Talk:Veganism

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Please remove the two (2) Logos (white "v" with a leaf on one end inside a green circle within a green box) as well as the related text: "The symbol widely used to denote a vegan-friendly product". This is not the symbol widely used to denote a vegan-friendly product, but a protected trademark which requires a license to use in accordance with the following registration . In addition, this is an incorrect representation of the V-Label. Lswissveg (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The version used here is older than any of the claims made in your provided source, and the symbol cannot be copyrighted as it does not meet the threshold of originality. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If it was not worthy of protection and didn't meet the threshold of originality, then the application for trademark protection would have been rejected. For this reason, the previous edit request still stands. Lswissveg (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Swissveg, your logo looks like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:V-Label.jpg CarlFromVienna (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

What you have linked here is merely one configuration of the logo as it is commonly found on packaging that has been licensed by V-Label GmbH. As you can see from the link provided in the original edit request, what is protected is not the two logos you have sent, but the "V" symbol with a leaf on one end.

Organisations that work with V-Label GmbH and have legitimately obtained the right to use it, e.g. https://proveg.com/de/ or https://www.swissveg.ch/ also use variations of the logo, which do not match the pictures provided by CarlFromVienna.

In addition, the trademark owner V-Label GmbH in certain cases authorises variations of the logo, when a license has been obtained, e.g. here: https://www.coop.ch/de/lebensmittel/brot-backwaren/haltbare-brote/toastbrote-buns/sandwichtoast-20-scheiben/p/3735309

Furthermore, the statement: "If it was not worthy of protection and didn't meet the threshold of originality, then the application for trademark protection would have been rejected" still stands. Any objections to this imply that the the trademark office has made an error, in which case the registration would need to be contested. This is not the case. Lswissveg (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a Wikipedia issue. If you have an issue with this image [1] then you need to go to WikipediaCommons to discuss it. The image was uploaded in 2017 and the listed author is Peepal Farm Foundation. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Peepal Farm has requested the deletion of the image here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vegan_friendly_icon.svg and here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vegan_friendly.tif

Therefore, we trust that the Logo will be removed from the "Veganism" Wikipedia page. If there are any further issues or a reason why this still cannot be done, I request infromation about what further steps we can make from our side to ensure the picture is removed. Lswissveg (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Indus Valley

People in the Indus Valley Civilisation ate many kinds of meat. (cow may be an exception). There are ceramic/potsherds from IVC (Kalibangan) which contains goat sacrifice etched on it. ChandlerMinh (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Veganism in culture

There should be an article on 'veganism in culture' by decades, centuries, millennia, continents, nations, communities, types of reference, etc. Celebrities and others are constantly mentioning their veganism or 'forays into veganism', and even criminals have been described(correctly or incorrectly) as vegetarian or vegan (sometimes the imputation or 'references' or citations may be malevolent actions, but significant nonetheless in their impacts and ensuing discussions). For instance, the current #idaho4 real crime murder mystery in Moscow, Idaho, has a 'vegan pizza' reference (suspect ordered 'vegan pizza' twice while purportedly stalking the eventual victims) and several vegans have been victims of violent crime (with their diets mentioned in the news or the obituaries - e.g. NYC vegan Central Park jogger, or current Portland, Oregon victims, etc.

@User:MaynardClark, I believe the above was your comment (based on this edit), correct? Currently, there is a "Media depictions" section on the Veganism page, a "Media" section on the Vegetarianism page, and there are two other similar pages: Vegetarian and vegan symbolism and List of fictional vegetarian characters. There was once a Vegetarian characters in fiction page, but I ended up merging its content into the Veganism and Vegetarianism pages, at the end of last year, as I felt it was getting far too unwieldy and clunky. While saying all that, I don't disagree with creating a page in the bein of what you are talking about, perhaps entitled Veganism in culture or Vegetarianism in culture, as long as there was a sound organization for such a page.Historyday01 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless how any one Wikipedian feels, I thought that the topic should be contemplated.MaynardClark (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, the topic should surely be contemplated. Historyday01 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

Veganism by Country: The statement about Germany is wrong. The cited reference 150 specifically states people with higher education are MORE likely to have consumed vegan food, not the one with less education. JJSiegl (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have corrected the paragraph. CarlFromVienna (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics position expired

the position expired in december of 2021 and has not been renewed (despite having been renewed in continuance since some time in the 1990s.) i say that should either be nuanced in the text or remove the reference to the AND. link: [[2]] BigMouthCommie (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

