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

Davis section

A little while back, User:Viriditas changed the "ethical criticisms" section from:

Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, claims that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production and therefore eating meat causes less harm to animals than a vegan diet.

To a previous version:

Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production. Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed. Davis gives a small sampling of field animals in the U. S. that are threatened by intensive crop production, such as: opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, grey partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians. In one small example, an alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the gray-tailed vole population. According to Davis, if all of the cropland in the U. S. were used to produce crops for a vegan diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually.

with the edit summary "Restoring Davis' argument. Please stop removing it." I think I was the one who changed it to the first version with the intent of making the entire article more concise. I believe the longer version of this section is unnecessary; particularly the giant list of animal species, the specific actions done by tractors, and the uber-detailing of Davis' argument. I propose reverting to the more concise version that doesn't have all the fluffing up of Davis' position, yet still retains the essential force of his argument. If readers want the full details, they can read the cited articles. Kellen^T 11:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the long lists of the abilities of tractors or the various and sundry species threatened by these multi-capable tractors. I think the rest of the information is interesting and useful, though. I'd propose eliminating the "field sample" sentence and condensing the bit about tractors to read something like "Animals are killed when a tractor is used in a field". Ultimately, it's not a big deal - as you note, interested parties can read the cited articles. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that sentence completely redundant with "wild animals killed in crop production." Previously, I believe this section about Davis was even longer and the rebuttal bit by Mathenny was longer as well; the extended bits didn't really do a better job of communicating the fact that (a) Davis asserts that veganism is not necessarily more ethical due # of deaths based on his calculations (b) other people think Davis is miscalculating and that veganism (or whatever) still comes out on top of standard meat eating. If we detail Davis' specific numerical claims, we end up having to put in Matheny's specific numerical counterclaims and we get into obsessing over this one exchange of articles rather than getting to the point of the respective articles and giving them relative weight to the entire article we're writing. Kind of like how the cattleman's study section got out of hand because there was a tiny little media frenzy and the section here covered (a) misreported statement (b) angry response 1, 2, 3 (c) corrected statement; in the end the whole section was removed because the point of the statements (both by cattleman's author and responders) was "vegans should make sure they and their children get their vitamins." Kellen^T 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, you're probably right. This article is in good shape currently, and I'd hate to have it degenerate into angry number-tossing yet again. I endorse your version. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Davis' argument requires at least some of these examples, and the conclusion is essential to quantify the problem; Kellen's version removed it. And, I don't see it as "fluffed" up any more than the rest of this article. Let's face it, testimonials by Carl Lewis sourced to a vegetarian book aren't exactly neutral, and I can find dozens of other problems with the article. I'm surprised we are talking about removing scientific data published in peer-review journals. I can see that the entire criticism section has now been buried in the article, so the casual reader will not be able to find it. I also see this as a pretext to splitting the sections off of this article and then claiming that we can find the criticism on the related pages, but not this one. I've seen it done before. Finallly, I do not see a redundancy but the description of an argument that represents a valid criticism of the Vegan philsophy. Due to this repeated removal of criticism, I intend to restore a separate criticism section to this article with the best sources I can find, and if that section gets too large, I'll split it off to Criticism of Veganism or some such title. I hope that solves the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Please do not add a separate "criticisms" section or create a separate "criticisms" article; what we should have is an article with integrated subjects. The existing criticisms have not been buried; they have been moved to their relevant sections -- the davis crit to the section on resources, the jarvis bit to the "ethics" section. Please also see Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section on this point.
2. As for the Carl Lewis bit, I totally agree. I have been working through the article slowly (if you have it on your watchlist, you'll see that) and adding cited material for each and every statement. The bits to do are to clean up is the (awful) "health" section, and the bottom half of the "resources" section.
3. I agree that Davis' criticism is a valid angle from which one might want to examine veganism. However, I disagree that the specifics are actually essential to his argument. His point is "vegans think they're harming fewer animals but they're wrong." This is what my version concisely communicates.

Kellen^T 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Integrated subjects are wonderful on their own, but criticism articles exist on their own as well. Please peruse Category:Criticisms for a brief sample of philosophical criticism. There will always be overlap between a criticism section and generalized subject headings. Regarding Davis, have you read the two articles cited: Davis, 2001, Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics and Davis, 2003, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics? And just so you are aware of the situation, I am also responsible for including Matheny's rebuttal. I don't recall if you were editing the article at the time, so you may not understand that I attempted to present both sides fairly. In any case, a new criticism article is perfectly acceptable, and if it is created, a new, separate section entitled "Criticism of Veganism" written in summary style and with a link to the main article, will be added to Veganism. This will, I hope, solve the problem of editors repeatedly hiding, burying, and removing criticism of this subject. Your "version" removes important aspects of Davis' argument, fails to quantify his conclusion, and robs it of its full meaning. If you had read the papers, you would have realized that it is already in a generalized form. What you are proposing is actually a violation of guidelines concerning qualifying and quantifying information, which is essential for good, encyclopedic style. And this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not an advertisement or platform for philosophical, religious, and political beliefs. Now, with that said, let me also congratulate you on your work. I upgraded the article rating from "Start" to "B-Class" mostly due to your hard work. I think it is important to recognize that you (and others of course) are responsible for improving this article. —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the submission to Environmental Ethics as reproduced here. I don't understand what "important aspects" of his argument you think I'm removing. The specific species threatened by intensive agriculture aren't important to his general point that some animals are threatened, his specific calculations themselves aren't important to his general point that more animals are killed in intensive crop production (according to him) than in pasture-based production. Can you clarify what I'm missing here? I do realize that his argument is presented in summary form; that's how it's supposed to be. Kellen^T 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS recommends using "accurate measurements whenever possible" and using "specific information".[1] And, the particularly important introductory material that you also propose removing is sourced to the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, not to EE. I think it is necessary to represent Davis' argument with the accurate specifics of "how" and "how many". Direct blockquotes can be used as well, although I thought my version was preferable to taking up so much space. If you would like me to quote Davis directly, I will do so. —Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the "particularly important introductary material" is this:

Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed.

I strongly disagree that it's important. In fact, I would say that it's blazingly obvious, and also that it's included in a much less pedantic way in the first version. However, having re-read the Davis piece, I realize that we've misrepresented his argument here. A better way to phrase it might be:

Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, claims that up to 450 million more wild animals would be killed if all US cropland was converted to producing vegan food than if half was converted to ruminant-pasture production and the other half used for crop production, and therefore that eating meat in this case would cause less harm than eating a vegan diet.

Would this be a more acceptable version? It includes the greater of the numbers that Davis presents, and is more precise as to his argument than even the original version of the paragraph. Kellen^T 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what you consider "obvious" may be based on your own personal beliefs. We need to to remain true to arguments by presenting them clearly and without bias. I have no objection to generalizing the list of field animals to let's say, birds, mammals, and amphibians, as long as we reduce the other obvious lists in the article, like 'Notable animal products include meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy products, honey, fur, leather, wool, and silk. Common animal by-products include gelatin, lanolin, rennet, whey, beeswax and shellac." We can also reduce the obvious statement from The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regarding "well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets", which states that they "are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer." Davis' example is important ("alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the gray-tailed vole population) and his conclusion is essential: "According to Davis, if all of the cropland in the U. S. were used to produce crops for a vegan diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually." It is important to summarize Davis' position accurately with numbers. I don't understand why you keep trying to remove it when the rest of the article represents facts and figures to illustrate points in every single section, like "Polls have variously reported vegans to be between 0.2%[3] and 1.3%[5] of the US population, and between 0.25%[4] and 0.4%[6] of the UK population...A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 4% of American adults consider themselves vegetarians, and 5% of self-described vegetarians consider themselves vegans.[3] This suggests that 0.2% of American adults are vegans. Also in 2002, the UK Food Standards Agency reported that 5% of respondents self-identified as vegetarian or vegan. Though 29% of that 5% said they avoided "all animal products" only 5% reported avoiding dairy.[4] Based on these figures, approximately 0.25% of the UK population follow a vegan diet. In 2005, The Times estimated there were 250,000 vegans in Britain, which suggests around 0.4% of the UK population is vegan..." So, if you want to remove the information from Davis' argument because you feel it is too long, we can remove the information about Vegan animal products, diets, and other statistics. —Viriditas | Talk 02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else feel free to jump in here. Obviously Viriditas and I have differing opinions on how this should be approached, so hearing from other editors is probably the only way this will get resolved. Kellen^T 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is comparing modern crop production with pasture ruminants valid? For example, isn't most beef now in the US corn-fed beef? I guess I should read up on the source here. -- Madeleine 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, is this notable? Is this a classic criticism of veganism? Or is this one guy, publishing one paper, that argues with one particular motivation for veganism (it is aimed to address Tom Regan's book, A Case for Animal Rights)? If this is a widespread criticism of veganism, it needs to have a broader base than this one paper and not mention Davis; if it is not widespread I believe it needs to be removed, wikipedia can't turn into a list of every argument ever made against particular version of a general topic. Madeleine 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

His webpage is here. This "one guy" is more qualified to discuss this issue than any other source in the article. You haven't shown that Davis has any "particular motivation for veganism". And, small, specialized topics (criticism of veganism) do not necessarily need to have a "broader base", nor could they have one. Your arguments for removing a criticism of veganism by a published, academic expert in animal science does not appear to be supported. —Viriditas | Talk

I'd suggest reading both the above linked davis piece and the matheny rebuttal. Basically Davis is proposing a theoretical system of agriculture and does some calculations from which he suggests this system might do less harm than a vegan diet. Matheny replies that Davis miscalculated, distorts "harm," and notes that in any case Davis' system is a completely different from the current US system, as you point out. Kellen^T 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Davis piece

The Matheny defense Kellen^T 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not an extremely widespread criticism, but it is the only attack I've read on the idea that eating vegan causes less harm to animals. It's also part of an attack made on "vegan hypocricy" in which the attacker illustrates that animals die during plant harvests; this is supposed to indict the idea that vegans never harm animals. Few vegans would take that position, I suspect, but the attack exists nonetheless; I recall seeing posters in which someone had made this attack on campus back when I was at university. Kellen^T 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see this information (including the Matheny rebuttal) was added a long time ago by Viriditas (16 Dec 2005). RexNL reduced the size a lot as part of a general clean-up Sep 2-3 2006. Viriditas restores it back to the full version on 22 Dec 2006. Jan 14 2007, Kellen takes it back to the concise form. May 24 2007, Viriditas adds it back in. Kellen takes it to the talk page.

I don't find the defense for including this material convincing. This isn't like a statement from government associations, this was an opinion piece, written in the first person, I'm suspicious about whether it got much scientific peer review on the claims made, and it has a plausible rebuttal. ISI Web of Knowledge only found one article citing it. Steven L. Davis does not appear to be a well known person. While the argument is interesting, perhaps we should dismiss it as being both a very minority opinion and very questionable whether his analysis was done correctly. I think if it deserves mention at all (and the argument is just as applicable to Vegetarianism), it is only to give some sense of balance to the article, but I believe giving it this much attention is giving the issue undue weight. -- Madeleine 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address the issue under discussion, instead preferring to dismiss it out of hand. Davis was responding to vegan claims; he was not presenting an opinion piece, nor are your "suspicions" borne out by any evidence. The publisher, the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, explicitly states its scope: The Journal "welcomes articles on ethical issues confronting agriculture, food production and environmental concerns. The goal of this journal is to create a forum for discussion of moral issues arising from actual or projected social policies in regard to a wide range of questions. Among these are ethical questions concerning the responsibilities of agricultural producers, the assessment of technological changes affecting farm populations, the utilization of farmland and other resources, the deployment of intensive agriculture, the modification of ecosystems, animal welfare, the professional responsibilities of agrologists, veterinarians, or food scientists, the use of biotechnology, the safety, availability, and affordability of food. The journal will publish scientific articles that are relevant to ethical issues, as well as relevant philosophical papers. In addition to substantial papers, the journal will also publish brief discussion pieces." I wrote and included the "plausible rebuttal" to present balance, not to choose sides. Perhaps you don't understand that what you consider plausible or not is irrelevant. You are also misunderstanding the WP:UNDUE weight clause. The defense of veganism as justified by the "least harm" principle is the minority position. —Viriditas | Talk 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What is plausible or not is relevant. To quote Carl Sagan here, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim that a vegan diet kills more animals is somewhat extraordinary, and I'm finding the "proof" pretty weak. This isn't like a scientific journal article.

• It's written in the first person. Eg. "As I was thinking about the vegan conclusion, I remembered my childhood on the farm ..."
• I looks like a flawed analysis to me. His calculations are made on a per-area basis with the assumption that an equivalent area of land would be used for either diet.
• It makes some outlandish proposals, like eating elephants or large draft horses.

This article is one guy's essay, it's obviously falling into the "philosophical" rather than "scientific" side of the fence. That is why I don't think it got the sort of scientific peer review I'd need to accept this extraordinary conclusion (that vegan diets kill more animals) as worth mentioning. Sure, I characterized it as an opinion piece, but you can call it a part of the "discussion of moral issues". Either way, it's one guy's questionable analysis.

That said, the material can be included, but I think it could be done without reference to this paper and its extraordinary conclusion. Could say something like "Crop production itself can kill many animals, as intensive cultivation of fields with tractors and machinery kills many animals living within." Leave out the claim that more animals are killed one way or the other unless we have more evidence for it? -- Madeleine 22:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

1)Davis' claims don't meet the criteria for "extraordinary"; he's responding to Regan's defense of veganism which vegan proponents use. The extraordinary claim, in this case is that the vegan diet causes less harm. 2)The style of the paper is not in dispute, and I showed that it meets the scope of the peer-reviewed journal. 3) Your repeated dismissals of Davis' paper as "implausible", "flawed", etc. is your opinion. 4) It is a philosophical essay that addresses the philosophical implications of Regan's claims in terms of the philosophy of veganism. In other words, it's entirely topical, relevant, and acceptable. This is on par with other claims made by vegans, such as their position that "animals have their own interests and therefore it is not ethical for humans to use animals in any way they see fit", etc. Nor is this any different from legal theorist Gary L. Francione's argument that "sentience in animals is sufficient to grant them moral consideration and that adopting veganism should be regarded as the "baseline" action taken by people concerned with animal rights." If you are looking for extraordinary claims, please look no further than these. —Viriditas | Talk 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The mere presence of a paper in an academic journal doesn't make its claims scientifically strong, especially when that journal has a large focus of philosophy and moral discussion. A scientific claim that "more animals are killed with the vegan diet" is very different from any ethical claims advocating veganism, it is a claim of fact and I do not see that this one has sufficient evidence. But you know what? I'm just giving my opinion here, and you're giving yours. It'll take others to form a consensus. -- Madeleine 23:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the standards of evidence, thank you, and I never claimed what you stated above. There is a second link to Davis' rebuttal of Regan's least harm principle, published at the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. I can also quote supporters of Davis' ideas in reliable secondary sources, people like Sally Fallon and others. —Viriditas | Talk 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay; will you accept Davis' argument as a mainly theoretical/philosophical one? If so, I think we should present Tom Regan's argument in the "ethics" section, then we can present the Davis/Matheny double-punch as an attack/rebuttal. As a philosophical argument, Davis' intention is to present a theoretical situation in which the "least harm" principle might lead to a non-vegan conclusion. I assert again (as above) that the specific numbers and species he mentions aren't particularly important to the 'meat' of his argument. Kellen^T 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I support including Regan's argument, and I'm surprised it's not already in the article. Quantification, such as numbers and species (species can be condensed), are important to Davis' argument and his qualifications (degrees in Ruminant Nutrition, Nutrition, Animal Science, and interest in bioethics[2]) support his topical expertise. —Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed something in those specifics ... "In one small example, an alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the gray-tailed vole population." -- isn't alfalfa used to feed animals, in general not used as a crop for human consumption? I just thought that was interesting. -- Madeleine 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the article on alfalfa. Are you saying that animals like horses should not be fed? I don't see how the example alters the point; crop production harms animals. The question is whether or not it causes less harm than ruminant-pasture production. The eutrophication potential, aquatic toxicity potential, and water use effect potential from crops like soybeans hasn't even been addressed. —Viriditas | Talk 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it was a bad example to be using, at least for the encyclopedia summary of the argument. You seem to know a lot about this, so -- what about the food-production-per-area issue? Is there an answer for that? -- Madeleine 04:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of answer are you looking for? Both arguments should be expanded, which is why I recommend developing a Criticism of veganism article. —Viriditas | Talk 21:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As a comment on the argument, this ignores the increase in "pest" species that has been caused by large-scale crop agriculture. Only focusing on the animals that have been harmed by this process ignores the animals such as mice, rats, aphids, caterpillars and weevils that have benefited from agriculture. TimVickers 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The premise, is that large-scale, American crop production systems kill "millions of animals of the field every year to provide products used in vegan diets." Davis et al. do not show how mice, rats, and weevils benefit. On the contrary, the numbers available to animal and agricultural science shows that they die in numbers close to 50%. What sources are you using? —Viriditas | Talk 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm making the point that the pests such as the Boll weevil and the Colorado potato beetle benefit from monoculture, as vast tracts of land are used to grow their food. This allows their populations to grow past natural levels, thus becoming pests. TimVickers 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that more animals benefit from monoculture, and we should allow the pest population to proliferate? Aren't pests invasive, and don't they displace other species, thereby lowering the overall biodiversity? So what is gained? You are saying two species benefit, while Davis, Edge, Johnson, Polloard and Helton, Tew, Macdonald and Rands show otherwise. Davis lists more than a dozen species that are killed during field activities. You raise a number of interesting questions that exceed the scope of this argument, which primarily concerns itself with veganism. How do vegans deal with the concept of pests? And if they deal with pests like any other farmer (which I assume that they do based on what they consider "as far as is possible and practical") then isn't your point moot? Can we assume that vegans would deal with pests in the same way (but with different methods) that non-vegans would? And again, what sources are you using? Please give me an example of a vegan farm that manages pests such as boll weevil's and beetles. —Viriditas | Talk 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that you get different answers if you count total numbers of species - where monoculture will reduce diversity - or look at total numbers of animals, where the negative effects of monoculture on some species are balanced by the positive effects on other species, which we call pests. TimVickers 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither Davis nor Matheney discuss pests. What study are you referring to? Davis does mention in passing that his mixed pasture/ruminant food production model would result in a "habitat for many species of animals and insects". The studies discussed above primarily concern the number of field animals that are killed to produce food crops for humans. —Viriditas | Talk 19:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. As you don't seem to be getting the point I am trying to make, I'm going to stop my attempts to find different ways of explaining it. TimVickers 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I got your point the first time around. But, I'm trying to apply it to this topic. Care to help? —Viriditas | Talk 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Monocultures are generally not helpful to the diversity that a healthy ecosystem has always been defined by. Large numbers of prey species may be killed as pests during production or in the actual harvests, but it is predator species that are worse affected, as they recover population more slowly. This leads to infestations of pests in subsequent generations. The practices of organic farming tend to reduce the impact on predator species (even if they don't reduce harvesting casualties), and are important to a vegan lifestyle that does not want continued and growing dependency on chemical pest reduction. Organic farming has come under attack as being also unsustainable as a standalone requirement, leading to a local-food movement (http://www.energybulletin.net/5045.html has details on why local is important). Harvesting ruminants is generally done from feedlots, so that even if the entire rest of the lifespan were pasture-based grazing, there will almost always be some grain used in the large-scale production of meat products. Many animals are fed for much of their lives on harvested crops, and the rules of bioconcentration that make meat so nutritious demand that about ten times as much food is used than the meat that results. This same rule applies to hormones and medications applied to animals through medicated feeds (milkgonewild.com has a biased, humourous perspective on this!). I have a hard time imagining that more animals are killed to directly produce food for any/all people than to produce food for animals to feed carnivorous people. I've tried to quickly find some citations more publicly acceptable than "I remember this from 8th grade science class", and found that Canada has 6,695,886,000 livestock animals (total all species) which require feed, and of this, 94,238,000 head of beef cattle (doesn't include dairy cows that will probably end up beefed) which EACH require .736 tonnes of grain and 3.434 tonnes of roughage annually (http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/23-501-X/23-501-XIE.html), all to produce something like 1/2 tonne per cow. I challenge even the most gluttonous, hardcore vegan to eat .736 tonnes of (ANY/ALL) food in one year (and ignore the additional roughage, though many seem to think this is what vegans eat anyway) and have the same requirements as a single cow. Cows freegrazing probably have less cultivated feed requirements, but I am unconvinced that they are a more efficient or less harmful method of human sustenance than direct food consumption. (71.106.25.211 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Jarvis criticism

