Talk:Veganism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Section on B12

The first sentence should state what the reliable sources say: There are no natural plant sources of B12. Vegans need supplements or fortified foods to avoid B12 deficiency. Instead, we get stuff about what B12 is and why it is important before finally getting to a watered-down claim "in most cases, at least in the West". It's not stated as a fact, it's "often used as an argument against veganism." Then we get the laundry list of primary studies showing this, that or the other thing might have B12. The section should start with something along the lines of: "According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B₁₂ are limited to foods that come from animals." Vegans who do not consume B₁₂-fortified foods (certain plant milks and breakfast cereals, for example) need to include a B₁₂ supplement in their diet or risk vitamin B₁₂ deficiency." We can get into the apologetics after that. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the way you want to phrase it is that it gives the impression that B12 comes from animals. I very closely followed the specialist sources when I was writing it. The issue isn't as straightforward as you want to make it. Bear in mind that a lot of the readers of this page will be vegans who will have read somewhere that there are vegan B12 sources, so I wanted to write this in a way that would explain to them why people say this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is it buries the simple fact that, apologetics aside, "natural food sources of vitamin B₁₂ are limited to foods that come from animals." Before explaining to the (in a vague, misleading way) why people tell them something that is wrong, we should probably state the simple fact, as stated by leading health organizations and several vegan organizations: Natural plant foods do not provide B12 and vegans need to take supplements or eat fortified foods. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that human beings who go to the bathroom without washing their hands, who don't brush their teeth, or who eat plants that haven't been washed, may not need extra B12 (don't try this at home). Everyone else should take supplements. I think the current section explains it well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your "understanding" is flawed and moot. Reliable sources, speaking of B12 in relation to veganism mince no words: There are no natural vegan foods that provide B12. Vegans -- not just those who don't eat shit -- need suppliments or fortified foods. The section dodges and obfuscates it well. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate: This article obscures the direct relevance of B12 to veganism -- that natural plant foods completely lack B12 and vegans need supplements or fortified foods. I intend to remedy that. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The section doesn't obscure anything; it explains it clearly. In addition, the need for extra B12 is included in the lead. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't destabilize the article. You've expressed strong views against veganism (including, as I recall, "god help" vegans, and saying you don't believe anyone actually follows a vegan diet). It's really unhelpful to edit an article with that attitude when it goes against all the source material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, no, you do not recall correctly. But thanks for the attack. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've moved a sentence from lower in that section into the section's first paragraph: "The consensus among nutritionists is that vegans and even vegetarians should eat foods fortified with B12 or use supplements." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you not quoting me out of context to present an argument that I shouldn't edit "your" article. My suggestions that there is a problem are "destabiliz(ing) the article". You, however, can edit as you wish?

The article buries the lead: ""According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B₁₂ are limited to foods that come from animals." Vegans who do not consume B₁₂-fortified foods (certain plant milks and breakfast cereals, for example) need to include a B₁₂ supplement in their diet or risk vitamin B₁₂ deficiency." Instead, we lead with "Vitamin B12 is a bacterial product needed for cell division, the formation and maturation of red blood cells, the synthesis of DNA, and normal nerve function. A deficiency can lead to several health problems, including megaloblastic anemia and nerve damage." Note that those two sentences do not so much as refer obliquely to veganism, which this article is supposed to be about. So why is it there? So that we don't lead with something that might imply that an unsupplemented vegan diet COMPLETELY lacks a necessary nutrient (aside from wishful vegan thinking about shit on your food or hands being a source).

Why are we merely one foot into the rabbit hole on this? Perhaps we should jump completely in and add to the "in the West" crap all of the dreams of obtaining B12 from bug shit on salad, "soil" on vegetables, poor dental hygiene, poor bathroom hygiene, oral sex, "backflow" from the colon, etc.? Then we can cite vegan sources for all of the obscure seaweeds, fungi, etc. that once tested positive for B12. We can certainly also get into the vegan sources that point out that B12 is not a necessary nutrient. After all, it's not like we have numerous major health services and vegan groups debunking all of this, it's merely a "consensus among nutritionists" that "at least in the West" the magic poo-eating doesn't work. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion to the contrary, I am going to edit (a.k.a. "destabilize") the article by bumping up the relevant/on-topic portion of the section: "According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B₁₂ are limited to foods that come from animals." Vegans who do not consume B₁₂-fortified foods (certain plant milks and breakfast cereals, for example) need to include a B₁₂ supplement in their diet or risk vitamin B₁₂ deficiency." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Extraneous information

In the section "Animal Products", sub-section "Milk, eggs, honey and silk", the entire second paragraph is irrelevant. It seems like someone got a little excited to talk about how farm animals are treated.24.249.175.130 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream?

The Wikipedia definition of mainstream is: "the common current thought of the majority." How can a lifestyle choice followed by 3% of the population be described as "the current thought of the majority"? Harry the Dog WOOF 12:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As a counterpoint, consider that we can find reliable sources stating that veganism is "dangerous". Should we make that a section heading?

Similarly, much of language in this article is controlled by that 3%. The article seems to bury well-sourced concerns that run counter to the desires of those few. Take the section on B12 (please!). The first sentence should state what the reliable sources say: "There are no natural plant sources of B12. Vegans need supplements or fortified foods to avoid B12 deficiency." Instead, we get stuff about what B12 is and why it is important before finally getting to a watered-down claim "in most cases, at least in the West". It's not stated as a fact, it's "often used as an argument against veganism." Then we get the laundry list of primary studies showing this, that or the other thing might have B12.

"According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B₁₂ are limited to foods that come from animals." Vegans]] who do not consume B₁₂-fortified foods (certain plant milks and breakfast cereals, for example) need to include a B₁₂ supplement in their diet or risk vitamin B₁₂ deficiency." - SummerPhD (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Harry the Dirty Dog, be careful about citing Wikipedia articles in an argument; besides having an editor tell you that Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source, sometimes an editor will then go and change the Wikipedia article's definition to suit their argument (which, yep, further proves that Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source). I happen to have the Mainstream article on my WP:Watchlist, by the way, due to the Wikipedia WP:FRINGE guideline and the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but in this case the Wikipedia article also mirrors the dictionary definition of mainstream, "the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional" [1]. So in this case I simply used the WP article as a shortcut since it is accurate (at least at the moment). But veganism is definitely not "shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional" and should not be described as such. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The word is used to mean that veganism is regarded as normal or conventional, which it most certainly is according to the sources and more importantly, according to the marketplace. The Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods, General Mills, ConAgra Foods, Dean Foods, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Bill Gates have all recognized the mainstreaming of veganism. More than one-third of Americans alone supplement their diets with vegan choices even if they also eat meat. Food companies responsible for producing most of the meat in the marketplace have taken notice and are either planning or currently producing vegan products to serve Europe (huge market) and the West, and the number of vegan restaurants grows every day. Veganism has been described as the "new normal" and "mainstream" in Southern California alone, which generally leads in food trends. Natural foods and veganism, across the world are considered conventional and mainstream. Something does not have to shared by anyone to be considered mainstream. Here's a simple example to refute you: Most people are not gay, but gay rights have gone mainstream. Veganism is considered normal, and is therefore mainstream. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Merriam–Webster defines mainstream as "a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence." The point is that veganism is no longer weird. Lots of ordinary people are trying or considering it, or at least not scoffing at it. Only four percent of people in the UK routinely cycle, and the government says that only 1.5 percent identify as gay, but there's nothing non-mainstream about cycling or being gay. Or being vegan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons that veganism is no longer considered weird is because that generation has died. I have a friend whose mother is now 98 and she was part of that generation. If you even mentioned vegetarianism or veganism to her she would flip out and rant and rave about how such people were horrible and crazy. That's what that generation used to do. Anyone who dared to think that animals could possibly have rights or that we could help the environment by eating less meat or wearing less animal products would be outcast from the community. People forget that's how it really was. And another friend has also reminded me of the role of religion in reinforcing this view, in that fundamentalist Christians in America to this day still believe that their god gave them dominion over all the animals to use as they see fit. So anyone who was espousing veganism would be going against god, according to this interpretation. On the other hand, I just saw an article about a new generation of Christian vegans who are trying to change that point of view. And something else has happened. Meat eaters are starting to reflect on their own lifestyle and take into account how they can be better meat eaters. I realize that sounds funny, but entertainers like Joe Rogan have said just this. According to Rogan, who is an admitted carnivore, he would like to eat only wild game that he himself hunts and kills, thereby avoiding the factory farms and the unnecessary suffering that animals go through. So meat eaters like Rogan have taken the criticism offered by veganism to a new and interesting level while both acknowledging its merits and its pitfalls. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right that it might be age-related. The older a person is, the less mainstream veganism may seem, although there are certainly older people leading in it, too, mainly for health reasons. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

