There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Veganism was one of the Social sciences and society 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.
It's certainly true that any poorly planned diet can be dangerous, so I've always wondered why vegan diets were being singled out. We only have to look at obesity and diabetes stats to see what poorly planned non-vegan diets do. What is the objection exactly from those who are reverting? SlimVirgin(talk) 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin, thanks, I am happy with your recent reversion. I think I was trying too hard to defend veganism against the view that special planning was needed. I wanted to point out that other diets can be harmful in other ways which veganism is not. But the paragraph contains this info anyway. cheers TonyClarke (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not the only one who has reverted this addition, and the edit summaries have explained the reasons, yet, without any policy-based reasoning it's been restored. Why? It's editorial special pleading (editorializing not found in the original source, IOW original research). It's not the place for editors who believe in veganism to add their own defense of the practice. It's simply a violation of several of our policies.
I grew up in a vegetarian home and lived as a vegan for several decades, so I know all about it and have many sympathies for it. One becomes an expert on diet and nutrition, which combined well with my medical training. The concerns mentioned in the source (about certain nutrients) are still legitimate and should not be watered down by editorial OR additions. One does need to be more careful on a vegan diet. Speaking to the point of the source, certain nutrients can be missed, while other diets always contain those nutrients and are thus more forgiving toward carelessness because they include so many other nutrients in what amounts to be a sort of "insurance" coverage which protects. One is unlikely to not get the nutrients one might miss on a carelessly planned vegan diet. The addition of an editor's opinion neutralizes the point the source is trying to make. The rest then makes no sense.
Tony is absolutely correct that "other diets can be harmful in other ways", but "other ways" is not the point of the source. Certain nutrients often missing from carelessly planned vegan diets IS the point. Of course the typical American diet, and many other diets using meat and junk food, can certainly cause all kinds of health problems, obesity, etc.., but this article is about veganism, not about attacking the typical American diet, as terrible as it is, and we need to follow the source and not water down the point it's trying to make.
Right now we've got some pretty obvious policy violations. Why not just allow vegans to add their opinions everywhere in the article? No, we don't allow that, and not in this situation either. Can we (vegans or not) find extremely reliable sources that prove above all doubt that a carelessly planned typical American diet causes serious health problems? Certainly!! But that's not the job of this article. That would be off-topic. We have plenty of other articles here which do that very well. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could get rid of the words that are causing the disconnect, and say:
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard a well-planned vegan diet as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle. Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease,[1] though vegans are advised to make sure they have adequate sources of vitamin B12, iron, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids.[2]
I'm fine with this proposed text. I agree with BullRangifer's concerns; my other objection to the "like other diets" addition was that it broke the flow of the paragraph, which ends by listing nutrients that vegans need to pay specific attention to. For example, dietary B12 deficiency is virtually unheard of among non-vegans. We do our readers a disservice by conflating the drawbacks of different diets. Skinwalker (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with the proposed text, as it addresses the real concern without implying that deficiencies are unique to vegan diets. BTW, even B12 deficiency isn't at all uncommon in non-vegans. In the Framingham study, about 1 in 6 meat eaters were B12 deficient. Behaviordoc (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may have been due to disease-related malabsorption - e.g. anemia rather than dietary deficiency, but I won't press the point. In any case - vegans are at greater risk of B12 deficiency than non-vegans, and vegans diets can be fine for people if they supplement B12 and a few other nutrients. This text covers that nuance without grammatically conflating separate issues of acute nutrient deficiency vs. chronic dietary-induced diseases like diabetes, atherosclerosis, etc. Skinwalker (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have agreement, and I think it deals with Tony's concern, so I've gone ahead and added it. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10 Edits in one day!, good outcome Thanks all and SlimVirgin for bringing it together TonyClarke (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vegan Vs. Vegetarian
"...dietary vegans (or strict vegetarians)..." < That is incorrect, I am removing it. Vegetarians eat animal products, but do not eat meat. A vegan who llows others to have non-vegan diets is a vegan, not a vegetarian. The term "vegan" has explicitly to do with your diet, and nothing to do with Animal Rights activism. In fact, most Animal Rights activists are guaranteed not to be vegans, most are likely not even vegetarian. Whoever wrote this article is offensive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
"Joanne Stepaniak, author of Being Vegan (2000), argues that to place the qualifier "dietary" before "vegan" dilutes its meaning—like using the term "secular Catholic" for people who want to practise only some aspects of Catholicism.[66] She writes that people should not call themselves vegan simply because they have embraced the diet: "Practising a vegan diet no more qualifies someone as vegan than eating kosher food qualifies someone as Jewish."[67]" < That is also highly offensive, so was also removed. You are not allowed to insult people like this! It is clearly stated in wikipedia rules to keep articles free of bias! And, this bias is utterly inapproprate, and literally insane! If you personally feel this way about this group of people, fine, but keep that feeling off of wikipedia articles! And, for the record, it's wrong. Vegan only means dietary veganism to begin with. Cultist types cannot hijack a practice of foriegners and attach looney tune crud to it like this. For starters, if you are frothing-at-the-mouth hating dietary vegans, you have 100% failed the ethical veganism path personally, because a human being is not considered lower on the totem pole than a cow![reply]
^Cite error: The named reference disease was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference adajournal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
