Talk:Veganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Former good article Veganism 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
Date Process Result
July 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
October 14, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
January 20, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


Toolbox

Page views for the last 12 months

Recent edits to the lead vs. recent WP:RfC discussion[edit]

As seen here (followup edit here), I reverted edits by new account RoughDraft (who I can easily see is not a new editor). I reverted because of POV concerns and because the changes to the first sentence go against the WP:Consensus reached in the previous RfC. See Talk:Veganism/Archive 14#RfC: Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'? and Talk:Veganism/Archive 14#Lead sentence RfC closed.

Because of that RfC, the lead sentence was molded into the following: "Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." RoughDraft changed it to "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products as far as practicable, and the associated principle that rejects the commodity status of animals." The problem with RoughDraft's edit is that it does not recognize that some people simply follow the vegan diet without following the philosophy. Not all vegans abstain from the use of animal products. These people who follow the vegan diet but do not abstain from using all animal products are still referred to as vegans, no matter how much RoughDraft obviously dislikes this fact. Also, using "practice" and "as far as practicable" has a poor flow.

RoughDraft changed "A follower of either the diet or the philosophy is known as a vegan." to "An adherent to veganism is known as a vegan." The latter seems POV-ish. Veganism is not a religion. And the change excludes those who follow the diet.

RoughDraft changed "Distinctions are sometimes made between several categories of veganism." to "Distinctions are sometimes made between veganism and a vegan diet, and between the different principles behind each." This change tries to state that those who follow the vegan diet are not vegans. It also is not supported by any sources in the lead. RoughDraft removed "'Dietary vegans refrain from ingesting animal products." from that same paragraph.

RoughDraft changed "Some dietary vegans choose to wear clothing that includes animal products (for example, leather or wool)." to "Those who follow vegan diets for health reasons may choose to wear clothing that includes animal products (for example, leather or wool) and are sometimes called 'dietary vegans.'" Again, RoughDraft removed the term dietary vegans, and the "sometimes called 'dietary vegans'" piece is not supported by the source. The change can also confuse people since it can be interpreted as people wear clothing that includes animal products because of health concerns.