More people don't consider it weird. That does not make it "mainstream". The definition is quite clear: ""the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional". And regarded as normal and conventional. It's not an alternative definition. It must be taken up by most people to be described as mainstream. You cannot describe anything that has 3% or less of the population participating as mainstream. A lot of people may know about it and not consider it strange, but they have no interest in taking part. There are lots of marginal sports that a small percentage of people enjoy taking part in. Many people may have heard of them, think they are fine for those who want to take part, but don't wish to do so themselves. We still refer to those sports as marginal. The same with Gay rights. Many straight people support gay rights. But that does not make homosexuality the mainstream sexuality in any society that I know of, even if it is more accepted than it once was. The same with veganism. With a maximum 3% take-up it remains a marginal lifestyle choice even if more people are aware of and interested in it. The article should not suggest otherwise. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not how the word is used here, and your interpretation of a dictionary definition does not trump the sources showing Veganism has gone mainstream in terms of its acceptance as a normal diet and as a normal food product choice in the supermarket aisle and in restaurants. Nobody said that homosexuality was a mainstream sexuality, what was said was that gay rights have gone mainstream in the same way that the veganism has. For you to keep arguing about narrow dictionay definitions shows you don't understand how words are used in different contexts. Words don't have a black and white binary narrow usage like you seem to think. A thing does not have to be taken up by most people to be considered mainstream. It merely has to be accepted as normal. You don't appear to understand the difference. As explained above, the 3% figure only categorizes people who identify as vegan, it does not include two-thirds of omnivores who have chosen to cut back on their meat intake and replace it with vegan choices. The marketplace has recognized the growth of this area (more than 60%) and has reacted accordingly, as investors and traditional companies pour enormous sums of money into the vegan marketplace, including meat producers themselves. I've talked to large pork producers who are so concerned about their lost market share that they've started to manufacture vegan pork analogues. This is about as mainstream as you get. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"A thing does not have to be taken up by most people to be considered mainstream." Of course it does. That is the definition of mainstream - the only definition of mainstream. There are two issues here. More people now than before accept that veganism is a normal diet choice (mainstream acceptance). But there is also the issue of whether veganism is a mainstream activity engaged in by most people, which it is not. My concern is that the way the article was worded it gave the impression that veganism had become a mainstream activity rather than the fact that it has become more accepted over the years while still remaining a marginal activity. "From marginal to mainstream" suggests that it is no longer a marginal activity (which a diet that 3% of the population have adopted certainly is) rather than mainstream acceptance which is what you are saying, and which I wouldn't disagree with. And no, I don't count people who simply cut back on meat as vegan or vegetarian - they are neither. Choosing to eat less meat has certainly become more mainstream - but that is not veganism. You cannot use a reduction in meat-eating to argue that veganism is now mainstream. It's not. So yes, I agree that veganism has acquired mainstream acceptance. But that is not my issue. The article should not imply that it has become a mainstream activity any more than the article on homosexuality should claim that it has. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The thesaurus on my Mac gives " accepted, established, recognised," among synonyms for "mainstream", which in my view makes veganism mainstream. Also in my experience: my declaration of being vegan is not seen as me being a geek or odd in some way. Instead, it is simply accepted and recognised in most eateries, who can provide for it (perhaps with a little guidance!). Sticking to one sense of "mainstream" can vindicate Harry the Dog's position, using other senses of the word legitimately makes it mainstream. I prefer my language to be flexible. WIthin bounds.TonyClarke (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My quite mainstream Windows 8.1 tells me "veganism" is not a word. "Vegetarianism", however, is. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that in the context of acceptance or recognition. Clearly veganism has achieved broad recognition and acceptance in the past 40 or so years. Many restaurants and food producers cater for vegans these days. My concern is that, in the context, the wording implied that it had become a dietary choice adopted by most people (which it has not) as well as being regarded as normal (which it is). That, to a casual reader, is what "mainstream" means, especially when in the context of something no longer being "marginal". Mainstream acceptance, as I say, is not the same as mainstream activity and the article should be careful to state that while the first is true, the second is not. Harry the Dog WOOF 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're agreeing that it's now mainstream. That's all the section header meant – that it has moved from being marginal to gaining broad recognition and acceptance, using a phrase (from marginal to mainstream) that was used by the AP. "Mainstream" doesn't mean that it's a dietary choice that has been adopted by most people. All kinds of things are "mainstream" that aren't done by most people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I am agreeing that it has gained more mainstream acceptance. It remains a marginal lifestyle choice that has gained mainstream acceptance. The heading "from marginal to mainstream" would not reflect that for the average reader. Indeed even the AP story qualifies its headline: "In a 2009 survey, advocates at the not-for-profit Vegetarian Resource Group reported about 1 percent of Americans are vegan, roughly a third of the people who reported being vegetarians. A separate survey released last year by the same group found a similar breakdown for Americans aged 8 to 18.That makes veganism something short of a fad sweeping the nation like low-carb once did." The whole article is about the growing acceptance of veganism by the general public and not, as suggested by the headline, something adopted by the majority. The implication given by the heading is that it is no longer a marginal lifestyle choice (which it is) and it is now a mainstream lifestyle choice (ie most people have adopted it) which it isn't. Most people do have to go along with something for it to be mainstream. That is the very definition of the word. In this case we are trying to say that acceptance of veganism as being normal is mainstream, ie that most people would accept that statement. No problem with stating that if the sources support it. But to imply that it it is no longer a marginal lifestyle choice, that it is a mainstream lifestyle choice (ie adopted by the majority) is incorrect. Marginal and mainstream are antonyms (hence their use in the heading). It is in that context that I am saying we can't say it is "mainstream". Harry the Dog WOOF 09:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the above I have changed the heading to "Towards mainstream acceptance". I think that accurately reflects what the AP article actually says, and does not imply that veganism is a mainstream diet. I hope that this is an acceptable compromise. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not even accurate. Vegans aren't looking for acceptance. If you left your mother's basement once in a while, you would find that vegan food products are everywhere. It's been accepted for quite a while now. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No need for the personal attacks. The section details the progress that veganism has made from the 1970s to the present. In the 1970s very few people had heard of veganism, and many who had heard of it had no real idea what it was. In the past 40 years or so a lot of progress has been made from that state of affairs to the current situation where more vegan food is available and more people know about veganism. The section describes that progression from something few people were aware of or understood to mainstream acceptance. So to head a historical section about that progression "Towards mainstream acceptance" (which it has now achieved) seems perfectly accurate to me. It is certainly more accurate than implying that it has moved from a marginal lifestyle choice (which at 3% it still is) to a mainstream lifestyle choice. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you've mistaken "mainstream" for "something adopted by the majority." That's a simple error, and that's what is causing the disagreement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In the states we refer to "something adopted by the majority" as conventional wisdom, a term I dislike. I wonder if this dispute might be caused by a regional interpretation. Here in the states, the word "mainstream" does not refer to something adopted by the majority, but rather something accepted as normal or commonplace, such as finding vegan food on a supermarket shelf or in a restaurant. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The word "mainstream" doesn't mean "adopted by the majority" outside the U.S. either. We could all give examples of mainstream things that most people don't do (reading the Times, for example). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

