Talk:Veganism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

A 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

About this addition. The ref is a primary source PMID 27001851.

We have this review PMID 27812156 citing it, which is free-access and can be used to summarize the findings (see Discussion section).

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you are claiming a scientific article published in PNAS is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia as it is a primary source. I find that debatable. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." All articles published in PNAS, the second most cited journal across all fields of science, are peer reviewed, so the article qualifies as WP:RS. The Time magazine analysis of this scientific article is not a primary source for sure, and also qualifies as a reliable source. I'm restoring the material based on Time magazine analysis. I'll wait for further discussion here before restoring the PNAS article. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with BB; this is not an appropriate source. Our articles must be based on decent secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How is a peer-reviewed scientific article published in PNAS not an appropriate source? And how is an analysis of said article in a major news publication not a reliable secondary source? You have provided no evidence to back up your claims, I have however cited wiki policy in this matter, and that policy appears to back my arguments. I am partially restoring my previous edits, and will leave the (unbelievably biased) lede as is until further discussion--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I said, "our articles must be based on decent secondary sources" - this is policy. I wouldn't use laypress for that. Maybe consider some of the thoughts in WP:SCIRS. And stop edit warring. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That is NOT policy. Articles must be based on RELIABLE sources, which the Time article is. Again, Wiki policy quoted above states that peer-reviewed academic research papers published in reputable journals are acceptable and considered RS for Wikipedia. As such, the PNAS article qualifies as RS. This has yet to be disputed. My edits were to balance the unbelievably biased lede with actual scientific research, because as of now it reads as if veganism will kill you and people must consume animal products or face serious health consequences, which is not true. (Much of this was added just recently by User:BallenaBlanca, who was quick to delete my additions. Funny that.) If this doesn't change, a neutrality tag might be warranted because as of now the lede is designed to scare people away from a vegan diet/lifestyle.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." [my bold] Primary and tertiary sources can be useful for building on the foundations, but for surprising or significant themes (such as you are attempting to introduce) we need really good sources. And WP:EW is policy. I would advise against casting aspersions or trying to pull a "hostage tag" stunt either. Alexbrn (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I did introduce really good sources, and both qualify as reliable sources. That vegan diets are healthy is hardly a surprising theme. Claims that vegan diets can result in death and severe health consequences and that animal products must be consumed in order to avoid such health complications, now that is a surprising and highly disputed theme that should include a rebuttal like the one I provided, especially in the lede given that's all some readers even look at. As the lede stands now it is hardly neutral; readers will take away from this that vegan diets can be very dangerous, which is not accurate! (This will also come as a shock to all the vegans who are healthy and continue to walk the earth, such as myself, but I digress...) This is unacceptable for a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, purging any mention of the 2015 PNAS study from the body of the article, and not just the lede, is completely unjustified in my opinion. And yes, without "casting aspersions", it does have me wondering if a bias against veganism by some editors plays a part in this. And my reverts were not edit warring, as I modified them each time to conform with what was being discussed on talk, such as not reinserting the material from the primary source that was removed (even though peer-reviewed PS are acceptable sources).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• content was making health claims, source fails MEDRS, and obviously so.Jytdog (talk 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Per the essay Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?: "The primary scientific literature is very exploratory, and not reliable. The use of WP:PRIMARY sources is really dangerous in the context of health." Granted this is an essay and not policy, but now I can understand why such fierce opposition to including the PNAS article. I will not push for its inclusion from this point forward. However, the issue of the last section of the lede being heavily biased against veganism to the point of fear-mongering about severe health consequences and early death unless animal products are consumed still needs to be addressed, especially the most recent additions by User:BallenaBlanca. This is what prompted me to include the PNAS study in the first place. I'll be on the lookout for sources that rebut this but also conform to the standards provided in the essay when the time permits.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin B12 deficiency

Nope the article and lead are mostly NPOV with regard to how MEDRS sources view a vegan diet - it can help prevent chronic diseases but has risks that can be pretty easily managed but have pretty serious consequences if not managed. This article has been heavily edited by vegan advocates but it is in the ballpark of OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The usual solution to NPOV problems is to raise source quality, not lower it. FWIW the lede does seem to me to go just a little overboard on the possible adverse effects of veganism and could be a shade more succinct in this respect. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the addtional sentence on B12 was a bit much. I fixed that. Other than that it is massively OVERCITED but that is because vegan advocates keep trying to delete it. Does that edit address the "little overboard" concern? Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reread the previous text calmly and I realize the concern of C.J. Griffin.