I would like to remove this "criticism of vegetarianism" from the article:

Other critics have questioned the validity of the ethical claims put forward by vegans, stating that "the belief that all life is sacred can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or vipers to run loose on one's premises."

Not many vegans or vegetarians ever argue that "all life is sacred" and it seems to me that the entire Jarvis attack on what he calls "ideologic vegetarianism" is based upon misunderstanding or conflation and that his critique is not really relevant to veganism, but possibly only to something like Jainism (I don't know if even that would be accurate). Kellen^T 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you would like to remove all criticism of veganism from this article. This tells me that the only solution is to create Criticism of Veganism and add a subsection summary on this page. I don't see any other alternative. —Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in removing "all criticisms" but this particular argument is attacking a straw man. Kellen^T 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism seems to pertain to veganism in the context of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA), which as you know, is the most studied vegetarian group. Jarvis appears to be a former SDA:

"Most people who categorize vegetarians identify at least five different kinds...vegans, no animal foods...the "health foodist" may turn to veganism. In my opinion, it is at this point that vegetarianism becomes hazardous, especially for children...A 2-month-old boy died because his mother, following the invalid recommendation for colic in Adelle Davis's Let's Have Healthy Children, overdosed him with potassium. In a television interview, the mother said that, as she became increasingly estranged toward conventional medicine, she had adopted vegetarianism and then veganism...Despite the record longevity now enjoyed by people in the developed nations, vegetarian zealots within the church caught up in the doomsday hysteria of the 1990s have decided that the time has come to give up all animal foods and are fervidly preaching veganism...A continual problem for SDAs who espouse the "back to Eden" ideology is the absence of a non-animal food source of vitamin B12. A vegetarian Registered Dietitian who wrote a column for a church periodical asked me if I thought vegans could derive vitamin B12 from organic vegetables that were unwashed before ingestion. I opined that it would be better to eat animal foods than fecal residues. She agreed...The data suggest that most SDAs are reasonable in their approach to vegetarianism. In the 1970s, the SDAHS revealed that only one percent were vegans...

—Viriditas | Talk

Huh, interesting. It makes a lot more sense in the SDA context. Perhaps his criticism would fit better in the section regarding religous veganism. Kellen^T 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking in to this a bit more, I can find suggestions that Jarvis is SDA, but I think in order to include his criticism, we'll need to include a SDA (and other religous groups) reason for veganism, since that's what he's attacking. We have references to religous groups sometimes being vegan, but not any of their arguments for veganism from scripture/whatever. Kellen^T 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all established criticism. I couldn't help notice that someone has removed all references to religion in the current article. Don't worry, it will be added back in. Traditional religious justification for becoming a pure vegatarian, including Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Seventh-Day Adventists is easy to source, as are other influences from groups like the straight-edge music scene. I can even give you a quote: "...for many individuals, vegetarianism and veganism may displace an established religion in that they feature their own forms of conversion, revealed experience, and mores." (Contemporary American Religion) —Viriditas | Talk 22:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms clearinghouse

Some "criticisms of veganism." Can basically be broken down as arguments against each of the "motivations." My comments in italics.

Health:

• "Vegans don't have a balanced diet" or "vegans can't get enough of vitamin/mineral X" Dealt with in the "health effects" section
• Lindsay Allen comments. See cattlemen's section above for the full text. Summary: eat a "well planned" diet. Dealt with in "health effects" section
• "Vegan diet harms children" 2 cases: (1) vitamin deficiency is dealt with in "vegan pregnancies" (2) cases where vegan parents basically starved their children are not currently included in article; this generally not due to veganism but to non-feeding, still possibly deserves mention

Resources:

• Steven Davis crit. Basically attacks premise that a vegan diet causes less harm than a theoretical diet including meat. Included in article, haggling about wording above.

Ethical:

• William Jarvis crit attacking idea that vegans think "all life is sacred." I contend this is a strawman, but this is currently included in the article.
• Standard responses to "animal rights" or "animal welfare" ideas; animals have no ethical standing, eating animals is natural, etc Not currently included in article.

If there are other major criticisms, please add them here so they can be included. Kellen^T 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted repetition of the criticisms. The paragraph on possible deficiency already contained the information repeated 2 or more times below the graph'. Abe Froman 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't understood the structure of the article. The para under "health effects" is an intro summary paragraph of the "specific nutrients" subsection below. Kellen^T 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hypocrisy; vegans don't actually eliminate all animal products. This criticism isn't actually advanced, but it is responded to by vegan outreach quote in 'animal products' section. Kellen^T 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this doesn't even begin to address Criticism of veganism. Try Ecologist; Oct2001, Vol. 31 Issue 8, p20, 4p for starters. Furthermore, Dr. Lindsay Allen's [3] statements about vegan diets harming children were reported by a variety of reliable secondary sources, and represent her scientific research findings concerning 500 schoolchildren in rural Kenya. Essentially, Lindsay concluded that "animal-source foods should not be withheld from children, pregnant or lactating women." Dr. Frankie Phillips of the British Dietetic Association agreed with her findings, but Tom Sanders, head of research at the department of nutrition and dietetics at King's College, London, merely recommended caution. A related study by the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition found that 30% of UK vegans were "severely deficient" in vitamin B12. I can keep going like this. —Viriditas | Talk 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'll read the discussion of Allen's statements above, you'll see that she was originally misquoted that her statement was essentially "vegans must supplement for b12." I encourage you to add cited sources here so we can formulate more complete criticisms in the article. Also other aspects of attack on the idea of veganism would be interesting. Kellen^T 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion and don't see why it was removed. I also don't characterize dietary study results and related criticisms as "attacks". —Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was using the word "attack" in a philosophical sense; Davis' article, e.g. is an attack on the concept of "least harm implies veganism"; I also wasn't referring to Allen, but inviting addition of other 'attacks' not included above. As for Allen, her comments about veganism were removed as per Talk:Veganism/Archive08#pregnancies_section_cleanup. In any case, I explicitly mentioned Allen in the above list. What I was looking for in this section were other avenues of criticism/attack/whateveryouwanttocallit that we haven't mentioned at all. Kellen^T 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, "attacks" shouldn't be in the article: this isn't the place for them. What we are dealing with are criticisms of veganism. Davis's position, as an example, is based on Regan's conclusion which favors a vegan diet - he's not attacking anything or anyone; neither was Allen. I think viewing criticism as an "attack" is very problematic. —Viriditas | Talk 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood again; 'attack' in the way I am using it does not imply any negatives, it only implies that someone is critically examining an issue from a particular angle. But anyway. Got any additional criticisms to add to the list? Kellen^T 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything. None of these criticisms can be described as an attack, which in the context you are using it refers to strong, adverse criticism. Your description of the critics above does not appear accurate. You describe criticism by Davis as "basically attacks premise that a vegan diet causes less harm than a theoretical diet including meat" when in fact he accepts the premise and goes from there. I'm reading Davis's article again and don't see any attacks. Here are his conclusions: 1)"Vegan diets are not bloodless diets. Millions of animals of the field die every year to provide products used in vegan diets. 2) Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer animals than the vegan model. 3) More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the number of field animals killed in different crop production systems. 4) Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based plus pasture-forage-ruminant systems." None of these can be construed as attacks. —Viriditas | Talk 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Example: Davis is attacking Regan's premise that 'least harm' necessarily implies a vegan diet. This is using 'attack' in a philosophical (or, hell, a computer security) sense. It doesn't mean Davis has to hate Regan or veganism; his paper is still an attack on this conclusion. How about you list these other criticisms here, or put them in the main article, and if it requires a new article, so be it. Kellen^T 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But he's not. Quoting Matheny: "In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis (2003) accepts the common moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the “least harm principle”) but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian diets do in fact cause the least harm." —Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, exactly. The way in which he's attacking Regan's conclusion is through his by "challeng[ing] the empirical claim that vegetarian diets do in fact cause the least harm." Kellen^T 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I said "premise" above. Perhpas that caused some confusion. Should be "conclusion." Kellen^T 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kellen, sorry but I think using the word 'attack' is a bit prejudicial. I suggest you use 'criticizing', 'disputing', 'challenging'. To qualify as 'attacking', in this context, I would expect to see a very serious effort being made to refute every single point of the opponent. Being criticial is not the same as attacking. And, using a word like 'attacking' does not help bridge the gap. Lsi john 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Davis disputes the premise that veganism kills less animals. Attack, dispute, debate, disagree, whatever. Why are we caring about this? I'm sorry, it really looks like this is sidetracking the conversation by nitpicking on Kellen's choice of words (words that are not actually in the article itself). Madeleine 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. He doesn't even do that. He says, "several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer animals than the vegan model." Davis is using and supporting Regan's least harm argument, but reaching a different conclusion. I'm really tired of the us vs. them mentality you and others are promoting. —Viriditas | Talk 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He questions it? Does this make you happy? And why are you persistently conflating "Regan's least harm principle" with "Regan's conclusion that a vegan diet satisfies the LHP" (the latter is what Davis is attacking disputing "questioning", which is what I believe I wrote). You seem reluctant to compromise on anything anyone says, right down to their choice of words on a damn talk page. -- Madeleine 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Davis questions the validity of Regan's conclusion that the vegan diet would cause the least harm to animals, and proposes that humans may be morally obligated to consume a mixed diet of vegetables and animal products. Davis doesn't attack vegans, veganism, or the LHP; he only shows that the vegan diet may not cause the least harm. On the other hand, Matheny (not an animal scientist like Davis, but an ecomonist) does attack Davis's argument, mostly with vigorous handwaving. —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add additional criticisms! Thanks. Kellen^T 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You already noted the childhood issue, and it's sort of covered already within the nutrition section, maybe the pregnancy section could get expanded to cover "pregnancy and childhood"? or even "pregnancy, childhood, and adolescence"? That is, assuming these all have the same nutritional cautions / recommended supplements. It's good to address these things, I suspect this is a major cause for concern for a lot of people. Madeleine 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nutrition

we need something like this:

The Vegan Six Food Groups

kel len, judging by the above dialogue (and our recent editing conflicts), you seem to aggressively control this article, are you vegan?

Main article: Vegan nutrition: Pure and Simple, by Michael Klaper M.D.

"sufficient amounts of all the essential nutrients" required for human health are easily obtained from the following vegan food groups
1. whole grains and potatoes: 2 - 4 (4oz) servings daily
2. Legumes: 1 - 2 (3-4oz) servings daily
3. Green: 1 - 2 (4oz) servings daily for water-soluble vitamins, and Yellow vegetables: 1 or 2 (4oz) servings every other day for fat-soluble vitamins
4. nuts and seeds: 1 - 3 (1oz) servings daily
5. Fruits: 3 - 6 servings daily.
6. Vitamin B12 and trace mineral foods: a.) root vegetables (such as carrots, beets, turnips), b.) mushrooms, c.) sea vegetables. 1 serving of each a.), b.), and c.) three times weekly

and a reliable source of B12 [see below]

this information comes from the book: Vegan Nutrition: Pure and Simple by Michael Klaper M.D. published by gentle world, inc. maui, HI 1998 vegans eat a larger variety of foods than our omni-friends, i think its important that people understand what vegans are supposed to eat. its also important that people dont think vegans are calcium deficient. the china study is sufficient proof of the fact that good vegans get all the calcium they need. we need something in there backing that scientific evidence. maybe we can talk about protein-induced hypocalciurea and dairy? i wanted to add this: "Numerous medical studies have shown that the intake of calcium on a vegan diet is entirely adequate." Following the vegan food groups , "an average of 800 to 1200 milligrams of calcium is easy to obtain" according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, "the true calcium defieiency on a vegan diet has never been reported" according to Dr. Michael Klaper of the book Vegan Nutrition Pure and Simple. Good sources of calcium include collards, kale (1 cup of either of these greens, cooked, has approximately the same usable calcium as milk), broccoli, mustard greens, swiss chard, chick peas, lentils, green peas, brazil nuts, almonds, peanuts, sunflower seeds, seasame tahini, pumpkin seeds, oats, tofu, "leafy green vegetables, watercress, and dried fruit. will somebody use this information for the page since i'm obviously not editing correctly. (starfish2)

I have been 'aggressively' referencing the article and as I am often tied to the computer for other reasons, also watch this article. I am vegan. You were reverted mainly because you (a) blanked sections, which is common of vandals (b) later added a large chunk of poorly formatted text to the article, which is common of people with good intentions, but without an understanding of how wikipedia works. Also, if you are Michael Klaper, you should know that referencing your own work can be construed as a conflict of interest. I'm not sure why you blanked out the calcium bit, as it is referenced (click the little number, read the cited article). Also, please please use the preview button so you can work out the kinks in your comments/posts before they are shown to the rest of the world. I've fixed your broken </ref>, so your comments should show up now. Kellen^T 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you for helping me with my comments. no, i'm not dr. michael klaper. my name is genevieve and i live in california, if you have not heard of his research please look it up. like dr. ornish, dr. klaper has been a major contributor to vegan nutrition research. (by the way, you do not need to take supplements or fish oil for omega fatty acids. walnuts, flaxseeds, and hempseeds have the omega 3s 6s and 9s the human body needs for optimum health) anyway, the point is, that the above information belongs, properly cited, on the veganism page. thats all i'm fighting for. (Starfish2 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Okay, well you don't have to fight for anything, you have to discuss and persuade other editors that your changes are beneficial if they don't appear to be at first. I have not read Klaper's book, but including his "food pyramid" smacks to me violating wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (specifically the "instruction manuals" section). In any case, our references already cite several vegan nutrition guides, provided by the Vegan Society, among others. Kellen^T 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplifying nutritional requirements into a set of food groups can be done many ways, it feels to me that lists like this oversimplify nutrition in a manner that necessarily reflects a particular POV. That is not to say the list isn't healthy -- I am saying that there are a lot of lists out there that are healthy, it's not like any single list exists as a scientific fact. If these are included, the list should be particularly notable (eg. BRAT diet) and/or arise from more general sources like government agencies (eg. the American food guide pyramid), and I don't think this one meets that criteria. If this isn't notable then, as Kellen says, it is an indiscriminate inclusion of information. -- Madeleine 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

reference 63 about the bone breakage in vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians is not a viable reference, because vegetarians and vegans have very different nutrient intake, AND the link is not verifiable. not even from a biological research facility library. it costs money to view the reference, making it unavailable to the public, therefore inappropriate for this article. the comment on calcium needs to be removed. its questionable, and against all the evidence I've investigated about vegans and calcium.