OK Merriam-Webster (US dictionary [2]} "a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence". Veganism is not that. Not a prevailing activity and while it has growing influence no one could yet call it prevailing. I would think Atkins had more influence than veganism. You cannot redefine words to suit yourself. Reading newspapers is a mainstream activity; reading a specific newspaper is not unless it is read by most people. Reading the Morning Star is not a mainstream activity! I can find sources where people say "I am a vegan. I eat eggs but no meat." Or "I am a vegsn. I eat cheese but no meat." We have all heard of that. It doesn't mean we can use that source to redefine the word vegan. It has a specific meaning (the complete avoidance of animal derived products). Mainstream also has a specific meaning, that which the majority does. As I keep saying, I have no problem asserting that the majority accepts (the acceptance is the mainstream act) veganism and it is easier to be a vegan than it was 40 years ago (because that is what the AP source actually says). What the source does not say is that it has become more than a marginal lifestyle choice which I submit the heading "From marginal to mainstream" would suggest to the casual reader, since those to words are antonyms. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What in the world does the influence of the Atkins diet have to do with veganism being mainstream? Reading newspapers has dropped to its lowest levels in history (about 20%) with the highest number of readers over the age of 65. By your strange definition, reading a newspaper is not a mainstream activity. When you assert that society accepts veganism, you are admitting that it is mainstream. Veganism hasn't been "marginal" for two decades. And while you have certainly defended your position, you're still choosing one usage over others. Words do not have one meaning, and you've been reminded on this point. On another matter, I've noticed that there has been serious push-back from certain groups of people who place a high value on meat in their culture and can't imagine going through a single day without consuming an animal. While that line of thought exists, it is not mainstream in the west, but very common in some parts of the world. You still have not responded to my point that mainstream corporations like the Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods, General Mills, ConAgra Foods, and Dean Foods, and mainstream investors like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Bill Gates have all recognized veganism as a major player in the marketplace. If veganism were not mainstream, why would mainstream food companies produce vegan products and why would mainstream investors fund them? Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that mainstream companies make vegan products does not make the products themselves mainstream. The take-up of those products remains marginal. As the AP article itself points out: "Consider that while Kraft Foods reports that it shipped out more Boca Original Vegan Burger Patties and Boca Ground Crumbles last year, the increase was a modest 1 percent." So it is hardly a diet choice that is sweeping the nation. Words do have specific meanings. Vegan is a case in point. Is someone who eats no animal products except eggs a vegan? Of course not. Yet I have seen such people describe themselves as vegan. Or "vegetarians" who east fish. Words do have specific (if sometimes multiple) definitions, and the only definition of mainstream in any dictionary that I can find is refers to a majority. What you have not addressed is the difference between mainstream acceptance and mainstream adoption. All I am saying is that the article should not suggest that veganism has been adopted by the mainstream as their diet (although many people adopt aspects of a vegan diet) and that I believe that a casual reader reading "From marginal to mainstream" might get that impression. That is why I think it is important to make it clear that when we are talking about mainstream (ie what the majority do) we are talking about acceptance, not giving a misleading impression that veganism is a lifestyle adopted by the majority. It really is that simple. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an awful lot of discussion about the meaning of a word. The issue is that "mainstream" does not necessarily refer to what the majority is actually doing, but what the majority sees as "normal." I think we should restore the header; some sources that support it, from local and national media:

• "Vegan Diets Become More Popular, More Mainstream", CBS News/AP, 5 Jan 2011: "Once mocked as a fringe diet for sandal-wearing health food store workers, veganism is moving from marginal to mainstream in the United States."
• "Veganism 2.0: Let them eat kale ", Independent, 8 December 2013: "One further example of how plant-based diets are becoming mainstream will arrive in Britain next year ..."
• "Making Vegan a New Normal", New York Times, 24 Sept 2012: "... even a few years ago, the vegan chef and cookbook author Tal Ronnen couldn’t imagine that his specialty would go as mainstream as it has of late."
• "Fine Dining for Vegans", East Bay Express, 17 Dec 2013: "Now that Jay-Z and Beyoncé have started dabbling in veganism, it's safe to say that plant-based diets are enjoying previously unimaginable levels of mainstream acceptance in the United States."
• "Vegan Fashion 101", EcoSalon, 15 Dec 2013: "Finally, veganism is being talked about in the mainstream."
• "Vegans can acquire survival skills", U-T San Diego, 19 Nov 2013: "... now that all the mainstream supermarkets have vegan and vegetarian options ... As these changes become mainstream, Ennis hopes alternatives to meat consumption will be here to stay."
• "Natural Foodie", Portland Press Herald, 27 Nov 2013: "... the fact that vegan eating has become almost mainstream ..."
• "It’s not easy being vegan – at least not at Thanksgiving", San Angelo Standard Times, 24 Nov 2013: "Whatever the reason, veganism is entering the mainstream."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to look at trade and industry sources, which is where the real discussion occurs. In this month's issue of Food in Canada (Nov/Dec 2013, 73(9): 24-26), there's an article about this issue in "Stepping up to the plate". It says: "Plant-based proteins step into the spotlight as sales of vegetarian products surge in North America", followed by:

More and more consumers across Canada are [taking] a pass on animal-based protein. Indeed, the use of meatless products is now becoming mainstream, says Ashlyn Neff. "It's not just for vegetarians and vegans anymore," notes the brand manager at Richmond, B.C-based Garden Protein International, the maker of Gardein products. "Large numbers of meat-eaters are consuming plant-based proteins." Tebbie Chuchla, spokesperson for Toronto, Ont.-based Hain Celestial Canada, producer of Yves vegetarian products, agrees: "We have seen a growth in the number of consumers who are becoming 'flexitarians,' and that increase has occurred across most demographic groups."

In a review of Alissa Quart's book Republic of Outsiders: The Power of Amateurs, Dreamers and Rebels (2013), Lauren F. Friedman in Psychology Today (Sept/Oct 2013) writes:

Republic of Outsiders also offers a thoughtful examination of the animal rights movement, which has clearly made mainstream inroads (witness the vegan patties available at Denny's), even as--or perhaps because--its old-school hard-liners refuse to rest until meat is no longer on the menu.

