Talk:Veganism

Archives
August 2003 – May 2005 May – September 2005 October 1 – November 18, 2005 November – December 2005 December 2005 – July 2006 July 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – February 2008 February 2008 – August 2008

German numbers

This was removed:

The website VeganWelt estimates there to be between 250,000 and 460,500 vegans in Germany, or between 0.3% and 0.5% of the German population.

German WP cites both the veganwelt site and the study which replaced it here. Kellen^T 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jarvis Section

If it must exist, place it in a Criticism section. It's former location in "ethical concerns" was misplaced. The polemic had nothing to say about veganism and ethics. Abe Froman (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Abe, blanking the section is not acceptable. Numerous editors have complained about the "lack of criticism" in the article and have cited Jarvis as a critic. I agree that the section organization isn't ideal, but the section belongs more in "ethics" (read: "ethical/spiritual/religious concerns") than in "environment", etc. If you want to remove the section, do a better job of justifying yourself and don't just blank the section, then revert. Kellen^T 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simply criticism, so put it in a Criticism section. There are no ethics discussed by Jarvis in his polemic. I'll wait 24 hours to see what you do. Abe Froman (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong view on this, but if the "polemic" is to stay, which I think it probably should, then its current location appears to be appropriate, at least for the moment. Like Kellen, I'm not that keen on the structure of sections, or indeed their labels. Why, for example, is this section called Ethical concerns and not just Ethics? I think Vegan ethics have been written about in enough detail to simply call them Vegan ethics and not "concerns" as though they were an after thought. I quite like the Vegetarianism structure which has a top category of "Reasons for..." and then Ethics, Religion, Environmental, etc as sub categories. Whether or not Criticism should get its own section, or whether criticism should be documented throughout the article in response to vegan "tenets", I'm not sure. --Richardob (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I say below, I've put in a criticism section and put the Davis and Jarvis bits in there. I'm open to the idea of having criticism throughout the whole article (indeed it's there in the Environment bit, though that's really badly laid out) but for both Davis - who has been comprehensively rebutted - and Jarvis, who doesn't actually SAY anything apart from telling us that he doesn't like veganism or trust vegans (or vegetarianism and vegetarians, in fact), I can't see that they belong anywhere else other than a specific section on criticism. If Jarvis is to go under ethics, then he needs to be talking about ethics and maybe addressing or rebutting points made by the pro-vegans there. He doesn't. That's why it's a polemic and belongs in a criticism section. Steve3742 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Davis might go in ethics under the Tom Regan paragraph, as he is trying to address Regan's argument. So I think I'll move it there. Steve3742 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This section is RIDICULOUS! It's not a "Criticisms" section at all. It's simply an INOCULATION section, designed to bring up straw-man arguments and "disprove" them. You can't call it criticism if you briefly mention a contradictory viewpoint and then add 75-100 words disagreeing with the information. Steven Davis' research findings are summarized in one or two sentences, but quickly followed up with the opinions of Gaverick Matheny (a Ph.D. CANDIDATE, mind you!) in an effort to disprove Davis. William Jarvis is described as ATTACKING ideologic vegetarians, and rather than fully describing his theories, the most extreme statements are dragged into the open and then quashed as if that's all the man had to say. The truth is, you vegetarians and vegans are a cult, and you're impervious to reason or scientific findings. You are operating from emotion and Confirmation Bias, and nothing that anyone says will make a difference.

With your last 2 sentences you pretty much destroyed any point you were trying to make, if you want to make a change be constructive, these kinds of comments help no one. Muleattack (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Criticism section doesn't criticize the subject. It defends the subject against some criticism briefly mentioned. I mean, the point of the criticism section, isn't it to offer alternative takes on a subject's support? This section seems like it was designed to say critisism of veganism is ridiculous. Apple Cider III (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there shouldn't be a criticism section at all, I mean, is it really necessary? Vegetarianism doesn't have a criticism section, cbhristianity doesn't have one either (not saying that veganism is a religion). The contents of the section basically are statements saying that all vegans are hypocrites and then rebuttals. Everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another. If the criticisms were that veganism was somehow harmful to the environment or to people other than those who are vegans then I'd understand it. As it is it's pointless imho and should go. Muleattack (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some other diet-lifestyle pages have criticism sections, or at least sections pointing out research contradicting (or purporting to contradict) health claims of proponents. See Paleo_diet#Sustainability or Raw_foodism#Criticism_and_controversies for examples. If there is a criticism section, it should def be well sourced and have diverse opinions. Jaybird vt (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Davis Section

I've shortened the Davis section and its rebuttal by Gaverick Matheny to one paragraph. It seems to me that Davis made an argument that was completely disproved by Matheny and the article should reflect this. As this happened in 2003 and as Davis has not countered Matheny's rebuttal in the intervening five years, I think we can say that Matheny has proved his point and that Davis accepts this, if only tacitly. If anyone knows of a defence made by Davis (or anyone else) to Matheny's rebuttal, I'd be interested in seeing it. There's a case to be made for moving this and the Jarvis paragraph to a Criticism section. I may do that. Steve3742 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed quotes from references - diff marked here

In this diff, I removed the use of the "|quote" field from the references used in this article. The heavy use of quotes resulted in significantly reduced navigability of the References section. If anyone wishes to work the material from the quotes into the article, you may use the above diff. Feedback welcome. Whatever404 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. The quote parameter exists to allow editors (us) to provide the exact text which supports using a particular source as a reference; essentially to demonstrate that yes, this source really does say something which can support the article text. Additionally, the quote parameter provides a way to include text for offline and fee-dependent sources which are otherwise relatively difficult to access for readers and other editors. Your difficulty in navigating the references section is extremely minimal compared to these positive benefits. Perhaps you don't know that you can click on the numbered references in the article and your browser will jump to that specific citation? Kellen^T 05:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to tutor me as to why the quote parameter exists; I was already aware of the reason. This article is an example of flagrant overuse of it. The links to the article are given so that individuals can read them where they are hosted. Bringing entire paragraphs into the References section is inappropriate.

It was highly rude of you to describe the difficulty I described as my own personal problem, rather than a legitimate concern that we might discuss. Dismissing other editors' concerns is not a good way to build rapport with us. In many cases where the quote parameter has been used, the quote listed has nothing to do with the subsequently-added instances of the reference. Rather than denigrate me, why not take the time to fix this problem? Whatever404 (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're finding rudeness where it doesn't exist. You indicated you had a problem with navigating the references, I meant to point out that there's built-in navigation where the references are relevant. I disagree that there is an over-use of the quote parameter, and even if I agreed with you, you removed some quotes that are relevant since they are from print-only publications (e.g. Singer's Animal Liberation). Very often people will throw up a reference to a large article in which the connection between article text and citation isn't at all clear (sometimes they're not related at all and the editor only wants to give the impression of legitimacy). Use of the quote parameter provides direct access to the text that the adding editor believes supports the article text. I believe this encourages better fact-checking and collaboration between editors, and that it adds greatly to the ability of readers to verify the content of the article. Kellen^T 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also reverted your removal of cited material (it's inaccessible because it's fee-based?) and your "formatting" which removed the author's name. You might try using one of the citation templates if you want to clean up unformatted references. Kellen^T 05:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a nasty attitude. I have never met you before, and your two responses have made me immediately dislike you, because you were so rude. Mocking me with scare quotes, really? You expect that these kinds of responses will result in a pleasant, civil atmosphere for everyone who edits this page?

The reasons for my removal couldn't have been that 1) the author parameter had not been used and 2) listing the author isn't terribly important when it's an op-ed piece in a major newspaper, could it?

Yes, the reference is inaccessible because it is fee-based. A situation where members of one class of editors are able to access certain material and discuss it while members of another cannot is inherently classist, and I take offense to it. Whatever404 (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I think you've read my terse writing as being denigrating and rude, when I am and was attempting only to be clear. The reference we're talking about used no citation template, you removed the author's name and added a comma; better would have been to use the cite news template. Please feel free to do that; I'll probably do it myself in the near future if you don't get to it first. The removal of the text which is supported by fee-based sources is inappropriate. That many journals have only fee-based online access is unfortunate and maybe classist, but it's also not our (wikipedia/wikipedia editors) problem; the journal and the facts/whatever in them still exist and are valid to cite in an article. Your offense is justified, to some degree, but it should be directed towards those journals who require controlled publication in order to extract some profit from scientific research. Kellen^T 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, chill out. I've never known Kellen to be anything other than polite and collaborative. If you indicate which fee-based sources you want to read, other editors of this page can try and find PDFs through our work or school access. If we can find them, we can privately email them to you. Or, we can summarize the abstract. Often you can find abstracts yourself through Pubmed. While I'm a big fan of open access journals, they are relatively new and we can't just exclude important sources that aren't available online. That would exclude as a source virtually every copyrighted work published in the last 70 years. Skinwalker (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief third fourth opinion: From my viewpoint, Kellen has not been rude in this discussion (as of this posting). He has been polite and explained his views clearly and nonconfrontationally. The use of "scare quotes" might have been slightly sarcastic, but it was justified because removal of content is not the same as formatting. -kotra (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

William Jarvis, writing for The National Council Against Health Fraud, characterizes veganism as "a hygienic religion that meets deep emotional needs of its followers," who revel "in self-denial and wars against pleasure," and who "cannot be trusted to be objective, reliable sources of information on anything that bears upon its fundamental paradigm."

This seems to be a sweeping generalisation against vegans rather than any verifiable criticism of veganism itself, I think there could be valid arguments in a criticism section but I don't think that this brings anything to the article. --Quazu (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to remove it for now, please add to the discussion if anybody puts it back, besisdes from these claims being (in my opinion) totally absurd, the writer has obviously never heard that in polite discourse you attack arguments rather than the people making them. Surely any notable criticisms would be in reference to health. Again, the quote isn't actually a criticism of veganism and doesn't even give any rationale for his viewpoints. --Quazu (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Jarvis quote is not appropriate for this article. In Jarvis' context, veganism could be replaced with any other movement or philosophy, so it speaks more toward human behavior than veganism. Bob98133 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This quote worked better before it was (very sloppily) split off from the other part of his criticism. The main purpose was to give context to his assertion that vegans somehow support letting vipers and mosquitos run loose. I suggest reverting back to my version of Jarvis' crit and perhaps we should just cave in and throw all this shit in a criticism section for now, for lack of a better emergent structure in the article. I have advocated integrated criticism throughout the article where appropriate, but it seems to read rather sloppily especially when we get into point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint as with regan-davis-matheny. Kellen^T 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't recall the full version, but even so, it is just opinion. If he had statistics to show that more vegans die from snake bites or that the mosquito population is affected by vegans, fine. But it is his OR to equate not harming any beings with hugging vipers or mosquitos. It is not supported by any real research, it's just an opinion, and I don't think the speaker or the source make it noteworthy enough to include. Real criticisms, supported by real references, should be in the article, but this is bogus. Bob98133 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The full version read:

William Jarvis, writing for The National Council Against Health Fraud, characterizes veganism as "a hygienic religion that meets deep emotional needs of its followers," who revel "in self-denial and wars against pleasure," and who "cannot be trusted to be objective, reliable sources of information on anything that bears upon its fundamental paradigm." Jarvis attacks "ideologic vegetarians," whom he claims believe that "all life is sacred" and that "all forms of life have equal value," saying that these beliefs "can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or vipers to run loose on one's premises."