There was one major problem that led to confusion, related to the order of the information, which seemed to imply that the only solution for avoiding vitamin B12 deficiency is to eat meat. That was not the intention! It would be solved by rearranging the information like this (strikethrough -> previous version, bold -> reordered version):

However, as a result of the elimination of all animal products, vegan diets can lead to significant nutritional deficiencies, that can nullify their beneficial effects for health and cause serious health consequences. These deficiencies can only be prevented through the choice of fortified foods or the regular intake of dietary supplements. Vitamin B12 status is a major concern because its deficiency can cause disorders of the nervous system and blood, and if untreated, may lead to death; only food of animal origin contains sufficient amount of this vitamin for humans. These nutritional deficiencies can only be prevented through the choice of fortified foods or the regular intake of dietary supplements.

I also understand that what has caused "alarm" is the mention of the risk of death in the lede. There are few documented cases, but there are. I think it is a matter of sufficient importance to mention it in the lead. However, I will respect to keep it out of the lede and wait to see the opinions of other users.

But IMO the effects of vitamin B12 deficiency should be mentioned in the lede, it is not disproportionate. Increasing evidence emphasizes the importance, especially since the high content of folacin in vegetarian diets may mask the hematological symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency, so it may go undetected until neurological signs in the late stages are evident, which can be irreversible.

There are several possible nutritional deficiencies that can cause various health problems, but we only talk about the consequences of one of them in the lede (blood disorders and neurological damage from vitamin B12 deficiency), in the same way that there are several advantages over health and the most important ones are currently mentioned too ("a vegan diet can reduce the risk of some types of chronic disease, including heart disease"). I think it is correct, to give neutrality and that this way we can all agree; as Alexbrn proposes, the possible side effects are mentioned in a more succinct way.

I will adjust the page a bit and wait for your opinions. (step 1)

Also, I have seen that this does not fit the source: "The German Society for Nutrition cautions against vegan diets for children, and during pregnancy and lactation." What it really says is "For pregnant women, breastfeeding, infants, children and adolescents, a vegan diet is not recommended by DGE." (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, the German Society for Nutrition).

I will also adjust this information and move it. Its logical place is following the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (step 2)

There is more information that does not fit the source that accompanies it, like this one: "No animal products are involved in the production of B12 supplements". What the ref really says is "Dietitians should also be able to provide suggestions for brand names of b12 supplements that are vegan", which is not the same.

This page needs more review to continue giving neutrality. For example, criticism, contradictions, recent discoveries about plant neurobiology that points to them as sentient beings, etc. are lacking. There was total silence regarding the impossibility of following a lifestyle that completely eliminates the use of animals, such as the problematic of medications suitable for vegans, etc.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting the most recent B12 part back to Alexbrn/Jytdog's version for multiple reasons. First, it's excessive detail. The lede is for the most important points and should avoid over-specific descriptions; the essentials you have to know about the subject. You doesn't need to know how to diagnose B12 deficiency in order to write a book about veganism; anyone interested in knowing more about it can click through to the fine article. Second, it's misleading; "only food of animal origin contains sufficient amount [sic] of this vitamin for humans" is only true if "food" is understood to mean "foods not specially formulated for higher vitamin concentration". Finally, the undue attention and phrase "major concern" unnecessarily risks violating WP:NPOV or making readers think we're trying to scare them away from veganism.

While I agree it's attention-grabbing that very rare deaths have resulted from poorly-planned vegan diets, it's undue to mention them; compare Cycling and Alcoholic drink, two much deadlier topics whose ledes mention risks but not deaths.