In a New York Times article about Organic Avenue (2013, April 24), Stephanie Strom wrote:

The market for vegan and vegetarian food choices, too, is growing fast, driven by consumer concerns ranging from health and economics to the environment and animal welfare. More families are having meatless Mondays, and dining on tofurkey -- a tofu-based turkey product; other fake meats are going mainstream as well, spawning a fast-growing crowd of consumers who identify themselves as flexitarians....A survey in 2011 by Harris International for the Vegetarian Resource Group found that 5 percent of Americans never eat meat, while 33 percent said they were eating vegetarian or vegan meals more often.

Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well words mean what they mean. Veganism (which has a specific meaning, not just cutting down on animal products) remains a marginal lifestyle choice (taken up by 3% or less of the population). That is a fact. A casual reader reading "From marginal to mainstream" would get the impression that it was no longer a marginal lifestyle choice and it had been adopted by the majority (since if you look up "mainstream" in any dictionary there is an element of majority (or at least plurality) there, and since most people rely on dictionaries to define words, that is what they will understand it to mean. That heading out of context of the article, which qualifies "mainstream" to in terms of interest and acceptance and better availability is misleading. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, words in this context apparently mean what you want them to mean. We don't make editorial decisions based on interpretations of dictionary definitions. And it is your black and white, narrow, literalist thinking style that sparked this discussion. We have 11 sources up above (only a small sample) showing that veganism and all of its accoutrements have gone mainstream. That's good enough for Wikipedia. Whether it is a marginal lifestyle or not has no bearing on the fact that its tenets, its products, and its presence have entered the mainstream discourse and marketplace. With that kind of evidence, I'm not sure there is anything more to discuss. Do you have sources showing otherwise? Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If VEGAN is not a mainstream philosophy then what are the other more common "registered" philosophies? I don't think meat eating is a registered philosophy. There is a real difference between a mainstream philosophy and a mainstream choice.Rstafursky (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Zinc

This article mentions Zinc but unless I misread, the article does not go in depth is describing zinc and possible sources of zinc like the article does for the other nutrients. right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.39.91 (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

19th- and early 20th-century "dietary" vegetarians

The article says the 19th- and early 20th-century vegetarians were divided on the issue whether to avoid animal products for reasons of ethics or health, but I don't seem to be able to find any mention in the article about the 19th- and early 20th-century vegetarians who avoided animal foods for health reasons. I would very much appreciate enlightenment. --Dwy (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's implied in the first part of the history section, and the parent topic, history of vegetarianism, is linked out at the top. That article briefly covers it in the 19th and 20th century sections. Why would you expect to find this information here? Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I still have an impression that most of the earlier "dietary" vegans and vegetarians avoided animal foods for reasons related to their ethical, religious, moral or philosophical belief, rather than health reasons. It appears to me that the above-linked history article does not really mention vegetarian "health" arguments in the 19th- and early 20th- century. I am curious to know who argued the health benefits of vegan/vegetarian diet in the 19th- and early 20th- century and how. --Dwy (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you read the history_of_vegetarianism#19th_century section I recommended up above, it lists Reverend William Metcalfe, Sylvester Graham, and Ellen G. White. All three promoted the health benefits of vegetarianism in the 19th century. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Viriditas. Really interesting to learn about those pioneer vegetarians. However, I am still confused about the statement that "[T]he issue ... divided the 19th- and early 20th-century vegetarians," since it appears to me that their health arguments were closely connected with their religious belief and they advocated vegetarianism both for ethical and health reasons. They were not really divided, were they?--~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwy (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the author of the content, and I don't know the answer to your question, so you have a valid concern that should be answered by someone. I will ping User:SlimVirgin who knows much more about this topic than I do. Hopefully, she will respond. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just saw this. There clearly was a division, which is why the Vegan Society formed. There's a book by Colin Spencer that Dwy might find more information in, Vegetarianism: A History, Da Capo Press, 2004. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, SlimVirgin. I'll read the book. --Dwy (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

UN report correction

Originally, we stated:

In November 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released Livestock's Long Shadow, a report that linked animal agriculture to environmental damage. It concluded that livestock farming (primarily of cows, chickens and pigs) has an impact on almost all aspects of the environment: air, land, soil, water, biodiversity and climate change.Steinfeld, Henning et al. Livestock's Long Shadow (large pdf file). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006, p. 3.

A new UN report casts doubt on these findings:

In March 2014 the UN admited a flaw in this report, noting that "meat and milk production generates less greenhouse gas than most environmentalists claim". [3]

IMO, noting the original report without covering the correction is biased. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph seems to have been copied from the Wikipedia article: Livestock's Long Shadow. However, the article itself doesn't say that meat and milk production generate LESS methane but that transport generates MORE methane (and is therefore more deadly, to the relationship of total GHG release for meat and milk production over transport's GHG release is different because the transport calculation should have been more complete, when previously it was not. The debate is on the percentage of GHG's with regard to the total GHG release.

"I must say honestly that he has a point – we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he said. "But on the rest of the report, I don't think it was really challenged." He said a more comprehensive analysis of emissions from food production was being produced and should be available by the end of the year.

First, this was ONE person on the IPCC, then ONE FAO policy officer accepted the criticism. We don't have the other IPCC members speaking on this point, and it's a newspaper article. I think we need a more reliable primary source. who knows the data itself, not merely what one committee member said.

It should also be noted that this particular paper seems to publish a great many 'climate denier' and anti-environmentalist articles and POVs. MaynardClark (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not mix in climate denialism here. The BBC is also running the story: [4]. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be coincidental, but why not use BBC as a source rather than a newspaper with other associations. Again, the TEXT of the newspaper article is that transport contributes MORE methane, not that meat and milk production contributes LESS. What's at issue is the percentage. I merely asked for a better source (and now, for wording that more meticulously and accurately respects what the - so far - two sources said. MaynardClark (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The text of the newspaper article says, "Dr Frank Mitloehner, from the University of California at Davis (UCD), said meat and milk production generates less greenhouse gas than most environmentalists claim."

The BBC article says, "But curbing meat production and consumption would be less beneficial for the climate than has been claimed, said Frank Mitloehner from the University of California at Davis (UCD). 'Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat,' he told delegates to the American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting in San Francisco. 'Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.' ... Other academics have also argued that meat is a necessary source of protein in some societies with small food resources, and that in the drylands of East Africa or around the Arctic where crop plants cannot survive, a meat-based diet is the only option. Dr Mitloehner contends that in developed societies such as the US - where transport emissions account for about 26% of the national total, compared with 3% for pig- and cattle-rearing - meat is the wrong target in efforts to reduce carbon emissions."

All of this is well sourced and contrary to the way we are presenting the report in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We can't change this on the basis of one man's opinion about one aspect of the report – and in addition someone who appears to have received research grants from the meat and animal-use industries, though even without that one man's opinion can't override a report from the UN. CNN reports: "One of the report's authors, Pierre Gerber, told CNN he accepted the comparison with transport data was inaccurate. "This was not done deliberately," he said. "But the comparability of the data does not challenge the estimate of 18 percent." To change how we present the report we would need a correction from the UN or a peer-reviewed source, preferably a review article, saying that the transport figures made a difference to the overall percentages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

1935 Deletion

I'm concerned with User_talk:SlimVirgin's deletion of the 1935 material, leading up to the 1944 meeting and their decision to adopt the term 'vegan'.