I wish to note that I wrote this text section in response to repeated additions of Jarvis as a critic of veganism (probably just because he's easily googleable). He is a member or whatever of The National Council Against Health Fraud, which has its own WP article. Your charge of "OR" here is actually beside the point; WP's OR policy is about editors doing OR, not 3rd-party-published-authors doing OR. His criticism is real enough, and he's published, and these publications are referenced. Kellen^T 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What Jarvis says is not a criticism of veganism but an attempt to alter the definition. If you look in the lead, veganism is not a religion, so he is not even commenting, but is redefining the term to suit his position. If this info is so valuable, it should certainly be in the lead that "veganism is a diet, lifestyle or religion..." Bob98133 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He's saying that veganism serves the same role as a religion, not that it literally is one. And no, it is not a religion. Kellen^T 20:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that scientific or ethical criticism of veganism (i.e. based on some sort of reasoned argument) is valid for inclusion here, but Jarvis's comments just seems like anti-vegan rhetoric. I don't feel that this sort of thing is encyclopedic unless we're discussing anti-vegan prejudice.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

His criticism is: (1) people adopt veganism/vegetarianism for emotional needs, justified by "all life is sacred" (2) because of this they unreasonably defend vegetarianism (e.g. in his view when it is damaging to health) (3) the "all life" justification is flawed in so far as it leads to "absurdities." Kellen^T 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But is this criticism justified by any sort of research or evidence or is it just bigotry? I don't think any article should present bigotry as valid criticism. --Michig (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if one believes that 'all life is sacred' (imho) this leads to the absurdities Jarvis is talking about. Most vegans (I would guess) don't believe this, but for example Kucinich says he believes this. Do people follow veganism to the detriment of their health? Well, yes; people get deficiencies, people accidentally malnourish their children, etc. Does this happen to most vegans? Highly unlikely. Badly informed criticism? Mischaracterizing of normal vegan/vegetarianism? Yes. Bigotry? I dunno. Kellen^T 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone had evidence that most vegans hold these beliefs then it may be valid to criticise that, but characterizing a group of people based on unjustified stereotypes, and then extrapolating that to come up with ridiculous scenarios is par for the course for bigots. Evidence of health problems due to a vegan diet would be entirely appropriate, and as a vegan myself would not be something that I would want to keep out of the article. The arguments put forward for veganism include ethical, health, animal welfare/rights, and environmental issues. Criticism putting forward reasoned arguments that veganism is detrimental to any of these areas would be appropriate. I've never heard anyone suggest that Malaria should be allowed to spread to protect mosquitos, or that people should let poisonous snakes roam around their homes, so criticism based on those assertions doesn't seem to me to be remotely valid. Including it would serve to show how ridiculous some of the anti-vegan arguments are, perhaps.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I understand what Jarvis is saying. I don't even disagree. However, how relevant is it that a vegan can't be trusted as a source of information about veganism or nutrition? Just being vegan wouldn't pass the Wiki standard as a trusted source either. Any source, whether religious or sectarian, has to have a real reference. So what is this guy saying of value? Seems like he's stating the obvious so that it sounds like a criticism. And he doesn't say it is like a religion, he says it is "a hygienic religion" - sure - he's probably not speaking literally, but that what he's quoted as saying. I didn't see many google hits for this guy and the website referenced is a bit hokey looking. Bob98133 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I included those quotes to add context for how Jarvis perceives vegans. I believe he wrongly perceives them and then mischaracterizes them based upon his experience as a 7th day adventist (the second citation references his religious history). Without this context the other quotes make a lot less sense (they were added to the article by several editors long, long ago). Kellen^T 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jarvis section (as it now stands) is just a criticism of the speciesism claim. But surely there are better articulated criticism of speciesism out there that can be used?--Dodo bird (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I split it off because it seemed there were two parts to the quote (indeed, they were taken from different magazines.) In one bit, he was attacking the idea of speciesism using a reduction ad absurdium, and I figured this could go under Singer's section. The second bit seemed to me to have very little value at all other than saying he didn't like or trust vegetarians. I left that in a Criticism section as it seemed general criticism. It certainly added nothing to his critique of speciesism. There's an argument for saying that comment was worthless and should be deleted (as it has been.)Steve3742 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from any consideration of bias, the addition of the Jarvis quote at the bottom of the 'Ethics' is just bad writing. It doesn't flow from the preceeding paragraph, and is completely unrelated to ethics. It belongs in a seperate section. "I wish to note that I wrote this text section in response to repeated additions of Jarvis as a critic of veganism" (Kellen) is the only reason Jarvis should be included on this page, and even then only until better criticism is found. It is hard to quote this article as a general criticism of veganism since so much of it is specific to extremists and personal anecdotes, but perhaps consider something like:

William Jarvis, writing for the Nutrition & Health Forum newsletter, criticised "ideological vegetarians", claiming it to be "riddled with delusional thinking from which even scientists and medical professionals are not immune". He suggests (without reference) "one need not eliminate meat from one's diet [..] Apparently, it is ample consumption of fruits and vegetables, not the exclusion of meat, that makes vegetarianism healthful."

(meta question: does (without reference) violate NPOV, or is it valid observation? It is a statement of fact...)

(FWIW The Davis quote is relevant and fits nicely inline in the ethics section)

Xaviershay (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

On a second reading of the entire article, the Jarvis quote is not needed and should be removed. Each section contains a healthy amount of criticism and alternatives. Previous I stated "and even then only until better criticism is found", I now don't believe this to be the case. A separate section just for his criticism is overkill. It's inclusion does not make the article more 'unbiased', instead it compromises its quality. We should apply the same standard of quality to criticism as we do to the topic at hand. Xaviershay (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "without reference" would violate NPOV since you're inserting implicit criticism into the article text. I don't think Jarvis is particularly important, but he's one of the most easily google-able critics of veganism. I think his crit was written better before the removal of the other sentence. My personal evaluation of his critique stands above. Kellen^T 07:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cow

I have removed the image of the cow ready for slaughter as it is clearly meant to offend people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.107.49 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That had also occurred to me before. I support this removal. -kotra (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Object. The issue was brought up many times before and there are pretty good points of having this kind of images. Quote (1):

It suited well with the article and subject. This page is in desperate need of at least one of those pictures that illustrates animal suffering due to human neglect. More people than vegans are aware of animal cruelty, so a realistic picture can hardly be considered propaganda.--Sigurdas (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am indifferent about the image being included, however, Signurdas' logic for including it is weak. While vegans may be concerned with animal cruelty (many are not), there isn't really a direct connection between the two subjects. Veganism is a life style chosen for any number of reasons, so it is an unwarranted assumption that animal cruelty is the motivating factor. As Signurdas says, "one of those pictures that that illustrates animal suffering due to human neglect." The picture may well illustrate that, but does not particularly illustrate Veganism.Bob98133 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am probably biased on this issue since I personally sympathise with animal rights, however, the image of the cow in a slaughterhouse makes pretty good connection with the ethical concerns of veganism - it picturizes what many vegans are usually against of. It does not mean that all vegans condemn animal slaughtering practices - but in this actual section the ethics of veganism are being described, and nothing else. --Sigurdas (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This kind of issues a came across with in various discussions. Being biased as well i do however think that those people feeling offended by any picture should be respected. I remember a proposal that seemed quite reasonable to me which tried to clearly label those pictures (be it of dead people/animals/nudity) and only to be shown before the explicit consent of the user. One wouldon the one hand be able to document very clearly, what is going on in the world and on the other hand respect people's feelings who dont whish for whatever reason to be exposed to it.--Tom Bradschetl (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, whether a picture is offensive or not is quite irrelevant to its inclusion in Wikipedia. The picture of a cow about to be slaughtered very well illustrates what brings many people to choose to be vegans and it is thus quite relevant to include it. I don't see why we should spare those who eat animals the simple and well-known facts about what eating animals means and about why some people choose not to eat them. The very idea that we should censor WP in such a way seems very strange to me. David Olivier (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any censorship in letting everybode be free to chose what kind ot pictures to watch at. do you?--Tom Bradschetl (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If people don't want to know why others choose to be vegans, then they shouldn't go to the article on veganism. If you want to know about veganism, you presumably want to know about why people are vegans, and since a central reason for that is their refusing what is done to animals, a picture of what is done to animals is a normal part of the information you are looking for. David Olivier (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

While this image is somewhat related to the topic, is it actually informative? Everyone knows that killing happens in slaughterhouses, so I don't know what article-relevant information the image imparts. If it is not informative, then we should remove it due to its offensive nature, as per WP:Profanity. We do have a responsibility to consider if images will be offensive, as that guideline explicitly details: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." This image looks to me like it's only used as PETA-style "shock" propaganda, which really has no place in Wikipedia as per both WP:NPOV and WP:Profanity. Speaking as someone who is vegan for animal welfare reasons, I can certainly see the desire to include this image, and I agree there should be greater awareness of slaughterhouses and the plight of livestock animals. But Wikipedia is not the place for that (except on articles like Slaughterhouse). -kotra (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Censorship" is less of an issue for me than editorial judgement. This image may be better used at slaughterhouse, as kotra notes. Why don't we replace it with something like this[1]? Less shock, more positive, eh? Skinwalker (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that surabhi cows are still considered property, so vegan orgs and at least Regan and Francione would probably object to this, so in this way the image is relevant, but it dodges around the rather important issue of killing and also around the other important issue of factory farming as it is practiced in the west. Taking milk from a surabhi cow and producing milk from a factory farmed cow are vastly different things. Kellen^T 10:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• For using the cow image (or some similar image): (1) directly relates to the intro sentence about 'vegan orgs' specifically the vegan outreach arguments around factory farming (2) directly relates to Singer's 'even though killing animals isn't wrong, we probably shouldn't eat meat' argument (3) could be interpreted as an instance of non-"respectful treatment" to which Regan objects

• Against using it: (1) perceived POV in the article (2) there might be a more representative image

I find the charges that the image is "offensive" or somehow profane to be disingenuous; the image does not show an exaggerated situation, it does not contain blood or gore, it's not especially filthy, nor does it overdramatize the situation. The caption is terse and free of appeals to emotion. Whether the image is the best choice to illustrate the section is a purely editorial decision. I think it works, but I'm not at all attatched to it, so if a better image was proposed I could support changing the image. Kellen^T 10:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The current alternative proposals are to just delete the image or to replace it with another much less relevant one. I oppose that. A central motivation of vegans is their opposition to what is done to animals in the process of the production of animal products. As Kellen says, the current image is not at all exaggerated, it blandly shows an important aspect of what is done to the animals. Yes, I find the image offensive, just as I find images such as those on pages about the Holocaust or world famine or cancer or 9/11 offensive; I would rather that what they depict didn't exist.