SlimVirgin, can I get your help on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"I reverted edits by new account RoughDraft (who I can easily see is not a new editor). I reverted because of POV concerns".
You reverted all of my edits because you have POV concerns with some of them, which is against wikipedia policy and consensus building, and disrespectful of my efforts. Most of my edits were unrelated to your POV concerns, and included bringing the lede in line with the style guide on basic issues (italics in place of quotation marks is simply incorrect punctuation. italics are for emphasis or for latin. the first use of "vegan" should be bold, because "vegan" redirects here etc), and bringing statements more in line with sources. I gave reasons in the edit description for all of the edits that I believed might be need an explanation. And yes, you are correct that I am an experienced editor, although I have barely edited for years and had never edited with an account on this computer, because I had edited so rarely. Some of your concerns have merit, especially the "flow" of practice and practicable, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and until a better flow can be found that flows better and is more accurate, accuracy is more important than flow.
"The changes to the first sentence go against the WP:Consensus reached in the previous RfC"
Not exactly. The discussion was not entirely fruitful and it's not clear how many of the people in the discussion would have disagreed with my edits, certainly not all, consensus did not seem convincingly reached, and NPOV principles were not followed and appear not to be understood.
"The problem with RoughDraft's edit is that it does not recognize that some people simply follow the vegan diet without following the philosophy".
It doesn't claim it, but neither does it deny it. That's what NPOV means. Some people claim "veganism" refers to the philosophy and "vegan diet" refers to the diet. Other people claim that a vegan diet "IS" veganism, and therefore would agree that veganism is abstinence from animal products "particularly in diet". The claim that veganism is "particular in diet" is disputed by many if not most vegans (and even many non-vegetarians would define it as beyond just diet) and therefore the claim "particularly in diet" is POV. The NPOV procedure is to use statements that all parties (or almost all) can agree on. This is a constant process of editing, fine tuning, and improvements that can't work by simple mass reversions. The statement I left may not be entirely NPOV, because not everybody agrees that it means "as far as practicable". So the solution is to say "either in diet or as far as practicable". That's the edit you should have made, instead of being disrespectful and reverting well-considered edits that overall constituted an improvement on previous version that had more POV (and a less common POV), just because the phrasing wasn't perfect yet.
"These people who follow the vegan diet but do not abstain from using all animal products are still referred to as vegans, no matter how much RoughDraft obviously dislikes this fact."
If I dislike it so much, why did I leave it in the second paragraph? There is a difference between saying "People who follow vegan diets are sometimes called vegans or dietary vegans", which is accurate and saying "People who follow vegan diets are vegan, even if they wear leather", which is an opinion, and one that most vegans and even many non-vegetarians would disagree with. I left the description of dietary veganism in there because I have a good understanding of NPOV policy and consensus building and follow it as closely as I can. Other statements like that a dietary vegan "is known as a vegan" are sublty POV because "known as a vegan" makes it sound like there is no controversy when there is, whereas "sometimes called a vegan or a dietary vegan" is accurate and does not falsely imply there is no controversy. I agree with you that "adherant" makes it sound like a religion, but so does "follower", so again this is a work in progress and it is much more constructive, respectful and in line with policy to try to think of something better instead of just reverting each other. "And the change excludes those who follow the diet."
On my NPOV point on distinctions between veganism and vegan diets you claim: "This change tries to state that those who follow the vegan diet are not vegans".
No, it doesn't. Instead it removes the POV claim that they are vegans, while also avoiding the POV claim that they are not vegans. It uses languages that carefully avoids both of the POV claims, which is how NPOV consensus building works.
You also claim this change is "not supported by any sources in the lead."
I believe it is. Some of the sources define veganism such that it means ethical veganism, whereas the term "vegan diet" clearly does refer to a diet and not to ethical clothing choices. Some ethical vegans and even some dietary vegans object to even term "vegan diet" and prefer terms like "plant-based" and "strict vegetarians", but since "vegan diet" at least has a clear meaning, it can be left in there, whereas whether dietary vegans are "real vegans" is dispute. This edit, like most of my edits, did not take sides in that dispute, but your reversion does.
"RoughDraft removed the term dietary vegans, and the "sometimes called 'dietary vegans'" piece is not supported by the source. The change can also confuse people since it can be interpreted as people wear clothing that includes animal products because of health concerns."
It's getting harder to assume good faith, since I did not remove the term 'dietary vegans" completely from the sentence but instead left it to the end of the sentence for the same NPOV reasons discussed above. I'm repeating myself now, but again some of the sources use the term "dietary vegans" while other sources including the most authoritative definitions in use) define veganism as going beyond diet. Therefore, both of these claims are POV, and my language presents opinion as opinion instead of the claim you reverted to, which assumes opinion as fact.
"RoughDraft removed "'Dietary vegans refrain from ingesting animal products." from that same paragraph."