In 1935 the Vegetarian Society's journal observed that the issue of whether vegetarians ought to eat dairy products and eggs was becoming more pressing with every year. In July 1943, Leslie J. Cross, a member of the Leicester Vegetarian Society, expressed concern in its newsletter, The Vegetarian Messenger, that vegetarians were still consuming cow's milk. Cross echoed the argument about eggs, that to produce milk for human consumption the cow has to be separated from her calves soon after their birth: "in order to produce a dairy cow, heart-rending cruelty, and not merely exploitation, is a necessity."

My thinking is that, if the article is becoming too substantial, s/he could move the material to a footnote, but I don't advise it. MaynardClark (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because it looks odd to say that someone expressed concern in 1935, and eight years later someone expressed concern again. There's also no need to repeat the argument about cow's milk, which has its own section. We can move it to a footnote if that would be better than removing it entirely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As there has been no reply, I'll continue with the copy edit. I'll put some or all of that material in a footnote and/or summarize the issue with cows' milk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Alas, it is an encyclopedia article! I see nothing wrong with documenting 'concern expressed' (probably an understatement, at that, of some conversations of which only limited evidence is available in the form of some printed matter. But again, alas... it is an encyclopedia article and cannot cover the full story. MaynardClark (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

References

I'm in the process of tidying the article, and one of the things I'm doing (unless there are strong objections) is writing the refs as "first name, last name," because they're in footnotes rather than an alphabetical list, and it's easier to write them that way. Just leaving a note here in case someone sees it and wonders why. If people mind we can always change it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur. MaynardClark (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'New Four Food Groups' or 'Four New Food Groups'

For as long as I've been watching PCRM, they've called their dietary guidelines the 'New Four Food Groups' (and others, such as Annie whose article has been cited, may have been using the alternate term 'Four New Food Groups'. I could see a reason for doing either, but PCRM refers to their guidelines as the 'New Four Food Groups' and I think that, in a sentence referring to PCRM, we ought to use their term. MaynardClark (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking

Maynard, per WP:OVERLINK, there's no point repeatedly linking to soy milk. [5] Overlinking makes articles harder to read. Also, the article doesn't use the serial comma and should be internally consistent, per WP:STYLEVAR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Serial Comma

Indeed, part of the article had used the serial comma, and part of it was not, so for the sake of both consistency AND clarity, I made punctuation of the article internally consistent with the serial comma (except where there was no serial comma within a prior quotation). MaynardClark (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, but I think the article was consistent in not using it, and it's better without. I'd appreciate it if you would address the overlinking, which is more of an issue. There's normally no need to link words more than once, and certainly not in every sentence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Maynard, you're making minor style issues that aren't improvements (unnecessary commas, more serial commas, changing British spelling to American, etc). [6] Please see:

• WP:STYLEVAR: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable."

• WP:RETAIN: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change."

I've tried to keep the writing (and style issues) clean in this article, so I'm going to revert the changes, and I really hope you won't continue to add them. Also, you would need a good source for Michael Klaper (that he was one of this original group). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. MaynardClark (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Klaper

I'll find good citations for Dr. Michael Klaper, but he surely led the movement for over a decade. He was also scientific advisor for EarthSave and educated the commuity and the veg*an conferences that vegans could be healthy through evidence-based living. But again, not until half a day from now. MaynardClark (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Protein

While it's true that "What do you eat for protein is a common question asked of vegans." (AMG's addition), I'm not persuaded that this line ought to stay in thenutrition section, particularly at the end of the entire section. From a literry perspective, it would be a more interesting contribution for reading if it appeared at the beginning, but if it is to be used, a better senteence might be, "Vegans and other vegetarians are often asked what they eat for protein." MaynardClark (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

White rice

I wanted to point out that I am as certain as I can be, without having the dish in front of me, that the rice shown in... File:Red beans and rice.jpg ...is white rice. If so, it is of no use to vegans, who need to eat brown rice. So perhaps this image should be removed as it is misleading. Invertzoo (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Fast

I added a link to the Daniel Fast in the See Also section because it is a vegan diet. It is also a popular and increasingly common diet (6 million google searches on a particular day said one reference), it represents a radical change in what participants normally eat and that change is generally maintained (very high compliance rates) for 21 days (10, 28 and 40 days are also used); therefore it's a good test for people to potentially feel and see changes in their bodies. Please leave the link in place.32cllou (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

PS Is there place in the body for inclusion? After the link, can I put this text (vegan diet of Biblical origin)? See the now version.32cllou (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The veganism diet specifically states at the beginning Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals. The Daniel Fast is a temporary diet that has none of the ethical considerations of veganism. It doesn't belong here at all. Helpsome (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A good Vegan Burger image

If you know any, sitting at the server right now, I offer to upload it.. Ben-Natan (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I don't think that such an image communicates much at all about 'veganism' (as such); however, it might show how some folks 'practice' THEIR form of 'veganism'! I'd so 'no' to such an image (distracting). MaynardClark (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

'the' vs. 'that'

I think that referring to 'veganism' as THAT practice of abstaining from all animal-derived products which also rejects the commodity status of nonhuman persons is indeed making a statement about 'veganism' which distinguishes it from 'dietary veganism'

I think that 'SummerPhD' MAY have rightly preferred to use 'the' - but I'm not sure that we want to overlook the nuance that the editor (who changed 'the' to 'that') had in mind.

Nonetheless, I don't think that nuance is made clear, and I think that a prior discussion here on the Talk page would have been the way to help this pages 'watchers' sort out what s/he was thinking in that semantic nuance. MaynardClark (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Honey edits

An editor keeps introducing a POV edit into the article stating that "Vegans avoid honey": [7]. While I am well aware that many vegans adopt this stance the pertinent point here is that there is a legitimate ongoing debate in the vegan community as to whether it is acceptable for vegans to consume honey. This debate is addressed in the article so it is not neutral to flat-out state that veganism excludes honey. Even vegan groups are not in full agreement with the Vegan Society and American Society adopting the stance it is prohibited while Vegan Action and Vegan Outreach regard it as a matter of personal choice. Changing the image caption does not accurately reflect the debate and violates WP:NPOV. Betty Logan (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Betty has this one cold. While individuals may feel strongly that honey is not "OK" for vegans, their opinion is not useful here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I don't think the current wording is that great either. Vegan organizations either prohibit it or leave it to personal choice, and none of them seem to have an affirmative view on honey. Perhaps there is a potential compromise here: "Some vegans also avoid honey", or something to that effect. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Some vegans" is what we've done for the lead of the Vegetarianism article regarding animal products, and was recently explained by me on that article's talk page when an IP questioned it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not "some vegans" but some people who claim to be vegans. They aren't vegans. Just as some people who eat fish claim to be vegetarian when they are in fact pescatarian. Vegans do not consume any animal products and that includes honey. veganfishcake (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no central authority on who is or is not a vegan. The statement "It is not 'some Christians' but some people who claim to be Christians. They aren't Christians. Just as some people who worship (Jesus/saints/Mary/Angel Moroni/etc.) claim to be monotheists when they are in fact polytheists. Christians do not (pick something, ANYTHING)." can be dropped on the talk page of any self-identified "Christian" group. You believe that honey is not vegan. Wikipedia is meant to contain verifiable information from reliable sources. We're seriously entering into "No true Scotsman" territory here. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But now that I look at that lead again, it does currently include "honey" as something that vegans avoid; it's not like it's stating "all vegans," though. Yes, it can be taken that way, but it's rather simply included in a list of things that vegans are known to avoid. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For the Veganism article, regarding your proposal, maybe we should use "many" in place of "some," Betty. I suggest that because the avoidance of honey among vegans, as indicated by the section you pointed to, is very common (seemingly more common than a vegan consuming honey). We could also state "Vegans commonly avoid honey." And for the Vegetarianism article, we could add "and often honey" or "and commonly honey" in place of "and honey." I think "and sometimes honey" is too light of a wording, and is more likely to be contested. And, for either article, to indicate to editors that the matters are debated and/or have been discussed among other Wikipedians, we could apply a hidden note beside the wording. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding honey is not all that common within people who claim to be vegan. Most people who claim to be vegan accept that honey is an animal product so they don't consume honey. veganfishcake (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should stay away from quantifying the claims unless we have a specific figure. What does "many" even mean? Does it mean the majority of vegans? That certainly isn't backed up with a source in the article. On the other hand if 100,000 vegans out 1 million avoid honey that certainly is not a majority but it would be accurate to describe 100,000 vegans as "many vegans", even though they are a minority. The word is too subjective and depends on your interpretation of it. Maybe something like "Vegans may also avoid honey" would be better; it conveys the same point without pinning down a number/percentage. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's true that "many" or "most" can mean a small majority (and I've pointed that out more than once), though I think that the vast majority of people take "most" to mean more than a small majority. In this case, I prefer "commonly avoid" instead of "may also avoid." I mean, I understand what "may also avoid" means in the context and I'm certain that the vast majority of people also will, but people can usually avoid anything if they want to, and "may also avoid" is too light in wording, given that it seems (at least to me) that veganism usually involves abstention from honey. But I can accept your alternative wording of "Vegans may also avoid honey." for the Veganism article. For the Vegetarianism article, since "honey" is in a sentence that I don't see as needing to be broken up, and since I'd rather avoid the type of dispute you've encountered with the honey matter here at the Veganism article, I'd prefer "and commonly honey" there. An editor might try to remove "commonly," but its inclusion is less contentious than noting that vegans may avoid honey. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

