Talk:Veganism: Difference between revisions
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
:::Can you, then, find a source as reputable in the vegan community as the Vegan Society which defines vegans as people who remove animal products from their diet alone? The Vegan Society, as a group of vegans, make the most commonly agreed upon definition public. Your view that vegans may abstain from animal products in the area of diet alone is an opinion, and not one that is common in the vegan community. - [[User:Hyperflux|Hyperflux]] <sup>[[User talk:Hyperflux|(talk)]]</sup> 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
:::Can you, then, find a source as reputable in the vegan community as the Vegan Society which defines vegans as people who remove animal products from their diet alone? The Vegan Society, as a group of vegans, make the most commonly agreed upon definition public. Your view that vegans may abstain from animal products in the area of diet alone is an opinion, and not one that is common in the vegan community. - [[User:Hyperflux|Hyperflux]] <sup>[[User talk:Hyperflux|(talk)]]</sup> 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Further - Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, who created the word "vegan" would certainly not share your view that vegans may include animal products in areas other than diet. They created the word "vegan" after becoming frustrated that the definition of "vegetarian" had become too lax. And as a vegan myself, I am deeply opposed to the word "vegan" going the same way and becoming a looser term. By all means, dietary vegans may call themselves "dietary vegans" but they are not true adherents of veganism as a philosophy as defined by it's members and it's founders. - [[User:Hyperflux|Hyperflux]] <sup>[[User talk:Hyperflux|(talk)]]</sup> 13:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Not only is it the Vegan Societies definition, but they ''invented'' the word. While the meaning of words change, when you invent a word your original meaning is going to carry a lot of weight. I have yet to see a reputable sight discuss the non-dietary use of animals as still being vegan. --[[User:Dhandle|Cpoupart]] ([[User_talk:Cpoupart|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Cpoupart|contribs]]) 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
::::Not only is it the Vegan Societies definition, but they ''invented'' the word. While the meaning of words change, when you invent a word your original meaning is going to carry a lot of weight. I have yet to see a reputable sight discuss the non-dietary use of animals as still being vegan. --[[User:Dhandle|Cpoupart]] ([[User_talk:Cpoupart|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Cpoupart|contribs]]) 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:35, 13 February 2007
![]() | Animal rights Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
![]() Archives |
---|
Please sign with time stamp (~~~~) for all comments. Every time. Cheers. Gtabary 18:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And please add new talk to the BOTTOM of the page. Every time. Thanks. Angr (t·c) 00:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Reorganization
Reorganization suggestions:
- Eliminate "motivations" as a section and instead use its subsections as the main article sections
- Eliminate "criticism and controversy" as a section and merge its subsecitons into the other sections
- Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Ethics" from "Motivations" if appropriate (it appears this would not actually be appropriate)
- Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Resources and environment" from "Motivations" (this seems more appropriate)
- Merge "Health concerns" and "Health" from "Motivations"
- Merge "Similar diets and lifestyles" with the "Definition" section
Kellen T 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- If anyone were to do it, it's you Kellen. Maybe something this big should be tried first, then compared? Vert et Noirtalk 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- When I have a few spare hours perhaps =) Kellen T 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"properly sourced criticism being removed"
Skinwalker, what criticism was removed? It looks like you just reverted a response to criticism. (Note that I'm not involved/invested in whatever's been going on in that section.) --Joehaer 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think Skinwalker probably misunderstood the edit history, but ultimately the edit he made was correct in that it removed a unnecessary, poorly written, and uncited response. Kellen T 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
crit
further on that subject there doesn't seem to be much criticism of veganism in this page at all. just the ethical crit. portion and a few bits about how to avoid health problems. there are many more arguments against veganism that just a few paltry health concerns and some abstract ethical arguments. where the comprehensive criticism section that appears in almost every other article on these sorts of subjects? furthermore much of the information quoted in this article specifically refers to vegetarian diets, and does not necessarily carry over to a vegan diet. for example: vegetarian diets are linked to higher IQ, vegan diets however are linked to lower IQ. this fact is listed in the vegetarian article, but curiously omitted here. in short the article is poorly constructed and badly biased. its set up to say as few bad things about veganism as possible, as opposed to offering a balanced/objective look at the subject. 24.185.239.254 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you think the article is lacking in criticism (I disagree), provide some sources to back this up. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Kellen T 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find anything on the vegetarian page linking veganism to low IQ test scores. Can 24.185.239.254 please provide a source for this alleged fact? Speaking purely from personal experience as a second generation vegan, I can say that I have never seen evidence of such a link between the diet and low IQ but would be very interested to see any research on the matter. - Hyperflux 12:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with the original poster, although maybe for slightly different reasons. As someone who has no real view on the vegan lifestyle either way and was just reading out of interest, I got the impression that the article is very supportive of the notion. Not that this is a bad thing at all, but I can understand how it can be perceived as unbalanced. There is a large section that lists many many reasons why veganism is beneficial and I initially felt this was clearly not NPOV, until I noticed that the section is the 'Motivations' section, so of course it will be this way. However, this is not clear and is not mirrored by a 'Criticisms' section that most wiki articles have. IMO this is the source of the confusion. Just my 2 cents. 85.210.209.35 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's all very well to say that an article lacks criticism, but you have to take into account the possibility that certain subjects don't support the same amount of well cited, encyclopaedic criticism as others. I'm not saying that there's no more criticism to add to this article, but I am encouraging people to judge each case on it's on merits, rather than thinking along the lines of "This article has less criticism that some others, so it needs more!". Which I feel would be a mistake. Hyperflux 11:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Cattlemen's study should be removed
Scientific studies about the vegan diet are welcome, but the section on the study funded by the American Cattlemen's Association is very misleading. If one had read the study or even the critical articles in the news about it (no, not the ones where the Beatle comments - he's not a scientist), one would find that the study is an almost comically biased ploy to promote beef consumption and make meat eaters feel better about themselves. The children in the study had diets consisting mainly of corn and some beans - hardly what someone who chooses a vegan diet would eat. Some groups received mince, others milk, and others oil - and some of these already malnourished children received nothing - to supplement the "diet", all with the same caloric value, but without the other nutrients in the meat. Supplemented soya mince could have been used and compared to the beef; instead, there was a gaping hole in the diets of the "meat-free" groups. This does not apply to veganism in any way. The only thing this study suggests is that when starving, malnourished children get ANY food with vitamins they aren't already getting, they are healthier. Well, duh.
Instead of trying to hold a candle to the vegan movement, we should be questioning the ethics of those who would use impoverished children as tools to promote food products. They withheld food from groups of children in this study - living people - knowing it would stunt their physical and mental growths and perhaps deny them much-needed opportunities in life. These people have no right to call vegans "unethical."
That said, I'm a new wikipedia user (and a very long-time reader), so I would rather the section be removed by a more experienced user, so as not to appear I am vandalizing. I would very much appreciate input on this. Noxic 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you entirely. The point has been brought up before. Vert et Noirtalk 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the section after reading the talk page archives and seeing that the majority of users commenting feel it should be removed. I have, of course, left everything else in the section on B12, as they use neutral wording and make important points (b12 is not a vitamin to overlook). Noxic 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with mentioning the study, especially with the critique that was offered. I think anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- If "anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed", it doesn't belong in there. The b12 section already cites 2 studies that are specifically about B12. The Cattlemen's study was not even about B12, as non-control groups other than the mince group were not given B12 supplements. Noxic 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- After reading the removed section, I would suggest replacing it. It is fairly well balanced, most of the questionable findings in the study are challenged and the section arguably promotes caution when planning to adopt a vegan diet, in order to avoid nutrient deficiencies. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I wont take any action myself, but I welcome any discussion here or on my talk page. - Hyperflux (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Criticism for the sake of criticism looks childishly argumentative. The B12 factor is commonly cited by opponents of veganism as though it is an insurmountable challenge, when in actuality it can be dealt with using a simple, affordable vitamin which is available in just about any health or "natural foods store", and widely available online (even at amazon.com), where anyone with the ability to read wikipedia could order it. It is a small problem, easily fixed, and deserves an equally small and rationally constructed section. In fact, the importance of B12 is mentioned multiple times in the article aside from the section in question. I have even link-ified "vitamin b12" in this section again, so that anyone skipping down to the criticism may read the full article on the vitamin and learn of its importance himself.