They are working on the new one that will be published. Would be best to wait until their new review paper. No need need to remove older papers until then. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

where can i find that information? regardless, if they are not just re-issuing it, the language may change, and in the interim, it is not their position, so that should at least be explained. commie (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

i went looking to find what i could about any upcoming position papers, and while i couldn't find anything to indicate which position papers may be upcoming, i did find that they moved their vegetarian diets collection to the archives, including papers as recent as 2019. i don't know the inner workings of the AND intimately, but this seems to be a negative indicator as to whether they will be reissuing a similar position as the one currently referenced in the arcticle: https://www.jandonline.org/archivedcollections commie (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There is not any public information about it. I am in email with hundreds of dietitians so I know that the new review paper is being written. The peer-review process takes a long time. Plant-based diets including vegan and vegetarian are only a very small part of what the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics do research on. On the archived collections link you cited you will see they are involved in much wider research including gastrointestinal nutrition, nutritional genomics, school nutrition and women's health. Just because that content is archived does not mean they are no longer doing research into said topics. The best position to take here is to wait and see what they publish. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the innaccuracy of the article in its current condition must be addressed. the current link is to the 2009 version of the position paper, which, obviously, is quite expired. but even the more recent (and still expired) position paper ought to be acknowledge to have been left to expire: imagine if we allowed the article on queen elizabeth to say that she is the monarch. the expiration should at least be acknowledged, though i believe the correct course is to remove the paper altogether until/unless the position is updated.commie (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not the correct thing to do. Just because a position paper may expire does not mean it is invalid. Instead of deleting, a wait and see approach for the update is much more rational. What is your real interest in this if I may ask? Unfortunately there are carnivore diet trolls all over YouTube and Twitter who have been commenting about this, and leaving spamful messages to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics requesting them to retract their previous papers. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics are not the only organization to have published position papers on vegan diets. See vegan nutrition, section "Positions of dietetic and government associations". Most dietetic, governmental or nutritional organizations that have investigated the topic have put out position papers that are years old, from 2014-2021. Nobody is requesting for them to be removed. The anti-vegan community seem to be going after the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the deletion requests are not being done in good faith. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

i never suggested it is invalid, but the current state of the article presents it in a light what anyone who reads it would not know that the paper is not the current position of the academy. the paper that's linked as a reference, as i said, is the 2009 position paper, which is, of course, also expired. as for the other bodies you mentioned, i hadn't gotten around to even checking those references yet. i noticed this misrepresentation and made the suggestion. given the other bodies you mentioned being cited, i don't see how misrepresenting the current position of the academy benefits the article, nor even advocacy for veganism (though, as i understand it, wikipedia is not a place for advocacy). my interest is the accuracy of the article. i'm not here impguning the opinion of the academy, nor its methodologies, nor am i advocating for a diet. i am not antivegan. your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith. commie (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a vegan, but I don't oppose those who want to be vegans. Anyway, the scientific consensus is that being vegan is a valid diet, but it is not at all easy to have a balanced vegan diet. Special care should be taken of infants and toddlers, who might not get all their nutrients from exclusively vegan products. Very strong sources have to be provided that the (former) scientific consensus has been rendered obsolete. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm also not a vegan, and I don't oppose those who want to be vegans. im not saying the scientific consensus is obsolete. the academy themselves set this position to expire, and while it is still my preference that we just remove the reference altogether, i think, at a minimum, it should be acknowledged that the academy has let this position expire. i don't think we need to draw attention to the fact that this is the first time they have let this position lapse for such a period: a simple mention of the expiration and publish dates should suffice so that the reader understands. commie (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