By all definitions of veganism, dictionary definitions, definitions by The Vegan Society and the American Vegan Society, and even the definition here on Wikipedia state a vegan is someone who avoids the use and consumption of animal products. Bees are animals and so honey is an animal product. You cannot re-write the definition of veganism here on Wikipedia. Therefore, I will not stop reversing this edit because it's factually correct with the definition of veganism. I know hundreds of vegans and none of them consume bees products. veganfishcake (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, keep reverting so that, like I mentioned here, I or someone else can report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. And the Veganism article makes clear, as early as the WP:Lead, that distinctions are sometimes made between types of vegans; its point is that some vegans don't exclude all animal products, which is why it mentions "dietary vegan." A "dietary vegan" may very well wear leather. Flyer22 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A dietary vegan isn't full a vegan. Veganism is a lifestyle and not a diet but dietary vegans would still avoid honey. Yes there are different types of vegans, but they all avoid the use or consumption of animal products. A vegan who eats honey is not a vegan in the same way that a pescatarian claiming to be vegetarian is not vegetarian. veganfishcake (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Veganfishcake does have a good reason. Perhaps more is being made of this alleged disagreement than the sources acknowledge. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about veganism to appreciate the scale of the debate, but if "honey eating veganism" was just a FRINGE viewpoint then I am surprised that there are vegan organizations that exist that do not prohibit it outright. That's slightly besides the point though; we have a section discussing the "honey debate" and the alteration to the caption contradicts the essence of it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Consuming honey is a very fringe view within people who claim to be vegan. Do a simple Google search for "Is honey vegan?" and tell me how many results conclude no, and how many conclude yes. The vast majority conclude that no honey is not vegan. I've been well involved in the vegan community for a decade now and there is no big honey debate within the community, almost all people who claim to be vegan avoid bees products. veganfishcake (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Veganfishcake does have a good reason for telling someone that a person who eats honey is not a vegan. That said, Veganfishcake does not have a good reason for changing the article to reflect this argument. It is synthesis. (A) Vegans do not eat animal products. (B) Honey is produced by bees (animals), making honey an animal product. (C) Vegans do not eat honey. We can easily source A and B. C, on the other hand, is not sourced, it is the result of synthesis: A + B = C.

We currently have a block in place for edit warring and a sock case for a SPA IP that has picked up the cause. More socks would be as surprising as the sun rising in the morning. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That does not prove your point. Vegans still do not consume honey, regardless of me being blocked. This sounds like you are gaming the system. veganfishcake (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't address the point I made. The sources do not seem to support this alleged "disagreement", and it looks like Wikipedia editors are giving undue weight to the idea that "vegans differ about honey". Do the sources actually say that? Actually, they don't. This is a good example of a manufactured controversy. There does not appear to be any great debate between vegans about this. The Slate article (Engber 2008) asserts sensationally that there is a "great debate" in the title. However, when one reads the actual article, it turns out there is no debate at all. The author claims there is "a fierce doctrinal debate" occurring, and to support this contention, links to a personal website called "Veganism for the Meat Eater" run by a chap named "Jim". Is this some kind of joke? To further support this nonsense, Slate cites a website by an advocacy group called "Vegan Outreach" that cites their own personal opinion in addition to an attempt to redefine the accepted definition of veganism ("Perhaps instead of defining a vegan as 'someone who does not use animal products,; we should define a vegan as 'someone who reasonably avoids products that cause suffering to nonhumans'). The group goes on to say they don't know if honey is vegan or not ("So is honey vegan? Our best answer is 'We don’t know'") but admits that honey should not be labeled as vegan. So the entire debate comes down to one guy, Matthew Ball of Vegan Outreach, attempting to redefine veganism and the acceptance of honey. This is hardly a debate. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As it stands you can't have a section that describes a community-wide "debate about honey" and then simply contradict that with your image caption. If there is a fundamental problem with how the vegan stance on honey has been framed by the article i.e. a FRINGE viewpoint is being presented as a mainstream debate then there is a fundamental problem with section. Simply altering an image caption does not address the problem, it just incorrectly summarises disproportionate claims, if that is indeed the case. The image caption issue is easily addressed: you could have an image of a battery hen or a glass of milk or something, it doesn't need to be an image of a beehive. It seems to me this discussion is moving beyond an image caption, so maybe we should discuss exactly what should be in this section. Maybe we could start by bypassing the Slate article and going direct to the horse's mouth, and seeing exactly what prominent vegetarian/vegan associations actually do say about honey. Betty Logan (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with the section as it does not state that some vegans consume honey, or suggests that some vegans think it's okay to consume honey. The actual fact is that most of the vegans who work for the organisations that state honey is a personal choice do in fact avoid honey themselves. It was the caption under the image that I had a problem with because it states something I know to be false. veganfishcake (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. My defense of veganfishcake's position was made in lieu of his/her blocked account, as it is presently impossible for him/her to participate on Wikipedia, at least for the next week. And while I agree that veganfishcake should not have been edit warring, he/she has a solid argument for his position. The sources supporting the existence of a major debate are very weak and somewhat unreliable. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we simply change the image to something that is "uncontroversial" to diffuse the immediate issue of all the reverting, and then track down the explicit stance of some high-profile vegetarian and vegan associations and take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, Veganfishcake's stance goes beyond honey. Veganfishcake stated above, "By all definitions of veganism, dictionary definitions, definitions by The Vegan Society and the American Vegan Society, and even the definition here on Wikipedia state a vegan is someone who avoids the use and consumption of animal products." I stated above in response to that, "And the Veganism article makes clear, as early as the WP:Lead, that distinctions are sometimes made between types of vegans; its point is that some vegans don't exclude all animal products, which is why it mentions 'dietary vegan.' A 'dietary vegan' may very well wear leather." As you know, the whole dietary vegan aspect -- vegans who don't follow the vegan philosophy of "no animal products for any use" -- has been extensively debated at this talk page, with editors trying to get the article to portray veganism as always a matter of avoiding all animal products. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never met a vegan who says it is vegan to consume some animal products but not all. Dietary vegans are people who only adopt the vegan diet and not the vegan lifestyle, so they are not vegans as veganism is a lifestyle that includes a diet as part of the lifestyle. To adopt the vegan lifestyle you must avoid the use or consumption of all animal products otherwise you are not a vegan. veganfishcake (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is that simple, but the problem is, if we discuss this long enough, it will devolve into No true Scotsman. Try to address the argument made by Flyer22 directly, using good sources if you can. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the honey farming picture with an egg farming video as I proposed above, which I think should address the immediate aspect of the dispute. We didn't have any videos in the article so it expands our use of supporting materials too. I still think we need to qualify exactly what various vegan groups do say on the subject of honey though, rather than relying on just a single article to summarise the debate. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Based on"