- I don't see what's wrong with mentioning the study, especially with the critique that was offered. I think anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the section after reading the talk page archives and seeing that the majority of users commenting feel it should be removed. I have, of course, left everything else in the section on B12, as they use neutral wording and make important points (b12 is not a vitamin to overlook). Noxic 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although opponents of veganism seem to thoroughly enjoy reciting "vegans need to supplement and watch their diets", we ought to remember that every major dietary association recommends multivitamins for the general public (and especially A and C vitamins), as the "normal" American and western diets are also tend to be lacking in certain vital nutrients. Should a critique of meat-eating on wikipedia feature a disproportionately large section on the pitfalls of vitamins often missing in the American diet? How many average Americans keep track of their Vitamins A and C intake? Potassium? How many of them count grams of Fiber? How about Vitamin K, Magnesium, Zinc, and Selenium - how many people know which foods contain rich amounts of these? How many know Molybdenum even exists? Yes, the red-blooded barbeque chef may be missing out on a few - or many - of these nutrients, but we have the modern miracle of the vitamin pill. When the problem is so easily fixed in the vegan diet through reasonable eating and supplementation, there's no real reason for making a huge fuss and waving around irrelevant child-experimentation data. Simple education on the importance of the vitamin will do.Noxic 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well said. I agree. - Hyperflux (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to re-add the section because it was published by an author employed by a reputable institution; the study's backers were identified in our article; a reply to the study was offered by the BDA. Kellen T 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The Ethical Man
Saw this on Newsnight last week ethical man kills turkey as he believes people should see the animals they eat being killed. then goes on a month long vegan diet to find out what difference cutting animal products from his diet would make to "carbon footprint".
carbon-guru Professor Tim Jackson calculates that 18% of the carbon emissions created by the average diet are from meat and a further 10% are from dairy products. only counting carbon dioxide would be a woeful underestimate no-one has calculated the contribution methane and nitrous oxide emissions make to the climate cost of the food meaties eat. he it is safe to double the figure for carbon dioxide which means 60% of the global warming potential of the average diet is from animal products.
Just something interesting to chew over for Veganism meet daisy the cow Whackorobin 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your link refers to the recent UN report "Livestock's long shadow" which is cited in this article. Kellen T 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency
I think it's very important for this page to examine the environmental implications of vegan farming. I have been writing a personal examination of "Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency" which looks at aspects such as energy transference in food chains and land area required to support vegan diets compared to animal based diets, but it is currently nowhere near encyclopaedia standard.
I am especially interested in the food chain angle. The transference of energy from one level of a food chain to the next involves a 90% loss of energy, according to the ecological pyramid.
It makes far greater sense (in terms of logic, efficiency and productivity) for humans to be the primary consumer in their food chain than to massively reduce efficiency by adding cattle or other animals into the food chain and consequently become secondary consumers.
If anyone has any ideas on how to bring this angle to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to discuss it in detail.
Hyperflux 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I saw a lot of mention of that when researching world hunger last summer. Info on that isn't too hard to find, even in mainstream examinations of hunger issues. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Revert
I've reverted most of User:Nomenclator's edits to the definition section. Some information added by this user was blatantly wrong: "someone who does not care about the well-being of animals and the environment, but avoids eating animal products solely for health reasons, would not fall under the category of vegan." Many of the other edits I reverted were of the sort of in-wiki argumentative hairsplitting that happens on this page frequently (this is vegan, this isn't) or ones which amount to essays rather than information about veganism ("unless one completely divorces oneself from industrialized civilization, and lives as an entirely isolated subsistence farmer"). Kellen T 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Why?
first of all, the first sentence is gramatically incorrect. The subject, a philosophy or lifestyle cannot take the predicate avoids using animals ; a person can avoid using animals, but a philosophy cannot. That is why I changed the sentence to
"Veganism is a philosophy or lifestyle that holds that the use of animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes is cruel and unnecessary, and that all or nearly all of the necessities of life, as well as the extra things that improve quality of life, can be obtained from the vegetable kingdom and from minerals." Notice that the philosphy holds rather than abstains."
Actually, a lifestyle cannot "abstain" either. So I am going to have to edit that sentence again.
"Veganism is lifestyle based on the idea that the use of animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes is harmful and unnecessary (is himsa, in Sanskrit), and that all or nearly all of the necessities of life, as well as the extra things that improve quality of life, can be obtained from the vegetable kingdom and from minerals."
Nor do you have to "commit" to abstention from animal products to be a vegan. No oath is required. You merely have to abstain - for the reason I mentioned.
Also, I am correct in saying that someone who does not care about the well-being of animals and the environment, but avoids eating animal products solely for health reasons, would not fall under the category of vegan. Such a person would be a vegan dietarily, but would not be a vegan. To be a vegan, you have to commit to the idea of not wanting to harm animals. If you merely want to preserve your health, and that leads you to a vegan diet, than you have a vegan diet, but you are not a vegan. But don't take my word for it; ask anyone at the Vegan Society of the American Vegan Society.
