn't deserve the vituperation of your recent comments. Am I missing something here?
TonyClarke ( talk) 18:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@ TonyClarke:, maybe I was a bit harsh, but it was caused by repeated edits like this on another page. Joseph2302 ( talk) 01:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks. But just reverting with POV and unsourced might have been more in keeping with civility policy? TonyClarke ( talk) 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The current state of knowledge on the subject of the vegan diet seems to be that there is no generally acceped opinion on whether a vegan diet is beneficial or harmful. That is what this article should say. At present it is something of a battlground in which various editors quote selected studies to try to prove something (that the diet is a good one, or a bad one). To draw and suggest to our readers conclusions of this sort by assessing the evidence ourselves is original research. Summaries from independent high quality secondary sources showing what is the generally accepted opinion on the vegan diet are what is needed here. If there are no such sources then we should say very little or nothing on the subject. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I
made an edit after looking at the sources cited and finding out that they say the opposite to what is said in the article.
What the article says is "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people".[
126][
11]
Reverting my edit and saying "this is an article about veganism not vegetarianism" is a straw man argument, as I never said anything about vegetarianism, nor did the parts of the article I referred to. -- Rose ( talk) 11:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Not so clear patterns are observed for cancer outcomes. While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes. [my bold]
I would suggest something like "A vegan diet provides a moderate reduction in general cancer risk, although compared to non-vegetarians vegans are at greater risk of urinary tract cancers". The word "moderate" comes from "modest", from the source. -- Rose ( talk) 14:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I see original research and using lower quality sources being used to refute a secondary review; the failed verification tag should be removed, and primary and lower quality sources should not be used for text covered in higher quality or more recent secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Table 7 shows a relative risk of 0.86 for cancer overall, with a confidence interval of 0.7 to 1.00. Thus the study clearly finds a "statistically signficant" reduction in all cancers relative to the control group. On the other hand, this study exclusively includes non-randomized studies, and MEDRS speaks to the lower reliability of non-randomized studies. (Those who chose a vegan diet are probably less likely to smoke and probably make other healthy choices). The article explicitly discusses this limitation of the study, and asks whether the results are applicable to non Adventists. It is far from a ringing, highly certain endorsement that veganism has cancer benefits. I'd characterize the study overall as suggesting "a possible benefit". I certainly would not try to quantify any possible benefit from a non-randomized study conducted solely in Adventists, and I don't think the article's authors are encouraging that at all. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Can someone change that sentence and word it differently, based on the discussion above? If I try to do it, I'm afraid my edits will be reverted once again. --
Rose (
talk) 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
And in doing the above, I think we should avoid mentioning vegetarianism altogether if there's evidence of vegans being at reduced risk of cancer, and based on that, we obviously should not have the article say "there's no good evidence". --
Rose (
talk) 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I suggest a wider view of cancer and veganism. I think that the issue is not simply whether veganism protects from cancer. Instead, the cancer problem has arisen because of a huge increase in animal and high fat, high sugar products in our diets, as our western (and some eastern) countries have become more prosperous and less labour-oriented, and because of a reduction of plant based foods. So we are less active (cars, supermarkets, TVs, social media) and have more saturated fats, sugar and cholesterol circulating in our bloodstreams, so we have more cancer: and more high blood pressure, and diabetes, etc.. Veganism is not the main answer, although it is part of the answer. We need to eat less, be more active, eat more plant foods as our ancestors used to do, and reduce high fat foods. Veganism goes some way towards that, but it is misleading, for all these reasons, to say that veganism protects against cancer, since so much more is needed. One implication of this is that we will never be able to prove that veganism reduces cancer - so we are always going to have the kinds of arguments here if we focus on veganism alone. MHO, End of rant TonyClarke ( talk) 12:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, 99% studies about risks of developing cancer aren't worth befuddling encyclopedia readers with. Correlation guesswork. The other 1% are theoretical, because every rule has potential exception. Even if the most solid study ever done shows vegans/Mormons/Jacksons have a "significantly" increased risk for an unlikely thing (say, even by 200%), and it somehow holds absolutely true for people outside the study group, too, even in future cases (virtually impossible), the difference in actual risk is still too slight for a human mind to comprehend.
No specific advice here, just ignore all studies. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SandyGeorgia in this matter-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted this to a previous version as some problematic changes had happened, chiefly:
To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer. Although plant foods contain many chemopreventive factors, most of the research data comes from cellular biochemical studies.
While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes.