Going forward, has anyone in the archives done a general survey of national dietetic organizations' positions? E.g., Dietitians of Canada agreed with the ADA as of 2003. If we quote the ADA and DGE in the lede, we should ensure that's representative per WP:DUE.

As for "criticism and contradictions", some are integrated at the end of "§ Into the mainstream (2010s)" as recommended by WP:CRITICISM. The plant sentience argument you mention has not been taken seriously in the ethics literature for two reasons. First, the underlying science has been chronically shaky since its mid-century beginnings withThe Secret Life of Plants, with core results failing reproducibility; as the PI of the plant physiology lab I used to work for said, postulating plant consciousness is "missing the whole point" of the centuries of research discovering robust explanations for long-distance signaling in plants in terms of simple chemistry and physics. Second, as Peter Singer noted in Animal Liberation (1975), even if "plant lives matter" for the sake of argument, production of animal food requires many more plants to be killed (as fodder) than production of an equal amount of plant food. The only major recent exception I know of is Smith (2016) chaps. 2-3, which received a few mostly-negative reviews IIRC (e.g.) and is unlikely to become worth mentioning in this article's extremely short overview of vegan-related ethics. Unavoidability arguments are similarly disregarded; vegan authors sometimes acknowledge it but assert some version of "we should still do our best", and even anti-vegans like Hsiao (2017) concede that these kind of arguments "do not get at the heart of why eating meat is [supposedly] morally permissible". FourViolas (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Finally, the undue attention and phrase "major concern" unnecessarily risks violating WP:NPOV or making readers think we're trying to scare them away from veganism." I think "you've put your finger on the sore": you worry that readers do not adopt the vegan philosophy, I care about taking a neutral point of view and that readers have enough information to make their own decisions. From your position, it is more favorable to try to mask and take away the importance of vitamin B12 deficiency. From neutrality, it is essential to reflect why there is that risk (the absence of enough vitamin B12 for humans in plant products is the most important point of the vegan diet), what can it cause, and the importance of taking recommendations for consuming supplements and fortified food seriously.

IMO, my recent text of vitamin B12 is still a brief summary that complies with the style manual: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. ... However, do not hint at startling facts without describing them.

It would be interesting to see more opinions.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Neutrality" is determined by the published sources; even our (general) diet-focused sources don't describe B12 deficiency in their abstracts [1], and in fact several of the highest-quality don't even mention it there [2] [3] [4]. Kindly comment on the content concerns I raised rather than imputing WP:ADVOCACY; I actually expressed the opposite concern.

Again, compare cycling and alcoholic drink; their ledes mention risks like "reduced protection in crashes" and "physical dependence and alcoholism", but refrain from providing further details beyond wikilinks, because it's simply not necessary to recognize delirium tremens in order to understand what an alcoholic drink is. FourViolas (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources you are mentioning are already several years old, but it is recently when deficiencies of vitamin B12 derived from vegetarian diets are being studied more and making clear that they are more common and serious than previously thought. We are writing in 2017.

• [5] Is of 2007 and can hardly mention in the abstract, since it has no abstract...
• [6] [7] both are of 2009, and the last one says in the abstract "Micronutrients of special concern for the vegan include vitamins B-12 and D, calcium, and long-chain n–3 (omega-3) fatty acids".
• [8] of 2014 and says in the abstract "Large randomized intervention trials on the effects of vegetarian diet patterns on neurological and cognitive functions, obesity, diabetes, and other cardiovascular outcomes are warranted to make meaningful recommendations." And here we see the conclusions of this source of 2016 [9] which you not mentioned and that we have now as reference number 24 that says in the abstract "The deficiency of vitamin B12 is clinically manifested in the blood and nervous system where the cobalamin plays a key role in cell replication and in fatty acid metabolism. Hypovitaminosis arises from inadequate absorption, from genetic defects that alter transport through the body, or from inadequate intake as a result of diet. With the growing adoption of vegetarian eating styles in Western countries, there is growing focus on whether diets that exclude animal foods are adequate. Since food availability in these countries is not a problem, and therefore plant foods are sufficiently adequate, the most delicate issue remains the contribution of cobalamin, which is poorly represented in plants."