Concerning the idea that the picture would be more relevant on a page about slaughter: perhaps it would be even more relevant there, but it remains relevant here. Slaughter is an essential aspect of current animal husbandry, and vegans ar centrally motivated by their opposition to animal husbandry and particularly to slaughter; so at least one picture of slaughter is relevant here.

I find it absurd to suggest the picture is uninformative profanity. It is informative, in that it gives a more concrete image of what happens during slaughter. Yes, I too find it obscene, and I'm happy that all here seem to agree; but that obscene act is repeated some 200 million times a day in the world, and it seems only normal to give a picture of it.

David Olivier (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kellen and David Olivier that this image meets the article and this particular section it is embedded in. If a better alternative is to be suggested I can see myself agreeing on some new pic - however, Surabhi Cow is not a good one since it is highly uninformative towards the subject in matter.--Sigurdas (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(response to Kellen) Thank you for explaining the relevance of the image. Just to recap, then, the assertion is that this image is relevant and informative because it illustrates the following sentences:

Vegan organizations maintain that animals have rights, and as such it is not ethical to use animals in ways that infringe those rights.

Singer does not contend that killing animals is always wrong, but that from a practical standpoint it is "better to reject altogether the killing of animals for food, unless one must do so to survive."

Philosopher Tom Regan argues that animals are entities which possess "inherent value" and therefore have "basic moral rights," and that the principal moral right they possess is "the right to respectful treatment."

All three of these statements are somewhat vague philosophical statements, and none of them (except possibly the second, which is slightly more specific) are directly related to the image (a cow being restrained for slaughter). It takes a little interpretation to connect the dots between "cow being restrained for slaughter" to "infringement of animal rights". On the other hand, I can see how the image is at least indirectly related (and possibly directly related to the second quote, about killing animals for food), so I think the image can probably stay, despite its objectionable nature and in the absence of a less objectionable alternative. It may need some clarification to make clear its relevance, though. I suggest adding a sentence like this to the image caption: "Vegan ethicists typically consider the slaughter of animals to be an infringement upon their rights." Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It beats me how you can see such a gap between the philosophical statements you cite and the picture of a cow being slaughtered — other than the gap that always exists between a general philosophical statement (general, rather than vague) and a specific fact. I think that for any vegan, of whatever specific philosophical flavour, an image of an animal being slaughtered is a good illustration of what they oppose. To speak of the dots to connect between "cow being restrained for slaughter" and "infringement of animal rights" seems really strange. Of course it is possible, and interesting, to elaborate on the connection, but on the face of it the connection is obvious for most anyone. David Olivier (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"the gap that always exists between a general philosophical statement and a specific fact": this is what I meant. I wasn't claiming that there was any sort of lack of connection between the two, just that for most people the connection is not immediately apparent unless they think about it for a little bit. Sort of like connecting the broad idea of "Evolution" with a picture of a fossil. There's a connection, but it probably should be explained, at least briefly. Yes, for people like you and me, it's obvious that a "cow being restrained for slaughter" and "infringement of animal rights" are intrinsically related. But keep in mind that it's not as apparent for most people. Many people don't even recognize the concept of "animal rights". But I'm beginning to stray off topic. Is there any reason not to include such a sentence as I gave above? I'm open to a different wording, if you think it could be improved. -kotra (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested wording would work as a caption for the image, at least as representing Regan and Francione. For Regan, it would be the cow's right not to be harmed which was being infringed upon, and for Francione it would be its right not to be treated as property. For Singer, I don't think the statement holds as well. In particular, Singer doesn't recognize any rights, just interests, and therefore would have to argue here that the interests of the cow outweigh the interests of those who want to kill and eat it, or want it to be killed so they can eat it, or whatever. The welfare/rights approaches lead to difficulty in formulating a non-awkward sounding caption. Saying "vegan ethicists" is wrong, since we actually don't know if Regan, e.g., is vegan, we just know that he advocates animal rights, and we can't say just "ethicists" since there's a lot of those who aren't vegan and don't have a problem with using animals. Saying "rights" is also wrong, as explained above, more accurate might be "the interests or rights." So. Yeah. I'll try to construct a better wording tomorrow maybe, getting all the conditions right and the prose balanced is just too much for my brain at the moment. Kellen^T 21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the same as before, just "Some" instead of "Vegan" and removing "typically"? So, instead of:

Vegan ethicists typically consider the slaughter of animals to be an infringement upon their rights.

it would be:

Some ethicists consider the slaughter of animals to be an infringement upon their rights.

If it needs a citation, those already used for Regan and Francione could then be cited, I think? -kotra (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I hadn't heard any objections, I went ahead and added the sentence. -kotra (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Cow

This dose not have anything to do with the cow picture your talking about but another cow picture on the page. Im not an expert but Im just throwing this out there as some food for thought. The caption reads something to the effect of how cows produce large amount of green house gases, there for supporting the idea that a reason to not eat meat is to be more environmentally friendly. Im going to assume the green house gases being refered to are methane. How ever this leads to a some what of a conundrum, every vegetarian and vegan I have met eats rice. Rice is grown in swamps and because it is the staple diet of the most populous countries on earth. Is on of the highest methane and green house gas producing factors on the planet. So I don't really think its fare to condemn cow eating because it produces methane unless you also say the same for rice. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you shouldn't condemn something if there is a worse example of a similar thing. So you shouldn't condemn thieves because there are murderers. Yeah, makes total sense... Muleattack (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The point to be understood is that on the single choice of becoming vegan in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, going from eating cows to eating rice doesn't help. At current agricultural levels of production rice accounts for minimum 6% (to 30% higher estimates) of planetary methane production whereas cows (and I mean only domestic cows) account for about 10% worldwide. The total population of domestic animals only account for about 15% (to about 40% high estimates) of methane production. Of course rice is no replacement for meat, they've very different nutritional content. However, if in the future we're all vegans and eat lots of rice I doubt my grandkids will ever get to build a snow fort. August B. (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

Outstanding issues in the article:

• The german food consumption study numbers are extrapolated from a graph, see de:Diskussion:Veganismus#Verzehrsstudie. I'm not sure how to cite this properly and I'm think we might want to bring back the veganwelt.de stats.
• Benefits subsection of Health needs more coherence and the PCRM food groups text should get integrated somewhere or nuked.
• Cite needed for "Benefits of vegetarian diets might be valid also for strict vegan diets"
• Resources and environment subsection needs heavy editing, less commentary, and better citations.
• Critiques of veganism are mainly in (a) ethics and (b) environment sections, essentially challenging justifications for veganism on these grounds. The Davis/Matheny bit is awkward in the middle of the ethics section and the Jarvis critique is awkwardly presented and lacks context. Can anybody think of a better way to deal with these besides moving them into a "critiques and criticism" section, or is that the best option?

Totally outstanding! Kellen^T 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do any other editors have opinions on these things? Or want to do them? Kellen^T 09:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend the VeganWelt Data as it is absolutely inscrutable, where it comes from. Being a private Homepage it might as well be made up. I also don't see any problems in the extrapolation from the NVSII. Eventhough it might not be a fully acurate figure it gives a good idea about the dimension of the proportion vegan population, which is what those polls are usually about.--Tom Bradschetl (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else care to comment on these issues? or do some work on them? Kellen^T 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody? Kellen^T 21:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the DEFRA study. It was removed based upon the claim of a random WP editor, who never followed up. Anybody have any opinion on including that study again? Kellen^T 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article is pretty biased, with all the talk about how great the diet is and no criticisms.

Thewritingwriter17 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

I didn't notice where it says how great the diet is. The benefits are listed as are the precautions. If there are valid, referenced criticisms of the diet please discuss them, or add them to the article in the appropriate place with refs. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can reference my own criticism. How about that vegetarianism is simply lowering the bar for the classification of sentient. It's a slippery slope form of thought. Do a thought experiment about the future discovery that plants are distributed networks and thus sentient on a whole. They still can't make an argument for how carnivores could become vegetarians (lucky we are omnivores). The best argument yet, the definition does not address using products made from third world countries where people work in sweat shops and are abused. Therefore is it logical to bypass sympathy on the highest rank in the sentient tree for lower sentient organisms? Another thought experiment. Suppose there was an sentient being that felt no pain or remorse or emotion, under the definition on Wikipedia, it would be ok to eat this being. That seems like a logical contradiction to me. Cflare (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your thought experiments aside, if you find a reliable source elucidating your criticism, feel free to include it in the article. Otherwise, it would constitute original research, which is inadmissible. -kotra (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. This is the article for veganism, not vegetarianism. 2. People are animals. 3. This is not the place for discussing silly hypothetical situations, as Kotra said, if you have something to add to the article that you can verify with a reliable source then please do. If not then why not try trolling some forums, I hear that vegetarian and vegan forums don't get enough people pointing out hypocrisies. Muleattack (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also was irritated by the bias of the article. Here are a few suggestions for improval:

• Remove the "Ethical concerns" section. It is a random collection of pro-vegan quotes. It's also redundant as there is better content at Ethics of eating meat
• Rename "Precautions" to "Dangers": "Benefits and Dangers" is definitely more balanced than "Benefits and Precautions"
• Remove the "Addressing criticism of veganism, Dr. Amy..." part from "Pregnancies and children", as this is irrelevant for all but one of the cited cases, but casts doubt on all of them. Also, there have been much more cases of childrens killed by a vegan diet worldwide, I can remember at least two prominent ones from my country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.86.107 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Random collection of quotes? Really? Kellen^T 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "Ethical concerns" section should go. It's necessary to explain why people become vegan, and the article would be significantly lacking in coverage without it. It could maybe use reliably sourced counter-arguments (though I'm not totally convinced that would be appropriate), but that is a separate concern. As for the "Benefits and Precautions" section, I can see changing it to "Benefits and Dangers"; even though "Precautions" is more accurate in my mind, I agree that "Dangers" is more balanced, and balance (NPOV) outweighs my own understanding of the diet. As for the quote, it clearly states "the child" (singular), but I've changed the wording so it's even clearer anyway. Removing the quote entirely for the reason you give would be overkill. -kotra (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article on meat, the section on nutrition is titled “Nutritional benefits and concerns”. I think we can copy that and replace “precautions” by “concerns”. David Olivier (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I've made a change based on your suggestion, adding "Nutritional" to be more specific. Feel free to revert, of course, if there's any objection. -kotra (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Much better than precautions or dangers. Bob98133 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I had one concern in the Health benefits section. However none of them apply specifically to veganism. They are applicable to the parent category of vegetarianism and none of the articles referenced in this section specifically talk about veganism either.
This may seem as a moot point but veganism is actually a fairly restrictive version of vegetarianism and since this distinction is never made nor a disclaimer presented, the benefits appear as applying directly to veganism.
Aashay147 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Omega-3 Fatty Acids