There is a PubMed link and a DOI. Its major conclusion is that "fracture risk was similar for meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians. The higher fracture risk in the vegans appeared to be a consequence of their considerably lower mean calcium intake." Therefore its most certainly appropriate as a reference. If your contrary evidence is published an peer reviewed, then perhaps you could refer us to it, otherwise its not relevent per WP:NOR. Rockpocket 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Health effects-from userpage

I believe the health effects section in the veganism article is discriminatory toward vegans, and what you wrote seem to go against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. It has been proven you can be a healthy vegan with B12 deficiency the only issue, so I have reverted your edits, I feel on Wikipedia the most factual information should be displayed your edit[4] to health effects on veganism was not and more anti-vegan bias--Migospia☆ 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. (a) I'm vegan. (b) The material cited is from vegan advocacy organizations. Kellen^T 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You cited out of context is what I am trying to say, because many vegan websites say the only health concern is B12--Migospia☆ 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gah, keep it in one place. Also from my userpage:

You need to go back and re-read their pages on health then. Also reread the ADA position on vegetarian diets where they outline other potential deficiencies. B12 is the only thing vegans can't get, but vegans are also more likely to get other deficiencies than other vegetarians or omnivores. Kellen^T 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kellen^T 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what I am telling you to re-read what you citing and at least try to write it in a different way other your POV and attacking vegans, then saying how I am blaking a lot of information--Migospia☆ 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You did blank a large section of the article. You marked the edit as minor, and left an edit summary which read: "Way too biased, and mostly not true." I have read the sources. In fact, I've read all of the online sources cited in this article. The sources for what you blanked, as I mention above are the Vegan Society, Vegan Outreach, and the American Dietetic Association. None of these organizations are biased against veganism. Kellen^T 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No but what you put into this article is, just like all diets you have to plan, but vegans are not at more risk of being or have dysfunctional kids as you are trying to put it, the only risk is the B12 deficiency, you are trying to confuse vegan nutrition with normal nutrition there is plenty of vegan foods that contain what you are saying vegans lack just like other vegetarian and meat eating foods, but B12 is one thing that most vegan foods lack unless they are fortified, which that is why I am saying it is biased--Migospia☆ 00:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegans have been shown to have (a) lower B12 levels (b) lower calcium levels and (c) because vegans dont' eat traditionally vitamin d fortified foods, are more susceptible to having D deficiency. Most of these things come by way of the ADA or veganhealth.org, which is run by Vegan Outreach. Yes, there are vegan foods that have these things, which is why the article mentions fortified foods as a source for these nutrients. Kellen^T 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit is unacceptable -- I am amazed you would mark such a massive deletion as minor! I don't see what's wrong with the material deleted. The general criticism seems to be your personal feeling that covering this material at all is somehow anti-vegan bias. I do not agree. These nutrition concerns are a major aspect of the vegan diet, deleting the material sure looks to me like an insecure suppression any information that remotely resembles common concern with or criticisms of veganism. The material is relevant to an encyclopedia, because someone unfamiliar with veganism will want to know "how does this diet compare? is it unhealthy? does it miss vital nutrients? can vegans be healthy?" These are well understood and well referenced, these are legitimate health concerns, these are notable, these should be covered. Because this article notes vegan sources for these nutrients I feel it is being done in a neutral manner, I did not see them as anti-vegan. If you have specific criticism of specific sentences, please discuss that, but I strongly disagree with the "minor" wholesale deletion of the section. Madeleine 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Madeleine's comments, this is excellent material well referenced from, if anything, a pro-vegen source. I'm completely baffled at how this can be anything but useful information for the encyclopaedia's readers. Rockpocket 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is very unacceptable!! I am just baffled right now for a lot of reasons one is that there does not seem to be a lot of postitive wikipedian editors to the vegan article because Kellens edits were in there a while althouh I am not the only one to revert it. If you are talking about my edit being minor it was cleary because I undid Kellens edits back to someone elses, which has been done and seems to be what is known. And just for apparent massive deletion there can be harmful, vandalism and nonesense edits editors make to artciles which are long and need removal of, personally attacking vegans in the veganism article and mentioning and basic risk frorm what I am aware does not belong on a Wikipedian article.--Migospia☆ 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about your edit deleting all that material. You should have discussed it first. You can discuss it now. I have added my opinion. I disagree with the wholesale deletion of these sections. -- Madeleine 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mig, what it's going to come down to are reliable sources and verifiability (please read these links, if you haven't already). The ADA and Vegan Society references are reliable sources, are verifiable, and the article discusses their content in a neutral manner. If you can find reliable sources that document your assertions, we can talk about how to include them in the article. Otherwise, what you're doing is little more than soapboxing at best, and POV-pushing at worst. Take a look at the talk archives of this page - it is a good example of how to build consensus - read the links I cited, and go find some sources. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just did a controversial edit and I wanted to put it here so you would know. The reasoning is it seemed to me that the first two sentences contradicted themselves - but I may have read it wrong so please feel free to revert.danielfolsom 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit to me. Madeleine 00:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Should this be renamed to "Health Concerns"? The positive health effects seem to be covered elsewhere. Maybe move them to be here, or maybe rename this section? Madeleine 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the "health effects" section and the "health" section from "motivations" should be merged. I haven't referenced anything in the motivations->health section, though so i was leaving the merge until after I had time to do that (or until some other spry editor got to it first). Perhaps this would stop the constant blanking by people, but I suspect they'd just blank what they perceive to be attacking veganism regardless of the source of that material. Kellen^T 01:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, so you had thoughts along these lines. A merge sounds best, but I admit I probably won't help make it happen. (Referencing is hard work! I got halfway through Genetics and then got bored.) For now I'll rename it, if only to make it a more accurate title, you can switch it back later. Madeleine 01:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tags added by Migospia. There is no rational justification provided by this user. —Viriditas | Talk 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

In the health effects section, B12 deficiency is repeated 3 times. Ditto for most of the other alleged effects. This is POV pushing at its most insidious. Make the claim, and move on. Repeating it three times is a pathetic and bald attemp to marginalize a subgroup. Abe Froman 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The first section lists those things one may be deficient in. The second section uses B12 as an example, since there are clear academic studies which demonstrate its requirement and strong, clear advice from Vegan groups. The third mentions its implication in vegan pregnancies. I fail to see how this is anything other than useful content.

You say "alleged effects", but the sources are either primary academic studies or pro-vegan websites. I'm not quite sure which POV you think is being pushed, but it certainly doesn't appear to be an anti-vegan one. If you have reliable sources that dispute this material, then by all means provide them and we can work them in, but I don't see any. Adding a POV tag because you' don't believe the evidence personally is not a valid use of it. Rockpocket 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

POV takes many forms, one of which is incessant repetition. Read through the health effects section for a primer. What gain is there from repeating the same claims 2-4 times? Other than POV, I do not see any. Abe Froman 04:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it does repeat the same information. It perhaps could be copyedited to get the same points across more concisely, certainly, and if you can do that without the loss of information then please do so. However, I removed the only absolute redundancy I could find (only for it to be reverted by your colleague Migospia, which is bizarre, since she as she appears to want the whole thing deleted but replaces it when I delete something? Go figure.)

Regarding the suggestion that "as well as any other diet" be added, is it the case that those with other diets are as at as great risk of such deficiencies? I'd be interested in a source for that, please. Rockpocket 04:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that the opening paragraph in which these things are first mentioned IS A SUMMARY PARAGRAPH FOR THE FOLLOWING ONES. This is why there are multiple mentions of the same issue. The wikipedia formatting may not make this entirely clear, but that is how it was written. Kellen^T 07:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was how I read it. However, summary style intros aren't absolutely required for subsections of articles, and if other editors have concerns about repetition, then editing down the summary that might be a way to address it. Rockpocket 07:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"with poorly planned diets"

This change of:

Vegans are potentially at risk for being deficient in nutrients ...

to:

However, Vegans with poorly planned diets are at a risk for being deficient in nutrients ...

is misleading. The point of the first form is that vegans are at a higher risk of these deficiencies than non-vegans based upon their dietary choices. You could perhaps characterize them as having "poorly planned diets," but making this characterization marginalizes the facts that vegans are more likely to have low B12 and calcium intake, for example. Perhaps a wording like:

However, vegans are at a greater risk than vegetarians or omnivores for being deficient in nutrients ...

would be more appropriate since it's a comparison rather than flatly stating 'all vegans' are at risk. I'm not sure if this would satisfy the concerns of the editors who changed it or not. Kellen^T 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A poorly planned diet is a prerequisite for these deficiencies. The deficiency does not necessarily include Veganism at all. Maintaining the link between poorly planned diet and the deficiency is contextually necessary. Abe Froman 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a poorly planned diet is the cause, but vegans, due to their dietary restrictions, are at a much higher risk of having some particular deficiencies. The higher risk for these particular deficiencies follows from the vegan restriction, this is not just about generic poor diet planning. In other words, this does necessarily include veganism. Although I wasn't unhappy with the previous caveat, the alternate wording Kellen has proposed to avoid flatly stating "all vegans" are at risk sounds reasonable to me. If people insist on mentioning planning, maybe something can be said that says both at the same time like "vegans are at greater risk for being deficient in some particular nutrients and need to pay special attention to these when planning their diets" -- Madeleine 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

intro changes

A chunk of changes to the intro were recently made. I'm okay with the changes to the third sentence, but since "vegan" redirects to this page, it seems to me the sentence defining the term should be in the intro. Also, quoting the vegan society was a compromise from a few months back, that seems to have kept the intro fairly stable; removing the source for the quote, while it's a little less unweildy, doesn't make this as clear and I suspect will result in further disagreement about the intro, particularly from new contributors. Kellen^T 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do any other editors care to weigh in on this? Lsi john responds in the next section down. Kellen^T 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? Kellen^T 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Health sections

I disagree with your changes to Health. One of the reasons for choosing veganism is health. Presumably, that would be 'health benefits'. Though there could be a 'health' category, and then 'health benefits' & 'health concerns' as sub categories. .. then even deeper sub-categories under 'concerns' for each concern. I actually started with that, but deleted it as too cumbersome. Lsi john 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you might have put this reply in the wrong place. Feel free to move it and my response if that's the case. My changes were just to put everything under a common "health" header; "benefits" and "concerns" are sub-sections of this. I didn't make any textual changes. Kellen^T 00:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit-comment about removing the benefits section entirely.

"slight reorganization so everything is under "health". it would be better for there not to be a "benefits" section imho, and for most of that section to be removed or properly cited"

The lead says 'perceived benefits of health' is one of the considerations for being a vegan. Therefore, a section regarding health benefits is most appropriate. Whether you or I believe there are any benefits isn't relevant. If there are sources which say that there are benefits, then 'health benefits' is an appropriate title for a section.

(For the record) I believe there are health benefits. Lsi john 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaha! In general my position is that having distinct pro- and anti- sections in an article is a bad thing, and having 'benefits' and 'concerns' sections in 'health' are similar to this. I think we can clearly state all information regarding vegan health without relying on making them into pro- or anti- type sections as these sections tend to attract trolling and charges of POV. That's what I meant when I made that statement. The ADA position, vegan society, and vegan outreach all do a fairly NPOV survey of vegan health issues. Kellen^T 02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that every statement is neutral, nor every section. NPOV means that every significant view is presented fairly and without bias. e.g.: (you pick the NPOV one):

1. Dr. Helman, PhD, said that vegans should take vitamin supplements.
2. Dr. Helman, PhD, after three malpractice lawsuits, a divorce, and two drunk driving convictions, said that vegans should take vitamin supplements.
3. Dr. Helman, PhD, best-selling author, winner of 3 nobel awards and personal physician to 3 former presidents, said that vegans should take vitamin supplements.

If 'health benefits' is part of the material, it can legitimately be a section title.

Similarly, if there are health risks, (which is a section), there would presumably be the alternate health benefits.

Anyway, I've given my view, and why. Lsi john 02:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm not charging that having distinct sections violates NPOV. What I'm saying is that these distinct sections are magnets for newbies and trolls and that it's possible to write a health section without relying on what amount to pro- and anti- sections. I don't think we have exactly that in the article right now, but we have definitely had that in the past. I personally favor an integrated approach, that is all. Kellen^T 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Write your article for the reader, not for the trolls. When you go to a website to read a review of a new car you are thinking about buying, do you want it all rolled into one, or would you prefer pro's and con's listed separately? I'm an analyst, so I want them listed in detail and separated, alphabetized and chronological, with multicolored index tabs. But there are other personality types who will see it differently. A good article will find a way that works for everyone. You'll never stop trolls. Write with your reader in mind. Lsi john 02:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why I want a stand alone criticism section. —Viriditas | Talk 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A separate section for criticism is often a good idea. Which, by the way, is why I supported separate Health Benefits and a Health Concerns/Risks sections (above). Lsi john 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My Changes

I practice WP:BRD. be Bold, get Reverted, Discuss.

Until two days ago, I had no idea that veganism existed. (Well sort of). I knew it existed, but not really.

I'm going to be blunt, because thats how I tend to be sometimes.

The Lead was not well written and appeared to be a compromise which included things that, quite frankly, didn't need to be there. I read it, I re-wrote it, I read it again, I re-wrote it again.. and ultimately, I believe it still says everything that it said before, but in a much clearer way.

The first sentence combined what veganism IS with WHY people choose it. That was confusing and not well written. Tell the readers what it is and then tell them why. Putting the 'why' inside the 'what it is' is POV. It gently leads the reader to a desired view. Therefore, I reworded the first paragraph.

This is an article about veganism, not vegan. Whether or not vegan redirects here isn't really relevant. The article title isn't: veganism and vegans. People looking for vegan, and ending up at veganism, will figure it out. Cluttering up the lead, in order to explain a redirect, is unnecessary and redundant. Besides the fact that the definition for vegan should be obvious. Therefore, I moved the defintion to the definition section.

I added a third paragraph about health. That seemed to be a major part of this article and deserved a paragraph in the lead. I'm not tied to the words I put in the paragraph, but it seemed to be an appropriate paragraph for the lead of this article.

Also, we don't need to justify our sources. If we have to 'build up' the value of a source, by citing it in the lead, then I question whether or not we're making a POV statement. All our sources should be reliable.

I also combined the two HEALTH sections. Having them spread out like that, was.. well.. odd.

Thats my contribution for now.

Peace in God. Lsi john 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok, now that I've probably pissed off everyone, and had my cup of coffee, I'll change hats.

There is some good stuff in this article. There is a lot of potential here for it to be a good article.

But there is a bit of work that needs to be done first. So I suggest, and request that everyone start working together on compromise. There is room for everyone's opinion (as long as there are facts to back it up).

You have a good start here, don't get hung up in POV on any issue.

And try to keep in mind that people will be reading this article. Filling it full of statistics and facts doesn't make it readable. Its not required that you 'exactly' cite a source, as long as you 'get it right' and don't twist the meaning. Notice that I didnt put any sources in the new paragraph in the lead. Because I took that information from the article, where it's already sourced.

If someone wishes to, they can tack some sourcing to it, but as long as the original sources remain in the article below, then the material is sourced and verifiable.

Lsi john 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say: "If we have to 'build up' the value of a source, by citing it in the lead, question whether or not we're making a POV statement." I think you're referring to the reliance upon the Vegan Society quote. The fact of the matter is that the Vegan Society originally created the word veganism and defined its meaning, so it's pretty authoritative. If you had some other concern, can you clarify it? Kellen^T 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My specific concern was in the aparent need to say that the Vegan Society was the source. Either they are a reliable source, or they arent. If they aren't then we shouldn't be citing them. If they are, then simply cite them and be done. It's unnecessary to say who said it. That is an attempt to 'build credibility' for the statement, and is unnecessary. The readers will 'assume' that the statement is credible, simply because we make it. Lsi john 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in answer to an implied question; there were two health sections because the one in "motivations" had been there for a long time, then a "health criticism" section was created, which was then edited to be more NPOV and provide direct health-related info. The "health motivations" section has remained basically unedited, and as such is a collection of random junk that people have dropped into the article. They should have been merged, as you have done. I suggested this multiple times above, but was waiting to edit down the motivations section. Kellen^T 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it just takes a fresh face, to kick things forward. Lsi john 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BSE section

I've removed the BSE section from "health benefits." It read:

There are also claims that industry livestock feeding practices pose health threats to human consumers. According to Dr. Michael Greger [5] in a January 2004 lecture at MIT (which is the basis for Whistleblower, a 2007 documentary film by Jeff Bellamar) each year more than one million tons of animal excrement are fed back to farm animals raised for human consumption to lower the feed costs. He also says that up to 10% of blood from killed animals is mixed into some cattle feed, and up to 30% of some poultry feed is made up of the blood. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, is believed to be caused by cows being fed with contaminated meat and bone meal, a high-protein substance obtained from the remnants of butchered animals, including cows and sheep. In most parts of the developed world, such remnants are no longer allowed in feed for ruminant animals, and the World Health Organization recommends a complete ban on ruminant-to-ruminant feeding, but the practice persists in a few countries.

My reason for removing it is that it doesn't specifically say anything regarding veganism (although whoever added it is implying that vegans aren't subject to this threat). Also, the "citation" for Greger is just a link to the top page of his website, which provides little information. Perhaps WHO ban is relevant to the BSE article, but it doesn't appear to have much relevance here. Kellen^T 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is currently worded, I agree. However, I can also see how it could tie into a 'reason' for being vegan. I suspect that the animal rights folks will see the deletion as improper. Since I don't really know anything at all about the specifics of this subject, I don't currently have the knowledge to work that into a statement about "health concerns about blood in animal feed" .. which lead to the choice of veganism. And, any such statement would need to be citable, or it would be original research.