But the most important thing is that our page is not a scientific paper, we are not a scientific journal, but an encyclopedia. We do not have an "abstract" but an introductory section and concrete policies and style manuals (that we have already mentioned). We write for all types of public, not for health professionals. There is no need to explain to a doctor what to have a vitamin B12 deficiency means and the importance of supplementation. Yes we must explain it with all the necessary clarity to lay readers, so that they can understand it, because is one of the central themes of the vegan diet and maximum visibility must be given, due to the serious health consequences, which may be irreversible and irreparably jeopardize the future especially of children.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 07:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So you agree that the highest-quality sources do not describe the symptoms of deficiency in their abstracts. The best general-public sources I can find, e.g. vegan diet advice published by Dietitians of Canada, the British Dietetic Association, or the American Heart Association, similarly do not describe the symptoms of b12 deficiency despite being much more in-depth than our diet-focused lede paragraph. If you know of many such sources which do give b12 deficiency symptoms such prominence, please present them. Otherwise, your opinion about what "must be given maximum visibility" sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and contradicts the WP:DUE policy. FourViolas (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur. I propose removing the bolded part of the following sentence in the lede per WP:DUE: "As a result of the elimination of all animal products, vegan diets can lead to significant nutritional deficiencies, most importantly vitamin B12 deficiency, that can nullify their beneficial effects for health and cause serious health consequences.[20][23][24][25]"--C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think DUE calls for removing b12 from the lede entirely, only deficiency symptoms; B12 is usually mentioned prominently along with D, Ca, Fe, Zn, and omega-3s (e.g. Craig, Canada, Key, ADA).

However, I don't think most importantly passes WP:V according to the current four citations. Three simply list it along with D, Fe, etc (Craig ADA Guyda), and even the one which focuses on b12 specifically (Vitale) doesn't claim it's the "most important" deficiency, only that it's "common among vegetarians".

So if we're going to keep B12 in, it looks like we should replace the whole sentence with something like, As a result of the elimination of all animal products, vegan diets are often low in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamins D and B₁₂, and poorly-planned vegan diets can lead to nutritional deficiencies with serious health consequences. FourViolas (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

generally speaking, FourViolas makes a good argument above in regards to appropriate text, I therefore agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

— It seems bizarre to propose that this is not lede worthy. Avoiding B12-deficiency is a very central component to any information on veganism. That includes giving the reason why it is very important.

B12 is also unique in that it is not possible to consume non-fortified vegan food that contains sufficient B12. I'm not saying anything about including other minerals or vitamins, but B12 should be mentioned in full. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own policies for the introductory section. English is not my native language, but I think that I said can be perfectly understood.

Some of the editors of this page, as they themselves have let see, are concerned that a negative message is transmitted which discourages people from adopting a vegan diet. There is, or there was, silence in uncomfortable subjects as problems with medications, attempts to soften reality with text that does not fit the sources, etc.

It is impossible to get enough vitamin B12 for humans from natural non-animal foods. It is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of veganism, one of the most uncomfortable realities (but of course not the only one): to be able to feed without suffering severe deficiencies, vegans depend on "unnatural" foods, that rely on scientific research for development of supplements and fortified foods which has depended, and currently continue to depend, at least partially, on animal experimentation and/or substances (additives, excipients...) from animal origin. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from questioning others' good faith and from offering your personal opinions about the "ironies" or "central components" of veganism. Wikipedia's policies governing content are to reflect the consensus of reliable sources; those currently in the article, as I've demonstrated above, do not support the idea that b12 deficiency is the most important aspect of a vegan diet and do not give nearly as much prominence to it as you propose. FourViolas (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh no! Do not misunderstand me. I am sure it is done with the best faith! All my respect for you.

And what I say are not my own opinions. In fact, it is documented that veganism for ethical reasons can cause a low interest in nutritional aspects. That is the part that I think must be balanced to give neutrality. The world is imperfect but we have no other :-( (these are neither my own words).