Again, hard to assume good faith. I didn't remove it, I edited that POV statement to something NPOV. Accepting the term "dietary vegans" as being uncontroversial and commonly in use (it is neither) is more POV than simply changing it to "Vegan diets involve refraining from ingesting animal products" as I did. The latter statement is less controversial and uses more normal language. The term "vegan diet" is used more often than "dietary vegan" precisely because it is less controversial and more pragmatic. The term "vegan diet" neither asserts nor denies that adherents to this diet are vegans, which is what NPOV means: it means don't assert or deny or assume something controversial that is debated between sources. I don't think anyone would read that and think it is saying adherents of vegan diets wear leather for health reasons. I think it was clearly saying that they don't necessarily avoid leather. But of course, if you can think of a better way to phrase it, you should do that without a mass reversion of a range on NPOV improvements, just because they aren't perfect or because they are different to the POV that was arrived at earlier when few participants were earnestly trying to develop NPOV statements. RoughDraft (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It is not easy to assume good faith when not only are you clearly not a newbie...but have made the type of edits to this article that have been rejected time and time again. We've had a number of past disgruntled editors, whether IPs or registered editors, come back to this article under new accounts to make the same contested changes. I reverted your edits because of WP:NPOV and sourcing issues, and the reverts are not at all "against wikipedia policy and consensus building." Most of your edits are not unrelated to the POV concerns I expressed. Look at the revert here. I'm not counting minor edits.
As for your minor edits, such as quotation marks in place of italics, I could not care less about that as long as the changes adhere to the style guides such as WP:WORDSASWORDS. I am aware of MOS:BOLD. "Vegan" was bolded before. I don't know who came in and changed that. I'll change it back.
I have no issue with any minor change you made, but I think it's obvious that the changes I took issue with are POV issues.
You state that accuracy is more important than flow; the sources in the article, including in the lead, show that the lead sentence is accurate. So not only is that initial lead sentence accurate, it has a better flow.
You stated that WP:NPOV principles were not followed in that previous RfC. How are you defining WP:NPOV? On Wikipedia, WP:NPOV is about WP:Due weight. Looking at the literature on veganism, it's clear that veganism is not always or mostly defined as strictly as your changes made it out to be.
In response to my statement that "The problem with RoughDraft's edit is that it does not recognize that some people simply follow the vegan diet without following the philosophy.", you replied, "It doesn't claim it, but neither does it deny it. That's what NPOV means." No, that's not what NPOV means on Wikipedia. Your edit failed to acknowledge a significant aspect of what veganism is: Commonly, it is just the diet. You stated that "The claim that veganism is 'particular in diet' is disputed by many if not most vegans (and even many non-vegetarians would define it as beyond just diet) and therefore the claim 'particularly in diet' is POV." What WP:Reliable sources support you on that?
You asked, "If [you] dislike it so much, why did [you] leave it in the second paragraph?" Because, with the exception of "are sometimes called 'dietary vegans", you had removed any mention that dietary vegans are also vegans. You made it seem like there are vegans and then there are those simply following the vegan diet. Many sources do not support that interpretation. Stating that those who simply follow the diet are vegans is not a WP:NPOV violation whatsoever. I don't think your understanding of the WP:NPOV policy is as strong as you think it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to put that stuff in bold. I already understood your position. I then responded to your position with my own arguments, which you ignored. I still believe that my own arguments are valid, and the fact you have failed to understand, not to mention refute them, re-enforces. If you don't care about my other edits, you should not have reverted all of my edits. Nor should you have reverted any of my edits without considering whether they could be improved further in a way that builds consensus. The fact you have been reverting stuff for a long time just proves that you are not good at consensus building and exercise reversion too freely and contructive collaborative contribution too rarely. You are required to assume good faith for newbie and experienced editors alike. My edits are not identical to any previous edits. You have instead reverted everything I did as a knee-jerk reaction to perceived "POV", just because some the NPOV edits I made remove the POV that you prefer, and replace it with a more NPOV (though not perfect) position. I have already made strong arguments for this and you have failed to even show you understand them, not to mention refute them. NPOV does mean that you don't state opinion as fact. The policy on due weight clearly explains that you must give due weight to opinions, but you still have to present them as opinions, not as fact which is what my edits did. It would be good to get someone in with a RfC who is not biased by your confessed history of reverting in place of collaboration. For what it's worth, this is not a sock puppet account, and I am fairly new to this article. RoughDraft (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not ignore your arguments. I clearly addressed them. We won't be agreeing on this issue. For now, it's best to let others weigh in. As for WP:Assume good faith, it is a guideline, not a policy and it does not require that I assume good faith where I have strong reason to suspect otherwise. As for reverting stuff for a long time, I am a WP:Patroller; I revert a lot of unconstructive edits using WP:STiki and similar. Doing so says nothing about my cooperative and consensus-building skills, which are fine, as many others can attest to. Your edits may not be identical to any previous edits, which no one could know unless they look at many different versions of this article, but your edits are similar to changes that have been contested more than once. And, yes, your understanding of the WP:NPOV policy is faulty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Your "strong reason" to assume bad faith is because you find it easier to revert than think critically so you have reverted many other accounts before me and assume that all of the edits you have chosen to revert are equally bad faith, which is circular reasoning, and you believe some of them may be sock puppets. RoughDraft (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Think critically? My record on matters such as these shows that I think critically plenty. I reverted you for valid reasons. That