That is one of the things I referred to above... a list of facts and details.. that simply don't tie in well to the article. Lsi john 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Post here

Can you please show me the specific source that says being a vegan there are more at risk?--Migospia †♥ 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Are all of these active topics? This talk page seems to long and some may need to be archived.--Migospia †♥ 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Two issues. Firstly I don't believe the article says vegans are more at risk [than non-vegans], it says vegans (with poorly planned diets) are at risk, the relative levels of risk are not discussed. That notwithstanding, and even though I know nothing about veganism, it didn't take me long to find a number of examples in the literature:

• "... vegans are more likely to be at risk of cobalamin deficiency" (Waldmann et al. 2003. Homocysteine and cobalamin status in German vegans. Public Health Nutrition: 7(3), 467–472.
• "...In Western countries... the risk of vitamin B-12 deficiency for vegans may be greater." The American Dietetic Association. 1993. Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 93, Number 11.
• "[In a recent study] 58 percent of strict vegans and 34 percent of moderate vegans had a vitamin B12 deficiency, based on the concentration of vitamin B12 in their blood {this is higher than the average for omnivores}. They also had high concentrations of homocysteine [which] can be caused by a vitamin B12 deficiency...Vegans should strive for an adequate vitamin B12 intake, both to prevent vitamin B12 deficiency and to reduce risk of heart disease." R Mangels. 2006. Scientific Update, Vegetarian Journal Issue 3.

Having addressed this, could your now please remove your unjustified tagging of this section? Rockpocket 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is tagged right and not unjustified, it says: an editor is concerned that statements of fact in this article may be misleading, I think someone better fix this section because it is misleading: The position of the American Dietetic Association is that "appropriately planned" vegan diets "are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."[44] However, vegans with poorly planned diets are at a risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12,[51] vitamin D,[52] calcium,[53][52] iodine[54] and omega-3 fatty acids.[55] These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences, including anemia,[56] rickets[57] and cretinism[58] in children, and osteomalacia[57] and hyperthyroidism[58] in adults.

I mean why is it even there and why under Specific nutrients, shouldn't there be something -http://www.vegsource.com/nutrition/pyramid_vegan.htm- there instead? It makes way more since and is not misleading nor confusing if done right. Also what is this: Precautions-Main article: Vegan nutrition, there is nothing written there or anything. You know people say you are nice and you seem like you can be, but the tone, wording and authority you use when speaking with me makes me a bit nervous and upset.--Migospia †♥ 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also that is not to be considered an insult or personal attack so please don't turn it around and make it seem that way I am just expressing my concerts from where I am coming from and how it all comes across because maybe you don't mean to come of so hurtful all the time--Migospia †♥ 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to be hurtful and I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I no other editor here has expressed concerns about my "tone, wording and authority." Moreover, when I did attempt to communicate with you on friendly terms, you completely ignored me and continued edit-warring, therefore - as an administrator attempting to deal with 3RR issues - I had little choice but to take a more authoritative tone.

Lets put that to one side at the moment, and discuss what you have actually said above. You asked for a "specific source that says being a vegan there are more at risk" presumably because that was what you considered to be misleading. I provided that and, naturally enough, asked if you would remove the template, since it is no longer justified (i.e. the thing you considered to be misleading is now verified). You then replied and said it is misleading, then quoted back the same sentence which has just been verified. I'm not sure what more you want to be convinced that this content is suitable. You ask "why is it even there". Well, its there because its relevent and its verifiable. You then suggest we use another source [6]. Well, that is interesting, but it appears to me to be an image of some vegetables, its hardly rich in information. What exactly would you like to use that source to say?

I could be wrong, but It appears to me that you don't believe that vegans are at risk of deficiencies, and therefore you don't think it should be noted. Is that correct? Or perhaps you do believe they are at risk, but don't think it is significant enough to be noted? It would really help if you could tell us exactly what your issue is with this sourced content and exactly what you would like to see in its place. Rockpocket 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I asked for what is says specifically and what is wrote is nothing like that but I know vegans are at higher risk for B12 deficiency, but the others? And yes you are wrong, vegans are at risk but so are vegetarians and meat eaters so I don't know why single vegans out I mean in the meat or food article does it state all of what could go wrong if you don't eat right?
But if other editors feel it is needed can it be at least listed under something other than specific nutrients and also be worded differently and why mention so many diseases you can get. -Maybe something like this under Precautions:
The position of the American Dietetic Association is that appropriately planned vegan diets, "are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." However, with poorly planned diets are at a risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12, and in some rare cases vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids. These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences.
And something that explains the official vegan food pyramid like -http://www.vegsource.com/nutrition/pyramid_vegan.htm- so it could explain how you won't deficient if you follow the pyramid it makes me sense and creates less fear, but if others still feel they need the risks then at least word it differently and put under precautions or some title like that and put the pyrmaid picture and explanation under Specific nutrients or Vegan Food Pyramid. I hope that all makes sense!--Migospia †♥ 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if vegans are at a risk of the other deficiencies, though I'm guessing the sources referenced with each one indicates that. However, its important to note that it does not say vegans are at a higher risk than omnivores, just that they are at a risk. If you can find sourced, verifiable data that says meat eating is a risk factor for certain deficiencies, then by all means add it to the appropriate page. Because something is lacking in another page, does not mean that we should remove information for here to "balance it up". Wikipedia isn't a competition: editing one article and not another is not because anyone wishes to "single vegans out".

That said, your suggestions sound reasonable, so I would be interested to see what proposals you have for an alternative version. Why don't you draft how you would like to see the section here on the talkpage (with appropriate sources) and we can all discuss it. I'm sure we can all come to some agreement on a version that addresses your concerns about overstating the issues, yet doesn't appear to ignore it altogether. The once it has general agreement, we can move it over to the article. That way we can work constructively together and avoid some of the revert-warring that has been going on. Rockpocket 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Migospia

I have requested that CyrilleDunant not revert your article tag, as it is generally considered bad form to revert another editor's article content tag, provided that editor is still a registered and active editor and able to revert it themselves.

For your part, I request that you please refrain from talking about personal attacks here in the article discussion. What may seem like a personal attack to you, could simply be another editor's frustration with communication issues and vice versa. Complaining about personal attacks just distracts from the discussion and derails progress.

What I would like to know is, under what circumstances you would consider removing your {{misleading}} tag?

Specifically what content do you find objectionable and what changes would you require in order to find it acceptable?

Thank you. Lsi john 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

-Everyone

Revert warring over an article tag is very unproductive and clearly demonstrates the level of frustration here in this article. There are several ways this can be resolved. Using revert, the resolution will be a protected article and one or more blocked users.

I recommend trying to find out the answer to my questions (above), and if that does not work, then pursuing other methods of dispute resolution.

Lsi john 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag warring is a form of edit warring, and is not appropriate. —Viriditas | Talk 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

arghh, I am trying to be nice about this and I have no idea how to respond to anything you say! And again I did NOT pesoonally attack ANYONE so PLEASE don't say I did, and like above I said the content I found misleading and as well some changes that I think should be made, but I did not attack anyone--Migospia †♥ 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Migospia, please read Lsi john's comment above more carefully, then consider your response again. I think you may have misunderstood his meaning. Rockpocket 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegan cuisine

I think it is very important to expand this section. The article should mention notable physicians and nutrition experts like John A. McDougall, M.D. who teach "better health" through vegetarian and vegan cuisine. —Viriditas | Talk 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Times

Lsi John, why would it be POV to name the Times as the source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would counter with the question: What value or additional information about the information is added by providing Times?

To me, I see it as a way to enhance the 'value' (or increase the quality) of the information, rather than actually adding information for the user. I believe all our sources are either WP:RS or we can't use them. Therefore, to my way of thinking, its all or nothing. Either we say where every source was used, or we say none of them.

Though I will concede that sometimes it may be necessary to cite the source in the article, if there is something the user should know. For example, if the 'Times' was a sponsor of 'veganism' then this might be appropriate: The Times, a supporter of veganism, cited that 280,000 vegans lived in Europe.

But in this particular case, I didn't see where it added any information or value to the bare fact of the survey.

(it also did not fit with the rest of the surveys/estimates in that paragraph, where none of the others specifically identified the 'source'.

Lsi john 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And, SV, as I said to you previously. If there is a consensus to leave it, I will gladly self-revert. To me, WP:BRD is only trumped by Bold / Discuss / Consensus / Self-Revert. Lsi john 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of it is that it's an estimate, so it's worth saying whose estimate. If it were the Vegan Society it might be less credible, because they're motivated to report the higher end. If it's the Times, there is no motive to do that. But my question remains: how could it be POV to include the information? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to answer, really I am ;) heh. Do we know how they estimated? Do we know if it was a scientific estimate or a simple guess? (I really haven't read the source at this point).

That doesn't matter. We have a source, and we cite it. That's all we do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As you point out, by citing the 'Times', it gives some extra credibility to the 'fact', which also tends to overshadow the word 'estimate', which said that its not a fact, but a guess/estimate. The 'Times' may or not be a better guesser/estimator than someone else, but I'm not convinced that they are in the survey/estimating business sufficient to make them a 100% credible and completely reliable source, which is 'implied' by naming them in the article as the source. Any reader who wants to know 'who' said it, can click on the [1] and see the source.

I think you're getting different issues mixed up here. We just cite reliable sources. The only fact we care about is "The Times estimated that ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, (worth nothing on the gold exchange), was (and is) that no additional value was added by identifying the 'times' in the text. Its just my opinion. If someone can tell me what the reader learns, from 'Times' in the article, that they don't know without it, then I might change my mind. Adding 'credibility' to the estimate, is a form of POV, because it somehow suggests 'enhancement' of the quality of the information. And, as before, either we use WP:RS, or we don't.

Lsi john 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If we say that it's been estimated that 250,000 vegans live in Europe, our readers should be able to take on faith that it is a true statement. If we feel that we 'need' to specify 'Times' as the source, then I submit that there is a fundamental problem with our whole system. Lsi john 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I don't see the attribution giving extra credibility, but just the opposite. That it is the Times estimating the number of vegans and not a rigorous scientific study, tells me that the estimate probably isn't very accurate. We should not take anything on faith, or assume that something is true. That's the entire reason we make the attribution clear. —Viriditas | Talk 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

When adding sources (information) to our articles, we apply some standard of notability. That standard may vary, depending on what we are saying, but never the less, we apply some standard.

I believe that applies to how we word the sourcing, as well as were we put the sourced material. The remainder of the sources in that paragraph were unnamed. There is nothing 'notable' about a Times survey/estimate. The estimate itself is notable, and can be included. The Times part, isn't notable. Anyone could have done the survey, and as long as it was a reliable source and relevant to our article, we could (and would) include it. Deeper in the article, where we are being wordy, if someone feels it is important to include 'Times', I'd have less of an objection. In the lead, were we are being brief and giving an overview, 'Times' adds no value and is not notable.

Thats about as many ways as I can say it. I remain unconvinced, as it seems do you. I've no axe to grind here. I made the edit I believed needed to be made and we discussed it. With only 3 people in the discussion, its not exactly a consensus, but you've already reverted me, so its moot anyway.

Peace. Lsi john 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the initial standard of notability for evaluating sources is based on authority, accuracy, and currency. We do not apply that same standard to the content. The estimate itself is notable for quantifying the number of adherents that practice veganism. I too, would like to see better sources used for statistics, but sometimes you have to go with what you have, and right now, it is acceptable. We can always improve it by replacing it with a better source. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent):The Times not as reliable as a science journal? I would take issue with this simplistic statement; This is the longest established independant newspaper in the world, an (English) Establishment pillar, and previously an instrument of legislative, governmental and society change (and resistance). Unless it was part of an editorial then any claim by The Times is very likely to be sourced from the scientific journals it has been poorly compared to, and written by the author of the quoted report. Very often it is by The Times that scientific theory and discoveries are taken from the closed world of the scientists and into the wider community. The Times has standards of references and citing, and editorial excellence, that this encyclopedia should aspire to. LessHeard vanU 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. —Viriditas | Talk 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm familar with the page. I don't see any weasel words in play here. Lsi john 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read it again. It has been estimated is a weasel statement. "The key to improving weasel words in articles is...to name a source for the opinion..." —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, reverting me, after I offered to self-revert, is a form of edit warring. We are discussing this, and there was no need to revert immediately. Assume Good Faith, my friend. If I am not true to my word, you can always revert me later.

If you object to 'it has been estimated', then say "One estimate says...". For all the reasons above, I disagree with using 'Times' in the article. Lsi john 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored it. So far, there hasn't been any edit warring. Your argument for removing attribution is at odds with citation and style guidelines. And, I don't see how naming the source gives it any credibility. If anything, it is exactly the opposite. How accurate is an estimate by the Times going to be, anyway? No, the way to go about this is to track down the statistics. If you can find competing sources, by all means, choose the most reliable one. At this point, this is all we have, and unless we have a source that disputes this estimate, there is no issue to discuss. —Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care one way or the other if we mention the Times or not, but is there any guideline in the manual of style or WP:CITE that talks about this situation? My cursory glance at the MOS didn't turn up anything, but I don't usually muck about with stylistic matters. Nevermind, "it has been estimated" is weasel-wordish, I suppose that's our style guideline. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Skinwalker, I threw in 'its been stated', but I'm not hooked on the wording. I already acknowledged and suggested better wording as: "One estimate says ...".

Also, I'm not exactly sure what Viriditas meant on my talk page, but it seems that Viriditas may see 'Times' as lessening/or enhancing the value/quality of the estimate. This would, in fact, be POV. Nobody yet has stated 'why' it is necessary to include 'Times' in the statement, or what 'significant value' is added to the article by its presence.

And, as I said above, we're going in circles at this point. I only posted due to the post on my talkpage which seemed to suggest POV, though I'm not completely clear.

At this point, it got far more air-time than it needed. I reverted, SV asked for my reasons. I gave them. They were questioned, and I defended them. Either I made a good case or I didnt. Time to move on. Lsi john 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, see WP:NPOV, particularly Attributing and substantiating biased statements. Proper attribution is to supposed to help solve POV problems. There's also a section on Attribute facts in Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and similar policies in MLA, APA, and other style guides. The general rule is that proper attribution is required when asserting facts. —Viriditas | Talk 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize we were substantiating a biased statement. I thought it was a simple plain old every day run of the mill estimate. *wiki-smile* Peace in God. Lsi john 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, Lsi john, then why did you initially remove it from the article with the edit summary, NPOV. simply state the fact, no need to define the source in the article. [7]. There's no need to play games. You thought it was POV, and that's exactly why we attribute, not the other way around. —Viriditas | Talk 06:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, the guideline you cite, is for taking biased statements and 'substantiating' them in order to compensate for POV.

For clarity: I have never considered the estimate to be a biased statement that needs to be substantiated. And, I think that substantiating such a statement, which isn't biased in itself, leads to creating a biased statement. In my opinion, when I read it, having 'Times' in the statement made it biased, removing 'Times' removed the bias.

Your reference to 'playing games' displays an unfortunate lack of good faith. I'm sorry you have perceived me as playing games. I feel I have been very consistent in this discussion. I accept that I have been unable to successfully communicate my meaning to you, as you have also been unable to understand me. That does not equate to game playing on either side.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said that I have no axe to grind here, and my offer to self-revert. The only interest that I have in this article, is from the perspective of wanting wikipedia to have good, accurate, NPOV, and readable articles.

Lsi john 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, back to the original question posed by SlimVirgin and now repeated by me. How is it POV to include the source? You answer with, "substantiating such a statement, which isn't biased in itself, leads to creating a biased statement". How is this true? Could you show me an example in another article? The fact is, the NPOV policy states the opposite, and all the descendent policies and guidelines recommend attribution whenever possible. Style guides such as the MLA also recommend formal attribution. So, can you give me an existing policy, guideline, example, or style guide that supports your belief? —Viriditas | Talk 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Your concerns have been noted. As the source citation has been re-added, this discussion has become a discussion for discussion sake. I have no interest in pursuing it further. Lsi john 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Health section

The whole health section is littered with weasel words: the vegan diet is never compared to recommended diets but with such monstrosities as the Standard American Diet or diets "rich in proteins". Which essentially amounts to saying "the vegan diet is not so unhealthy as some other diets" but phrasing it in such a way as to make it seem like a more healthy than usual diet.

also, some of the references do not concern vegan diet, but diets low in proteins, which would make for quasi-vegetarian diets, perhaps, but not vegan.CyrilleDunant 06:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

True, the whole "benefits" section needs a brutal editing. Please do so at your earliest convenience. =) Kellen^T 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, brutal I shall be -- we will still have the history :) CyrilleDunant 06:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a change you made to the first sentence, making it contrast veganism with diets "rich in proteins". I think this mischaracterizes the study referenced, which observed a negative health correlation with animal protein but a positive correlation with plant protein. I've seen some claims that too much protein is bad for you (and a lot of back and forth regarding Atkins diet), but this study wasn't addressing that... so that's what I was trying to avoid. I hadn't read what you wrote here, your edit makes more sense now. Maybe we can use what you wrote but reword it with some of the least controversial bad aspects of the SAD that the study mentions? (high fat, low fiber, low in green vegetables ?) Madeleine 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Resources section

The Resources and the environment section makes the invalid assumption that any land suitable for animal farming is also suited for crop production. Some farm animals such as sheep and goats can graze in areas where crop production would be impractical.(Kirtai 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Which statement(s) in that section do you think reflects this assumption? Doctormatt 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The one I noticed was "Additionally, an animal-based diet is far less land, water and energy efficient than a vegan diet." which asserts that crops are always the most efficient use of land for food production, instead of merely more efficient for normally cultivatable land (Kirtai 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Vegan Food Pyramid

I think there should be a little section on the Vegan Food Pyramid with a picture/diagram under health from sources from:

• http://www.chooseveg.com/vegan-food-pyramid.asp
• http://www.vegsource.com/nutrition/pyramid_vegan.htm
• http://www.veganfoodpyramid.com/
• http://www.nutrispeak.com/veganfoodguide.htm
• http://www.famousveggie.com/vegfoodpyramid.cfm

That explains what we should eat a day as I was trying to say earlier, like there is Food guide pyramid, any thoughts agree/disagreements on this?--Migospia†♥ 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

These images are probably all copyrighted but I think I disagree with general idea -- a food pyramid implies some sort of medical/health recommendation being made by wikipedia. If people do like the idea, I'd also like to point out the ADA's "A new food guide for North American vegetarians", which has a less artsy pyramid and also a "rainbow" ... possibly more informative for the labeling of calcium rich foods, and presumably NPOV, but contains vegetarian (non-vegan) foods and is also copyrighted material. Madeleine 03:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying we have to use these images, just the idea of explaining recommended vegan health nutrients in a food pyramid idea, because I think a lot of people can relate to that, and the main problem with your link is that it's for vegetarians not vegans, and we don't have to copy the copyrighted material just take the information needed in the way the average food guide pyramid, like how all articles are made. But just to understand what you don't like about the idea is that it is a health recommendation?--Migospia†♥ 03:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a strong concern, but a food pyramid does seem to imply a recommended eating pattern (eg lots of grains). If we adapt the ADA (make our own version but remove nonvegan elements), we could place a caption like "the american dietary association recommends a modified food pyramid for vegans" to make it clear that it's the ADA's recommendation and not wikipedia's, and link to their food guide. Madeleine 03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well adding not very useful non-free images is not a very good idea unlessa absolutely necessary (in this case, the fair use argument would be tenuous). CyrilleDunant 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again I am not talking about adding not very useful non-free images, just the talking about the vegan pymarid with a diagram to help vegas and non vegans understand, I am shocked that is not on here already, I mean we even have a section tellin people the risk of being vegan and not even the vegan pymarid on the vegan article?--Migospia†♥ 07:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel concerned, why don't you draw one? If your image is not very-well finished, it might well be that another wikipedian will create a new one from the template you have provided, if the template is free to use.CyrilleDunant 07:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking in pure hypotheticals. If you check my userpage, you'll see that I've already made a fair number of images for wikipedia. But I'm finding it very irritating when you act "shocked" that it's not here already, please respect that it's a fair amount of work to make images and while you may think this image is important, others haven't felt the lack of a "food pyramid" was a critical deficit in this article. After all, other dietary articles do not have custom food pyramids -- eg Vegetarianism and Atkins Nutritional Approach. I don't think it was an issue until you brought it up just now. Madeleine 15:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine find it very irritating, how do you think I feel? And I am not just talking about the image read what I wrote again pease before you jump to conclusions and find things irritating. And it may not have been an issue or not but the vegan article still needs a lot of work and a section like this can help, we may not even need a picture to explain the nutrients, please re-read what I wrote.--Migospia†♥ 21:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vegan_food_pyramid.svg -- Madeleine 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Guess that was a waste of my time. Ah well. -- Madeleine 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a waste of time. I just added the image both to the Veganism article and the vegan nutrition article. Since nobody that participated in this discussion has thanked you for doing this, I will. Thanks Madeleine, the image looks awesome. mako (talk•contribs) 13:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also are all of these open topics/debates, maybe we can archive what is not--Migospia†♥ 02:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Risks

What is exactly the problem with a version that is clear, and in accordance with the source? Namely, vegans with poorly planned diets are at risk of several deficiencies. This is a fact (or at least extensively sourced) Why not put it? And since when is anemia not a severe condition? CyrilleDunant 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That was the problem it was tagged somebody moved it, it is not clear at all and misleading. And anemia is not consider a serious diseases, maybe aplastic anemia is which is not the same thing, but according to doctors it is not serious/severe enough, maybe some that have it may think it is but that and the way the paragraph is written is POV and we try to stay away from turning Wikipedia into POV articles.--Migospia†♥ 07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the sentence you find misleading does not mean what you think it means... From you comments, it might be that you are not a native speaker, but please, try to explain in which way the sentence incriminated could mean something different than what it actually means?CyrilleDunant 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think rickets (and cretinism) are widely defined as serious conditions, e.g.:

• "Rickets is a serious condition and steps to prevent it are very important" [8]
• "It is a serious condition and one that we know how to prevent." [9]
• "A deficiency of vitamin D causes rickets, a serious condition that can cause skeletal abnormalities and failure to thrive." [10]
• "Cretinism causes very serious retardation of physical and mental development" [11]
• " A lack of the nutrient causes various disorders, from stunted growth to cretinism, a most serious condition." [12]

Rockpocket 07:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again almost anybody can make almost any disorder *serious*--Migospia†♥ 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sources above aren't reliable for veganism e.g. Islamonline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds awfully nitpicky to me, why does it matter? Are you saying cretinism isn't serious? It's not like these references were for use in the article itself, they were only being used to illustrate that generally people consider these conditions "serious". Madeleine 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter that we use reliable sources? Are you serious? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am "serious" that I think it's nitpicking and sidetracking the discussion to criticize one of a list of sources merely gathered on a discussion page to reflect how "serious" a condition is perceived to be ("severely stunted physical and mental growth" ... sounds "serious" to me!). Cretinism is serious and I find the argument Phoeba makes questioning whether any vegan ever actually got it much more valid. Because of that argument, I agree with removing hypothetical consequences of deficiencies which lack evidence of actually occurring in practicing vegans. Madeleine 21:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough, I simply did a quick google search and pulled a range of hits. My aim was to indicate that it is widely described as such. The other sources are from doctors, an encyclopaedia, educational programmes. One would expect those to be reliable enough (combined with the rather obvious common sense appreciation that something that can cause significant physical and/or mental retardation is not trivial). As per Madeline, I don't quite see what the problem is here. The seriousness of a disease is not in any way a criticism of veganism. Rockpocket 21:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Even in the Wikiepdia article, they are not stated serious--Migospia†♥ 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts) I think the problem with this section is that it doesn't stick closely to what the sources say. For example, one of them, Steven Walsh says that iodine can be low in a British vegan's diet because there are low levels of iodine in British soil, and therefore in plants grown in that soil. There's no mention of this in the section, which makes a leap from low-iodine to diseases which can be caused by it. The result is a section that implies that vegans may end up with cretinism and rickets, when it's well-known that the average vegan is healthier than the average meat-eater, in the West anyway (not necessarily elsewhere). (Do we have an example of a single vegan who developed cretinism or rickets because of it?) I think we need to be careful to write a section that truly reflects medical concerns, not one that looks like a scare story.

I commented out the disputed sentence in the meantime:

"These deficiencies can have potential consequences, including anemia, rickets and cretinism in children, and osteomalacia and hyperthyroidism in adults."

Namely, vegans with poorly planned diets are at risk of several deficiencies. Um, yes, anyone with a poorly planned diet could have a deficiency. Pointing this out for vegans especially is a horrible NPOV statement. This is like saying that teen drivers who fall asleep at the wheel could get in a crash., which is obvious, as it could happen to anyone who falls asleep while they're driving. We shouldn't have this on the page for the sole purpose that we'd have to point out the obvious all over the place if we did. What's next, warning that someone could die if they stop breathing? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. The medical information on the vegan society pages is there to ensure optimal health. It's not there because vegans are walking around with rickets and cretinism. If there are genuine recorded cases of vegans coming down with serious illness because of their veganism, let's find medical sources or mainstream newspapers who say that explicitly. It's kind of silly to imply that vegans are going to get seriously ill because they don't eat burgers full of saturated fat, antibiotics, and growth hormones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again I agee--Migospia†♥ 21:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think limiting the article to observed consequences of deficiencies in vegans is reasonable. Saying vegans are at higher risk for some deficiencies is sensible (as there is evidence for it, and it is a diet planning concern for vegans), but simply extrapolating these deficiencies into their most serious medical consequences does seem unjustifiably alarmist if there are no observed cases of these consequences occurring in vegans. Madeleine 21:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A little research suggests veganism is a significant risk factor for rickets:

• "Vegan and macrobiotic diets have led to the return of rickets in Britain, according to experts." [13]
• Groups with an "increased risk for rickets ... includes infants who are on macro-, biotic and strict vegan diets, which exclude dairy products" Pediatrics in Review. 2000;21:296-302.

Rockpocket 00:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like something that should be mentioned, the Rickets article itself mentions vegans, I guess the issue seems to be a lack of fortified milk. Which is kind of funny, because it's not like milk would normally provide vitamin D... it's just become the established method of supplementation, which is unfortunate for vegans. Then there's this whole issues of D3 vs. D2...

Instead of inserting a oneliner in the intro, maybe it deserves more specific mention in a childhood nutrition section ... I've been wondering if we could expand the pregnancy to something broader like "pregnancy, childhood and adolescence". Then, within the section we could say "Because milk is rich in calcium and commonly supplemented with vitamin D, lack of milk consumption can lead to calcium and vitamin D deficiency. These vitamins are critical for bone growth, so growing children are especially vulnerable to calcium and vitamin D deficiency and consequently have a higher risk of developing the bone disease Rickets. However, fortified soymilk provides these nutrients, as it is supplemented with calcium as well as vitamins A and D."? Then again, this seems to preclude mentioning it in the main/adult section... just brainstorming here I guess. -- Madeleine 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

Migospia- are there any sources you can provide that says they're not serious? Or perhaps if you find something that says they're only serious by a condition (like "only serious if left untreated") - in the latter's case we could add "potentially" to the line. --danielfolsom 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For example you say "but according to doctors it is not serious/severe enough [to be described as serious]" - but do you have a source for that? Or is it just something you heard. --danielfolsom 21:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually though- I think I'm agreeing with Migospia here - serious seems like a weird word for an encyclopedia - even HIV doesn't use the word, but since none of the concerned diseases use the words in their respected articles - perhaps we should view that as a precedent.--danielfolsom 21:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which word/words? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I was refering to "serious" - which based on what Migospia says above is the problem--danielfolsom 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I don't feel that word is the issue. I think we need to find reliable sources that tell us vegans actually do come down with these diseases if they have poorly-managed diets. Because otherwise it's like saying, as was argued above, that teenage motorists may die if they fall asleep at the wheel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you that is what I am saying!--Migospia†♥ 21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was a reliable source - what are those above?--danielfolsom 21:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait - it seems like everyone's agreeing - what's the conflict here?--danielfolsom 22:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If vegans are not at significant risk of those diseases, whether they are serious or not is a moot point. I made this point to Migospia, but she chose to continue to contest the "seriousness" if the diseases, rather than whether the diseases themselves are relevent. Rockpocket 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and I did as we disscused it, but also I did concern whether they should be there or not Talk:Veganism#Post_here

Indeed, but you never went ahead and proposed an alternative as was asked in the discussion above. Also, you will note I never reverted your edit after we discussed it. I was not agreeing that your edit was correct or preferable, simply that it addressed the grammatical error that I had corrected in the first place. Rockpocket 23:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Yes I did I actually proposed three alternatives on this talk page and one on yours! If you were not agreeing why did you say: Yes, you can. If you wish to do that then go ahead.--Migospia†♥ 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Because you had addressed the grammatical error that I had reverted. I was not interested in edit-warring over content, much preferring to discuss the matter here. "you can" and "if you wish to do that" does not indicate I agree with the content of your edit, simply that it was no longer grammatically incorrect. If you have three alternatives to significant improve the article, why don't you make those edits, instead of revert warring over whether a disease is "serious" or not? Rockpocket 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what you don't seem to understand I did make one of my alternative edits and I did not edit war so please stop it--Migospia†♥ 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, still kinda confused - but from what I'm reading it seems like Migospia is saying there's such a low chance of them that it shouldn't be mentioned. I think that they should be listed - and the only alternative that I can think of would be saying "are at a low chance for consequences" - but that's probably npov and it sounds bad. Even if there is a low chance - having any chance at all is worth mentioning - because if one of those diseases can stem from veganism than that is a fact about veganism, and facts about veganism should go into the article about veganism. I don't think that either "potential" or "serious" should be used in the phrasing - potential is implied with "can have consequences" - it's uneccesary. We would only use potential if we said "Veganism does have potential consequences". Serious, based on the lack of use in most of the articles, is seemingly an unencyclopedic term - so that shouldn't be used either. --danielfolsom 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Slim virgin - it's different then saying that "Teen drivers who fall asleep at the wheel may crash" - because falling asleep at the wheel has nothing to do with the driver being a teen, and the sources taht are currently listed in the comment prove that the diseases can be caused by veganism".--danielfolsom 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No see these diseases can't be caused by veganism, but specific deficiencies can lead to these diseases, and what I am saying is yes but we already stated that if you have a good diet there is no need to worry I mean if you miss these deficiencies no matter what diet you are on vegetarian or meat eater, the only deficiencies vegans have more of is B12 since there are a lot of vegan foods with the other supposidly missing nutrients--Migospia†♥ 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What is important here is whether being vegan puts one at an increased risk if these diseases or not. That is the case with B12, as Migospia says, but I've yet to see any reliable sources that says that is the case with rickets and cretinism. What was being disputed by Migospia was whether these diseases (the consequences of a deficiency) are serious (I think its now pretty clear that they are). However, and I could be wrong here, but what I think Migospia would like to dispute is whether or not these diseases are relevent to the article, since vegans are no more at risk than omnivores. Am I right? Now, I don't know why Migospia was so concered with an issue that appears to be entirely beside the point, but since everyone appears to agree it is now beside the point, perhaps we can move on and focus on more relevent issues. Rockpocket 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis ref

Viriditas, I think you got it right here. The flaw of course being that feeding excess grain to a cow in your backyard is not the equivalent to production of any sort. Vert et Noir^talk 05:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really unsure, because I'm not the original author of this material, and I don't know exactly what that editor was trying to convey: the original editor was IdleGuy [14]. I hope he will step in here and try to clarify a few things. —Viriditas | Talk 06:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Poorly Managed Diets

Per this[15] edit summary, I am not confused. Take a look at the following two sentences:

"Due to health risks associated with the reduced levels of some vitamins and minerals in a poorly-managed vegan diet (B₁₂, D, calcium and iodine), vegans are encouraged to take supplements and monitor their diet."

and

"A poorly-managed diet, however can lead to various deficiencies, e.g. B₁₂, D, calcium and iodine."

The first states that there are health risks associated with the reduced levels of various nutrients in a poorly managed vegan diet. It is grammatically correct, and gives potential vegans proper advice: take supplements and monitor your diet. The preceding section in the lede discusses vegan and vegetarian diets, and this sentence differentiates between the two. The second sentence states that any poorly managed diet can lead to deficiencies, and does not differentiate between vegan, vegetarian, or any other diet for that matter. It is grammatically incorrect and awkward, though I suppose this can be fixed. It does not mention dietary supplements or dietary monitoring. Of these two, the first is clearly the better choice to conclude the lede. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a Vegan article so people won't be thinking of vegetarianism or any other diet. And the second sentence does not state that any poorly managed diet (although true this is a Vegan article) but "A" (vegan) one, since this is a vegan article. The first one is too over analytical and it would make better and clearer sense to use the second. If you think readers can't acknowledge that the sentence is talking about vegans.... (although they are reading a vegan article) it could say instead:

"Due to health risks associated with the reduced levels of some vitamins and minerals in a poorly-managed diet (B₁₂, D, calcium and iodine), vegans are encouraged to take supplements."

How about that sentance it makes more sense--Migospia†♥ 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better to me. Bob98133 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an improvement. The issue is that an unplanned vegan diet has an increased risk, when compared an omnivorous diet, of deficiency in calcium, etc, and that it has an almost 100% chance of B12 deficiency over a long period of time. Downplaying this does a disservice to all readers, and especially to any vegans looking here for objective information. Kellen^T 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

B12

• Migospia, I have to add that it's an increased risk for cancer if pills are popped and it decreases only when B12 comes from diet, as per the source "According to the researchers, individuals who said they used multivitamins, and whose blood showed traces of these nutrients, had a 139 percent increased relative risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Just in case you missed it.Idleguy 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Idleguy, I have no idea what you are saying, what is talk about cancer?--Migospia†♥ 03:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• In this diff you changed the words from "increased" risk to "decreased" risk which is exactly opposite of what the source says about pancreatic cancer and B12. --Idleguy 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Only to go the the reference--Migospia†♥ 08:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Idleguy, it feels to me like including this statement is very misleading, since it is likely non-B12 components of the multivitamin which are causing this effect -- even if the statement is technically accurate, it is misleading to the readers, they are going to interpret this as saying "pill forms of B12 are bad" and I'm not aware of any evidence that B12 itself in pill form is problematic. On the other hand, beta-carotene has been implicated as bad-in-pill-form by a couple other studies, so this is a potential cause of the effect (although I think, if this is real, it would need to be much more well-understood before being included in wikipedia). Between the misinterpretation this statement is going to get and the amount of back and forth going on in the research world trying to pin down the effect, I would argue against including this statement. Madeleine 08:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The caveat on the B12 in pill form needs to be said because a vegan diet results in deficiency of the vitamin and the article suggests/urges that they get B12 from supplements which are recently being found to have adverse effects. It is beside the point whether it's the non-B12 components or any other reason that results in such side effects. An informed decision is always better just like a patient should ideally be informed on the side effects and contraindications when resorting to a particular medication. Idleguy 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I have rewritten it instead. Madeleine 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The B12 claim is already in the article, and cited. Repeating it three times, which I just removed, is POV pushing. Abe Froman 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Abe Froman, I have reverted your edits due to what appears to be misleading edit summaries. Your edit summaries claimed to be removing only duplicate information, however the reference count went from 107 down to 86. Clearly you removed more than duplicate material.