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither is anyone saying that B12 is the most important aspect of veganism, just that it is one of the most important, and that it deserves to be mentioned in the lede. You're reading as much into this discussion as anyone FourViolas. I don't think anyone here is editing in bad faith (at least among those active in this discussion), but that doesn't mean our biases can't get in the way of being neutral.

This is especially true when it comes to veganism, because so often have I heard (from both sides): "You can't trust that science, the author is a *insert vegan/vegetarian/omnivore/meat-eater*" etc.

The fact of the matter is that we all have a view, because either we eat meat or we don't. Please try to look beyond this, and if anyone really is seeking to promote veganism — isn't the best way to do so by thoroughly expressing what is needed to successfully become a vegan, and how to maintain good health while eating vegan food? If someone ends up with B12 deficiency down the line — isn't that just a perfect argument for avoiding veganism? Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, BB, sorry for misinterpreting. CF, please understand that my personal views have no bearing on my belief that the sources do not support giving so much prominence to B12 deficiency in the lead.

Both of you, can you please comment directly on the WP:DUE and WP:V problems, that the RS focused on a vegan diet in general, whether addressed to a medical (Craig ADA Guyda) or lay (Canada, BDA, AHA) public, neither include B12 deficiency symptoms in their high-level summaries nor indicate that B12 is a more important concern than D, Zn, Fe, Ca, and omega-3s? I understand that, as physicians, you feel a responsibility to warn patients about what you perceive to be the most important risks, but as encyclopedia writers you have a duty to report what the best sources say (based on research going back many decades) without distorting the importance they give particular points. FourViolas (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A number of those sources speak about vegetarian diets, including veganism only as a subset. What sets vegan diets apart from vegetarian diets is B12, which vegetarians have no problem getting enough of. The fact of the matter is: only minute amounts of B12 are actually needed, and the body can store several months worth of B12 in the liver.

This really sets veganism apart, (adressing WP:DUE) and in my books this makes it worth mentioning in the lede. Also, when I look at some of the sources I hold to: [10] B12 is mentioned as "very important for vegans". Regarding the other recommendations, they do not differ between vegans and vegetarians...

As for WP:V, there is no issue. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's true, but Craig (medical) and Canada (lay) are both vegan-specific and don't give B12 any more prominence than the others, so the DUE problem remains. The V issue is the unsupported claim that B12 deficiency is the "most important" or "particularly important" nutritional concern; this is an opinion, not a fact, and needs a strong source. Your source does says it's "mycket viktigt", but "B12 is very important" isn't the same as the current text, "B12 in particular is a major concern". FourViolas (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

While this is a minor point, phrasing carries vastly different weight in different languages. I perceive it to be synonymous with "major concern". Truth be told "very important" and "a major concern" aren't even far from each other in English. I would probably translate "major concern" into "mycket viktigt" (and I'm the native speaker here). Google translate only gets you so far. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:BallenaBlanca i get it that for you, the Vitamin B12 thing is a key irony of veganism. There are two main problems here, and two sub-problems.

1. Main problem: The surface content is UNDUE in the lead given the WEIGHT given to the topic in the body of the article.
2. Main problem: There is zero discussion in the body of this underlying irony. There could be content about the naturalistic fallacy I suppose but it is not there, and even if it were in the body, it would need to summarized straight, not made in this indirect way.
3. Sub-problem - you have pretty much admitted that you are arguing to keep this in, to be POINTY. That is not a legitimate reason to include something in the lead or to make any edit.
4. Sub-problem - your argument mashes together legit medical claims of B12 deficiency being perhaps the biggest health risk, and being POINTY, and that ... well that just bothers me. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As I see it the irony was simply a secondary point, and yes the comment was somewhat snide, but that does not detract from any of the other points.

We do not judge everything a person says based on one odd comment.Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The commentary on irony has been only here on the talk page, it was "a reflection aloud" because I am trying to understand why talking about the subject of vitamin B12 causes so much frustration in some people. Nothing else. The approach in the article I have already explained and is clear, information about health. Point. I fully share the words of Carl Fredrik "Please try to look beyond this, and..." , I think he has made a great explanation.