@ Alexbrn: Regarding the plagiarism issue, it was one short sentence, not a word of which could have been changed without being debated here, and I think it is de minimis and will not cause a problem. I find your distinction between "Health Effects" and "Health Research" a little bit nitpicky, and including laboratory research in the same context as it appeared in review articles about cancer rates in vegetarians, where it was explicitly used as evidence that vegetarian diets may be cancer-protective, is obviously not OR. All that being said, I understand you have tried to enlist other more knowledgeable people into the discussion and I'd like to wait for their opinions. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 17:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Strict vegetarians, such as vegans (who eat no animal products at all), must be careful to eat enough protein. Other nutrients that may be missing from some vegetarian diets include vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and iron (see Calcium, Vitamin B, Vitamin D, and Zinc). Some health care professionals consider vegan diets potentially risky, especially for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women.
— cancer.org
While there is a trend to less cancers it was not significant per [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Vegetarians tend to have an overall cancer rate lower than that of the general population, and this is not confined to smoking-related cancers. ... Although there is such a variety of potent phytochemicals in fruit and vegetables, human population studies have not shown large differences in cancer incidence or mortality rates between vegetarians and nonvegetarians (99,152).
— Position of the ADA: Vegetarian Diets., p. 1274
A lot seems to have been removed recently from the health section. I was wondering why this was removed. I didn't add this (as I recall), but I can't see what the problem is, apart from being a a bit laboured. It has been in the article for some time:
Between 1980 and 1984 the Oxford Vegetarian Study recruited 11,000 subjects (6,000 vegetarians and a control group of 5,000 non-vegetarians) and followed up after 12 years. The study indicated that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations than the meat-eaters, and that death rates were lower in the non-meat eaters. The authors wrote that mortality from ischemic heart disease was positively associated with higher dietary cholesterol levels and the consumption of animal fat. They also wrote that the non-meat-eaters had half the risk of the meat eaters of requiring an emergency appendectomy, and that vegans in the UK may be prone to iodine deficiency. [1]
A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing mortality rates in Western countries found that mortality from ischemic heart disease was 26 percent lower in vegans than in regular meat-eaters. This was compared to 20 percent lower in occasional meat eaters, 34 percent lower in pescetarians (those who ate fish but no other meat), and 34 percent lower in ovo-lacto vegetarians (those who ate no meat, but did consume animal milk and eggs). No significant difference in mortality from other causes was found between vegetarian/vegan and non-vegetarian diets. [2] In 2011 a study of self-reported diabetes-free people aged over 40 found a correlation between diet and cataract risk, with a vegan diet appearing the least risky. [3]
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)For the study, Paul N. Appleby, Naomi E. Allen, and Timothy J. Key, "Diet, vegetarianism, and cataract risk", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93(5), 28 February 2011, pp. 1128–1135.
Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The material about page views is interesting, because it's reflective of the surge of curiosity about veganism during the 2010s, which plenty of sources discuss. It is or was an interesting social movement (in the sense of why that and why then, and what will come of it). I know that Martin removed the text, but I see someone earlier removed the image. Can someone say why material like this is being removed? It seems a little gratuitous.
The interest in veganism in the 2010s was reflected in increased page views on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia article on veganism was viewed 73,000 times in August 2009 but 145,000 times in August 2013; articles on veganism were viewed more during this period than articles on vegetarianism in the English, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish Wikipedias. [1]
Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
More on the way ! Ben :), Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 17:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I have uloaded some images to the article but sadly my contribution has been reverted by User:Flyer22. It's a long article so I do it in stages... I don't know how to put here what we call in the Hebrew WIKI "Tavnit Aricha" ("Under construction" template); I just put the image now... I have yet to make small fixes and finishes and hence the Sandwhiching problems User:Flyer22 spoke about - I am ready and waiting to fix these problems also. The article is in desperate need of New images and sexier\more piquant images. Please tell me how to add this "Under construction" template... I need that time to work on the article. If there is no such template in the English Wiki, I'll just continue the work on a MS Word document and then upload it to here and make the finishes directly. Thank you, Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 05:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
One thing. The purpose of this article and any associated pictures is to give our readers accurate and up-to-date information about veganism; it is not to promote veganism. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not anti-vegan in any way but this article still reads like a promotional article for the Vegan Society. For example, we have, 'From the late 1970s a group of scientists in the United States – physicians John A. McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal D. Barnard, Dean Ornish, Michael Klaper and Michael Greger, and biochemist T. Colin Campbell – began to argue that diets based on animal fat and animal protein, such as the standard American diet, were detrimental to health'. That is, no doubt, true and well sourced but there is no mention of whether there were any papers published criticising the group of physicians or proposing a contrary view.