The amount of plant material that would require to convert ALA to EPA to DHA used by the brain would amount to kilograms and likely has negligible effects. This is a severe deficiency in diets of vegans that seems to be understated in this article. http://dhaomega3.org/index.php?category=overview&title=Conversion-of-ALA-to-DHA Schnarr 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the minimum daily requirement for Omega 3s? I do not believe that one has been established, so declaring a deficiency for whatever reason would be a bit premature. Bob98133 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardly premature since EFA deficiency is common in malnourished individuals, or those who choose not to eat foods containing bioavailable EFA's.
See the Linus Pauling Institute page on the topic.--ThujaSol∆ 21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so a deficiency is possible, so what is the MDR? If there is no established MDR, I question how you can say there is a severe deficiency or even a deficiency except when symptoms appear. Are you saying that vegans exhibit signs of Omega 3 deficiency?Bob98133 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not implying I do, in fact most people are deficient in Omega-3 fatty acids. However, this article states you would be able to get omega-3 easily in the diet. When in fact, you require a broad range of non-animal food sources and supplementation. This reference is specific to women during pregnancy [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnarr (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The article you cite is authored by Jean-Marie Bourre, well known and well discredited in France for being the lobbyist and propagandist for a great number of agrobusiness groups. See here for the ironical attribution of the “Grand prize for propaganda 2006” by Thierry Souccar, an independent nutritionist. “Jean-Marie Bourre, comme je l’ai écrit avec Isabelle Robard dans « Santé, Mensonges et Propagande » est surtout président du Centre d’information sur les charcuteries payé par les industriels de la saucisse, membre du Comité scientifique du pain créé par les producteurs de farine, président du Comité scientifique de l’huître, président du Comité scientifique du Comité national pour la promotion de l’œuf mis en place par les producteurs d’œufs. Il fait aussi la promotion du pruneau pour le compte de la Collective du pruneau d’Agen.” Outside of France, anyone with such a heap of conflicts of interest would be largely discredited, or at least obliged to cite them in eir articles. Please note too that the abstract of the article you cite is vague and inconclusive, as is the concluding paragraph; all they do is attempt to suggest. They don't even get the facts right, in that they omit linseed oil as a source of ALA — while it contains some 50% ALA and is easy to find. David Olivier (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your investigation. I now see that supplimentation is included and that should be sufficient. Schnarr 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Animal rights not necessarily the same as veganism

I think the opening paragraph confuses proponents of animal rights and vegans, which are not necessarily the same thing. Veganism is dietary. I don't think animal testing of cosmetic products is necessarily restricted for vegans, unless those vegans are specifically interested in animal rights. Some vegans are concerned with their own health and not animal abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.177.214 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this impression from the opening paragraph. Please quote more specifically, or propose an alternative. Xavier Shay (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Veganism is not only a diet, it is a lifestyle. See the Vegan Society definition of "vegan" if you are confused: "A vegan is someone who tries to live without exploiting animals, for the benefit of animals, people and the planet. Vegans eat a plant-based diet, with nothing coming from animals - no meat, milk, eggs or honey, for example. A vegan lifestyle also avoids leather, wool, silk and other animal for clothing or any other purpose." (Vegan Society - What is a vegan?) Someone who is only concerned about the dietary aspects is generally considered a "strict vegetarian." 24.131.148.6 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit for Life. Badagnani (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments

In this article there's no section yet, that mentions all arguments, that can bring a person to stay or to become veganist. Before eventually adding such a section, here and now already the suggestion is made, that one of those arguments might be this one: To some (or maybe many) it's clear, that consumption of animal foodproducts very strongly raises ones libido, as well as (to a certain extent) one's sexappeal. Now, given the fact, that in these days even babies and other very young children are feeded with among other things animal foodproducts (for instance added to prepared babyfood), the presumption exists, that this can be a serious cause of these children becoming victim of pedophile activities. So preventing this could be seen as an (additional) argument to raise children the veganist way. A question in this context however is, in how far there are sources about this subject available. Maybe insiders know any. VKing (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not read any serious studies relating to this. Any such assertions are probably either testimonial or unfounded. Kellen^T 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Current studies seem to show that eating animal fat leads to arteriosclerosis which may be an early indicator for impotence. Consumption of animal products and increased libido is a myth, which might be clear to some, but is nonetheless wrong. The connection to pedophilia is totally undocumented. There are many good, valid, scientifically documented reasons for someone to choose to be vegan without this one, so I'd say to leave it out. Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

PETA's (in)famous rejected super bowl ad to the contrary, I haven't seen any formal studies on the subject, and the only informal study I saw said there's basically no difference. -kotra (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's this from Slate:[3] which brings up both sides but doesn't draw any conclusion. Bob98133 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Remembering schooltalk saying, that eating eggs raises potence strongly, this was found on Google: [4]

It may be not the result of a scientific study, but it indicates, that the 'myth' is still alive, and it's rather unlikely, that a myth stays alive for decennia, when there's nothing in it.

The fact, that there are no scientific studies known about this subject, might be indicating, that certain forces prefer, that the results, such studies might lead to, will not be found and/or become publicly known.

Eggs content the foetus of a bird; birds (for those who might not know yet), are animals. VKing (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a talk page for improving the article. To improve the article, we need reliable sources. If you find a reliable source, bring it here or write something in the article. This isn't a forum for speculation. Kellen^T 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you are, sir: [5]. It's true, that it's a warning, but the fact, that non veganists so frequently suffer from deseases like heartattacks, cancer and diabetes might be a much more serious warning. And more than that, a reduced libido means a reduced urge to pedosexual activities with those, who tend to them.

The question in how far not eating animal food also results in a reduction of sex appeal with children however, may be not quite answered in this way yet. VKing (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your assertions aren't supported by the source. There is no documented connection between veganism or meat eating and pedophilia. You can make any assertions you like, but doing it here just wastes everyone's time if you don't have a reliable source. You might consider reading the WP:SYN section of the OR policy. Kellen^T 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think you're being trolled. Skinwalker (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

well, now it's </troll> Kellen^T 19:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oke, when it has to be explained further, it has to. Nevertheless in itself it's quite simple: as is affirmed by the reliable source as mentioned, eating meat decreases sexual drive. This is no different for the one of pedophiles. So the less meat is eaten by pedophiles, the smaller the chance and/or the frequency becomes, that, resp. in which children will be abused by one of them. Veganists don't eat any meat at all. So when a pedophile turns to veganism, this raises the chance, that (s)he will sin considerably less frequent, or not any more. (This could be explained further, but maybe that won't be necessary). VKing (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, VKing, no need to explain further. Meat eating leads to sin - got it. Even though the source you cite only refers to older men who are vegetarian having reduced sex drive. Doesn't mention younger men, pedophiles or sin. I don't think the article would be improved by including this unsourced OR. Bob98133 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a little help, to read the article better; it contents this sentence: "As well as vegetarians and vegans who choose not to eat animal products, the elderly are known to eat less meat because of loss of appetite in later years and difficulty with chewing." So it evidently is also about younger persons, who don't eat any meat, namely all vegetarians (and all veganists and all fruitarians). VKing (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Apparently your unreliable source talks about elderly vegetarians and vegans. Based on that. you cannot extropolate that it also includes anyone else - young people, women, etc. If you have something to add to the article, please find a reliable source. Bob98133 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh; so this has to be explained as well? There we go: "As well as vegetarians and vegans, the elderly..... " That's what's in the article, (which is written by a scientist and published by a very well known national broadcasting organisation, which might be sufficient, to tegard the article as being reliable). So it doesn't say: "As well as elderly vegetarians and vegans". No, "as well as vegetarians and vegans". So as far as concerns vegetarians and vegans, there is no limitation; they all don't eat meat; the old, the young, the men and the women. As well as them, in many cases elderly persons also eat hardly or no meat any more (among other things, because they hardly can chew it). Hopefully it's clear now, cause it's very unlikely, that this could be explained any further.

By the way, now that it is scientifically affirmed, that eating meat raises libido, to this article not only can be added the fact, that vegansm reduces the drive behind pedophile activities, but equally the one behind other perversities, like homosexuality and incest.

It's true, the source doesn't mention this verbally, but she affirms the fact, out of which this conclusion logically can be drawn. (Not too complicated?). VKing (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

that's the definition of original research. Not acceptible. Drop it. Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I'm going to try to put this to rest and explain why your claim is not supported by the source:

1. The study is not conclusive: every time a finding is made, they use the word "could", not "does".
2. The studied group was only men aged 40-70. The extrapolation to vegetarians and vegans as a whole is not supported except by one dietician's opinion, which she later qualifies by saying vegetarians and vegans can get their protein from other sources.
3. The same BBC article also quotes a Vegan Society spokeswoman as saying vegans don't usually have a low protein problem.

For these reasons, the premise that "vegetarians have lower sex drives" is never explicitly made in the BBC article. It is merely a warning based on a study that suggests older men who don't consume enough protein could have decreased sex drives.

1. Incest and homosexuality are not mentioned in the BBC article. You are only looking at one contributing factor to pedophilia/incest/homosexuality/heterosexuality/foot fetishism/sexual attraction to large pieces of concrete rubble; the level of one's sex drive. There are, of course, many other factors in play, several of which we probably don't yet know. That is why your leap from meat-eating to pedophilia (or incest/homosexuality/etc) is not strictly logical, and a textbook example of original research, as Bob98133 mentioned more than once. Therefore, as original research, we cannot include it. Instead, we'll have to wait until a study actually says what you claim.

I hope this clears things up. -kotra (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Then surely in the article as an argument can be mentioned, that according to scientists not eating meat can reduce ones libido. But this argument is more in it's right place in the article about vegetarianism, as veganism contents a bit more than just not eating animal food. Now as for other arguments, or better "reasons", to become or to stay veganist:

• The first one undoubtedly is, that a person doesn't want anything to be done to animals directly or indirectly, that deminishes their (natural) level of well being.

• A second one is in the fact, that a person can feel, that it is not natural for a human to kill, eat or use animals. After all, in a perfectly natural situation he cannot catch, and/or kill, and/or use one, with just his natural means. (For instance he cannot catch a fish with his hands, so he doesn't want to catch it with a net either).

• A third reason, that can bring somebody to veganism is a religious one. Some religions teach their members, to treat animals in a friendly way. The Koran for instance says, that he, who is good to animals, is good to himself. Buddhism teaches to treat all living beings, as if they were one's children.