you are clearly not a newbie is not one of those reasons. I do like to identify editors as non-new when I see that they are, however...for valid reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but can you show me where reverting someone on the assumption of bad faith because you think they have made different edits to the article that you also reverted because you assumed those were also in bad faith (possibly based on the same circular reasoning?) is considered a "valid reason" in Wikipedia policy? I hope it's not considered valid because it's not; it's circular. RoughDraft (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry your "01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)" comment does not apply to me. My valid reasons for reverting you are noted above. Stop wasting my time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Flyer, responding to your ping. I haven't edited this article for about a year, and haven't followed recent discussions. But I agree with your edits. RoughDraft, these issues have been extensively debated, including in an RfC. SarahSV (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at those debates and nobody in those debates suggested the kinds of edits I made, so they aren't relevant. The idea that you can revert edits on the basis that "there was already a debate" doesn't make sense. Wikipedia doesn't just stop editing articles once there has been a debate. My edits mostly had nothing to do with the dabate, and those that did were not a direct contradiction of the result of the debate. "particularly in diet" as far as I can tell, has not been discussed much. The suggestion I offer in the section below is a new suggestion one that improves upon that POV language and makes in more NPOV. Why reject a suggestion merely on the basis that nobody though to suggest it earlier? RoughDraft (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh? There have been a number of discussions that subscribe to the viewpoint that those who simply follow the vegan diet are not vegans. Given your edits to this article and your arguments on this topic, those past discussions are relevant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The conclusion of the discussion was not that veganism is just as diet. The conclusions is that it can refer to just a diet. But saying that veganism is particularly is diet is claiming that it is always particular to diet. "At least in diet" is more accurate. The discussion you linked to discussed mainly the "commodity status of animals" part and there was certainly no debate about whether "particularly in diet" or "at least in diet" or "as far as practicable" is more accurate. RoughDraft (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Roughdraft, this has been discussed many times. See the FAQ at the top of the page and at Talk:Veganism/FAQ. "Particularly in diet" simply means that diet is the focus of veganism. Your additions introduced several inaccuracies—for example, that dietary vegans are those who follow a vegan diet for health reasons, but this isn't always true. Please make yourself familiar with the sources, and if you've edited this article under another user name, please use the same account. Otherwise editors here are repeating themselves to the same people, which isn't fair. SarahSV (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but diet is not the focus of ethical veganism, and ethical vegans (who are the majority) would not agree that veganism means "avoiding animal products, particularly in diet", so this is POV. A fair compromoise would be something like "at least in diet". The source given says that "pure vegetarians" or "dietary vegans" are "usually" motivated by health reasons. Nowhere did I claim they always do, as you imply. But those who follow a vegan diet for health reasons are more likely to wear leather than those who follow one for ethical reasons. RoughDraft (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, by agreeing with the reversions of all of my edits, you are claiming that all of my edits were bad, which is clearly not assuming good faith, since the reverter has admitted they weren't assuming good faith, and since some of my edits were fixing problems with punctuation, most were minor non-controversial improvements, and others actually removed POV statements and replaced them with NPOV statements, yet all were reverted by someone not assuming good faith who clearly was not objectively assessing each edit on its merits. You are following the same faulty logic that the reversion of all my edits was an improvement of the article because some of my edits weren't perfect. RoughDraft (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"Someone [...] who clearly was not objectively assessing each edit on its merits"? False. My focus was not on minor edits that can easily be reinstated. Most of what I reverted was POV wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You haven't reinstated all of my NPOV improvements. It's no wonder this article is so inaccurate and poorly written when you are deliberately reverting as many improvements as you can whenever you think you can claim they are POV. Overall I made the lede less POV while improving punctuation. If you went through and assessed each edit individual, you could have come up with a constructive compromise, but you didn't even try. And then you call in your friend to agree with you, who says that the huge effort of clicking a revert button to revert my hard work and prevent collaborative improvement is unfair on you. What a joke. Now I remember why I left this website years ago. RoughDraft (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You made a few minor edits. I reinstated one. You were clearly free to reinstate the others. When it comes to reverting you, reverting the POV changes was more important than retaining minor edits. It was not worth it to work through the intermediate edits. Like I noted below, SlimVirgin (who has responded to your arguments below as well) is very familiar with the veganism literature and wrote the vast majority of this article. Of course I'm going to ping her on this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Your friend has shown that she isn't even that familiar with literature that has been cherry-picked to support her POV. You clearly both have a history of excluding certain views from the article while cherry picking and emphasising others. RoughDraft (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
LHow is she not familiar? And what history are you referring to as far as it concerns me? Whatever your claim, it's false. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