Several attempts have been made to define vegan diets by what they include. The most recent version: "Vegan diets are based on a combination of some or all of the following food groups: vegetables, fruits, leaves, grains, legumes, and nuts/seeds." However, reliable sources define it on the basis of exclusion: omitting animal products from an omnivorous diet. The list in this version is redundant (leaves, grains, legumes and nuts/seeds are vegetables and fruits) and misses several things vegans certainly do eat. Yeast, mushrooms, seaweeds, bacteria (take those B12 supplements, people!), minerals (salt, various supplements), etc. are all missing. (I won't even touch the whole honey thing.) I'd suggest abandoning the WP:OR and sticking with what the reliable sources directly say. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that. In fact I would excise the "common vegan dishes" sentence as well; I think there is enough diversity in the vegan diet that there probably isn't a core vegan dish. That section should ideally be focusing on identifying core food components such as the excellently written paragraph about soybeans. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Another attempt at the original research: "Vegan diets are based on a combination of some or all of the following foods: root vegetables, fruits, leaves, grains, legumes, fungi, algae, nuts and seeds." Still unsourced, still incomplete. Vegans also eat: bean sprouts, celery, cinnamon, yeast, minerals, etc. Reliable sources define veganism by exclusion: Vegans do not eat animal products. Trying to turn this inside out (stating what vegans do eat) is original research that has repeatedly failed. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of both paragraphs. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD asked me to discuss my previous edit here. But I see the edit and other material has since been removed. There is now a lot of talk of typical foods of vegans in that section.

Does the same argument still not apply here: that veganism is defined by what it excludes, not by what is eaten by vegans? If it does, then soy etc should be eliminated as not being a uniquely vegan food? If the argument doesn't apply to these foods, then the general statement about the range of foods in veganism is also valid.

If this was an article just about what vegans don't eat, or the fact that they don't eat certain things, then it would be very short, uninteresting and uninformative.

It might also help to consider this link to the vegan society, which specifically mentions the food types that are being rejected here. The vegan Society advice on nutrition.

TonyClarke (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is proper to explain the impact of a restrictive diet on the presence of nutrients/minerals/vitamins, and to identify alternatives that are common among and acceptable to vegans. This is essentially the point of the section on soy, which is slightly different to composing an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of what vegans may or may not eat. For instance, if consuming lentils as part of a vegan diet offers no discernible benefit beyond that of a comparable intake in a meat-based diet then I don't see much point in mentioning it; however, if lentils offer an alternative source for something that would otherwise be excluded by opting out of a meat based diet then we should explain their purpose. Reeling off a list of vegetables and non-meat food is not particularly informative if we don't explain their typical function in a vegan diet and why these particular food components are necessary. In fact, we could even be doing potential vegan readers a disservice, especially if the foods we list are misconstrued as a balanced diet. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Try this as a shortcut for what we "should" include. We exclude material that is challenged that is not verifiable. The various versions of the list have all been, IMO, woefully inaccurate (littered with redundancies and omissions). As a result, I challenged them (more than once). We still don't have a reliable source for the list. We do, however, have reliably sourced definitions of veganism, all of which are based on what it excludes from the more common omnivorous diet -- because that is what makes the diet unusual: one that omits animal-based foods. We do not discuss the inclusion of water and the exclusion of chunks of radioactive lead because those are not uncommon aspects of veganism. We do discuss absence of dairy, natural B12, etc. because they are uncommon, as sourced. We also discuss soy because it is unusually prevalent in vegan diets, as sourced. The honey discussion above exemplifies this. Most anything you read about honey outside of veganism takes for granted that people eat it, with the clearly noted exception of very young children. Veganism, obviously, has a whole 'nother take on it. That unique debate or exclusion is part of what makes veganism veganism.

TL;DR version: We say what reliable sources say. They don't define vegans by what they eat, they do discuss soy in re veganism. -SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SummerPhD. His Her points agree with the {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}. If reliable sources can be found that define vegans by what they eat, then that information might be included. — Lentower (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Summer is female. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

...not that there's anything wrong with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Overly promotional material in the lead.

I removed the following from the lead because I consider it to be overly promotional of veganism.

A 2009 research review indicated that vegan diets tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron and phytochemicals and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12.[8] Well-planned vegan diets appear to offer protection against certain degenerative conditions, including heart disease,[9] and are regarded as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle by the American Dietetic Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Dietitians of Canada

Well-planned vegan diets appear to offer protection against certain degenerative conditions, including heart disease,[9] and are regarded as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle by the American Dietetic Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Dietitians of Canada.[10

Firstly, the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. It is not a place to try to present new information. The article has a section, 'Health arguments' where the advantages and disadvantages of a vegan diet can be discussed. The lead should contain a summary of this section as a whole.

There is no consensus that a vegan diet is superior to all other diets yet the wording that I removed clearly gives this impression. It is blatant promotion of veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the only part you removed from the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, I cut and pasted the wrong bit, thanks. I have corrected the removed section at the top. In second thoughts I think the whole paragraph should not be in the lead. What is your opinion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The information you removed has been discussed many times and has been in the article for many years. It is entirely uncontroversial and properly summarizes the "Health arguments" section, where it appears. It does not present any new information as you have falsely claimed. There is nothing "promotional" about it whatsoever. The material does not present veganism as "superior" to other diets nor does it give that impression in any way; that's your own misreading and misunderstanding of the passage. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The section I removes quoted only the conditions for which veganism is beneficial and quotes only those organisations which support (or at least accept) it. There is no general consensus that a vegan diet is superior to all others but that is the impression the whole paragraph gives.

I will propose a more accurate and balanced summary of the 'Health arguments' section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin, I think you may be misreading the sources. The lead doesn't say "superior," but appropriate for all life stages. That is not contentious. The American Dietetic Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Dietitians of Canada agree, and the British National Health Service and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have included vegan substitutes in their MyPlate and EatWell recommendations. The USDA has allowed plant protein instead of animal protein in the federal school lunch program since 2012. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the the bit about protection from certain diseases. One of the sources cited here says that there is no improvement in lifespan so if certain conditions are improved others must be made worse. The article also misses out conclusions from one source that some other (vegetarian and pesco-vegetarian) diets were better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OR in the 'Health arguments' section

I was going to try to write a more neutral summary of this section for the lead but when I looked at the section I found that it started with and unjustified claim based on OR.