I add that it is also unfair for people who want to comply with the veganist precepts to discover that they have been betraying their principles inadvertently, for lack of information. I think we have all heard of or read about people who have suffered traumas after discovering that, for example, such a supplement had an excipient of animal origin, that such food was fortified with substances of animal origin, such a cosmetic labeled "cruelty free" was a hoax... after having been using it for a while.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In my view the only reason for that content, with its explicit discussion of "only in foods from animals" is indeed a POINTY one. Nobody has addressed the WEIGHT problem and I am looking forward to hearing ~something~ about that. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You have a point about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We are missing out on the most important issue: this page is about veganism, not vegetarianism. Most guides and highest-quality sources talk about vegetarianism in general [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17].

A very important problem when evaluating the evidence of these diets is the lack of unification of definitions and that a correct differentiation of strict vegetarian (vegan) diets is usually not made. And there is a fundamental characteristic that distinguishes it from other vegetarian diets: the total absence of animal foods, so vitamin B12 deficiency is a fundamental concern: Vitamin B12, also called cobalamin (Cbl), is a water-soluble vitamin found in substantial quantities only in animal foods. If the consumption of animal foods is very low or absent, its scarce presence in plant foods makes its introduction essential, either through supplements or fortified foods. This deficiency is common among vegetarians and is the result of a very low intake (14) ... Unbalanced vegetarian diets could be lacking in nutrients that are poorly represented in vegetal foodstuffs or with a low bioavailability (e.g., iron, zinc, vitamin D, ω3 polyunsaturated fatty acids) (17). However, only Cbl seems to be virtually absent in vegetables and its shortage can have serious implications. The other nutrients that may be somewhat deficient are already mentioned previously, at the beginning of the paragraph "Vegan diets tend to be.." in the current version.

This guide of 2016 Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets also discusses vegetarian diets in general but includes a phrase at the end of the abstract highlighting the need for vitamin B12 supplementation in vegan diets specifically "Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements". And in the body of the article, develops a broad section:

Extended content

Vitamin B-12 is not a component of plant foods.7,39 Fermented foods (such as tempeh), nori, spirulina, chlorella algae, and unfortified nutritional yeast cannot be relied upon as adequate or practical sources of B-12.39,40 Vegans must regularly consume reliable sources— meaning B-12�fortified foods or B-12�containing supplements—or they could become deficient, as shown in case studies of vegan infants, children, and adults.8,39 Most vegetarians should include these reliable B-12 sources because 1 cup of milk and one egg per day only provides about two-thirds of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA).7,39,40 Early symptoms of a severe B-12 deficiency are unusual fatigue, tingling in the fingers or toes, poor cognition, poor digestion, and failure to thrive in small children. A subclinical B-12 deficiency results in elevated homocysteine. People with little or no B-12 intake may feel healthy; however, long-term subclinical deficiency can lead to stroke, dementia, and poor bone health.7,8,41 Laboratory tests to assess vitamin B-12 status include serum methylmalonic acid, serum or plasma B-12, and serum holo-transcobalamin (Holo-TC or Holo-TCII).8,39,41 The normal mechanism for B-12 absorption is via the intrinsic factor, which becomes saturated at about half the RDA and requires 4 to 6 hours before further absorption.40 Hence, fortified foods are best eaten twice during the course of a day. A second absorption mechanism is passive diffusion at a rate of 1%, allowing lessfrequent consumption of large supplemental doses. Recommendations based on large doses have been made (eg, 500 to 1,000 mg cyanocobalamin several times per week).8,39 The four forms of B-12 are differentiated by their attached groups. Cyanocobalamin is most commonly used in fortified foods and supplements because of its stability. Methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin are forms used in the body’s enzymatic reactions; these are available in supplement forms that appear to be no more effective than cyanocobalamin and may require higher doses than the RDA. Hydroxocobalamin is the form used effectively for injections.8,42

I asked for more opinions because I value them and I think that among all we can reach a writing that meets the objectives of Wikipedia. I think we should judge from this perspective and while we can leave aside of the lede more detailed descriptions about vitamin B12 deficiency, IMO is important to mention this point in particular (only products of animal origin contain sufficient amount of vitamin B12 for humans). Anyway, I still think that for a lay reader, it may also be important to clarify more about what this implies, but I will accept the consensus we reach.