New suggestion for definition of veganism[edit]

As discussed above, the current definition of veganism given in the first sentence of the lede is not perfect. I would like to suggest the following improvement and get your comment:

"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from animal products, at least in diet, usually in clothing and other products where feasible, and often including an underlying principle rejecting the commodity status of animals."

This is not exactly how it is defined by most vegans and the most authoritative definitions, which often simply say "as far as practicable" but I think it is a good NPOV compromise between different positions. The only debate point I can see is whether we should use "usually" or "often" for clothing etc and "usually", "often", "sometimes" or neither for the principle. I think the way I have written it is the most consensus-building, but either way I would prefer it to the the current phrasing which includes two controversial statements, one that veganism is "particularly in diet", which is ambiguous and would certainly be hotly contested by many vegans, and even many non-vegetarians think it goes beyond diet. The second statement that some would argue is POV is that veganism refers to the underlying philosophy, without using the word "usually" or often, ie that it is always ethical. As such we are contradicting ourselves in the lede, simultaneously claiming that it is "particularly in diet" (non-ethical) and in the same sentence claiming it [always] includes an underlying ethical philosophy. NPOV doesn't mean presenting two opposing opinions as fact in the same sentence. It means finding language that everyone can agree on. I think the definition I give above does this much better, even if it is not perfect. Please give your comments below not on whether you think it is perfect, but on whether you think it is better or worse than the current opening sentence. If you have suggestions to improve the definition further, please give them here. RoughDraft (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources for your definition that EXPLICITLY use your proposed definition? If not, it's Original Research. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"Can you provide reliable sources for your definition that EXPLICITLY use your proposed definition? If not, it's Original Research."
No, that's not what original research means. I'm describing what is in the sources currently provided. Neither the current definition given in the article, nor the one I am providing, is a word for word quotation of a single source. This is because there are many sources that contradict each other, so we can't include just one source. That would be POV. Instead we have to combine the sources to create a consensus. The suggestion I have given is based on the definitions in the sources that we are already using, but unlike the current definition used in the article, it doesn't contradict itself or the source. Instead I have used language that acknowledged three things contained in the sources. Firstly, all of the sources say veganism requires avoiding animal products in your diet. Secondly, most of the sources including the Vegan Society definition given say that veganism requires avoiding animal products as far as practicable, but because not all the sources agree I have added the word "usually". This is not original research, just description of the sources. Thirdly, most of the sources imply veganism has an underlying principle that rejects using animals and their body parts as commodities, but not all of the sources agree with this, so I have added the word "often". Again, this is not original research. I don't think you have read carefully the definition I have given above, or the definition that is currently leading the article, or my explanation, or the sources in the article, or Wikipedia's policy against original research. Please do so and provide and informed, well considered comment that addresses the relation of my proposal and the current defintion to each other, themselves and to the sources.RoughDraft (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted it, and you - for some reason - have chosen to undo my reversion. That's an odd thing for a new editor to do. Would you care to explain? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. Did I accidentally revert something? What? RoughDraft (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh OK, I see it now. I didn't revert it. I just quoted you and responded before you reverted. I can delete it now. RoughDraft (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not this again RoughDraft is clearly acting in good faith (as far as I can tell), but as Exemplo suggests, I can't see this getting anywhere useful unless there are game-changing new sources. we're trying to describe a complicated situation: "veganism" is sometimes used to mean boycotting animal products in diet, sometimes to mean boycotting them completely, and sometimes to refer to the idea that they should be boycotted completely on principle. Different authors use different versions, due to all kinds of variations in their motivations or interests or agendas, and we'll never be able to come up with a "perfect" definition which matches