So far for now; maybe soon more reasons will be added, eventually by somebody else. VKing (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

VKing - you continue to confuse facts and your opinion or original research. You say "undoubtedly" as if you've surveyed every vegan in the world to arrive at your conclusion. Unless you have references to support your "facts" they are simply your opinion, which you are welcome to, but it is not sufficient to justify changes to the article which must be supported with references. I have met people that claim to be vegan because they hate animals and don't want anything to do with them - the thought of putting a piece of one in their mouths or wearing a piece of one is disgusting - but that's not on your list of "facts." There may have been surveys done by neutral organizations about why people might be vegan and those could be cited, but your list above appears to be off the top of your head. If I recall, health reasons are one of the most common reasons for being vegan. Instead of repeating your opinions, can you please cite references to support your claims? You would find far less opposition to well-referenced material than to unsubstantiated opinions. Bob98133 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wp is a coöperational project. The 'facts' are not added to the article yet, but just mentioned on this discussion page. This has been done mainly, because in this way other contributors have the opportuninty to judge what is posed and eventually contribute in preparing it for addition to the article, among other things by finding and mentioning references. For undoubtedly there are other users, who have more time available to do this, than the one who spent the time he had available now, in taking the initiative for such a new section and mention some main 'facts', that, after having been provided with references, could be part of it. VKing (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is just definitions. Fact means something that is proven true (or at least reliably referenced). It's not the job of other editors to provide references for things that you believe to be facts. That's your job. If you don't have time or don't care to do that, no problem. There does not seem to be much consensus that the arguments you have presented are facts. Since it is your intiative, it behooves you to provide references. It does not appear that other editors are jumping up to support your "facts" with references, so you either have to provide them yourself or drop it. Generally, if I'm adding new information to an article, I will do so with a reference so that other editors can check to make sure the new info is correct. That process seems to work better than starting with what you believe to be facts, then asking others to find references for them. Anyhow, good luck editing, I've already spent my available time on this discussion.Bob98133 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonder what references, eh, Wp-rules can confirm, what has been posed in the former edit, as if it where facts. VKing (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some recent changes

A section called "veganarchism" was recently added. As far as I can tell, this is not significant enough to have its own section, and probably belongs only as a link in the "see also" section. Also, the section on eating disorders was deleted, re-added, and then modified, so in its current form it presents only information that is detrimental to veganism. What should this section contain, if it should exist at all? I am not making any proposals on either of these topics, I'm just wondering what other editors think. --n-k, 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the history but I haven't seen any 'recent' changes to the eating disorders section. I don't read anything in the section to be "detrimental to veganism" either. Can you clarify? As for veganarchism, I'm a bit ambivalent. Kellen^T 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Supplements

What an active talk page! So, this line in the opening paragraph: "Vegans are therefore encouraged to plan their diet and take dietary supplements.[8]", seems to be much too strong for the refence given. In the article referenced, the strongest *conclusion* (I did read the whole article) regarding vegetarian (including vegan) diets and supplements is "In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients." I guess I don't see how 'In some cases', 'can be helpful' means all vegans should be encouraged to supplement their diets. (Especially as many of the other dietary articles referenced conclude that a well-planned vegan diet is healthy w/o supplementation.) Thoughts? 64.122.192.37 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. n-k, 04:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. In particular, with B12, all vegans should be taking supplements (in the form of pills or fortified foods), all the time. As for planning the diet, this wording seems to have arisen from the american dietetic association statement on vegetarian diets in which they qualify their acceptance of vegetarian diets with the phrase "well planned." I suspect their reasoning is that "vegetarian diets" are quite varied and there's a lot of vegetarian-but-bullshit diets they wouldn't advocate. e.g. they'd probably not be that positive about strict raw veganism. Kellen^T 11:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but since there is only one supplement that vegans are strongly advised to take, perhaps the sentence, in which "supplements" is plural, is worded too strongly. n-k, 12:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also vitamin D, depending upon where you live. Though both of these could be listed explicitly, I think reverting to the older wording, which was "take dietary supplements as appropriate", might be more ... appropriate. Kellen^T 12:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am going to revert it to the older wording. n-k, 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel this wording is more pertinent. Thanks! 64.122.192.37 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

vitamin b12

i read on the internet that Dr. james halsted was working with persian iranian vegans who did not get b12 deficiency and discovered they were using humanure to grow there food.Username 1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some info about this - it's called Indirect coprophagy - [6]. Not sure if it's worth a mention, though. One would think that the human manure used would have to come from non-vegans, too. Bob98133 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not worth a mention; this is a very edge case source of B12, and has not been shown to provide adequately for vegan nutritional needs. Kellen^T 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a bit bizarre, but if there are good refs for it (not the one I cited above), I don't think that a mention would be out of place. As you say, Kellen, it would require good research to prove that this method does provide adequate B12, but if that proof exists, a mention would be OK with me. If Username is interested in documenting this, maybe he/she can post the refs to talk and we can discuss this again. Bob98133 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i'm looking for more than a mention. note that the b12 is not left over from the food remains of non-vegans, but from the bacteria in the large intestines in vegans before it is excreted. Vitamin B12 cannot be made by plants or animals as only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. Also on the internet i found a study in which scientist cured vitamin b12 def. in vegans by giving them concentrated doses of b12 from there own fecal matter, which proves there is enough b12 in the feces but that perhaps only barely enough b12 survives the second time through. I found this as well:

"Studies have shown that those eating an omnivorous diet require more vitamin B-12 than vegans. This is because the typical diet leads to digestive atrophy. Because vitamin B-12 is peptide bound in animal products and must be enzymatically cleaved from the peptide bonds to be absorbed, a weakening of all gastric acid and gastric enzyme secretions (due to a cooked food diet) causes an inability to efficiently extract vitamin B-12 from external food."[7] Username 1 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Username One - please see WP:CITE. "found on the internet" doesn't help other editors review the source. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Taken from Talk:fruitarianism

I have also seen studies showing that eating food contaminated with shit may contain B12. However, I have not seen a reliable source indicating that fruitarians specifically may meet their B12 requirements in this way. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Userone - Your citation above fails to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Please DO NOT insert comments above this. Bob98133 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is quite relevant,.. http://rawfooddietsecrets.com/blog/12/no-such-thing-as-a-b12-deficiency/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.99.178 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's bullshit. Kellen^T 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a little harsh, Kellen! It is an unsubstantiated theory and has no place in the article, but this B12 thing seems pretty important to vegans so research and theories continue. Bob98133 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the tone of that article really irked me. It's written by "Dr Vivian V. Vetrano", obviously a pseudonym, obviously not a doctor. It's completely pseudo/non-scientific FUD mongering with respect to "traditional western science." The thrust of the article is to convince raw foodists and vegans not to take B12 supplements by frightening them off with scary words like "cyanide". The 3rd to last paragraph contains this bullshit: "Looking at it hygienically, no Vitamin B12 therapy can cause a recovery from any so-called deficiency disease. It may only hide the symptoms and cannot give an individual health." WHAT? And then the blog post has this: "It's disturbing to think that I'm putting cyanide into my body by taking a B vitamin." B12 research is obviously important to vegans, but this isn't research or even based on actual research, it's just fringe FUD. Kellen^T 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, that sort of pseudoscience has no place in the article. TheLastNinja (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kellen - not-so-obvious that this is a pseudonym. Google search indicates that she appears to be a chiropractor and lists credentials that include a PhD, so she's entitled to call herself doctor. I agree with you, as above, that her take is flaky science, not peer reviewed, and shouldn't be in the article; but history is full of people who were discredited during their lifetimes, yet later found to be correct, while some of those believed to be correct have been proven wrong. My point was not to support including her garbage, but just to consider it unsubstantiated, rather than bullshit which seems dismissive without addressing the reasons (which you have since done in this discussion). Nuff said, I think. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree you shouldn't have called it bullshit. There is a lot of B12 in bullshit, though presumably not the sparkling cyanide kind. I agree that those references to cyanide (why not Zyklon B, we should suggest that to Dr. Vetrano) are FUD, and that the reference should not be included as a reliable source. That said, the continued reluctance of a certain number of vegans to accept that B12 is an issue that should be addressed is, in itself, an interesting topic for the article. Someone (er... not me...) should add something about it. David Olivier (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Kellen^T 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Low carbon diet?

Hello,

I want to add a link to Low carbon diet, but I'm not sure if it should go in the "Similar diets" section or "See also" section... I tried the "See also" section once, but it got edited to 'Low carb diet' which is an entirely different page! (and a very non-vegan diet!) and then removed. Ideas? Jaybird vt (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"people who call themselves vegans" and honey

I reverted this change (marked "minor", without an edit summary), but had my revert reverted. I've reverted similar changes many times previously. It is not our place to determine who or what "fits" the definition of veganism, but to represent it as it exists. As the world exists, there are many people who eat honey and who are called vegans by e.g. the source cited in that section, vegan.org. I recognize that there is an ideological dispute. The source recognizes that there is an ideological dispute. The article describes the dispute, based upon the source. Having some wording in this article like "people who call themselves vegans" is just POV pushing and, as i said in my edit summary, this is not the place for it. Kellen^T 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this again to the original (same as action taken by Kellen). While I don't agree that this is a petty point to vegans or those involved in defining what a vegan is or should be, but saying "some who consider themselves vegans" does not further understanding of veganism. It simply puts down people who believe that veganism does not exclude these items. Kellen's argument above is valid. If this point is to be addressed in this article, it would be more fitting for it to be mentioned in the definition as being contentious among vegans, with references, of course. Bob98133 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Stating that people who use animal products such as honey are vegan could be considered incorrect, stating that people who use animal products such as honey consider themselves vegan cannot be considered incorrect, nor is it a statement stating that people who do are not vegans. The first option here is the one that is making a statement about the definition of vegan. Muleattack (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"people who call themselves vegans" has a snide tone to it. Try reading it with a sarcastic voice. It implies that the authors of this article do not consider these people vegan. We should take no stance on this. Instead, consider the source (remember, it's from "Vegan Action"):

Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products,

See? Not only do these people call themselves vegan, but Vegan Action, a vegan advocacy organization calls them vegan. That this "could be considered incorrect" is the whole point of that sentence. It points out that there is a strict definition of what constitutes an animal product but there are vegans who use slightly varying definitions. Kellen^T 05:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that recent edits by Gabbe balance this controversy about honey. 2nd ref wasn't really needed, but doesn't hurt. I'm OK with this section now, if other editors concur. Bob98133 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved the "however, ... " into the main sentence so it doesnt seem like we're all fighting with each other in the main article text. The 2nd ref is a bit weird since it's citing almost exactly the same material (by the same author) just in another book. I've added quotes from both so you can see what I'm talking about. I half feel like removing the 2nd ref because it appears to give "extra authority" to this clause when it's actually just the same person repeating themselves. Kellen^T 11:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Veganism as lifestyle declaration

I miss some aspects of this aspect especially among young vegans and added some points based on german studies and press reports. --Polentario (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the additions a little confusing. The whole segment about prenz/wedding makes no sense at all to me, and although I think the connection between punk and veganism is relevant, the points about straight-edge elitism aren't very relevant to this article. The tone of the passage also seems much more like editorializing than an encyclopedia article. Kellen^T 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Elitism - Breyvogels major point is that veganism is not about healthy nutrition at all - its a means to distinguish oneself from others and integrate into a dedicated and interesting peer group. "True and pure Veganism" is a sort of unfulfillable endeavour, but as a sort of ambitious goal makes it interesting for adolescents which try to find an identity

Losses in translation, editorial style - OK, I will try! I personally think that 80% of the nutritional facts in this article could be erased without loss, the German article has been +- downsized in that resepct to the position papers of ADA and the swiss and german equivalents, but I wouldnt go as WP:BOLD on a well researched lemma like this

Either in Sweden and in germany, straight edge has been described as a focal group, not the only reason.