I think we can do a better job than what is normally found in guidelines, scientific articles, research papers, case studies... by making a correct differentiation and giving a clear and accurate information for the reader. We already go with advantage because we have separate pages: vegetarianism and veganism.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog — I'm getting very annoyed here. You removed the content again on the faulty premise of no arguments for its inclusion — despite the presence of arguments for inclusion, and frankly many of them. That you do not agree with the arguments is not the same as there not being any, and it is not reason enough to ignore multiple editors, stating that anyone who does not agree with you is being WP:POINTY. You are not an arbiter of what goes in articles based on whether you consider additions WP:POINTY.

The fact of the matter is that the sentence is well sourced, and the importance of B12-levels is mentioned in myriad textbooks as the chief difference between vegetarianism and veganism. This distinction may merit elaboration in the text, but mentioning the risks and effects of B12 deficiency in veganism is absolutely WP:DUE, and should probably be expanded upon in the article body per WP:WEIGHT (as you rightfully point out). The lede could also do with some more information on which other minerals and vitamins one risks getting to little of as a vegan, however this does not detract from B12 being important and meriting inclusion.

I find your removal of the sentence to be textbook-WP:POINTY as it only seems to be rooted in WP:AGF-violation and the lack of mention in the article body. That the article body needs updating doesn't mean that the lede should suffer.

And as BallenaBlanca points out — we can not simply summarize sources on vegetarianism, because we have separate articles on veganism and vegetarianism. It only makes sense to highlight the major differences between the two diets. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• A mention of B12 deficiency problems in the lede is fine; stretching it to make a point about the origin of B12 products is undue, and does indeed look pointy. If there's serious dispute about this, an RfC might be needed? Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn — Interesting point. However, we do clarify that this is only among non-fortified foods. Fortified foods and supplements can include sufficient B12 which may/may not be of animal origin.

I find it somewhat disingenuous to state "non-fortified vegan foods do not include sufficient levels of B12", that is like ignoring the elephant in the room (and a double negation at that) — but if this is the issue I am willing to compromise. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this subthread, you will see that it was originally removed for the same reason it continues to be removed - WEIGHT. Entirely consistent and direct; nothing POINTY. Arguments for keeping the expanded content have not addressed the issue of WEIGHT as that term is understood in en-WP. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can do a better job than what is normally found in guidelines, scientific articles, research papers, case studies—this is where we disagree, BB. My understanding of our core content policies WP:DUE and WP:OR is that this is not our job as Wikipedia editors: we are supposed to follow what reliable sources say, even if our own opinions differ.

As I've pointed out, the best sources we have specifically about veganism, both medical (Craig) and popular (Dietitians of Canada), do not lay more emphasis on B12 than the other micronutrients of special concern. If you think this is wrong, you can present your case to the Spanish Association of Dietitians & Nutritionists and see if they'll publish a position paper agreeing with you. Until then, we follow the sources. FourViolas (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting reasoning.

True, we do not do original work, but we collect what verifiable sources say about the subject, seeking to reflect all points of view in a balanced way. That is why our team work is good, providing different approaches and reaching consensus (I was referring to this work -"we can do a better job"-, and to the fact that Wikipedia clearly separates veganism and vegetarianism, which is not usually done).

The weight is also valued by the number of scientific papers devoted to a topic. Because of its importance, vitamin B12 deficiency in vegetarians is being devoted complete articles, such as these reviews PMID 27916823, PMID 24667752, PMID 25998928, PMID 24803097, PMID 23782218, PMID 25195560, PMID 12417096, PMID 8172125, PMID 23356638, PMID 23782218... It is true that other health disorders caused by poorly planned vegan diets are also important, such as poor bone mineralization, fracture risk, iron-deficiency anemia... But vitamin B12 deficiency can cause the most severe health problems, as irreversible neurological injury and death, as has recently occurred with several cases in children for poorly planned vegan diets, sometimes resulting from maternal deficiencies. And there is a prominent feature of vegan diets that, coupled with the total withdrawal of animal products, greatly increases the risk: The vegetarian diet, rich in folacin, may mask hematological symptoms, so Cbl deficiency may only be evident due to neurological signs in the late stages, such as neuropsychiatric abnormalities, neuropathy, dementia and, albeit rarely, atrophy of optic nerves 85,130. Usually hematologic manifestations and anemia precede neurologic signs, which are more severe and mostly irreversible 147,148.