I have removed a section which uses WP based data to provide content for WP. This is used for promoting veganism and in my opinion sets a dangerous precedent. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just removed a section arguing the ethical case for being a vegan and not consuming eggs or milk. Much of it is incorrect but even if it were true, we must keep in mind that most people are not vegans. If we are going to have ethical arguments on this page then we must fairly represent the non-vegan ethical and animal welfare position. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I find that the article at present gives excessive attention to historical and dietary information, which is not consistent with topics of academic research about veganism according to a Google Scholar search. It seems that there is a significant amount of research on the health effects of veganism, but academics give more attention to veganism as a philosophy or social movement. Few sources seem to endorse the who's-who type approach of this article, and the prominence of some persons mentioned here should be reduced. I would like to move the "Philosophy" section to the top and split it into three sections, on ethical, environmental, and dietary veganism, built mainly from academic papers. I would also like to remove many of the excessive images of food, and the one of elemental iodine. Since this will surely invite resistance, I'd like to solicit opinions before making major changes to the article. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sammy, I'm fine with I and II. Not sure I understand III. I'm also fine with IV (I'm in the process of condensing it). Agree with V. I was reading a paper the other day that argued veganism is a religion, and was thinking of adding it. Re: VI, I would oppose a separate criticism section because it will be a magnet. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Martin, again, please stop removing text. Here is the latest (your removal in bold). This was not only well-sourced. It was important to mention Gandhi's position because it flows into later points that mention the health v. ethics tension.
The first known vegan cookbook, Rupert H. Wheldon's No Animal Food: Two Essays and 100 Recipes, appeared in London in 1910. [1] Historian Leah Leneman writes that there was a vigorous correspondence between 1909 and 1912 within the Vegetarian Society about the ethics of dairy and eggs; [2] to produce milk, cows are kept pregnant and their calves are removed soon after birth and killed, while male chicks are killed in the production of eggs. [3] The society's position remained unresolved, but its journal noted in 1923 that the "ideal position for vegetarians is abstinence from animal products." [4] In November 1931 Gandhi gave a speech, "The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism", to the society in London (attended by 500 people, including Henry Salt), arguing that it ought to promote a meat-free diet as a moral issue, not only in the interests of human health. [5]
Rupert Wheldon, No Animal Food, Health Culture Co, New York-Passaic, New Jersey, 1910.
C.P. Newcombe, editor of TVMHR, the journal of the society's Manchester branch, started a debate about it in 1912 on the letters page, to which 24 vegetarians responded. He summarized their views: "The defence of the use of eggs and milk by vegetarians, so far as it has been offered here, is not satisfactory. The only true way is to live on cereals, pulse, fruit, nuts and vegetables."
Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This image situated at "Animal products" chapter seems to me just superfluous... I see no reason to have it here. Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 00:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot of
alternative text for images that is not really helpful for screen reader/disabled users. In particular, many of the alt texts just state "paragraph", as in |alt=paragraph
. Could these alts be either removed or made useful?
Epic Genius (
talk)
± 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This photo appeared in the article for about 2 months (I think a bit more). I uploaded it, and I have no clue why it was deleted from the "Demographics" chapter. I think it is good for the readers (which most of them aren't even Israelis); It gives English-speaking readers surprising data about Veganism in a rather remote country like Israel... (Remote compared to their homelands yes?) :) Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
1. I don't understand why this article features a Black strap Molasses image... Molasses are NOT the main Iron source (or one of the main sources) for many if not most Vegans worldwide. No self or society proclaimed Vegan I've ever met, wherever in this planet, has ever admitted to me that his main source of Iron is BSM. This is enough for me to suggest the removal of this very nice image (I must say) from the article.
2. The Cochineal image at the chapter "Vegan toiletries" also seem redundant to me... Even if at least most of the Vegans worldwide won't use Cochineal, I don't see why an image of it should appear in the article - I think that a nice internal link from that chapter, to the Cohcineal article would do better... For example:
Many Vegans would prefer cosmetics that includes Material XYZ (say Paprika oleoresin) instead of the more common Cochineal.
Blessings, Ben, Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 04:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
As for the cochineal image, maybe it could be replaced with an image of a collection of non-food items that are advertized as vegan? Although I don't have such an image, there are probably vegan websites that would happily license one. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just noticed that someone has restored the image of pigs in gestation crates after I removed it. I do not want to edit war but I think that it is important to agree the principle that it is not the purpose of this page to promote veganism.
There is no direct connection between veganism and the prevention of bad farming practices such as that shown in the picture. It is not even necessaray to be a vegetarian to improve the treatment of farm animals and veganism is most certainly not necessary. In the UK at least, there is a strong movement to free range pork. Showing bad farming practices is improper promotion of veganism. If you want to show pictures of animals relating specifically to veganism than show some cows grazing in pasture; this is what only veganism would prevent. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not the job of this page to help people become vegans by listing commerial suppliers of vegan products. We should state that vegan products are available and I see no harm in mentioning vegan organisations that will provide lists of commercial vegan product suppliers but we should not list specific companies.
There is a great fuss made in some places about paid-for editing and how companies are said to pay people to promote them in WP. Here we have unpain editors giving commercial organisations free adverts. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is also advertising and should go. We have Veganz, the first ever; that has encyclopedic value. We do not need one particular brand of vegan restaurant in one particular place as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs)