Jump to content

Talk:Veganism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timelezz (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 10 February 2023 (→Ethical veganism vs. Dietary veganism: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleVeganism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 20, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


Ethical vegan

I thought an ethical vegan is just someone who doesn't eat, wear, or use animal products. If someone who only avoids eating animal products is a dietary vegan, and an ethical vegan is someone who follows a lifestyle devoid of harm and exploitation, what do you call someone who avoids animal products altogether but doesn't follow the lifestyle? 2601:282:C00:ABB0:F4C9:A650:D887:71B4 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you described as ethical vegan and someone who followes the lifestyle you described are almost completely overlapping, if not the same, so you would call them that. Veganism always refers to harm, exploitation or killing of non-human animals. Any differences between the vegan lifestyle as you described it and an ethical vegan as you described it would proably only arise in edge cases or difficult cases that go far beyond this case, such as animal testing in medicine. Vaccines for example have to be tested on animals in certain countries, but according to [1]https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animals-and-us/202207/vaccinations-vegans-and-the-problem-moral-consistency 80% of UK vegans took at least one vaccine. Some people think veganism is a matter of "as far as possible and practical" with wiggle room (but where to draw the line?), others are all-or-nothing. All of these differences are abract, seldom or obscure that there just isn't a word to distinguish those cases. 2A00:A200:0:802:7CA1:7EA1:5624:969C (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Veganism” wiki page needs an edit or a verified source for info.

Moved from User talk:Ijenspace

Copy-pasted direct wording under “Demographics” on Wikis “Veganism” page.

“Demographics- In the United States, vegans (making up 2% of the population) tend to be middle-class, white, female-identified, educated, agnostic or atheist, and urban-dwelling.”

This has no legitimate citations other than a political opinion book called “Trump Veganism: A Survey”- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321142376. This is not a fact or verified source and is being used in a derogatory way to misguide information about true Veganism.

Based on the previous citation and wording alone, clearly it has been edited to be biased and political.

It needs to be changed to “ 1 in 10 Americans say they don’t eat meat. About 10 percent of Americans over the age of 18 consider themselves vegan or vegetarian as of January 2022. An online survey administered to 930 Americans, selected to be representative of the US population in terms of gender, education, age and income. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percent.” Citation- https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/1-in-10-americans-say-they-dont-eat-meat-a-growing-share-of-the-population/ Ijenspace (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I have replaced the relevant sentence with In the United States, 1 out of 10 Americans over the age of 18 consider themselves vegan or vegetarian. I have also opted to use this source rather than the one provided since Alliance for Science took it directly from The Conversation. —Sirdog (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selling vitamins

Stating that vegans need a steady supply of vitamins and minerals is not WP:COI, but this is medical science (mainstream science). Wikipedia does have a WP:GOODBIAS. Vegans who pretend to live without such products are simply engaging in denialism, to the extent that for them raising a child is often equal to child abuse (children need vitamins and minerals which vegetables and fruits cannot provide). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that vitamins are critical in the vegan diet and not WP:COI. Kreyren (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clearing that up, since from your edits to the article your position about selling vitamins to vegans was still unclear. Hence the notifications for discretionary sanctions. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kreyren has been alerted of discretionary sanctions, because of their WP:Advocacy for the WP:POV that selling vitamins to vegans is WP:COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see relevant talk page A and talk page B, considered misunderstanding on my end. Kreyren (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you suggest that you can dodge notifications of discretionary sanctions with bogus threats of WP:ANI: no, you can't. Not even Jimmy Wales can undo the fact that you have been notified of discretionary sanctions. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to calm down and try to de-escalate the conflict you've iniciated, you evidently misunderstood that my contribution with cite_check is somehow motivated by denialism to the consumption of vitamins on a vegan diet which it is really not as I've pointed above that i agree that vitamins are critical in a vegan diet and not WP:COI.
What i was trying to point out with the cite_check is the evident bias by the source to influence their wording to encourage readers to buy their products that I in good faith believe violate WP:SOAPBOXING with the expected course of action being to recognize this bias and add more relevant sources and adjust the wording in the article to make the article more objective and scientifically driven.
Furthermore you are encouraged to read the chat log of #wikipedia IRC channel and recognize that your misuse of 'discretionary sanctions' is not complying with WP:Assume_good_faith and that your use of them is evidently meant as intimidatory. Kreyren (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do IRC.
Please provide objective evidence that the article is WP:SOAPBOXING for buying vitamins from only one company, disfavoring thus other companies.
Where does our article say "Buy from here, but not from there"? That is what WP:SOAPBOXING means. It does not mean citing consensus views of dieticians.
Sincerely, I don't have any opinion whether the many citations to the British Vegan Society have to be culled or not. But I failed to notice any external links which peddle the sale of vitamins from select companies rather than other companies. If you know which those WP:EL are, please tell us.
And, to answer you evidently misunderstood that my contribution with cite_check is somehow motivated by denialism to the consumption: of course I have misunderstood your point of view, since it was not at all apparent what you mean just going by your edits. You knew you don't oppose the sale of vitamins to vegans, I had no way of knowing that you don't oppose it.
Do you understand that "BVS is linked to a third party (BDA) which is in its turn linked to two other third parties (Danone and Yakult)" is a very weak reasoning for crying WP:SOAPBOXING?
So, I say: your reasoning is very weak. Prove me wrong. And you cannot prove me wrong by merely expressing an opinion, you need to produce evidence in order to be believable.
This isn't really a conflict: I genuinely want to know what evidence is there that this article is soapboxing. Provide evidence to that extent or retract your claim, the choice is yours. Convince me, I can be persuaded. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to this bizarre note that was removed [2], I am not seeing any evidence of soapboxing or promotion of the Vegan Society website to sell supplements on the article. The page on supplements [3] that Kreyren mentioned is not cited on the article anywhere so there is no promotion or soapboxing. Above this user claims "What i was trying to point out with the cite_check is the evident bias by the source to influence their wording to encourage readers to buy their products", this is clearly not the case because we do not cite such a thing. I doubt anyone who has ever read the Wikipedia article has been influenced to go over to the Vegan Society website to buy their supplements. No such link has ever been made. Sadly this same user has been making bad edits on articles such as Danone and Yakult with unreliable sources [4]. I think we can just close this and put this down to bad editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Could we split this into 2 pages, one for the diet and one for the philosophy? An ethical vegan doesn't necessarily follow the diet. Countryboy603 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they be lumped together in a single page? A dietary vegan couldn't eat their own fingernails since humans are technically animals. An ethical vegan could.--Countryboy603 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but there's already Ethics of eating meat (which is a redirect for Ethical vegan and Ethical vegetarian), while Dietary vegan redirects to the main page (Veganism). So, perhaps it would be better to expand that page (Ethics of eating meat) instead of making a new one? Just a thought. I'd think a split would require enough to justify the split, so its not an unnecessary spinoff. There have been pages like Economic vegetarianism but that has fared badly, although Environmental vegetarianism seems to a strong page in its own. Historyday01 (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been suggested before (see archives). There has been agreement not to create a new article. We do not need separate articles on this. Best to have it all in one place. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better as one page, per Psychologist Guy. Splitting would lose pertinent topics at both. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. I personally don't support a split in the page. Historyday01 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why you think that an ethical vegan "doesn't necessarily follow the diet". I guess Christians don't necessarily follow Jesus' teachings, but Christianity is based on Jesus' teachings. The ethics of veganism absolutely requires following a vegan diet. Can you explain your rationale? Thinker78 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that doesn't make sense either. I would say that the ethics of veganism definitely requires following a diet, so I'd like to hear the rationale of Countryboy603 as well. Historyday01 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV in regard to dietetic organizations

On the article in the lead is the following text "Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life, including infancy and pregnancy, as said by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,[f] the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council,[24] the British Dietetic Association,[25] Dietitians of Canada,[26] the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[27] and the Italian Society of Human Nutrition.[28] The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency—does not recommend vegan diets for children or adolescents, or during pregnancy and breastfeeding."

The same text is pretty much duplicated in the section on this article "Positions of dietetic and government associations". All health agency and organizations agree that a well-planned vegan diet is safe for adults that is not up for any dispute. However, many do not agree it is safe for infants and children.

  • The Spanish Paediatric Association, French Pediatric Hepatology, Gastroenterology and Nutrition Group, German Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Italian Society of Preventive and Social Pediatrics, Italian Federation of Pediatricians, Italian Society of Perinatal Medicine, Slovenian Paediatric Society, Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium, Swiss Federal Commission for Nutrition all advise against vegan diets during infancy or childhood. You can find this information on the article vegan nutrition.
  • The British Paediatric Association, European Paediatric Association, European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Croatian Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and Danish Health Authority only advise vegan diets for infants and children under professional dietetic and medical guidance or supervision (i.e. from a paediatrician).

The consensus that vegan diets is safe for infancy and pregnancy is clearly not as clear-cut as this article makes out as the majority of paediatric organizations do not recommend the diet or only support it under medical guidance. There definitely is some POV in the lead because it says "The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency". Any reader coming to this article will be under the impression that every organization in the world supports a vegan diet for children and infants and only one "non-profit organization" disagrees. This doesn't appear balanced to me and is a case of cherry-picking. Any thoughts about what to do here? Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out it is accepted by vegan paediatricians that there is "a lack of international consensus on the safety and desirability of such diets for infants and children." [5]. I believe the section "Positions of dietetic and government associations" should be expanded on this article and it should be made clear in the lead that there is no consensus on vegan diets for infants and children if the material about organizations is going to remain there. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think covering all stages of life is too much for this article. I would include the statements for adults as given above and make clear that they don't apply for other stages of life. Then refer to Vegan nutrition for further information on infants, children, pregnancy. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is ridiculous and has been debunked before IsraeliEditor54 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What has been debunked before? YouTube is not a reliable source but I watched 20 minutes of your video, the video was mostly talking about heart disease and studies on LDL, nowhere did it mention any of the paediatrician organizations around the world. It has nothing to do with the topic discussed above. It is a fact that nearly all professional paediatrician organizations around the world (especially in Europe) do not recommend vegan diets for infancy and pregnancy without dietetic advice and supervision. It would be foolish to claim this has been "debunked". See our article on vegan nutrition which is well-sourced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without having looked at the sources, solutions could be replacing "consensus" for "many professional associations". As for the stage of infancy, the statement could be accompanied by the word "potentially". 2A00:A200:0:802:7CA1:7EA1:5624:969C (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical veganism vs. Dietary veganism

Hello, the current article is quick to categorize veganism into Ethical veganism vs. Dietary veganism, while I feel there are some serious flaws that need to be resolved:

  1. There are not many scientific papers on "dietary veganism" and no article really has a definition for dietary veganism. It is - from the given sources and beyond - unclear whether it equals to a plant-based/plant-food diet, or that it also involves a boycot of products that are produced with use/exploitation of animals or animal-based derivitives (think of truffles, the clearing of wine, etc). The lack hereof does not feel like a legitimazation to make this disctinction in a encyclopedia, especially not readily in the top of the article.
  2. From what I read "dietary veganism" is rather a light version of veganism where people only adopt the diet part of veganism. The main part of the article is currently written like this "light version" of veganism equals "veganism" as well. This is totally at odds with the defintion of veganism given by the movement itself.
  3. The article starts with "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal product—particularly in diet— ..." while the movement's defintion calls "abstaining from the use of animal product" as a part of the practices of this way of living.

Can you reflect on this and suggest what we could do to improve the article? Timelezz (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veganism&oldid=1138582440"