every way the term is used. The current lede accurately conveys the fact that the term is used in different ways, but does not clearly endorse any particular meaning. Unless we can find some authoritative tertiary source covering all aspects of veganism, I don't see any benefit to trying to relitigate the best way to craft a necessarily imperfect definition. FourViolas (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging my good faith. I don't think we need new sources. What we need is to accurately represent the sources we have without presenting POV statements as fact. Do you see how my statement avoids stating the POV statements as fact? In the long term, something like this will help to build consensus, rather than having angry people making edits based on disagreeing with one of the two POV statements in the lead. By using NPOV statements like "often" and "usually" I think we can overcome this problem. Of course a perfect definition is impossible, but I would still like your honest opinion on whether you think this is a better or worse definition and why. Trying to avoid any changes just to avoid controversy will not resolve the controversy; it will merely prolong the controversy and prevent the article from being improved. RoughDraft (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If you're not quoting directly from one source, but instead you're creating a statement based on multiple sources, then that's still original research. See WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia editors are meant to go with the reliable sources say, we aren't meant to cherry-pick things that support our own views. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"We aren't meant to cherry-pick things that support our own views" I'm not! That's what the current definition does. My suggestion brings the definition more in line with all of the sources, to replace the cherry picking. It doesn't seem like you have read anything here. RoughDraft (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've read everything you've written here - have you read WP:SYNTH? Exemplo347 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes! WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I'm not! Everything I've given is in line with the sources. The current definition states opinions from the sources as fact. I have merely changed the wording so that they are shown to be opinions. It really doesn't seem like you have read and compared them.RoughDraft (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that I'm disagreeing with you does not mean I haven't read and compared. I've told you that I have, and I'll remind you that you should Assume Good Faith. I've stated my objection based on Wikipedia's policies. Find a reliable source that explicitly says what you want to include - don't combine things from a number of sources (that you haven't referenced) and change the wording like you have - it's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The current wording directly contradicts the sources. My wording is based on the sources and doesn't contradict them. I have explained why. RoughDraft (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I will present a basic logical argument to show how consensus is reached. If some of the sources claim "V=A [particularly]" and all of the other sources claim "V=A+B [and not A particularly]" then both of these are POV claims, but there is a consensus between the sources that "V= at least A". So "Veganism = at least a vegan diet" is NPOV, while "Veganism is a vegan diet in particular" is POV. RoughDraft (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but as you've said you're a new editor I don't think your opinion about "consensus" is based on Wikipedia's norms. Perhaps when you're more experienced you'll realise that for Wikipedia's purposes, "consensus" is reached following a reasoned discussion regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - for example, WP:SYNTH. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The editor acknowledged that they are not new; see the section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
True, I had quite a lot of experience editing completely different articles several years ago, and I studied the policy more carefully than most editors have. Of course, that shouldn't really matter, since my suggestion above is better than the current definition and no one has ever tried to show that it's not. Everyone so far has avoided a real comparison of the two definitions of their merits. RoughDraft (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like I noted to RoughDraft, numerous WP:Reliable sources view following the vegan diet as veganism. Veganism is often defined simply by the diet, meaning without the philosophy being included. So it cannot merely be considered an opinion to state that one who follows the vegan diet is a vegan; the statement is supported by the general literature on veganism. Stating that one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan is a POV issue. Furthermore, what WP:Reliable source state that "one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan", or state something similar? Present them here. Then compare such sources to the general literature on veganism.