The sections start by claiming, 'There was growing scientific consensus, as of the 2000s, that a plant-based diet reduces the risk of a number of degenerative diseases...'. This supported by a string of good quality references. However this is not sufficient to show a scientific consensus and to claim that is OR. However may sources there may be supporting this view, there is no indication of how many sources have taken an opposing or neutral view. To make this claim we would need a good independent reliable secondary source that had assessed all the literature on the subject and come to a conclusion about a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The reference to 'plant-based' is a little misleading too. That is not a well defined term as can be seen from the references. It is also not clear what diet the advantage is being compared to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, the material you're removing is well-sourced, accurate and has been in the article for a long time, so please gain consensus before removing anything else, if the removal might be contentious. The sources are review articles, so they have reviewed the literature.

As for "entirely plant-based diet," it means a vegan diet, i.e. no animal products. Some sources use "vegetarian" and "vegan" interchangeably, but you can tell from the articles that they mean vegan, because they refer to diets that are free of animal sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I am following WP:BRD. The article says plant-based, there is no 'entirely'.

It is not at all clear that all the sources refer veganism. So refer only to reduced meat, increased vegetable intake.

Were those sources cherry picked by someone who wants promote veganism or were they a selection of representative sources on the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin, is the vegan diet a plant-based diet? Yes or no, please. Note, I did not ask anything about the vegan lifestyle or vegan ethics. I asked specifically about a vegan diet. Is it plant-based? Finally, please point to the promotional nature of this material. You are misreading it to mean something other than it means. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the vegan diet is plant-based but you might call a vegetarian diet plant-based or even an omnivorous diet with reduced meat. Because this article is on veganism, the implication is that they were referring to a vegan diet only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin, have you even bothered to look at the sources? They are about veganism. Unless otherwise noted, in this context, a plant-based diet does not include animals. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have indeed looked at the sources and it is not at all clear that they are referring to a vegan diet. I will find some examples. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Cataracts

‎TonyClarke has added information that a vegan diet helps prevent cataracts, sourced to "Ronald Ross Watson, Victor R. Preedy, Sherma Zibadi Alcohol, nutrition and health consequences.310 Springer Science & Business Media, 24 Aug 2012 p310". This is not a properly-formatted reference so it's hard to tell what is being cited; no authors are given. And is this a MEDRS? Please could we get a full reference and provide (either here, or in the refernce using the "quote" parameter) the text in the source which support the claim being made? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn - I have since you made the above post amended the citation to include a link, apologies I didn't know how to do that without first reverting. Hope its clear now. TonyClarke (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Aha thanks, I've found it and primped the reference (this is an article in a reference book - the authors are different to the book editors). I'm not sure how WP:DUE this is, as it is just a single study and its results are merely reported here rather than evaluated. Ideally we should get something stronger. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to keeping the cataract point (I would prefer not to have single studies in this article). But if it's going to remain, it would be better to include the study in the footnote so that people can look it up, so I've added it as a "see also" alongside the secondary source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The original study was a statistical study using two separate sources, 'proportional hazards regression to study cataract risk in relation to baseline dietary and lifestyle characteristics of 27,670 self-reported nondiabetic participants aged ≥40 y at recruitment in the Oxford (United Kingdom) arm of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford) by using data from the Hospital Episode Statistics in England and Scottish Morbidity Records.' So it looks like a secondary source to me, the writers were analysing other research. Clearly it has been accepted as valid by several sources, so I think it should remain.

I think there is a developing issue with this entry. I am a committed vegan, but have to say that it is becoming like a tirade in favour of veganism. Even some of the photographs are blatantly sensational, e.g.. the plate of lard, which could be seen as attempting an emotional argument for veganism. I think we need more balance in the article, as I think we are winning all the arguments. We don't want, as editors, to alienate people who are commenting with good will. Perhaps separate it out into a factual historical article about veganism, and another giving the arguments for and against veganism? What do people think?? TonyClarke (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We could get an opinion on the cataract question from WT:MED. As to your wider points, that's a different question which could be discussed in the section below or at WP:FT/N where I have questioned this article's neutrality. As a fresh reader it does seem to me there is some over-selling/advocacy going on here, especially for health topics, which I don't find mirrored in the wider literature. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Fringe & neutrality concerns

FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It needed it. Among other things, this is the only diet-based wiki page that doesn't have a criticisms section, even though there are a lot of valid critiques, and a substantial chunk of it reads like propaganda. Considering the fact that anyone who wants to make these passages appear more neutral is chewed out for it in the talk page? Bias is rather apparent. 184.166.177.242 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally bad, we just need to represent good sources accurately. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 184.166.177.242 this page is too promotional of veganism. [Martin Hogbin]

Can we agree that this page is too promotional? We need either a criticism section or negative material about the subject in with the positive material. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Health accuracy

The (oddly-named) "Health arguments" section kicks off with the extraordinary claim:

Nutritionist Claus Leitzmann wrote in 2005 that there was a "growing body of scientific evidence" that a plant-based diet offers benefits over one containing food of animal origin, and that it might help to prevent and treat several degenerative diseases, including coronary artery disease, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, kidney disease and dementia. [my bold]

This is sourced to a multi-bundled reference, which is a red flag for synthesis, and the "prevent and treat" claim seems sourced to a 2005 article by a nutritionist in a now-defunct journal. Yet the later review in Proc Nutr Soc, which cites this 2005 paper, states (from the abstract) "Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians".

For fringe claims we really need stronger sources, I am concerned that using nutritionist sources might go against the grain of WP:FRIND. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(Add) Because this is out-of-kilter with our more recent review (Craig) I have updated the content here to reflect Craig as a holding measure while these sources get sorted out. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

collapse mistaken comment for neatness

=== Craig === I'm removing this content from the article to here for discussion. This article does not appear to be in PUBMED/MEDLINE which is a red flag for its reliability: Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC) According to nutritionist Winston Craig, writing in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009, vegan diets tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron and phytochemicals, and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12. Craig wrote that vegans tend to be thinner, with lower serum cholesterol and lower blood pressure. Factors associated with a vegan diet being significantly protective against certain types of cancer include increased intake of fruits and vegetables, absence of meat, sources of vegan protein, including soy protein, and typically lower body mass index (BMI). He added that eliminating all animal products increases the risk of deficiencies of vitamins B12 and D, calcium and omega-3 fatty acids; he advised vegans to eat foods fortified with these nutrients or take supplements, and warned that iron and zinc may also be problematic because of limited bioavailability. References

Cancer

The article had

Factors associated with a vegan diet being significantly protective against certain types of cancer include increased intake of fruits and vegetables, absence of meat, sources of vegan protein, including soy protein, and typically lower body mass index (BMI) [my bold]

sourced to Craig. But on cancer as a disease, Craig wrote this

To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer. Although plant foods contain many chemopreventive factors, most of the research data comes from cellular biochemical studies. [my bold]

which is kind of 180° different from what the article was sourcing this for. These "chemopreventive factors" were in petri dishes only. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange sentence fragment

I noticed a strange fragment at the end of sentence in the history section. "while male chicks are killed in the production of eggs because surplus to requirements." @SlimVirgin: This was introduced in an edit of yours from April 2014, just wanted to give you a heads up. --Jonddunn (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Veganism and vegetarianism

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Veganism and vegetarianism#Semi-vegetarianism. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)