Prenz towards wedding is the German aquivalent of Notting Hill versus East End.

Munich versus Berlin an ever ongoing competition, the NYT article attributed Munich the lead as cultural hot spot and mentioned the posh and trendy vegan resto Zerwirk as one of the reasons. Best regards --Polentario (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve the article, but I have multiple criticisms of these additions.

I think it's rather problematic to be including German criticisms in the english-language article since (a) none of us have access to the sources since they're not available outside germany (and the ones included aren't online sources) (b) most of use don't speak german even if we had access to the sources (c) the criticisms are likely tailored to the specific situation of veganism in germany (d) no quotes are provided for the citations, so we can't read what the person using the citation thought supported their article statement. Now the specific criticisms.

This part:

Vegan and vegetarian lifestyles and some of their alleged asian roots...

is totally pointless. That segment essentially says "vegans base their diet on asian diets, but asians are eating more meat". So what?

... veganism a somewhat problematic closeness to dietary theories propagated within the German political right as within the Völkisch movement.

I don't contest that someone could suggest that german vegans could use this as inspiration, but this movement is irrelevant outside germany, and the criticism is rather obtuse: "veganism has similarities to the diets promoted by these sketchy guys".

Veganism provides a semireligious component foremost based on the term of compassion for all life forms [151] and an utopian[152] perspective ...

The 151 note is not actually a citation, and as with the other sources 152 has no quote and isn't available online. This section as a statement is also not acceptable. We can identify authors who say such things, but not just say them straight out since this is a POV. My personal POV is that this is bullshit, however there are certainly vegans for whom this is relevant. A more acceptable phrasing would be something like "author X contends that veganism fills a semireligous place in vegans lives, that since in the athor's view veganism is based upon compassion for all life forms its view is utopian."

As well vegan lifestyle and especially posh and trendy vegan restaurants in city centers are being acknowledged as a sign of cultural hotspots ...

This is not sufficiently cited. The source is a NYTimes travel article about Munich which talks about a vegan restaurant. That source doesn't "acknowledge" anything, and doesn't make any statement about vegan restaurants in general.

The role of veganism as lifestyle declaration has been mentioned as well in several reports about city quartiers ...

All this section says is that Prez-berg has more vegetarian restaurants/more vegetarians. Veganism isn't mentioned in the source so far as I can tell. This section seems to be (in a round-about way) trying to indict veganism/vegetarianism as a luxury of the rich, but it doesn't come right out and say it. This section seems particularly pointless to me since it's about a regional difference only within berlin. I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not very relevant in an english language article about a much broader subject.

As I said before, I do think mentioning the punk-veganism connection is relevant, but I think that that Breyvogels' viewpoint is given too much space, and that there are probably other sources we could cite. I would personally also appreciate quotes from Breyvogel so that non-germans could actually check some of the source material rather than only having an editor's characterizations of her position to go by.

Finally, the section on the position of the German and Swiss dietary associations is interesting, but I suspect the quote doesn't give a wholly accurate picture of their position. For example, in this PDF there's a segment (babelfish translated) which reads:

The experience shows that a veganische nourishing way with a sufficient supply of all nutrients (exception vitamin B12, which should be supplied with enriched food or Supplementen) is possible. ... One can regard this nourishing form however quite as one „niche nourishing way “, which can lead with correct application to a good health result.

I was not able to find the section quoted in the article in the Swiss position papers, but of course, I don't speak/read german. Kellen^T 08:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotes translated are central parts od positioning papers of official bodies, to cross the language barrier, I will give more exact quotations including the german text in footnotes . Basically its "an expert vegan might stay healthy, but lay people especially in situations loke pregnancy risk too much".

Breyvogel is available online at books. If british vegans are mainstream, so be it, but the german (and swedish) studies see veganism especially as a part of pop culture among young people

I can elaborate on the cited closeness to some Völkish and third Reich dietary streamings, its about Rohkost and Vollkorn (raw food and wholegrain), and a variety of problematic theorists, as Schnitzler, Kollath and Bruker, btw the strong animal rights approach and its intense propagandidistic use in the third reich is depicted in Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. To cut it short "living in harmony with nature" and diverse dietary dreams to use certain forms of original natural food classical deeply enrooted topic german topic(http://www.hippy.com/article-243.html gives a good overview in english, the quality sources in German are abundant), the nazi movement however saw e.g. jews as unnatural life forms. --Polentario (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't really addressed any of my concerns listed above. With respect to the völkisch/nazi support for basic animal welfare and some kind of limited vegetarianism: so what? The roads we drive on are very similar to those constructed by nazis, shall we stop driving? In any case, just saying in the article that there is a "somewhat problematic closeness" is insanely unencyclopedic. The author of the source Veganism#cite_note-81 needs to be identified and what they actually wrote should be quoted. I'm not sure what other editors think of your additions, but I will probably be removing large sections of them unless the above concerns are addressed. Kellen^T 12:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The needed quotations are now to be found en detail, and can be checked properly. I asssume that official papers of large nutritional expert bodies are of interest jhere, and the jury has been quite clear. I mean one could erase large section about alleged nutritional details and stay with the basic position papers. I have clearly adressed the points about regional situations, if in GB veggiedom ios mainstream OK, in germany and e.g. Sweden its largely young people, partially influenced by straight edge and i have provided suitable sourcing. BR --Polentario (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this provides a perfect example of why quotes are needed. I think the referencing of the Swedish study is actually really great, BUT the study never says that vegetarianism is mostly within youth culture or straight edge. What it does say is that the authors of the study chose certain cities in which to conduct their study because they assumed that cities with a history of involvement in certain youth movements (straight edge) would have a higher prevalence of vegetarianism and therefore would be a good place to study dietary habits of young vegetarians. The statement that you added to the article is the wrong way around, and this is why it is very important to both editors and readers that the cited material is quoted, especially when the source isn't available online for verification. In this case, I was able to read the source and see that what you wrote is actually wrong, and we will be able to fix the article to be more accurate. Kellen^T 10:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Breyvogel, p.89, there is reference to Larsson 2001 (which I cannot find fulltext for, but which appears to be largely the same as the linked thesis dissertation) and Larsson 2003. Larson 2001 (dissertation) is what I refer to above (since this is what was linked in the reference). In Larson 2003, there is again a mention of straight edge, but this is not the subject of the study. The authors say that straightedge became popular in sweden in the 1990s, and that vegetarianism is popular with straightedge people, but this is not the subject of the study. The study itself does only one thing, which is to characterize adolescent adoption of veganism as a "status passage" (a reference to a 1971 theory by Glaser and Strauss). It is possible that Larsson 2001 in Public Health actually investigates straightedge as a source of veganism (though the abstract does not mention it), but these other two articles by Larsson do not. Kellen^T 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed this for the reason listed above (source does not support statement):

As well vegan lifestyle and especially posh and trendy vegan restaurants in city centers are being acknowledged as a sign of cultural hotspots

This as well, because it's pointless:

Vegan and vegetarian lifestyles and some of their alleged asian roots are discussed intensively in Germany as in other western countries. However, the developing and especially asian threshold nations significantly increase the intake of meat and animal derived products

And this, for the same reason:

The role of veganism as lifestyle declaration has been mentioned as well in several reports about city quartiers with dedicated or alleged lifestyles. Poor quartiers as the Wedding (Berlin) are compared with bohemian quartiers as the Prenzlauer Berg with a higher amount of vegan and vegetarian culture.

I removed this:

A stronger amount of vegans is to be found at adolescents and young people. Here, Vegans are often found but not restricted to adolescent fans of Straight Edge.

because the statement made is not supported by the source. If you go to amazon.co.uk, search for the book "Vegane Lebensstile", do "Search inside this book" and search for "straight edge" you will find one mention of straight edge, which is a quote from a youth talking about his motivations. This is not at all sufficient to make the statement that "larger amounts of vegans" are found in younger people, or in fans of straight edge. I also removed:

Along Wilfrid Breyvogels study Veganism predominantly is a lifestyle declaration among adolescents, it includes shared listening of certain bands and concerts, preparing and sharing meals and food and the use and applications of special signs and symbols including tatoos. Veganisms distinguishing selling point is the option to style ones body, to show toughness and to adhere to self imposed strict rules and regulations within a favored peer group.

Because although the statement as it stands is half-true (imo), the POV is improperly attributed to Breyvogels, who is the editor, not the author of the "study" (a compilation of essays), there is no page number cited, and no quote given, so I cant even try to verify the veracity of the statement, especially the "Veganism predominantly is a lifestyle declaration" section. "predominantly" is very strong, and inappropriate in the article text unless directly attributed to another author. Kellen^T 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Youre deeply mistaken with your statement about Breyvogel, just read itBreyvogel at books Please undo the changes accordingly. BR --Polentario (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears you've mixed up my justifications.

A stronger amount of vegans is to be found at adolescents and young people.

is sourced to "Angela Grube: Vegane Lebensstile. Diskutiert im Rahmen einer qualitativen/quantitativen Studie". That source does not at all support the statement. I do not contest that Breyvogel has mentions of straightedge. However, I strongly doubt that anything in Beryvogel can adequately support the statement above. If you can provide a page number to check, please do so. Grube also does not support:

Here, Vegans are often found but not restricted to adolescent fans of Straight Edge

For the reasons listed above. Breyvogel might support this, but I'm sure there are better, english-language citations we could use to show prevalence of vegans inside the strightedge population. Also, although I agree being straightedge is associated with a higher likelihood of veganism, this in no way supports the statements you included in the article about veganism being mostly within youth culture or straightedge or being used primarily as a signifier of "toughness" etc. Kellen^T 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources about the preference for english-language sources, and Wikipedia:V#cite_note-1 regarding quotations. Kellen^T 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you describe Veganism in the UK, OK. Beyound check sources from other countries. Breyvogel et al describe an important part of the vegan scene. I will check for the page numbers., BR --Polentario (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons listed above, I removed:

Some German authors attest a somewhat problematic closeness to dietary theories propagated within the German political right

I also removed the following

Veganism is described in some german sources as a semireligious movement based on the term of compassion for all life forms and a utopian perspective of a personal and collective identity living in line with nature.

pending a page number, a quotation, or some other more specific attribution. Better would be to replace the german source with something readily available and in english. Kellen^T 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As said, what I lack here is a sociological approach, 2/3 of the article is full of nutritional detail without any importance for a cultural movement, google tells me e.g.

