Talk:Veganism

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 (article contribs).

Restructuring and moving nutrition information to Vegan nutrition

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)

I agree with this idea. As the two articles are right now, there is too much duplication of content. Shrink nutrition/health in veganism and add content to vegan nutrition. David notMD (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I finally got around to doing it! --Trimton (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Do you think I should shorten the nutrition section even more? And should I move stuff from the diet section to Plant-based diet? The latter describes an 'entirely or mostly' plant-based (vegan) diet. Would it be strange to describe plant-based substitutes for animal products (nutritional yeast, vegan cheese) there, like currently in Veganism?

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)

Note re Equality Act 2010 in the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

Your edit said the judge found veganism "worthy of" protection under EA2010, which sounds normative. I just changed it. The judge said at the very start of the ruling that veganism qualifies as a protected belief, so that's what I put into the article. Trimton (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is misrepresenting veganism

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)

Much like yoga, the practice and the philosophy don't always go hand-in-hand. The term "vegan" and "veganism", according to WP:RS, is used for the diet as well as the philosophy. That some vegans disagree with that doesn't make it not true. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says in the very first line that veganism is a "diet, and an associated philosophy". The second line says "An individual who follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan." You are basically here telling us veganism is a philosophy but the article reflects that. I don't see what the problem is because the article explains it is a diet and a philosophy. If I am understanding you correctly you want diet removed and you just want veganism just as a philosophy? This has been discussed before on this talk-page. As the user above explains we have RS for veganism being a diet and philosophy. This is a bit of a silly semantics dispute and really a non-issue. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TheOriginalVegan has made these same arguments before in 2019 on this very talk page [1] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about *veganism*, not people who eat plant based for the environment or to lose weight. The definition of veganism is crystal clear, as presented by the people who created the term, the Vegan Society. This is not about semantics but about the definition of a movement against the exploitation of animals. And even if "practice and philosophy" don't always go hand in hand, veganism IS the philosophy/ideology/way of life, and therefor this article should be about that subject. You can argue about how we use the term "vegan", misunderstandings have risen because people speak about "vegan diet", but "veganism" is a perfectly clearly defined term, and should not be watered out here. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is not saying veganism is not a philosophy so I do not see any problem. We have many reliable references saying it is a diet and a philosophy so that is what the article reflects. There were vegans before the creation of the word in 1944 and many of them did it for dietary reasons. I understand your viewpoint that veganism is a way of life and philosophy but to many people the practice of veganism is also based around diet. I find it unlikely we are going to create a new article for veganism (philosophy) or remove any mention of diet on this article. We do not need separate articles as the article mentions both. We also have an article on vegan studies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, there were no "vegans" before the creation and definition of the word, precisely because there was no such definition... there were strict vegetarians, people who followed a plant based diet, but veganism is very specifically about avoiding exploitation and harm of animals, and therefor not buying food, clothes, furniture or other things that contribute to the exploitation/harming and killing of animals. The problem with the article is that it is dividing veganism into several different "philosophies" which is nonsense. There is only one philosophy of veganism and that is the one about avoiding exploitation/harm to animals as defined by the Vegan Society, or the "ethical" veganism. The other "philosophies" do not exist, but are wrong use of the word. People may follow a plant-based DIET for the environment, or a plant based DIET for their health, but veganism is a philosophy/ideology 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"... not about weight loss or environmental activism. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The article and its lead seem to cover the meaning you prefer, and the non-exploitation of animals as associated with veganism is clear. A good discussion here, and it feels from reading much of the page that your concerns are met and already included. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TheOriginalVegan there were "vegans" before the term was invented in 1944 and some of these vegans did not do it for dietary reasons they did it for purely ethical/philosophical reasons so that would fit your criteria as philosophical veganism rather than dietary. Robert Cook (eccentric) and Lewis Gompertz are examples of this. Cook for example would not wear anything of animal origin. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Good information. In light of the current popularity of veganism, the title of vegan pioneer Robert Cook's article should contain a better descriptor than 'eccentric'. How about just (vegan)? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:20, 16 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,[2] 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.[3]. ApproximateLand (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Veganism -ism

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)

Huh? ApproximateLand (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Citizen Todd6 what precisely do you want changed in the article? Trimton (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving most of Veganism#Prejudice against vegans to Vegaphobia

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)

Would oppose. Copying some of the text over is a good idea, but removing the section here throws out the baby who drinks bathwater. The topic is relevant to this article, and covers issues many vegans experience. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn I didn't and don't propose removing the section here. Did you mean to say the section should keep its current length? Trimton (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Crikey, I've just looked at this section and it is terrible: full of primary research findings asserted in Wikipedia's voice, which is probably all undue. A heavy trim or maybe wholesale removal would be in order. Maybe there are some reasonable sources on this? Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah there is a Guardian article from 2019 which mentions two of the studies about hating vegans. [4] I don't have time right now, please go ahead and use it. Trimton (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

And Vice magazine [5] [6] and two articles by French national newspapers [7] [8]. Trimton (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

EU Parliament definition

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)

To throw in or not to throw in "non-human animal products" because of breast milk?

Where do I start? Countryboy603's edit was reversed[9] by Bodney because it didn't have a ref for corroboration. So Countryboy603 came back with a ref.[10] 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[11] 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)

That's one reason we should give the Vegan Society definition more prominence: "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" Ref (a 2005 book) at Wikiquote

Human breast milk, hair, ejaculate etc. are vegan if not derived from exploitation or cruelty. Cannibalism, on that account, can be vegan or not, depending on whether all cannibalism involves cruelty or exploitation.

If you whack the Vegan Society definition into Google Scholar search, it comes up with ~50 quotations, and it's cited even more often without a quote. It's arguably the most influential definition. They had similar definitions since their foundation in 1946, and they came up with the exact wording in the 80s.

Another reason is that the Vegan Society, like the Oxford English Dictionary, do not define veganism as abstention like our lead does currently, which has connotations of ascetism. Vegans don't see themselves as ascetics. Veganism is just not using certain products. Ethical veganism is boycotting them. Some Christians like St. Radegund are vegan and ascetics, but 99% aren't, so I find "abstention" quite objectionable. (OED: restraint in one's consumption; abstinence. "alcohol consumption versus abstention") Trimton (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Vegan Society definition is better. With the current definition in this article, someone could be led to believe that hunting for sport is vegan.Countryboy603 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving all references to vegetarianism to the main article: Vegetarianism

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)

I wouldn't go that far in removing absolutely all mention of vegetarianism but I agree that there is too much of it. The "Vegetarian etymology​" section does not belong on this article and most of the history section is on the history of vegetarianism not veganism. I think we should remove that content. I think we should start the veganism section by talking about proto-vegans like Al-Maʿarri, William Lambe, Amos Bronson Alcott etc. These are already mentioned on the article but much other early history is missing. I would like to read about early vegans on the article, not early vegetarians. We have an article on the history of vegetarianism for that off-topic content. The history section should cover the history of veganism and contain more information about the creation of the Vegan Society and forgotten vegans like Georges Butaud who was doing veganism in 1920s France. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:03, 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)