SlimVirgin, who is very familiar with the literature on veganism, wrote the vast majority of this article; she wrote it with care. I am waiting for her to weigh in on RoughDraft's objections.

SlimVirgin, I just saw your comment above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You yourself just acknowledged that veganism is "often" defined as just the diet, which is what I say in my suggestion above with "at least in diet". It is not supported by the general literature that a vegan diet is always accepted as veganism. The Vegan Society definition and others given say that vegans avoid animal products "as far as practicable" which contradicts "particularly in diet". There are clearly two POVs in the sources, those of the Vegan Society that veganism is more than a diet and goes "as a far as practicable" and those who also consider veganism to be a diet. The NPOV thing is to do what I did above: "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from animal products, at least in diet, usually in clothing and other products where feasible, and often including an underlying principle rejecting the commodity status of animals." Have you even read my new suggestion? It actually conforms to exactly what you are asking for. It acknowledges that "commodity status of animals" is POV by saying that veganism "often" includes this instead of implying that it always does. RoughDraft (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The Vegan Society has been brought up time and time again, and it has been shown time and time again that the general literature on veganism does not define it as strictly as that society does. Again, what WP:Reliable sources state that "one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan", or state something similar? Your suggestion is still POV, with its "at least in diet" assertion. And "usually in clothing and other products where feasible" is especially POV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is "at least in diet" POV? "at least in diet" means "sometimes just in diet and sometimes also in other areas" so I am building consensus with you, whereas "particularly in diet" implies that diet is always the most important aspect, which is POV. Secondly, I accept I can't prove "Usually in clothing". Would you accept that "often in clothing" is a fact? Where it's obvious you're not reading closely (and it's disresepctful) you make up a false quotation "one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan" and you ignore that this is closer to the current definition that to my suggestion. The current definition implies that veganism always involves a philosophy (because that was the result of the back-and-forth POV debate). In my suggestion, in an attempt to build consensus, I have changed that to "often" involves that philosophy. RoughDraft (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I am open to changing "particularly in diet," but I don't think that "at least in diet" is much better. I can accept "often in clothing." As for stating that I'm not reading closely, that is disrespectful. I asked you what WP:Reliable sources state that "one must follow the philosophy in order to be a vegan", or state something similar, because you have been arguing that many or most vegans believe that following the diet without following the philosophy is not veganism. It can be argued that the current definition does not imply that veganism always involves the philosophy. The RfC was certainly about presenting both viewpoints as valid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave the commodity status part as it is, since that was the result and focus of the RfC. If you don't have any objection to "at least in diet" and "often in clothing" then I will go ahead and make those edits alone. The sources already given, including Francione, argue that veganism is ethical is basis. I was just suggesting that we add "often" to build consensus with you, but I am happy not to make any edits concerning that to respect the conclusion of RfC, which was on that topic specifically.RoughDraft (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
So what is your new proposed wording for the lead sentence? Also, I think we should give others a chance to weigh in and that the wording shouldn't be changed simply because you and I have agreed on it. If after a day or two, no one objects to what you and I have agreed on, then making the changes should be okay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we start just by changing "particularly in diet" to "at Least in diet". The former is more ambiguous because it could mean "only in diet", while the latter is more clear and representative of the sources. RoughDraft (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Given SlimVirgin's comment above, I'm going to wait to see if she or anyone else states anything more on the matter. I'm going to log off soon, and may be away from Wikipedia for a day or two. I will get back to this, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
That comment was on a separate issue, your reversions. Nobody has given any objection to "at least in diet". "at least in diet" is clearly less POV than "particularly in diet". RoughDraft (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin's comment is indeed about "particularly in diet." You speak of objections, but this discussion clearly shows that you lack support for your changes. Lack of support for your changes is why you proposed changes. Proposing them and then going ahead and making them without waiting for others to weigh in is not really consensus building. I objected to "at least in diet", and you offered no alternative wording for it. SlimVirgin argued for retaining "particularly in diet". Despite this, you went ahead and made the change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin did not mention "at least in diet". What's your objection? You said it's not "much better". That's not an objection. An objection means giving a reason why it's worse. Consensus building on Wikipedia works by making edits that no one objects to. It doesn't work getting support for every edit on the talk page first. Surely you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know this. RoughDraft (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • proposed edits are not an improvement over the long-standing version which is the product itself of long discussions and an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
What has happened at this article for several years is that ethical vegans and people opposed to veganism have both objected to Wikipedia's presentation of moderate vegan positions. In fact, we have seen them join up during the same discussion and knowingly support each other: one side because they want to limit the practice to its most committed supporters, and the other to ridicule it.
But Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. The reliable sources, including academic sources, identify dietary veganism as veganism.
Given that dietary vegans (for health, ethical, religious and environmental reasons) focus on diet entirely, and that ethical vegans focus on diet too, although not entirely, "particularly in diet" is a good summary for the first sentence. The second lead paragraph unpacks it, although the previous version (below, minus the notes and refs) was better than the current:

Distinctions are sometimes made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans (or strict vegetarians) refrain from consuming animal products, not only meat but also eggs, dairy products and other animal-derived substances. The term ethical vegan is often applied to those who not only follow a vegan diet but extend the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and oppose the use of animals for any purpose. Another term is environmental veganism, which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the harvesting or industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable.