• Straightedge Youth: Complexity and Contradictions of a Subculture, Robert T. Wood (Autor)
• Straight Edge: Hardcore Punk, Clean-Living Youth, and Social Change Ross Haenfler
• Sociology on the menu: an invitation to the study of food and society, Alan Beardsworth, Teresa Keil Routledge, 1997 ISBN 0415114241,
• btw Breyvogel got a positive review at the [8] Forum: Qualitative Social Research
• Robert T. Wood. Straightedge Youth: Complexity and Contradictions of a Subculture.

Syracuse University Press, 2006, 192 pp. $US 19.95 hardcover (0-8156-3127-8) BR --Polentario (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at excerpts from Haenfler, but I haven't gotten anything which adequately characterizes the connection (some pages omitted from Google books), though veganism is mentioned in many places. Kellen^T 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean I thought I could introduce Breyvogel here, since he takes great effort to compare the US and german vegan scenes, with some detailed field studies ect. I suggest you have a look on the mentioned entries, maybe it can be used here or in straight edge. However ceterum censeo: I see veganism more as a cultural issue, less about nutritional chemistry --Polentario (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Larson 2001 Public Health Nutrition

If anybody can get the fulltext of Larson 2001 and provide a relevant quote it would be appreciated. Kellen^T 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just send her an e-mail, think that will work. BR --Polentario (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

sXe/punk

Section for appropriate sources here.

Haenfler, Ross. Straight Edge : Clean-Living Youth, Hardcore Punk, and Social Change. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers University Press, 2006.

This work also contains all of the veganism-related contents of: Ross Haenfler Rethinking Subcultural Resistance: Core Values of the Straight Edge Movement Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2004; 33; 406, which is often cited. The best quotes (I've searched the entire book) are:

• p16: By the mid-1990s, … thousands of kids adopted a strict vegan lifestyle, refusing to eat all animal products (often including honey); wear any kind of suede, leather, or wool; and support companies that tested products on animals.
• p36: Many sXers even shun caffeine and medicinal drugs, and a majority are committed vegetarians or vegans.
• p53: In the mid- to late-1980s, sXe became increasingly concerned with animal rights … At least three out of four Denver sXers are vegetarian and many adopt completely cruelty-free, or vegan, lifestyles. Veganism had become such a significant part of sXe by the late 1990s that many sXers gave it equal importance to living drug and alcohol free. Many sXe vegans self-identify as “vegan straight edge” and some bands identify as “vegan straight edge” rather than simply straight edge. Veganism, while still widely practiced, has declined somewhat after 2000. Among the approximately seventy sXers I associated with regularly, only fifteen ate meat. Several individuals had “Vegan” tattooed on their bodies.

These are all fine, but make statements better suited to the straight edge article rather than this one.

Wood 2006: Straightedge Youth: Complexity and Contradictions of a Subculture

Has some minor mentions of veganism.

• p7: More recently, straightedgers are known for their highly political commitment to vegetarian or vegan lifestyles, as well as for their opposition to other perceived forms of animal exploitation (Haenfler 2004; Irwin 1999; Wood 1999a, 1999b, 2003).
• p8: By the late 1980s, vegetarianism and veganism were emerging to assume a near-equal prominence as defining features of straightedge culture and identity (Irwin 1999; Wood 1999a).

I've checked out a few of the sources mentioned in Wood's citations. I was unable to obtain copies of:

• Wood 1999a: "'Nailed to the X': A Lyrical History of the Straightedge Youth Subculture." Journal of Youth Studies 2, no. 2:133-51.
• Wood 2003: "Straightedge Youth: Observations on the Complexity of Subcultural Identity." Journal of Youth Studies 6, no. 1:33-52.

But in the copyright section of this book, it notes that both of these papers are used, at least in part, for the book itself. Perhaps it's a bit odd for the author to cite himself, I don't know... I obtained two of the sources mentioned on p7, there was no mention of veganism in:

• Wood 1999b: "The Indigenous, Nonracist Origins of the American Skinhead Subculture." Youth and Society 31, no. 2: 131-51.

And a minor mention of veganism in:

Irwin 1999: "The Straight Edge Subculture: Examining the Youths' Drug-free Way." Journal of Drug Issues 29, no. 2:365-80

• He was the co-author of a book, In Defense of Reality (Cappo and Das 1993), in which he discussed Straight Edge and defined it as a 'music scene that began in the 1980s, propagating the philosophy of non-violence, vegetarianism, anti-prejudice and anti-drugs.'

All in all, not very strong citations for this article, though I note that the straightedge article could use some help. Kellen^T 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Philosophy of Punk: More Than Noise. Craig O'Hara. AK Press. Copyright Date: 1999.

• p.136: While it was the European Punks who promoted vegetarianism, many North Americans are now taking it a step further by promoting veganism. … While vegetarianism is a step in the right direction, many vegan Punks view it as not enough.

Dylan Clark. "The Raw and the Rotten: Punk Cuisine" Ethnology, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Winter, 2004), pp. 19-31

• p.24: In punk veganism, the daily politics of consumption and the ethical quandaries of everyday life are intensified. In part, the decade-long struggle to make food and animal products overtly political was carried out by bands such as Vegan Reich and in zines. Zines regularly comment on animal rights, industrial food, and veganism.
• p.24: In the daily praxis of punk, vegetarianism and veganism are strategies through which many punks combat corporate capitalism, patriarchy, and environmental collapse.
• p.24: by the 1990s, veganism was a rapidly ascending force within the greater punk landscape in North America. Led by the "straight edge" punk movement, veganism gained credence across the punk spectrum, including those who scorned the drug abstaining politics of straight edge

Kellen^T 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegan diet and improvement in prostate cancer

I would like to add research done by Dr. Dean Ornish, specficially a study on men with prostate cancer and addoption of "lifestyle changes". Those lifestyle changes included a vegan diet. Should I create a subsection titled "Cancer" under "Nutritional benefits" or just a paragraph on the research within "Nutritional benefits"? (I'll post the proposed text here before I update the article.)
--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just make a normal paragraph under 'benefits'. Kellen^T 09:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the text I propose to add:

A 2005 secondary prevention study published in the Journal of Urology by Dr. Dean Ornish(footnote), showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels with no patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression. In contrast, the control group for this study experienced a 6% increase in PSA levels with 6 patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression.

--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The bold is unnecessary, as is the mention of which journal in which the study was published. If it's appropriate, mention prostate cancer explicitly. Also if there's some way on combining all of this into one sentence with less repetition, that would be good. And put the reference at the end of the sentence. Kellen^T 10:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the bold as it makes it easier to read technically dense material by visually picking out what's important to focus on -- but it is not a common wiki style. Here's the updated text with the other suggestions incorporated:

A 2005 secondary prevention study on prostate cancer published by Dr. Dean Ornish, showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels with no patients having to leave the study due to disease progression. In contrast, the control group for this study experienced a 6% increase in PSA levels with 6 patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression.(footnote)

--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

More like this:

A 2005 secondary prevention study on prostate cancer, showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels and zero patients leaving the study due to disease progression, compared with a 6% increase in PSA levels and 6 patients leaving the study the control group.(footnote)

Kellen^T 18:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's still too detailed and verbose for a study which isn't focused on veganism. Gabbe (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a vegan diet showed the possibility of reversing cancer is considered revolutionary, and important if you've been diagnosed with cancer. A vegan diet has been proven to reverse heart disease and diabetes type-2, and I'd like to include as much health research as possible when explaining the benefits of following a vegan diet.
--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I support including references to studies of that effect. The study you mentioned, however, is about "intensive lifestyle change" (a much wider concept), and not specifically about veganism per se. Therefore I don't think the Ornish study warrants more than a passing mention. Gabbe (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my last version of the text. As you may already know, it's difficult to distill 5 pages of research into two sentences - LOL. A link to Dr. Dean Ornish is important since he does alot of research on vegan[vegetarian?] diets and disease.
--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PCRM diet recommendations

I removed:

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recommends what they call the "Four New Food Groups." They suggest that vegans and vegetarians eat at least three servings of vegetables a day, including dark green, leafy vegetables such as broccoli, and dark yellow and orange such as carrots; five servings of whole grains (bread, rice, pasta); three of fruit; and two of legumes (beans, peas, lentils).

Because it didn't fit in the article where it lived and I don't see a particularly good place for it now. Suggestions welcome. Kellen^T 10:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Looking at the ref, it seems that PCRM recommends this diet/food groups for everyone, not just vegans; and the New Food groups are generally credited as being healthier, but no specifics are cited which aren't cited elsewhere in this article. Bob98133 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Eating Disorders

I recommend that this section of the article be removed, as it has nothing to do with the actual vegan diet, nor does it have to do with vegan lifestyle. I would even go so far as to contend that this section poisons the neutrality of this article, in so far as it introduces a link between eating disorders and vegetarianism wherein the vegan diet and lifestyle is not the cause of said eating disorder. It certainly does not belong under the heading "health concerns," since the concern is eating disorders and not the vegan diet and lifestyle itself. If this information belongs in any article, it should go in eating disorders, not veganism. Nic01445 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did you read the section? It says that a "vegetarian diet does not lead to eating disorders". The section is relevant and cited. Those citations directly link the subject of veganism to the subject of eating disorders (though not veganism itself to eating disorders). Kellen^T 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did read the section, and I stand by my previous claims. Cited or not, eating disorders are in no way relevant to nutritional concerns of the vegan diet. I'm not claiming that there is no link, I'm claiming that the link is irrelevant to the article, in the sense that it does not describe veganism, but rather it describes eating disorders. Nic01445 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

People may be coming to this article wondering what the relation is between veganism and eating disorders; it may very well be a nutritional concern in their mind. This section would be informative and enlightening to such people. The main section is called "Nutritional concerns", not "Legitimate, scientifically valid nutritional concerns", and I don't think anyone reading the section will read it as "veganism causes eating disorders" when it says the opposite... but if people do, we should word it more clearly.