My accusation of bad faith was not targeted towards you, it is against a large attack against the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics from the carnivore diet community on social media in the last 6 months. Even the authors of the position papers have received abuse. What you are saying above about the 2009 paper is valid, indeed that is outdated so there is no point in citing it (I removed it), but I do not believe we should remove the latest 2016 position paper until the new paper has been published. I know they are working on the paper but I have no idea when it will be published, nobody knows that. It might be 2024. We should just cite their latest position paper, which in this case is from 2016. They have published many over the years (one was even retracted) but there has always been a slight gap between each position paper. We can't expect a quick position paper to be published as much research has to go in. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

i think that what we need to suss out here is how long this position will be allowed to be expired before it would be appropriate to remove it. 10 years? 5? 3? in my reading, i don't think they've ever let their position on vegetarian diets lapse more than one year, so we have already entered unprecedented territory. and i want to re-emphasize that i'm not saying the AND isn't authoritative: i'm relying on their own publishing to determine that this position is "no longer in effect". should they issue identical wording next week, i would consider it a friendly competition to see which editor could re-instate the reference with an updated link. but, for now, i genuinely believe it only helps the reader and the article to either explain the expiration or remove it, with removing it being the cleaner option. commie (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think some history is important here. There are large spaces of time between each position paper has been published. Just as an example, here is the July 2009 paper [3], it says "This position is in effect until December 31, 2013". The next position paper was not published until May, 2015 but it contained a lot of errors and was retracted [4]. One of its co-authors seems to have been embarrassed about this and legally changed her name. The new paper was not published until December 2016 and contained new authors and reviewers [5]. You are looking at 3 years after the expire date.

Another example, if you look at the expire date on the 2003 paper it says "This position will be in effect until December 31, 2007" [6], however, as cited above the next paper after the 2003 one was the 2009 position paper. You are looking at nearly 2 years there after the expiry. Right now it has not been 2 years since the expire date on the 2016 paper as it says "This position is in effect until December 31, 2021." If we go by historical example, then we should wait up to 3 years past the expired date because they is what they have done in the past. It has not even be 2 years yet. If it reaches to the end of 2024 and no new position paper has been published then there may be a case but I do not believe the 2016 paper should be removed as I have shown they always take about 2 or 3 years after the expired date to publish. A lot of people are unaware how much research has to go into these papers, and how long the peer-review process takes. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

i'm sure i saw a 2012 version of this position, but i admit you seem both confident and knowledgable. i still feel the article should be clear about this, though your comment here gives me pause: if this is a routine lapse, then waiting for it to become extraordinary would be the right course. i would want to review the dates, but i don't think it's likely to be a good use of my time. commie (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at these if you want to work out the dates, 2003 paper, 2007 paper, 2009 paper, 2015 paper (retracted), latest 2016 paper. Above I forgot the 2007 paper so I was wrong about that, but there was still a 3 year gap between the 2009 and the 2016 paper (past the expiry). On average it seems they publish the papers 2 years past the expiry. I believe we should wait 2-3 years but it's not up to me, other users need to way in on this. If not you can ask at the medical board at WikiProject Medicine [7]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here, I see no issue with including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics paper in 2016 (it is used as a source for two sentences: "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada state that properly planned vegetarian or vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy and lactation" and "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics consider well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets to be "appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes") as it hasn't been retracted. The only sentence which uses the 2015 paper is "The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics states that special attention may be necessary to ensure that a vegan diet will provide adequate amounts of vitamin B12, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, iron, and zinc. It also states that concern that vegans and vegan athletes may not consume an adequate amount and quality of protein is unsubstantiated". If that sentence is going to be kept, then there should be something added about the retraction.

Otherwise, the 2016 article also says "This Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics position was adopted by the House of Delegates Leadership Team on October 18, 1987 and reaffirmed on September 12, 1992; September 6, 1996; June 22, 2000; June 11, 2006; and March 19, 2012. This position is in effect until December 31, 2021." Hence, none of the links should be removed at the present time and should be kept. Historyday01 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Australian NHMRC reference is poor

as i continue my way through the article, i found reference No. 251 which says that the australian NHMRC has issued similar language to the AND. when i followed up, that's not true. the referenced source is a press release from a vegan advocacy organization which is spinning the actual NHMRC recommendation and arrives at language which, even with the spin, is short of the claim made by the AND. when the subject of the article is consulted, no language about whether a vegetarian or vegan diet is healthy is available at all: they only say that consuming non-animal protein sources can help add variety to Australians diets. it is never suggested that they recommend eliminating animal products.

for this reason, i believe this reference should either be updated to a source that actually shows a statement from the NHMRC that supports the language that's in the article, or we should eliminate this reference altogether. having spent some time on the NHMRC site, and myself being unable to find any recommendations for-or-against vegetarian or vegan diets, it is my preference to remove this reference and language altogether.commie (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is what the Australian Dietary Guidelines of 2013 (written by the National Health and Medical Research Council) say about vegetarian and vegan diets "Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day. Those following a vegan diet should choose foods to ensure adequate intake of iron and zinc and to optimise the absorption and bioavailability of iron, zinc and calcium. Supplementation of vitamin B12 may be required for people with strict vegan dietary patterns." (Australian Dietary Guidelines p. 35). It can be downloaded from [8], see the first pdf download link.