Your edits removed large quantities of material and when I searched for deficiency after you were finished, the word was not found. Therefore my conclusion is that you removed more than just duplicate material. Lsi john 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Abe Froman, I have tried to address your B12 concerns. I have reworked the concerns section and I broke out the individual vitamins/nutrients into separate subsections.

At this point, it seems to be fairly balanced to me. I believe that the B12 cautions are significant enough to justify the amount of print they got. Personally, I don't see it as a negative to Veganism, but simply an important concern which should be considered along with a healthy vegan diet.

Lsi john 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To wit:

The American Dietetic Association has said that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency in nutrients such as vitamin B₁₂, vitamin D, calcium, iodine and omega-3 fatty acids. These deficiencies have potential consequences, including anemia, rickets and cretinism in children, and osteomalacia and hyperthyroidism in adults.

Thereafter, Calcium, Iodine, and B12 are repeated several times as "concerns". This is concern trolling. Repetitious statements of "concerns" is a not so subtle violation of NPOV. Wikipedia is not an unstructured list of information, medical studies, and old wives' tales. The place for these alleged "concerns" is inline refs to the paragraph printed above. I have placed the NPOV tag in this section until this change is made. Abe Froman 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Its interesting that you find someone who has no POV toward veganism to be writing as concern trolling.

It is not uncommon for a summary paragraph to then be expanded into subsequent paragraphs which provide more detail. And, quite honestly, I don't understand your concern. From what I've read, the B12 concern is cited in numerous places and is a serious concern to be kept in mind by vegans.

What POV do you feel that it represents? I take vitamin supplements, and I'm not a vegan. Why do you feel that listing valid concerns is POV?

Would you prefer that someone read this article, with no B12 concerns, and then get sick because they didn't know? Lsi john 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First: If you wish to publish Medical advice, Wikipedia may not be your best soapbox. Secondly, I have moved the B12, Calcium, and Iodine "concern" links to the main paragraph. The American Dietetic Society says it all in the introduction. Since Wikipedia is not an unstructured list of information, these repetitous "concern" sections damage the article. Abe Froman 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Abe, you're the one pushing pov, by deleting valid concerns. I'm done here for a while. I just spent two hours working on that to make it NPOV and accurate ,and you delete it in 10 seconds to suit your POV. You are not editing in good faith. You clearly have no desire to discuss and I have no desire to play your revert game. Peace be with you sir. Lsi john 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Why do the demographics only cover the UK and the USA? Is there no information available about veganism in other countries? -Malkinann 13:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can find any, please add it. Even the US numbers aren't all that good. The UK dietary study data is probably the best but unfortunately the questions weren't very clear so determining vegans from them isn't straightforward. Kellen^T 01:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do a massive database search later tonight and try to find some more stats. —Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Any luck? Kellen^T 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Supplements

Migospia, I have not seen any recommendations that went so far as to specify 'bacteria or non animal' supplements. I'll take your word that some exist. However, we can't make the claim and imply that 'only' those supplements have been recommended.

I realize that animal supplements would violate veganism, but that is Original Research. Adding your wording 'restricts' what is being said, and does not accurately reflect the entire array of recommendations being cited.

I have compromised and added a secondary sentence, but I believe it detracts from the article with extra words. I believe your extra wording is a bit POV'ish. Lsi john 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And, on a personal note, reverting me cost you 1RR today for this article.. if you had brought it up here in talk first, I'd have been more than happy to work with you, without you needing to revert me. Lsi john 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The important part, in the context of the recommendation, is that supplements be taken. It is the 'health concern' that is being addressed. It is really of secondary importance that they be vegan-acceptable supplements. Adding the vegan-pov perspective of the type of supplements muddies the sentence, and thats where I think it crosses into pov-ish. By definition, vegans will choose vegan-acceptable supplements. Its not necessary to add that into the sentence. Lsi john 00:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not add any extra wording I just undid you version of removing it and I do not know how it would but but I cited a source.--Migospia†♥ 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the American Dietetic Society, Other than B12, a properly planned vegan diet provides good nutrition. Of course, that is efficiently hidden by these manifold health "concern" edits. Abe Froman 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm Abe I see your point it should be changed. It says:

The American Dietetic Association has said that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases

But does not go any further, but yet

Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency

Goes futher....a bit too far making it not NPOV this needs to be chaged--Migospia†♥ 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Argh. now we have two discussions going on in this section and it's going to be confusing.

• Folks, first of all, it is a CONCERNS SECTION. By definition a concerns section has concerns. It isn't about why to 'not' be a vegan. It is about things vegans should be aware of.

Secondly, NPOV does not mean that every sentence is made in a neutral fashion. NPOV means that every significant viewpoint is presented fairly and that the overall article provides an NPOV.

For example: which of these is NPOV?

1. Dr Watson recommends wearing tennis shoes when playing golf.
2. Dr Watson, PhD and MD of podiatry, chief of surgery at Watkins hospital, winner of 17 academic medals of excellence, and humanitarian of the year, recommends wearing tennis shoes when playing golf.
3. Dr Watson, recently arrested for drunk driving, divorced, and accused of beating his wife, in a coffee stained memo, recommended wearing tennis shoes when playing golf.

Lsi john 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Next, Migospia, your link, that you just provided, does not say what you are quoting it to say. It 'recommends supplements' period. It goes on to say that 'vegan supplements' are available. But you have combined two different sentences (that is original research). Lsi john 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Read my someone change sentance I quoted it John and yes read the link I sourced it does talk about yourr concern--Migospia†♥ 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has to change

Why is the Precautions longer than the Benefits section, why can't someeone expand the Benefits and American Dietetic Association section?--Migospia†♥ 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved fom section supp

Hmm Abe I see your point it should be changed. It says:

The American Dietetic Association has said that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases

But does not go any further, but yet

Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency

Goes futher....a bit too far making it not NPOV this needs to be chaged--Migospia†♥ 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hon, NPOV doesn't mean equal words.

It means every significant viewpoint gets expressed fairly and without bias. And, personally, I think it is a bit silly to believe that 'cautions' are the same as 'anti-vegan'. Cautions are cautions. There are cautions when driving a car, but I wouldn't say that 'be careful when driving on ice' is the same as 'driving a car is bad and dangerous, never do it!'.

Also, I actually looked at the sizes of the two sections when I was finished, and they were very close to the same size. Which isn't bad, considering the extra space required for sub-sections, and the one or two pro-vegan statements inside the concerns section.

I have no opinion on veganism. That makes me neutral. I'm not a vegan, but that doesn't make me anti-vegan. I'd never even heard of veganism until this article. The fact that I eat meat doesn't mean I'm anti-vegan; it means I eat meat. Period. I also eat vegetables, and there are occasions when my entire meal is salad.

Hiding and deleting legitimate concerns, is shameful and bad faith editing. The concerns exist.. So What, Big Deal, Who Cares. They exist, so they should be represented. In fact B12 concerns exist in numerous places, on numerous websites, and are a significant concern for vegans. Reducing that representation in this article is wrong and it could put someone's health at risk. It probably won't, but it could.

Even more importantly, the article could be considered POV pro-vegan because there isn't ANY section which is actually AGAINST veganism. There are concerns, but concerns are not ANTI-vegan.

And, that is why I have concluded that Abe is so far POV that it's not worth bothering to edit here for a while. He is seeing neutral material as POV. If I were anti-vegan, I'd fight him. But I'm not. I care about good articles. I care about NPOV. But I don't care enough about any particular article to get in a fight with Abe about it. What he is doing, by deleting relevant and sourced material, is making wikipedia an unreliable resource.Lsi john 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what NPOV means...dude, it does not matter the size but the content and both the Precautions and the Benefits sections needs to be changed. Fix the Precautions so it won't come off misleading as it is as well futher the first sentance in it, and include more in the Benefits. That is all I am saying why are you aganist it? Since you apprently "care about good articles", and I never rsaid you were anti-vegan--Migospia†♥ 01:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Migospia, at this point, I'd have to revert Abe to get back the proper text and citations. I have no desire to edit war with him. And, he'd clearly prefer to edit war than discuss, since that is what he has done twice now.

It also seems that there is a misunderstanding that 'concerns' somehow equates to 'criticism'. It is not the same. At a casual read, I don't see that this article has ANY criticism of veganism at all. We are kidding ourselves if we think that legitimate health concerns (which can be solved with supplements) are somehow a criticism of veganism. That is simply absurd.

I'm told to wear a construction HARD HAT in many areas where I work. It is out of a safety concern that I wear the hard hat. I certainly don't consider it an anti-construction concept. I certainly don't stay at home, rather than go to work and wear a hard hat. Its a safety 'concern' that can be solved by wearing a hard hat. period. Nothing more. Nothing less.

If concerns about B12 deficiency are POV, where is the material which says there are NO concerns about B12 deficiency? That would be the Opposite POV. But instead, the answer is to erase/delete/revert the legitimate information and bury it as a host of references in a single paragraph.

And, most importantly of all, many if the concerns about B12 come straight off the vegan society website. Are they pov? That makes it almost funny. Lsi john 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem get it. Revert not only Abe but your edits you made while in your edit war with Abe, before the war and addition/removal of text--Migospia†♥ 07:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well a proposal - is here

Here is what should happen...

I don't want to edit war either and am not sure what edits you or Abe want, but here is what I would like:

• RV back to Madprime's edit 20:46, June 17, 2007[16]

before your edit war with Abe

• The benefits section gets an increase in valid factual information and expand on the sentance benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases....

Is that okay for everyone?--Migospia†♥ 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually corrected some factual inaccuracies that were in the older version and I'd prefer to edit going-forward from that corrected version. As for adding 'benefits' in the 'cautions' section, that seems a bit odd. Benefits belong up in the 'health benefits' section. It seems that you are trying to mask the concerns with benefits. What would you say if someone suggested putting 'concerns' in the 'benefits' section? Lsi john 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well from what I what you did not so Madprime's version is the best. If the benefits section gets increased with the added prevention and treatment of certain diseases, then we don't need to add it to the precautions section. But I don't see your question--Migospia†♥ 05:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I think evidence for most dietary things is weak. That's why I weakened the wording on the B12 reduction in cancer -- it's an association, that's weak evidence especially when just a report on a single study. And I made it clear how many non-B12 explanations could explain the correlation of multivitamins with increased cancer (including one on irregular supplementation possibly causing it, which came from the article itself) -- the current version seems to imply B12 pills are causing a problem and researchers don't know the mechanism, but it is deeper than that, it could be explained by behavior correlations! Have adult vegans been observed to have health problems as a result of B12 deficiency? Are the statements about neurological problems merely an inference from the observations of lowered blood level, with most cases of pernicious anemia actually caused by B12 malabsorption rather than a vegan diet? At the same time, I think dietary benefits evidence is also weak and based on correlations. I would like all these health claims, which are based on correlation studies and blood test comparisons (rather than manifestation of clinical problems), to be a lot more circumspect in their claims, in both the benefits and cautions section. Both sides. Madeleine 07:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate your concerns. The fact is, that all those studies exist and they reflect a viewpoint. Our concerns about their validity or accuracy really don't allow us to ignore views that are documented (especially on the vegan society website). They also don't justify taking an entire 4-5 paragraphs and crunching them into 1 tiny paragraph full of footnote citaions. The way the article reads now... there are tons of benefits. oh and a tiny casual mention of concerns.. Removing all that information and tagging the sources to a tiny paragraph, is absurd and very poor editing. Lsi john 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have said... I also find deleting the concerns material unacceptable and POV, I think we need to be discussing here how to trim both sections down. I completely agree with you here, I've reverted to your version (although I didn't want to get involved in revert wars, and I disagree with the changes you made to my wording).

Below, Viriditas has quoted the conclusion of one study which supports my feelings on this... "veganism does not appear to result in either dramatic protection or increased risk when compared with other vegetarian diets". That's the core scientific viewpoint here I feel wikipedia should reflect. My concern is that these sections are a factoid dumps for the bickering between non-neutral factions. (An easy trap to fall into on wikipedia -- people, including me, are reluctant to delete things that are technically true, even when they don't belong.) We can discuss here hopefully how to trim both sections down into a summary that reflects the reality -- that there are neither significant benefits nor risks associated with vegan diets. --Madeleine 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually he made 2 edits. in order to maintain 1RR, you'll need to self-revert (for documentation), and then edit my archive version and save it. And, thanks. I think discussion is much better than revert wars.

My edits were designed to help accomodate his objections, due to his previous massive deletion (which I reverted before I started editing.) I'm open to suggestions about the content. I was simply re-writing what was there, in a bit more ordered fashion, and making sure that the citations actually fit the text being cited. Lsi john 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. on the revert suggestion. It appears you did that already. My bad. Lsi john 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Life expectancy

It might be interesting to add information related to life expectancy to the article. "Don't ditch low-fat dairy or fish rich in omega-3s: In a German study comparing vegetarians, vegans (who eat no dairy or eggs), and moderate vegetarians (who eat fish), the moderates lived longest--and vegans the shortest." (Prevention; May2007, Vol. 59 Issue 5, p56-56) Prevention doesn't list the study in question, but I think this is one of them: "Being a vegan was associated with a higher mortality risk (1.59; 95% CI, 0.98-2.59) than being a lacto-ovo vegetarian (1.08; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34), when compared with nonvegetarians with moderate meat/fish consumption, accounting for all other variables (data not shown).[17] —Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also a slight, unexplained "excess of cancer mortality" among vegans according to Fraser, Gary E. (2003) Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease: Studies of Seventh-Day Adventists and Other Vegetarians. Oxford University Press.[18] Author concludes that "veganism does not appear to result in either dramatic protection or increased risk when compared with other vegetarian diets". —Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion for latest version

Migospia, I do not know how to explain this any better. REVERT is not necessary. Discuss it.

What are your specific objections to the current version? Lsi john 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

. Lsi john

. Lsi john Why have you made the edit you have made to veganism and engaging in edit warring again?--Migospia†♥ 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I made the edits to try to improve the article. Please indicate exactly what you dont like, and what you'd like to change. It just might be that I like your idea and agree with you. But until you say what's wrong with the current version, I won't know. Lsi john 02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No please undo them because they harm the article after ALL what was discussed on earlier and you still made those edits?--Migospia†♥ 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm really confused here. You were editing with me when I made those 21+ edits. You edited in the middle. You didn't object while I was editing. Now you want to revert and won't say why?

Exactly what do you think I changed? Basically all I did was re-arrange. What do you think is harmful now? Lsi john 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the article and read this version? Its almost all the same words. Just arranged in a clearer order. Lsi john 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you even looked? And you keep edit warring and reverting close to 3RR, I wish you would not make such edits without talk, that is why the talk pages are here...--Migospia†♥ 07:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin B12 section

There are far to many references in this section. Someone needs to decide which are the best and jettison the rest. David D. (Talk) 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter if there are multiple references? B12 is a significant concern. It deserves a significant amount of article space, in proportion to the number of secondary sources that reference it. First you remove citations, and then people remove the coverage, and then, suddenly there are absolutely no concerns or health issues at all. haha ;) *sigh*

In reality, this should be one of the easiest articles to write on wikipedia. You folks would absolutely fall apart if someone came in here who was truly anti-vegan and started adding anti-vegan information to this article.

I'm going to take a break from this article for a while. It's amazing what people will find to fight about. Peace all.. Lsi john 07:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, was this aimed at my comment or am I missing something here? I am neither vegan or anti-vegan. You seem to be painting this in a rather black and white fashion. With respect to my comment above, there is one sentence that has six references to back it up. How is this not overkill? How is the reader served by throwing every reference available at them rather than a selection of the best? Two or three, at most should be sufficient and will best serve the reader. David D. (Talk) 07:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry David. I have slept 3 hours in the past 36 and I'm worn out trying to explain 3RR to Migospia. I meant no offense and overreacted. I'm exhausted (no excuse). Normally I'd agree, that one or two references is sufficient. In this case, I disagree, at least until the article is stablized. With so many re-writes and revisions, the article is having difficulty sticking to cited sources. With massive deletions of entire sections, (in the name of pov-trolling) I'm worn out trying to keep up. My sarcasm was not directed at you, but was due to my frustration in general. This should be one of the easiest articles to write, and it has consumed more of my time than almost any other single article I've worked on. I, too, am neither vegan nor anti-vegan. Lsi john 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good

Ok, so no one thinks I'm crazy, I'd like to start off by saying that a lot of work needs to be done on this article - there are some horrendous sections that really need to be worked on. That being said, assuming the changes are made, I think this article should absolutely be promoted to a good artcie - and then soon after that featured. The informatinos that is cited here is exceptional, I mean there are 108 citations, and I think if you guys can hold off pov from both sides thus cleansing the article, then it should really be noted.--danielfolsom 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Ok, here are a few sources you guys might be interested in, some are good some are crap, but you never know. Some are positive and some are negative, in no particular order --danielfolsom17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC):

1. [19] - I added this into the article, but not well
2. [20]
3. [21] - for globalizing the demographics section
4. [22]
5. [23]

Quote

The quote in the 'Specific Nutrients' section Lindsay Allen, of the US Agricultural Research Service, came out against the diet in 2005, saying, "There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently". She especially targeted parents who allow children on the diet, "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans." In retaliation, Kostana Azmi, the chief executive officer of the Vegan Society in the UK, said: "The vegan diet can provide you with more energy, nutrition, and is bursting with goodness." seems out of place. Also, it is far too verbosely discussed - we don't need all of that, just a summary really.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe if you refer up 1 section. you'll see that it just got added. We need to have an entire section dedicated to Criticizm, which does not yet exist. Rather than shortening it .. it should probably be re-written as a paragraph in Encyclopediaezze and just reference the source. Lsi john 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree it needs moving, but not to a criticism section as they're bad m'kay. It is more a general comment regarding nutritional problems, so would be better positioned in a summary of the 'precautions' section, after culling it a bit.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the section name, in general. Perhaps breaking it up into different appropriate areas. (or culling.. whichever works best). Lsi john 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh ok, I didn't realize people had gotten back so quickly. Yeah, I mean - I've already stated this but I just want to emphasize - what I wrote was not meant as a final version. I completely found the source by accident (I was trying to globalize the Demographics section and somehow ...), but I just wanted to add it in there and let it be fooled around with - it should def. not be the entire discussion and any quote used should be mixed into the text, it shouldn't just be randomly brought up like it is now. I figured the place to put it (based on what the article was already) was in the nutritional/health section - since Allen is talking about how children don't get the nutritients they need, but I could care less whether it was in a criticism section or not. Before I found the source and while I was trying to globalize, I found a lot of anti-vegan sources, so there must be something big out there - some of what I found is in the above section for more info. --danielfolsom 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The study that Lindsay Allen cited was "partially supported by the National Cattleman's Beef Association" and invloved studying 544 children who "had been raised on diets chiefly consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples lacking these micronutrients. This meant they were already malnourished.". The study was essentially researching the effects of "improving" the diets of malnourished children, not, in any way, typical vegans. Also, please see previous discussion on the matter: Talk:Veganism/Archive05#Prof._Allen.27s_Study_and_a_Reminder - Will.law 06:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh ok - I wasn't aware of that - however, I wouldn't say we should just leave it out for two reasons. 1)Regardless of what her study was - a high ranking official said "Veganism doesn't work" - and we should include that. and 2) Only two or three editors voted delete, and now it would seem the article has more attention.--danielfolsom 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Allen admited that she was mis-quoted and that the story "hyped" her concern. She did not say "Veganism doesn't work". She said "Veganism doesn't work if...". The story being quoted failed to mention the "if", so it doesn't seem like a very acurate source. I suggest reading the links to various retorts to the story on the talk archive page I linked back to, particularly this one. -Will.law 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I searched "Lindsay Allen Us [whatever her title is] veganism misquoted" and got pretty much nothing, and the link you provided only says "she's wrong". If you can find a reliable source that says she doesn't believe that veganism is bad then obviously my position will change my position - but just because you can rebute a claim doesn't mean the claim should be included. Wikipedia is not a debate. And while I'm not for or against veganism - this page does seem to have a npov problem that needs to be fixed - and the npov problem has resulted from people taking anti-veganism claims and saying "That's not right" - and then using that as grounds to remove them--danielfolsom 17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This was previously removed per: Talk:Veganism/Archive08#pregnancies_section_cleanup. Please see this article in which:

In a written response to a member of the vegan website Vegsource.com, however, Allen said her quotes to various news sources were taken out of context.

"The news reporter 'hyped' my concern about vegan diets for pregnant/lactating mothers and infants/children by not adding the sentence I was emphatic they keep in," she wrote, "namely that vegan diets were unethical UNLESS those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods."

So there we are. Essentially she said: "withholding vital nutrients from a child is unethical," which no one would disagree with. The Vegan society said something similar with respect to so-called vegan parents who were charged with child abuse for starving their child. The addition of this section adds no new information about veganism that isn't covered except for re-reporting the media frenzy around a mis-reporting of Allen's comments. Kellen^T 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'll take your word for that link being the letter where she says she is taken out of context - but if that other link is the same discussion as previously listed then what I said about 2 comments ago (or maybe my last comment) would've applied. All this being said - this article needs some anti-veganism stuff. When I was searching the web for the demographics thing I out of the blue found a bunch of anti-vegan stuff, much of it from reliable sources. The article is obviously npov, and it does need a lot of clean up. Perhaps we should each try to find at least 1 good anti-vegan source, and that way we'll have plenty of material to work from and it'll at least balance the article a bit --danielfolsom 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The other link is a different one; it's where I justify the removal of the previous paragraph discussing Allen's comments. The citations there are valuable in reconstructing the media frenzy. I understand why the BBC take on her comments keeps getting added; it's a high-ranking search result from a reliable source that in this case happens to be mis-stating Allen's position. If consensus is to leave this out of the article, long-term editors need to be aware of what actually happened, and explain this to new editors and then explain why this specific incident isn't particularly notable to the subject of veganism. (My version of this is in my previous comment)

I totally agree that there need to be additional criticisms included in the article. The Davis piece is one attack on one aspect of veganism that is included. I tried (above, in the Criticisms_clearinghouse section) to elicit addition of more criticisms, but had few takers. If you can add some, please do. Kellen^T 22:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again I don't have the time to work on this article (I'm working on what feels like 500 and I'm dealing with an editor) - but here are some good links that could be extremely useful.

Positive

• Canadian Living - has reasons for going vegan and also has nutriotional stuff

Negative

• Times - it's an editorial - but we can still use quotes and stuff.

Africa Demographics

• Animal Rights Africa Vegan Support - just for expanding the demographics section

--danielfolsom 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking these down; I'll take a look at them and add them when I have time if somebody else hasn't gotten to it first. Kellen^T 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

These don't seem to be useful for the demographics section, unfortunately. Kellen^T 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

SV

I'm curious why you deleted the 'founded by' in the lead? I'm also curious why you commented it as 'odd'. It was cited material and seemed relevant to me, given that his name appears in multiple sources that I've read. Lsi john 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, this: Donald Watson. Why wouldn't we mention someone that significant in this article?

A word can't be 'founded'. He founded the Vegan Society and started using the word, but didn't invent veganism...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

People have been avoiding animal products for thousands of years; to imagine the idea was founded in 1944 is kind of bizarre. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Compromise - we just attribute the term torwards Watson.--danielfolsom 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I.E. (not a great example, but whatever): "Veganism is a term coined by Donald Watson describing a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose."

I suggest removing this from the intro, and leaving it in the "definition" section as it was previously. Having it in the intro is rather unnecessary, as well as incomplete as Elise Shrigly was also involved in creating the word. Kellen^T 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - as long as the intro doesn't sound like he invented veganism - then I'm fine.--danielfolsom 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

Why is everything changing like this?--Migospia†♥ 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is everything changing like what?

• As new information is found, articles get changed.
• As new editors find the page, articles get changed.

Lsi john 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think I need a little more information. As it stands, I don't think I understand exactly what you mean and so don't know exactly how to address this. mako (talk•contribs) 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

a good question

can a vegan posses and work in a farm?it appear in an animated film"the barnyard

Finding prominent adherents for viewpoints

Although I understand the desire to provide "dissenting views" to try to balance an article, it is also important that dissenting views do not represent the view of an extremely small minority. From WP:UNDUE:

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Emphasis on "prominent" is wikipedia's, not mine. There are viewpoints expressed in this article from people that are not prominent enough to have wikipedia pages dedicated to them. If these opinions are going to be represented here, I feel the article needs to find more prominent people or organizations to back them up. Steven Davis and Gaverick Matheny are particularly obscure. William Jarvis seems fairly obscure to me. While Lindsay Allen has published the the "Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition", she's apparently not notable enough to have her own wikipedia page. Kostana Azmi is notable only insofar as she represents a notable organization, justifiable if we believe her statement is meant to represent the position of the organization itself.

If any of these people represent a significant viewpoint, I feel better references than their names and personal opinions should be found and used. I am not trying to be pro-vegan in this, I am trying to set a standard to follow that will avoid inclusion of extreme minority views. I'm encouraging the article and editors to scrutinize the notability of all individuals quoted & referenced in support of particular viewpoints. Madeleine 16:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen - anti-veganism is hardly a minority - again, while searching something like "Canada veganism" for the demographics section, the only thing I got was anti-vegan pages - and again, the links above are reliable sources that work. And just because someone doesn't have their own wikipedia page doesn't mean you can't have a quote from them.--danielfolsom 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying anti-vegan viewpoints don't exist, but I think this needs to be covered in a different way. You're right that this is a significant social viewpoint, but I think it may be a mistake to refer to Allen here as a significant scientific authority on the subject — she's an expert on micronutrient deficiencies in the developing world, that doesn't make her an expert on the choice of veganism in the developed world where there is more access to diverse foods and nutritional supplements are available. Even if it's a significant social viewpoint doesn't make it a significant scientific viewpoint (eg. creationism) and the article needs to be careful about distinguishing between the two. With respect health claims in general -- news articles do not provide a good representation of scientific consensus on issues, they tend to have factoid science (often reporting on unreproducible results instead of waiting for better confirmation and misrepresenting association studies as having found causality) and play up dissenting opinions as being significant (again, eg. creationism). Maybe there's a journal article (preferably a review) we can find that would better justify Allen's viewpoint. If not, maybe this is more of a "social viewpoint" than a "scientific viewpoint" and could be discussed as such without bandying about any particular names as being authorities on the subject -- there are other news articles out there that could also be referenced to establish the presence of such a viewpoint (eg. this recent NYTimes op-ed [24]). The American Dietetic Association is an example of a source I'd trust to represent the scientific consensus on nutritional concerns with veganism. It may be possible to find an article that establishes a significant differing scientific viewpoint, but at the moment I'm not convinced that Allen is representing such a group.

I was actually bringing this up because I've had an issue with Steven Davis's viewpoint. It would be nice if we could consider each of these separately. Even if we decide to keep Allen, you might find the Davis too obscure, I'd really appreciate it if you broadened your consideration of my comments to consider whether some of the other individuals quoted in the article lack significance. Madeleine 19:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as we'd like to think (and wish) that it is, the fact is that Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about truthfully and accurately reflecting what has been said in secondary sources with the requirement that the secondary sources be reliable.

Our job is not to write about what we think (or know) that Veganism is. Our job is to write an article that reflects what the world has said about Veganism in secondary sources. And we must do that fairly and without trying to bias the information. If a doctor has said something, in their professional capacity, then their information is appropriately put in a medical section. If that opinion or information was related to a specific country, then that can be 'fairly' stated. (eg. The European iodine issue. While it is globally specific, and does not apply to the USA. If you live in Europe it is VERY important to you and belongs in the article - accurately reflected as a European concern and why).

Bottom line: We need to stop 'rejecting' and 'deleting' things which go against what we 'know' about [Veganism]] and start giving all the relevant (and significant) information fair (NPOV) representation in our article. The only thing left to debate is what constitutes significant, and I think reasonable people can work that out. Lsi john 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Are you agreeing with me or not? My point is exactly that truth is not enough. It's not enough that someone somewhere said something. That is a true statement. But it doesn't mean it merits inclusion in an encyclopedic summarization of the topic. Only significant viewpoints should exist here, you can't include every little weird idea, theory, and dissident opinion that some person said somewhere, even if their profession is vaguely related to the subject at hand. We can't include this stuff on wikipedia just because it's "true" (ie. yes, someone said it), it also needs to represent a significant viewpoint. In anything making a claim on health effects it should be representing a significant scientific viewpoint, not merely a popular one. I'd like to think I'm a reasonable person. I respect veganism a lot, but I also just ate a freebie slice pepperoni pizza, so I'm not heavily invested in it. I hope you aren't associating me with the behavior of some other pro-vegan editors of the article. Madeleine 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Lindsay Allen doesn't like that BBC story? [25] Madeleine 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the story first broke Professor Allen has sought to distance herself from it, complaining that the reporter “hyped” her concern about vegan diets and omitted a crucial clause from the preceding quote. In an email message she wrote:

"The news reporter “hyped” my concern about vegan diets for pregnant/lactating mothers and infants/children by not adding the sentence I was emphatic they keep in, namely that vegan diets were unethical UNLESS those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods. I completely agree that it is possible to add back those missing nutrients and have stated this in a position paper on nutrition in pregnancy for the American Dietetic Association. I also agree that well-managed vegan diets, plus supplements plus fortified foods to get those missing nutrients, are probably healthier for adults and even many children than the average US or UK diet."

-- Madeleine 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Factoid dump?

Another issue I'd like people to consider whether the article is turning into an incoherent factoid dump. Viriditas above mentioned that the author of a 2003 study Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease: Studies of Seventh-Day Adventists and Other Vegetarians [26] concludes that "veganism does not appear to result in either dramatic protection or increased risk when compared with other vegetarian diets". While I haven't read this book, I suspect this reflects the scientific consensus and I feel the health section should reflect this. I'm not against discussing the nutritional concerns or perceived benefits, but when an isolated study on pancreatic cancer and B vitamin intake (note that the study had nothing to do with vegans) is inserted I wonder if this article is turning into an incoherent factoid dump. Also questionable is inclusion of the China vs. Western diet study (which doesn't actually study veganism itself), which seems like a tenuous OR-ish justification for claiming a vegan health benefit.

Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs, this is a summary article. The best sources for the article should be general reviews of the diet (like the one Viriditas has found) rather than haphazardly picking a few of the zillion isolated dietary studies out there. Madeleine 16:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a well written article has very few quotes, and is written in a flowing way that reads well. What should be done is that the studies are all summarized in a paragraph or two or three (depending on the quantity of studies found and how they are related) and then the references provided at the end of the paragraph. The problem with that is that people keep deleting things, which separate the sources from the material being written, and making it pointless to try to write any truly constructive verbiage.

The reality is, that this article contains virtually no opinions or citations which reflect anti-veganism sentiment and before it can become a good or featured article it will need to stabilize and be more balanced.

The misconception that I've seen here is that all information must be provided without bias (NPOV). That is untrue. Biased statements can be made in any article, provided they are sourced. NPOV requires that sources be reflected accurately and fairly. It also requires, (as Madeleine pointed out above, that undue weight not be given to any particular viewpoint. That does not mean that we can only accept sources which were provided by some 'major' organization who is somehow allowed to represent a viewpoint. If there are a sufficient quantity of reliable sources that reflect a similar opinion, then that opinion should be represented in this article in proportion to its representation.

So now, rather than fight about whether it gets include, perhaps we can fight about whether it gets 75 or 275 words? (intended as humor) Lsi john 18:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - The multivitamin cancer association seems OR-ish to me as well. It is connecting two facts: (a) vegans are at greater risk for deficiencies and supplementation is recommended by notable organizations, and (b) a couple studies have associated multivitamin supplementation with increased incidence of cancer. The implicit OR here is that vegans are "damned if you do, damned it you don't" -- that they face risks from supplementation as well as from lack of supplementation. While this may be true (although note that the studies are merely association and have not found causality), wikipedia should be using an reliable outside source that connects these two dots, not doing it on its own. Madeleine 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as we closely follow the source, it is not OR. Whether or not it is good science, is another matter. Vegans are 'at risk' for vitamin deficiencies. Vegans are 'at risk' for some increased cancers. The risk can be managed with 'proper diet' and/or vitamin supplements. As for the participants that took multivitamins also having some small percentage increased cancer, I believe it said that the increase was both statistically insignificant and unexplained. In which case, it is not a notable statement to make in this article.

Things we add to any article should 'add value' and give the reader a better understanding of the subject. This is not an article on multivitamins and whether or not multivitamins have some unknown and unspecified associated risk of cancer. The vitamins and the study are relevant and significant only as far as it is directly related to veganism and cancer. Unexplained (and statistically insignificant) results are not relevant and probably should not be included. Lsi john 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not true, closely following sources can still be OR if you are combining statements in a way that have not been combined elsewhere. I added this postscript because I was thinking about the WP:SYN example. I'm saying there should be an outside source making this link between multivitamins/cancer and veganism, otherwise mentioning it seems to create an OR synthesis. I had argued earlier that it should be removed for these other reasons (questionable significance, just one study, unjustified implication of causality); as you say, it's scientifically weak. To play devil's advocate here, there are others studies that have associated vitamin supplementation with cancer, but it's all new to the field — maybe warrants inclusion in an article about vitamins, but not here, not without better evidence or without an outside source linking the two. Madeleine 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If we 'combine statements' that are not combined elsewhere to form meanings which do not reflect the sources we are citing, then we are not closely following the cited sources. Ergo, my above remarks still apply. Lsi john 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected your misunderstanding of my above comments, by adding back part of that survey. The fact that vegans are at risk for lower Bx vitamins, is important, given that increased Bx vitamins show reduced risk of cancer. Its the rest of that study that doesn't apply. Speculating on increased cancer from vitamin supplements and including that the scientists can't explain why, is not relevant. Lsi john 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I was taking issue with the multivitamin cancer. I still think it's a factoid that need to get summarized, but until that happens I guess you're right to keep the first part. Madeleine 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding your wording change to the lead, that is a good compromise. It separates the recommendation for supplements from the fact that vegan-friendly supplements are available. Thank you. Lsi john 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Poorly Managed...