On the other hand, it is talking about vegetarianism, not veganism specifically, so it would probably be more relevant at Vegetarianism than here. -kotra (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also talking about veganism, so it's valid here. The quote is from the ADA position which includes (as many such dietetic association statements do) veganism as a type of vegetarianism. Kellen^T 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's at least as appropriate at Vegetarianism, though, so I've added it there as well. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Wanted to say the citation and reference section of this article is one of the best I have ever seen. Well done --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Image thumbnails layout

File:Sameboat temp.PNG

My edit of image thumbnails layout was reverted by User:Kellen` because he think "they don't all need to be on the right." But please look at my screen shot under 1024px-width screen resolution you will learn that the thumbnails sandwich the main article text. I suppose Kellen is using some greater screen resolution so he didn't see the problem, but this looks inappropriate in 1024*786px or smaller resolution. For more information, please check the WP:Layout#Images, MOS:IMAGES & WP:Picture tutorial. Thx. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. I think remaking that energy consumption graph in a better scale might help. Kellen^T 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC:God Almighty

WP:PSTS "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

In relation to this edit, can consensus be reached that this matter is or not a primary concern to the ideology of veganism? ~ R.T.G 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Yes, the bible is a primary concern for a very signifigant section of those both vegan and vegan-oposed ~ R.T.G 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a yes/no question. The material added in that edit is excessive and wholly inappropriate for the lead. There is already a "similar diets and lifestyles" section which deals with the groups which follow a vegan diet for religious reasons. It's possible that this section would benefit from certain kinds of expansion, such as the specific justifications for following a vegan diet from each of the religious groups. Just citing the bible is not going to be enough to do this properly; find a citation to something to group has published which specifically recommends veganism. If you are interested in this, I would strongly urge you to find appropriate citations for all the religious groups listed, otherwise the section on christianity will feel rather out of place. Kellen^T 02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wups, I misread the diff to be longer than it was. Less excessive than I thought, but still inappropriate for the lead. Kellen^T 03:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Christianity is an enourmous part, argueably the most important part of culture in the world as a whole today. The religion is based upon a book. The first page of that book promotes veganism directly as part of, argueably, the purpose of life. My opposition to providing that information would not be an indicator of some whimsical suppression or some controversial adverse emotions, it would merely be my discreditation of the Christian Church as an unnotable topic outside designated or pursued religous topics which is why I would not oppose it. Heaping crap out in front of "down to earth" people will not win your chosen topic one strand of support. Thankfully I am insignifigant and irrelevant. Persons of the "Down with Earth" value will surely not get off the non-existant "personal belief" page when presented with deep rooted religious interest. The topic is Veganism and the most successful book of all time promotes veganism on page 1 under the designation - Words of God almighty as he created the purpose of The Heavens, The Earth and All There Is. But I would suggest that the information may be either irrelevant or unnoteworthy (notice that I didn't settle on one because I haven't made my mind up yet)... If first-language-English-speaking-citizens-in-general would cast Christian Faith on the top ten of the "That which is more important than mere existence" list or if 10% would claim that Christianity is a part of their life pursued daily with the belief that their lives depended on it, which would be a rather modest pair of estimates, the topic would be in league of importance with the unnoteable like of Ancient Egyptians and Mayans, would it not? Would a sudden fundamental change in Christianity be reported and debated by a ridiculously absolute percentage of the worlds non-local media? And yet a distiction, so ancient that it sits in the absence of change, might be reported by NONE, not even Wikipedia I do believe that I have encountered two perceivable, unwarranted, unnessecary, and undefined wiki-brick walls in the last three or so weeks but hey there are racists and religious lunatics everywhere since some time now so we should not allow such behaviour to be provided in knowledge. Jesus loves me this I know, because the Bible tells me so but that would not be an NPOV I should imagine. ~ R.T.G 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay? Kellen^T 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, put the bible thing back in and don't be saying it's irrelevant! It's a valid and relevant fact which is interesting too unless you are anti-religious or anti-vegan. The bible study is just relevant information. I entered it twice to which the first one lasted barely 15 mins before it was not sourced properly and the one with sources only 2 hrs and it was excessive, no wait, irrelevant! I am left ranting away to myself here. You had to accept that it wasn't "excessive" but came across as saying "But we'll just exclude stuff like that anyway." It's only interesting information about a core aspect. You know from this I looked up the article Bible to find a reference that it was by far the most successfully existing book of all time but no I had to look elsewhere for that information becase it must be unwarranted or irrelevant to the Bible article. Of course it was on the List of best selling books in the end. It's not incorrect and if it is irrelevant, why all the Christians and Jews then? Don't just whisper, admit the validity of it or admit you would reduce and exclude religious topics unless they were designated or actively in pursuit of the topic. ~ R.T.G 12:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And note: you do not have to improve all the religious information just to improve one. Imagine applying that thinking to other articles. ~ R.T.G 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't just put information about the bible in the opening paragraph, that suggests that veganism and christianity are somehow related, when they are not. Muleattack (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, God tells humans to be vegans on the first page of the bible and Christianity is based on the bible but that does not relate Christianity to veganism. Only if the vast majority of Christians seek out veganism or the vast majority of vegans seek out Christianity will they be related or even notable in relation to each other. For us to provide such information would be excessive. Excessively what, I cannot figure out. The rest is false. No better excuses? ~ R.T.G 14:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't make it easy to go along with me in some disputes but I like to see the wiki becoming more linked up in a way that provides more and more varied knowledge, not just irrelevant facts but diversity. It's easy to go along with that kind of thing but editors rarely do if ever. Only brand new users ever respond by saying "Oh yes, that was the purpose of the encyclopedia". Experienced editors often comment on a subject to the effect that, "In no way shape or form is that factual information about this subject ever possible to include", in the fear that ridiculous fringe hypothesis and inacuracies will be presented as fact en masse or that lesser-known but contradictory information will come to light and should not. Well this is not ridiculous hypothetical or innaccurate. The value of contradictory information is not ours to evaluate beyond notability, facts and sources. Veganism is not a branch of current Christianity nor is Christianity of veganism, the pope does not convene with PETA to my knowledge, but that does not mean that facts relating the two change in either facts or notability.

It's hardly constructive to claim that any notable factual information should not be presented. We have less need to establish notability of the first page of the Bible, Gods words during Creation, than we do for veganism, for instance. The sentence on religious practice, in the section "Similar diets and lifestyles" is a) undoubtably pathetic and B) a lethal dose of biased editing. The rapidity of protection and dispute based upon denial is a damning confirmation of bias jockeying which appears more successful here than most other areas of the wiki. That is going to be corrected. I do not care if religion should or not be played down in our society. Removing it from knowledge is not a viable option, sorry. ~ R.T.G 16:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). This means we have to be able to quote reliable sources for any inclusion we wish to make. The Bible is a primary source ("religious scripture" WP:PSTS), and any interpretation of it requires a secondary source (WP:NOR). Now, you did quote two secondary sources

• http://www.gentlechristianmothers.com/topics/veggie.php
• http://chetday.com/vegandietdangers.htm

but it seems to me these two websites don't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). Is there a reputable book, peer-reviewed publication or similar source substantiating your interpretation of the Bible on this issue? Gabbe (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok Gabbe, here is one of the religion sections of the International Vegetarian Unions website [9] from this list (i.e. they have lots about religious-ideology vegetarianism)[10], the Christian Vegetarian Society (USA and UK) about bible vs. vegan (hosted on all creatures.org) [11], while some such as Vegan.org and PETA.org [12] rarely push religious ideology but PETA did as you might imagine try a campaign about on their JesusVeg.org site this is the relevant page for Genesis but you know, these popular websites like PETA.org, veganism is not something they go right in for to my knowledge it was always vegetarianism and their review of these things is always sadly lacking in that respect. There are other reliable sources that directly favour and oppose veganism which is on-topic where as vegetarianism is not. Now if you think these are not reputable enough, find us a reputable paper which has covered a veganism topic in its main space once every two years for the last 10 years which is not a piggyback of vegetarianism nutritional concerns/warnings or accusations of PETA trouble or something. There is particularly scant study on the philosophies of veganism outside animal rights and nutrition. Reputable verification is well over 90% specialist. If you are just querying Centle Christian Mothers.com, the Open Directory lists them as part of only 9 under the heading Christianity>Mothering [13] and Brith and Wellness.com also lists them [14] along with many mothering info sites. Yes they were fairly good ones picked out for their utterly opposing positions. Some other half-decent sites discussing the Bible and veganism or vegetarianism include Hyper History religious valued researchers and about.com and the particularly unstoppable reference made by the A.P.S. that creationism-ers are teaching that all creatures before The Fall were vegans. If you like a bit of amusement, the Animal Liberation Front have a particularly aggravating reputation for fact-finding and they are promoting a bible study book about Jesus being a vegan [15] and for some other more reputable in-depth, and more balanced (inclusive of Muslim viewpoint), study on Jesus being certainly vegetarian if not vegan The Huffington Post [16] and PETA (easier for quick review). Now, it's getting long for me already but I am going to make sure that the insult to any religous importance is corrected without taking in debate that religion is only worth an insult so make edits or suggestions please... there is definitely basis for a modest acknowledgment here. The current acknowledgement was added in 2007, a one sentence nothing. You could say nothing under "See also" it would appear much less biased. ~ R.T.G 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I find the sources for this section to poorly reliable. It is also garden variety original research. I'm in favor of excluding it. Skinwalker (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There will be mention of ties between veganism and religion on the article beyond the current "There are also numerous religious groups that regularly or occasionally practice a similar diet, including adherents to some Buddhist traditions,[150] Hindus,[151] Sikhs,[152] Jains,[153] Eastern Orthodox Christians,[154][155] Rastafari,[156] and Seventh-day Adventists.[157]" It doesn't matter what you "find", Skinwalker, Huffington Post, PETA and APS are sources reliable beyond speculation except, possibly, in extreme exception and are only a bare minimum start. The others are all easily decent enough for wiki-standard and these are only the ones that I have put here, online alone there are thousands of references between veganism and religion, what planet are we on here? What do you want paid off to include something? Go for a hike out the mountains and you might find gold you know. Show us a reliable source that says OR grows in the garden. ~ R.T.G 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Awww, are you trolling? How cute. Skinwalker (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I agree, this should be removed or at least moved out of the lead. While it may be appropriate to discuss the religious aspects of this subject, Christianity as a whole does not have the same relationship (as documented in reliable sources) with veganism as, for example, the Religious Society of Friends does with pacifism. Also, as the Bible has been interpreted thousands of different ways over the years, favoring one interpretation of this particular passage over another strikes me as non-NPOV. A neutral statement such as "according to survey X, about y% of vegans cite the Bible as a reason for their dietary choices" may be appropriate somewhere in the article, assuming such a study exists, and y is sufficiently large. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Christian vegetarianism. Skinwalker (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Creation was the big thing and in fact makes regular news about wether it was the Big Bang or not but if you really want to debate wether Creation may be considered more notable than one event or another... A survey of vegans would be nice but they are scant on the ground besides, "What turned you" is not the only thing we have here. The Bible links itself to veganism and until that book becomes lesser notable, it already has a large chunk of the stage. Teaching people Creation is one thing, I don't find a strong arguement to prevent people teaching Darwinism, but forcing neutral facts about that book to be excluded forever, that's just not what we do here. It is widely accepted that the bible tops all other publication. Genesis is not an abstract poem. We are talking about the same job as from the top, "In the beginning there was nothing and God said Let There Be Light" (Genesis 1:1), no question that these "verses"/passages top the whole rest of the bible inside out. To squeeze Genesis 1:26 onto the second page you'd need pages so small that this paragraph wouldn't nearly fit on it. If you are thinking maybe Jesus would top that, sorry, Creation tops everything else in the Bible, even if you belive in Darwinism, there is no Darwinism in the bible, the scientific value of the Bible should not be relevant here. In the Beginning, God said "Let there be veganism", that is basically what we have here in RS about the most succesful book in existence. The merits are no excuse to exclude. That is the final sum. And yes, Christian vegetarianism informs the reader about veganism in Creation but the topic is vegetarianism through the teachings of Christ which is spot on but not exactly on topic here. Cheers, ~ R.T.G 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)