Further, most vegans do not avoid products that have been tested on animals. That is an extreme degree of veganism. One reason they do not avoid such products is that they know that companies that make the claim that they haven't tested their product on animals, only are able to do so because some other company already did the tests, as was required by law, and since the product is the same as an existing product, no new tests are necessary. In essence, the product was tested on animals - by another company - but it was still tested on animals. Also most vegans know that only a few samples of a product are tested on animals; not every jar of shampoo that you buy is actually tested on animals. Apparently, before 100's of thousands of bottles of a new shampoo formula are manufactured, and sold, a prototype of the shampoo legally had to be tested on 50 or 60 animals. Vegans who avoid products that are tested on animals therefore avoid all new products. This is an extreme that is too much to ask most people to do. If people think you have to go to this extreme to be considered a vegan, they are unlikely to become vegan. Most vegans are content to check the ingredient lists of products, and many will even use products that contain animal ingredients in minute amounts. Few people would be willing to go to this extent to be a "perfect" vegan. Small amounts of stearic acid, derived from animal fat, are added to tires to stregthen the rubber. Yet most vegans, knowing this, still ride the bus, fly on airplanes, or even buy and drive their own vehicle.
I should add that the verb adhere generally takes the preposition to and not the preposition of. So does the noun adherent and adjective adherent derived from the verb adhere. A vegan is an adherent to veganism, not an adherent of veganism. It is the same as if you were talking about paint and said that "the paint adheres to the wall." If follows then, that paint is an adherent to the wall and not an adherent of the wall. If you are going to insist on adhering to grammatical errors you are going to convince the public that people who write about veganism are uneducated.
Actually I think it is better not to use the word adherent at all, as the term tends to imply a formality of commitment, that veganism does not demand and vegans do not usually have. To become a vegan, you do not necessarily join any group, or take any oath, or do anything formal. You just start living differently.
--Nomenclator 00:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that avoiding products tested on animals is pretty standard in the vegan community; what do others think? Rosemary Amey 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with rosemary - avoidance of animal-tested products is a well-accepted tenet of veganism, and the topic needs to be discussed in the article. Skinwalker 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
confusing details that don't belong in encylopedia article
I removed the section about some vegans avoiding toothpaste with calcium from bone sources and whatever. This are minutia that may be interest to vegans having a discussion with each other about exactly how far to go, in being vegan, but is not of interest to the general public and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Nomenclator 01:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Excess Soy
I removed the part about excess soy being harmful. It is totally irrelevant. Many vegans use very little soy. Some use absolutely none. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
- I replaced the soy content - soy is a very common ingredient in vegan cuisine. Can you provide a reputable source that states otherwise? Cheers, Skinwalker 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- The section about the dangers of soy would be far better placed on the wiki page about soy itself, rather than on a page about a philosophy who's adherents may or may not eat it in quantities worthy of a warning. I support it's deletion from this page. - Hyperflux (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
One sided.
This is rather one sided. Just from reading the opening paragraph, it seems like everyone who is a vegan is automatically a card carrying PETA supporter. Vegan doesn't nessicerily mean someone who avoids animal products all together, although some might, just one who doesn't have any animal products *in their food*. Unless someone can support the original view, i'm going to change this -- febtalk 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- This topic has been well discussed, please view the achieve for the debate on whether Veganism is purely a diet or a wider philosophy, the Vegan Society for example don't agree with your definition, they define Veganism as "ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Thanks - Solar 12:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- This article, however, is not about what the Vegan Society thinks, it is about the term in general. At the very least, the use of it solely as a diet should be mentioned -- febtalk 12:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can you, then, find a source as reputable in the vegan community as the Vegan Society which defines vegans as people who remove animal products from their diet alone? The Vegan Society, as a group of vegans, make the most commonly agreed upon definition public. Your view that vegans may abstain from animal products in the area of diet alone is an opinion, and not one that is common in the vegan community. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Further - Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, who created the word "vegan" would certainly not share your view that vegans may include animal products in areas other than diet. They created the word "vegan" after becoming frustrated that the definition of "vegetarian" had become too lax. And as a vegan myself, I am deeply opposed to the word "vegan" going the same way and becoming a looser term. By all means, dietary vegans may call themselves "dietary vegans" but they are not true adherents of veganism as a philosophy as defined by it's members and it's founders. - Hyperflux (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not only is it the Vegan Societies definition, but they invented the word. While the meaning of words change, when you invent a word your original meaning is going to carry a lot of weight. I have yet to see a reputable sight discuss the non-dietary use of animals as still being vegan. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)