There is no misrepresentation here from the source. The National Health and Medical Research Council have stated that appropriately planned vegetarian diets (including vegan) are appropriate for all stages of life. I would agree to remove the press release and just cite the Australian Dietary Guidelines link. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

good work. did you already update the reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMouthCommie (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The link is here, I will update it [9] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Caveat to the NHS recommendation, and a general call for action

although reference No. 253 is grouped into a single sentence that suggests that a vegan diet is appropriate at any age, the reference explicitly says it is not recommended for children under the age of 2.

i'm of the opinion that this section, at best, was written hastily, with sources which were not well-chosen to support the claims in this section. to that end, i am under the impression that there is a way to tag an article to be scrutinized and have references strengthened. can anyone help me apply that tag?commie (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe you've misread or misinterpreted the source you've mentioned - it says the Eatwell Guide is not suitable for people below the age of 2, not that a vegan diet is not suitable for people below the age of 2. You can check the updated review on the same NHS link [10], in which the text is slightly altered to ease understanding. Sto0pinismo (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, that NHS link on vegan diets does not seem to support the claim that a vegan diet is appropriate at any age because it does not using that wording so I think Commie is technically correct here but he was wrong about the eatwell guide. A better link might be this publication by the NHS [11] which is on vegan and vegetarian diets reviewed in 2023 which says "Well-planned plant based diets can support healthy living at every age and lifestage", it then lists 3 plant-based diets being vegan, lacto-vegetarian and lacto-ovo vegetarian. So that is accurate to what our Wikipedia article says. I believe the NHS eat-well link might be original research here. The link I suggest is more accurate to the wording on the Wikipedia article. The NHS Health Scotland have also stated that a vegan diet is suitable for "everyone" [12], by this they mean all life stages. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Though I focused on the immediate Eatwell misunderstanding, that source does not use the same wording, only mentions bringing up a baby or child on the recommendation for vegans who are pregnant or breastfeeding - making the connection would be original research. Both suggestions of yours are accurate and to the point.Sto0pinismo (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"Dietary" vs "Ethical" veganism

I am suggesting that the phrase "particularly in diet" in the opening paragraph be removed.

It is common to refer to veganism as just a diet, a special form of vegetarianism. The definition of "vegetarianism" itself depends on the region or context, since it may mean lacto-ovo vegetarianism in Western countries whil it means lacto-vegetarianism in India. And it could even be an exact synonym with "vegan" when qualified with the word "pure".

According to the Vegan Society's official definition of "veganism"

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

— The Vegan Society

This suggests that "veganism" is not centered on diet or the stated health benefits of excluding animal products in one's diet, but on the conscious exclusion of animal exploitation. The word "vegan" can apply to other products such as clothing, cosmetics, and shopping, while the word "vegetarianism" specifically refers to food and diet; we hear about "vegan leather boots" but it would be weird to say "vegetarian leather boots".

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You may want to check the archives. Every 4 months a new account comes onto Wikipedia and says exactly the same thing. This has been discussed many times before. No point in going over the same ground again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"Cowspiracy" is not a reliable source

It's been flagged as not scholarly but unless someone can quickly support the claims made in the documentary using up-to-date, reliable information, it really should just be removed. This section in particular reads like a PSA for veganism and is not very informative.

To a lesser extent, this is true for the following section where healthcare costs are estimated. The study estimates cost savings across multiple diets, giving a range for each group. What made it to Wikipedia is a few numbers, apparently crunched by whoever edited the section, without any context or explanation of how they made these calculations. The study actually estimates much higher savings for switching to a vegan diet, albeit lower than it would be if the entire U.S. were vegetarian. Without the overall context of the study, though, these excerpts are trivial and possibly misleading.

An article like this really should not be locked until it's cleaned up, at least to the point that it's not spreading misinformation. That defeats the purpose of locking. 2603:7081:1603:A300:5D2A:5E39:2A96:6A62 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been removed. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)