Ok - although I have yet to get into it myself, there's apparently a revert war going on. I actually have to question the one that uses poorly managed ... all the time. At one point we talk about poorly managed diets in general - why is that being brought up on the veganism page? see the second green paragraph "Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency in nutrients such as ..." - seriously - what is that? --danielfolsom 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Why Not A Duck was merely undoing all changes by the IP that removed all statements about "poorly managed". "Poorly planned" seems like an acceptable NPOV qualification to note that vegan diets are not necessarily risky, that a well managed vegan diet that uses supplementation and pays attention to nutrients can avoid the risks of nutrient deficiencies. I agree with you about that second paragraph that was reverted, all statements about poorly managed should still note "vegan"; different poorly managed diets have different deficiency risks (eg. Vitamin C) this section is about vegan diets. So I changed that one to say "vegan" as well. Madeleine 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's there is because vegans feel that simply saying "vegan diets risk X" fails to consider that well planned diets with supplementation presumably avoid that risk. Madeleine 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

True - but this isn't an article on poorly managed diets - it's an article on vegan diets. What I'[m saying is I'm fine with everything except this statement which doesn't mention veganism at all: "Poorly planned diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency in nutrients such as ..." --danielfolsom 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed that statement. Sorry I wasn't clear. [27] Madeleine 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Assistance Rqd

Daniel, if you're around, and not close to 3RR, would you be so kind as to revert the article. Thanks. I'll report on AN3RR if the anon IP reverts again. Lsi john 23:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit I made was not the needed revert. Someone needs to 'edit' the previous version and save it. I'm at 1 or 2 RR and would prefer not to have to defend myself at 3RR. Lsi john 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was out for a bit - just tell me what exactly needs to be reverted--danielfolsom 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nvm - i think i gotcha--danielfolsom 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Allen

I have relocated this statement to the relevant section on pregnancy. I also changed that section title to include children.

I reworked the quote into an encyclopedic paragraph which still says the same thing she did, but without quoting her. Any further changes to that text need to be carefully compared to the original source, in order to maintain context and accuracy.

Lsi john 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe you missed this further up the page:

"Since the story first broke Professor Allen has sought to distance herself from it, complaining that the reporter “hyped” her concern about vegan diets and omitted a crucial clause from the preceding quote. In an email message she wrote:

"The news reporter “hyped” my concern about vegan diets for pregnant/lactating mothers and infants/children by not adding the sentence I was emphatic they keep in, namely that vegan diets were unethical UNLESS those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods. I completely agree that it is possible to add back those missing nutrients and have stated this in a position paper on nutrition in pregnancy for the American Dietetic Association. I also agree that well-managed vegan diets, plus supplements plus fortified foods to get those missing nutrients, are probably healthier for adults and even many children than the average US or UK diet."" -- Madeleine 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

-Will.law 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Will.law! I had missed that (in all the confusion going back and forth). I have corrected the paragraph. Lsi john 03:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Link spam

I don't see how the link was SPAM or even a link normally to be avoided?.--Migospia†♥ 13:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you would like to re-read the policies and guidelines.

http://www.happycow.net/ Vegan Restaurant Directory Free Worldwide Listings & Reviews

1. It is clearly used for advertising restaurants.
2. It does not satisfy the requirements for External Links - It is not a reliable source, and it provides no additional information to the subject of the article. (This article is not about 'vegan restaurants', nor about 'choices vegans have for eating out'.
3. It is a search engine, which is also prohibited as a link.

Need I go on? Peace.Lsi john 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this. I think the cuisine section could benefit from expansion; including the names of the most popular, award-winning vegan restaurants that have articles should be allowed. I have recently created Blossoming Lotus and look forward to seeing it mentioned in this article. —Viriditas | Talk 08:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's notable, mention it, but linking to happycow isn't really appropriate. WP is not a web directory. Kellen^T 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are all agreed on that point. —Viriditas | Talk 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Feedlot Radio

I wanted to add a link to my new idea, FeedlotRadio.com, to put music in the feedlots and hopefully settle the veganism problem for a lot of people. But my request was denied by an editor, which is strange since many redunant links to various pro-vegan explanations are available on this page, and no alternate points of view at all.

It was suggested that I discuss the matter here, so I am. Why isn't this a good link to add?

Repeat2341 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your link is considered SPAM, as was indicated on your talk page. Kellen^T 08:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you have left absolutely no way for an alternative point of view to be added to an unbalanced article. - 12.206.213.110 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's idiotic. Spamming wikipedia with your site is not acceptable. Kellen^T 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it idiotic? You've left me absolutely no way to edit this page. If I try to add a counterargument, it's deleted. If I try to add a link to a counterargument, it's deleted. I am not 'spamming' the site; I added it to the few pages to which it is absolutely a relevant link. You probably shouldn't be in charge of deciding what goes in and what doesn't if you have this little ability to discuss the matter, if your first choice is name-calling. I would go through the steps of formal dispute resolution to resolve this issue, as I believe you are being short-sighted and unfair.

I turned this over for mediation; it was initially refused, and I am exploring other options to get past the wall of oblivious silence you are all putting up. I am very frustrated that there is no recourse for improving the balance of these articles and that my edits are being deleted instead of improved, which is the CORRECT method according to the wiki rules. I think I've stumbled onto a bunch of partisans forcing wiki to spew their opinion, which is directly contrary to the stated goals of the Animal Rights Project on wiki.

Here's the mediation page, which contains links to all the relevant discussion sections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Veganism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 08:26, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

I saw your request for comment, though it's a little malformed (it should link to a discussion page, like this one, rather than your request for mediation, which was closed).

I'm sorry, but they are right to remove your additions. Editors here are under no obligation to "balance" articles. The objective is to avoid giving undue weight to any side. In order to have your information included, you need to have reliable sources, in order to verify that it is true and that it is a significant viewpoint. Finally, when content is under dispute regarding sources, the burden of evidence lies with the editor adding material, not those removing it. If you want it to go into the article, find good sources, which demonstrate that it isn't a fringe position. Trust me on this one: if you attempt to fight to put your information in without taking the above into account, you will lose... every single time.

If you're having trouble with the policies, I recommend trying your hand at editing some other articles, where you have knowledge but not quite so much passion. Read through a few other editing disputes and see how they are typically handled here. Sxeptomaniac 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic. People DIE because of this bull. My mom's best friend killed herself because of the frustration of being involved with animal rights. I understand your policies, and I am stating that this needs to be an exemption for safety reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 21:04, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

My attempt to add even an EMPTY Opposing/Alternative POV section to this article was blocked. What in the straight-up @#$. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 21:34, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here because of a request Repeat2341 (talk) made at Wikipedia:Third opinion about changes you would like to make to the Veganism article. Although this issue is more appropriate for Requests for comment, I have reviewed the history.

First, let me say I'm sorry to hear about the frustrating damage to your health, reputation, family relationships, and friendships that you feel has been caused by misinformation about veganism. [28] [29]

You have said that "you editors are ... unreasonable" [30] and "can't negotiate," [31] you expect that dispute resolution "options are likely to be fruitless," [32] and you are "hoping a more objective and empowered party higher in the administrative hierarchy will hear [your] case." [33] Good news: You can edit this page now which means you are one of Wikipedia's editors. As long as you are reasonable, most of us will be, too. We can negotiate, which works better when you assume good faith. And finally, the most objective and empowered party in most disputes here is consensus of the community.

Wikipedia has three core content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Your efforts to improve the neutral point of view of some articles will be more successful when you review these policies, then demonstrate your ability to meet all three. We consider these policies essential to creating a great encyclopedia.

The Neutral point of view policy, quoting out of context, "requires that, where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, these should each be presented fairly." You say you would like to balance the article by adding an alternative or opposing viewpoint which you say is not there. [34] [35] [36] [37] You are welcome to do this as long as you meet all three of these policies. Returning to the context of my previous quote, the "neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." This leads to the other two core content policies.

The Verifiability policy says that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You said your content can't have academic references, that there are none available to make. [38] [39] [40] However, you also said that "many, many people feel" the way you do, [41] [42] that you "have plenty of argumentative resources" [43] and that "the Animal Rights article ... explicity discusses counterarguments." [44] It would be helpful if you can cite one of those many people who has been published in a reliable third-party source, or cite some of the plentiful resources; you might also evaluate whether any of the counterarguments cited in the Animal rights article would apply to this article. This policy also states that "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." When you call a press conference, or write a book, outside of Wikipedia, getting yourself well-known in your field, and published by reliable third-party sources, then we will happily link to those sources. Besides, Wikipedia is not that important -- you will almost certainly get your message out to more people outside of Wikipedia than you will by adding a few paragraphs and/or web links to Wikipedia.

The No original research policy states that "Wikipedia is not the place for original research," and includes a definition of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Since you had to figure all this out on your own, [45] [46] [47] your own experiences may fit the description of a primary source, which would still have to be published by a reliable source to be used in Wikipedia. However, a few times you have said that Wikipedia is a primary (re)source, [48] [49] [50] but Wikipedia is not a primary source in the same sense.

Wikipedia definitely wants information with a significant, logical point of view [51] to be available to benefit our readers: [52] that's what Neutral point of view is all about. However, it must also be Verifiable and must not be a "new idea" [53] (No original research).

Charm ©† 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Allen

I removed this passage because it was deliberately given out of context. Allen was not studying vegan children in the developed world. Rather, she studied starving children in the developing world. "The British Dietetic Association said (Allen's) study looked at impoverished, rural children with a poor background diet low in essential nutrients such as zinc, B12 and iron, and its findings were not applicable to vegan children in the developed world. 'There is no evidence that our vegan and vegetarian children in this country suffer impaired development,' a spokeswoman for the association said." [54] Abe Froman 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting that passage back in unchanged is deliberately POV. Lindsay Allen is one scientist, as against the entire British Dietetic Association of Britain. Only reporting the loose cannon's opinion more than adequately shows the POV slant of the editor inserting this passage. Abe Froman 19:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have reverted you. Please do not remove this information. It is sourced, and our text includes an NPOV version of her complete view by combining the two citations. This has been discussed. Peace.Lsi john 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you have not read what you deleted. It is not just text from ONE source. It also includes her 'clarification'. Peace.Lsi john 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Abe: I would call your attention to this part: "Allen later clarified that she believes it is possible to add back the missing nutrients and believes that well-managed vegan diets, plus supplements and fortified foods, are probably healthier for adults, and even many children, than the average US or UK diet" Peace.Lsi john 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you also notice the subjects of Allen's study were starving Kenyan children, and the study itself was funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association? Including this passage at all is absurd. The two populations, western children in developed countries and forcibly starved African children, are not comparable. The study itself is compromised by it's source of funding. Defending this passage is only embarrassing you. Abe Froman 19:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but this article is not. The Vegsource link you added almost certainly fails WP:V, and I am going to remove it based on that unless others object. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegsource is used throughout this article in citations other than the pregnancy passage. Are you going to chop the article in half, as well? The article from Vegsource quotes Registered Dieticians. The Vegsource cites have been on this page prior to the dispute over the pregnancy section. I object to its tendentious removal. Abe Froman 19:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegsource is only used one other time, to link to a pamphlet produced by the Physician's Committee For Responsible Medicine. Maybe I'm missing the half of the article that relies on vegsource - please enlighten me as to any other time it is used as a source. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What a great example of selective enforcement of WP:V. I will be sure to point it out to others as an example in the future. Abe Froman 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Where, other than the two times I noted, is vegsource cited in the article? Cheers, Skinwalker 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Abe, if you can provide a verifiable link for the UK source, I will support its inclusion in the article. Also, if you can show me in the Allen study that it only included 'starving Kenyan children' then I would support amending the Allen statement. Otherwise starving Kenyan children, sounds a bit dramatic. Peace.Lsi john 19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I added the cite directly to The Guardian to address the U.K. Dieticians Association quote.

2. Allen's study straight-out admits she only studied already-malnourished Kenyan children. From Allen's own study: "Supplemental meat (60–85 g/d), milk (200–250 mL/d) or energy (isocaloric with the meat and milk, 240–300 kcal/d) were randomly assigned to 555 undernourished school children aged 5–14 y in a rural malaria-endemic area of Kenya, at one school meal daily for one school year." [55]

Did anyone even bother reading her study before defending it? Abe Froman 19:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The Guardian does not provide verifiability.
2. Undernourished does not equate to starving.

I repeat my above offer of support. Peace.Lsi john 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please add citations/references correctly/consistently. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Starving is synonymous with undernourished. See this entry in the American Heritage Dictionary. [56] . The Guardian sought out the British Dietetic Association for quotation. The citation does not need to directly link to the BDA. Abe Froman 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The guardian article is verifiable and can be used. I disagree, however, that undernourished=starving. We need to stick to the terms used by our sources as closely as possible. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Starving might be considered synonymous with mal-nourished, but not undernourished.

Also I did not say that the guardian isn't verifiable, I said that article in the Guardian article doesn't provide sources, so its claims aren't (easily) verified. I also didn't say I would fight it, I said in order to support it I would need something I could verify.

I have corrected the 'ref' entries. Peace.Lsi john 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I also 're CAPITALIZED' the word UNLESS in the Allen statement. She was very emphatic about the UNLESS in her clarification. I am not positive how to represent that in our article, and I won't dispute anyone who changes it again. I put it back for clarification as to why it was in CAPS. Peace.Lsi john 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Allen's study uses "undernourished" to describe the children studied. Since the dictionary defines starving as "To suffer or die from extreme or prolonged lack of food" I think it fits in this context. Abe Froman 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but its both original research and incorrect. I could make a better case for you, but it would still be Original Research. I won't attempt to debate the reasons that you're wrong. Peace.Lsi john 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when is the Dictionary WP:OR? Abe Froman 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stick very closely to what the reliable sources actually say. There's been some inaccurate paraphrasing in this section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is now entirely too much coverage for a single study. I recommend going back to the version which has been discussed and generally accepted here. While I sympathize with Abe's pro-vegan POV, I cannot support doubling the coverage for a single study in order to nullify its findings. Peace.Lsi john 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We actually get all the facts on the page, that Allen's study concerns starving Kenyans, and was funded by a Cattlemen Trade Association, and all of a sudden "there is too much coverage." On the contrary, I think the coverage is just getting right. Abe Froman 21:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Lsi John, this is an example of highly misleading reporting. We presented this as:

In 2005, Professor Lindsay Allen, of the US Agricultural Research Service, stated that sufficient studies have been conducted to conclude that women, who avoid all animal foods, give birth to small babies that grow very slowly and are, often permanently, developmentally retarded. Allen went on to say that it is unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans UNLESS they were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods. Allen later clarified that she believes it is possible to add back the missing nutrients and believes that well-managed vegan diets, plus supplements and fortified foods, are probably healthier for adults, and even many children, than the average US or UK diet.

We then find out, thanks to Abe, that the study was conducted on malnourished children in Africa, who had some meat added to their diet and whose health improved. Arguably, adding anything to their diets would have improved their health, and the ethics of deliberately not feeding the control group for two years doesn't bear thinking about. For us not to provide that context would be misleading to the point of deliberate distortion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• SV.. first.. pfhthththt, stick to the source.. its 'undernourished' not malnourished, and I don't see anywhere that suggests they "didn't feed" the children for 2 years. And they were in school and had lunches. I think its unlikely that the children in this study are the same children with flies in their eyes, and ribs showing, who are up for 'TV adoption' by Sally Struthers. I have no resistance at all to properly citing sources and properly reflecting their context. And, lets not get overly dramatic here. Peace.Lsi john 21:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My resistance is related to 'forcibly' editing an article in a contested area, without discussing it, and continuing to make more changes. That results in a bully-version, or edit warring. We were doing fairly well here until now. Peace.Lsi john 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What distinction are you drawing between malnourished and under-nourished? And the study does say they didn't feed the control group anything extra for two years.

They take a bunch of African school kids who they admit are malnourished, and they feed some of them better for two years, while deliberately retaining a poor diet for one group of them, on behalf of the American cattlemen's association? The ethics committee must have been asleep the day that was approved. Not to mention the totally unscientific methodology — (a) They're conducting this study for one meal a day only during school hours, and therefore have no idea what the kids are actually eating overall; (b) they have no way of taking into account whether illness is playing a role, which they admit themselves (the area was noted for malaria); and worst of all, (c) they had no control group being fed a standard, high-quality, vegan diet, yet they extrapolated the results to conclude that all vegan diets are bad. But the African kids weren't on a "vegan" diet — they were just starving. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with all of that, but this version[57] satisfies my concerns over sourcing. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this Allen and her research deserves, at best, minimal mention in this article. Allen's study was not about veganism, and the main connection is about a mis-reporting of her comments. Her position amounts to saying that pregnant and nursing vegans have an obligation to supplement properly. This particular position is the same as that of the vegan society. Nobody really questions it. I previously removed the content about Allen from the article, as described at Talk:Veganism/Archive08#pregnancies_section_cleanup. I do not believe it is deserving of inclusion in this article. Kellen^T 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This study, which is of minimal utility or importance to the article, is currently given two large paragraphs. Why don't we just kill it? The first paragraph already covers the "vegan pregnancies are fine, just watch out for nutrients XYZ" sentiment. I'd support removing it altogether. Alternately, we can pare it down to two sentences: "Lindsay Allen's study on malnourished African children led her to conclude blah. The British Veg Society disputes this study, saying blahblah." Cheers, Skinwalker 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I support removal, but we'll need a clear decision by the editors of this page so that when it gets added to the article again in the future, we can point to this decision as justification for excluding it. The BBC and other articles misreporting Allen's comments are the first results when searching for "vegan unethical" or "veganism unethical," which is why this keeps coming up. Kellen^T 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Allen's statements cannot be in this article without the presently included information on her starving research subjects, and reactions from the wider Dietetic community. Abe Froman 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know, thanks. Here's a clear statement, then: I support the removal of Allen's study on the grounds that it is a poor source whose main point is already duplicated in the article by better citations. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)