SarahSV (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Perfect summary. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually no it's not a perfect summary. It's a misrepresentation of the sources and of my own edits and suggestions. Ethical veganism is also veganism, and that term belongs to Colombia Press. Therefore "at least in diet" is more accurate than "particularly in diet". The Vegan Society is an authoritative source and they define veganism the way that most vegans do. Most people who identify as vegans accept the vegan society definition. But my edits and suggestion did not take sides in this, they just removed POV claims. "particularly in diet" is POV. "at least in diet" is not. RoughDraft (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not going to adopt the definition of the British Vegan Society. We reflect the definitions used by reliable sources. SarahSV (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, that's even more illogical than saying "we can't take official Wikipedia policy statements as a reliable source on Wikipedia policy". Secondly, even the "reliable sources" don't consistently agree with you. The nutritionist book introduces the terms "dietary vegans" as the same thing as "pure vegetarian" because they need to divert from the standard definition for nutritional academic reasons. If they weren't diverting to from the standard definition, they would simply have used "vegans" and not felt the need to say "dietary vegans". The word "ethical vegan" is not used that often, because vegan is generally taken to mean what most vegans and the vegan society say it does. When both vegans and non-vegans use the word vegan, they are usually excluding people who wear leather in public. If your "reliable sources" don't recognise this then they are probably cherry picked and not reliable. Thirdly, you are misrepresenting my argument again. I'm not even arguing that we adopt the Vegan Society position completely, as I clearly stated. I'm simply asking for better, more accurate, more neutral language on the topic. But clearly you have a commitment to not using neutral language. RoughDraft (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose we are not allowed to use the Cambridge English Dictionary either: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vegan RoughDraft (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dictionaries_as_sources explains that we can and should use dictionary definitions from reliable dictionaries like the Cambridge, but I guess since the Cambridge English Dictionary, the Vegan Society, The International Vegan Association, and the inventor of word "vegan" Don Watson all agree that leather is not vegan and vegans avoid it, they are all unreliable sources now, and we must continue to pretend that people who buy leather, use it and show it off in public are always accepted as vegans by everyone. Congratulations on keeping the article absurdly inaccurate by cherry-picking sources and reverting NPOV improvements. RoughDraft (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You are accurately summarizing ethical veganism, which is just one kind. Per the reliable sources. You are pounding your head against the brick wall of policy-based edits. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No, my edits were policy based. There is undue weight given to the rare and esoteric concept of "dietary veganism" in the lede and in the definition of veganism in the first clause of the article, and the claim that people who buy and wear fur and leather but eat are vegan diet are "vegans" is an extremely rare POV opinion relevant only in nutritional science, not generally relevant to what veganism means in everyday language, currently stated as part of the common definition of veganism, which it quite simply is not, and the current definition effectively excludes the eschewing of animal products like leather from the definition, effectively denying that ethical veganism is veganism. My edits and suggestions have been moderate attempt to build consensus by rephrasing to make article more accurate and NPOV. And even my improvements of punctuation according to the style guide were reverted. Excluding authoratiative sources from the Cambridge English Dictionary to the International Vegan Association, reverting and ignoring suggestions instead of collaborative consensus building is not policy based. But then Wikipedia policy is often violated by dominant editors. I've been banging my head against thuggery, not policy. RoughDraft (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The vast majority of people, including vegans and non-vegans, including the Cambridge English Dictionary and the Vegan Society, believe that ethical veganism is veganism, and that leather is not vegan, and that vegans do not buy leather or condone the buying of it. Not only is this fact not stated in the lead, but it is actively denied, while all of these sources are omitted, while the rare esoteric concept of "dietary veganism" is made the centre of the definition and given a huge amount of space and is the first form of veganism to be defined, on the basis of a lie, that only these esoteric uses in esoteric sources are reliable. None of this is policy based. RoughDraft (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Please write shorter posts, and please don't make assertions like "The vast majority of people...believe X". They are not useful arguments in Wikipedia. Thanks
No one is arguing that those sources don't say that. The article deals with those, and others that define it more broadly. Those sources cannot be ignored; ignoring them makes the article less NPOV, not more NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Following a plant based diet free of meat and dairy doesn't make one a vegan, end of story.Wikiinfomation (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that's your opinion but without a reliable source, it's pretty meaningless. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Updating[edit]

I'm about to post an update/copy edit because there has been deterioration. Sentences were removed so that the surrounding text made no sense. Text and refs already in the article were added again. New refs were added but not accurately summarized. I've also expanded the origins section, added an image of one of the attendees of the first Vegan Society meeting (but we badly need a free image of Donald Watson), and swapped the Singer image for one of Val Plumwood.

The new demographics section should probably be reverted to the shorter version. The expansion took place between March and October 2016. [1][2][3] I started trying to tidy it, but it was too time-consuming, so I've mostly left it in place, but I removed the sections with the poorest sources. SarahSV (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Steven Davis paragraphs[edit]

I'm about to remove the last two paragraphs of the environmental veganism section about the Steven Davis thought experiment. They've been there for over 10 years in one form or another. I haven't removed them before because it's an interesting argument, but it's massively UNDUE, based on figures of unclear provenance, and 14 years old, so it needs to go. SarahSV (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)