Anyway, as I said, I am not trying to impose any criteria, what I want is that we reach a consensus valuing among all.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Literature quantity is a good point; if there's much more "veganism & b12" literature than "veganism & D" or "veganism & Ca" literature, it would be DUE to have a larger b12 subsection, and then DUE in turn to reflect that imbalance in the lede (MOS:LEDE#Relative_emphasis). A preliminary search finds only a few review articles for vegetarianism and zinc PMID 25624036 PMID 23595983 PMID 12936958 PMID 1937219, calcium PMID 10479229 PMID 8172128, omega-3s PMID 28417511 PMID 24261532 PMID 18220672 and iron PMID 12936958 PMID 1937219.

This justifies a somewhat larger subsection for B12, as we currently have; I'm not sure if it's worth an extra sentence in the lede, given that the general veganism sources don't give it that, but I'm more open to the idea. FourViolas (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, though, the current text is unacceptable: besides the WEIGHT problem, it includes the unsupported claim that B12 supplementation is "especially" important. I would rather remove the sentence than keep it as is. FourViolas (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've revised the paragraph to compromise, giving a special mention to B12 and describing its deficiency succinctly as "potentially serious". I hope this is acceptable to everyone. FourViolas (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's see more opinions about this edit: [18] I prefer the previous version.

About "WEIGHT problem", remember this conversation: [19] You recognized the amount of literature on the subject.[20]

About the "unsupported claim that B12 supplementation is "especially" important" you are mistaken, it is not unsupported (I will not repeat again everything that has been talked about and documented...). In addition, it does figure in the abstract of a recent guideline (of 2016): Vegan Diet. Position of the German Nutrition Society (DGE) "The most critical nutrient is vitamin B₁₂"

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:BallenaBlanca, do not see the change as an improvement. It takes shorter and simpler sentences and turns them into longer sentences is one issue. The health benefits should come before the micro nutrients involved. Vitamin B12 is important for those who are actually eating a true vegan diet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

B12 manufacturing

BallenaBlanca, you recently added the following:

"Several compounds may be used for the cultivation of bacteria, such as glycine, glycerine, l-threonine, betaine, choline, or whey supplemented with yeast extract, which may be of animal origin. Another form of vitamin B₁₂ used in food supplements is methylcobalamin, which can be produced from genetically modified micro-organisms or manufacturing semi-syntheticaly after the extraction of vitamin B₁₂ from products of animal origin.

Extended content
References

While I appreciate your efforts, I don't think this material is appropriate here, for two policy-based reasons plus an intuitive one.

1. It is WP:SYNTH: none of the sources you link refer to veganism or vegetarianism.
2. It is implying a POV conclusion not stated in the sources. The material suggests that animal products are used in most B12 manufacturing, fitting with your comment above that it is "one of the greatest ironies of veganism" that "vegans depend on 'unnatural' foods[...]which has depended, and currently continue to depend, at least partially, on animal experimentation and/or substances (additives, excipients...) from animal origin." But this critique of veganism is not found in the cited sources, and using them to support it is WP:POV.
3. The critique of veganism it suggests is not one that would be taken seriously in formal literature. It's uncontroversial among literature on veganism that vegan lifestyles harm animals in all kinds of ways; see, e.g., Jones 2016 which I linked earlier. It is simply accepted that, if animals have moral status, harming them less is better than harming them more.

While the claim "which may be of animal origin" is pretty clearly SYNTH, the rest of the material would go well in Vitamin_B12#Fortified_foods_and_supplements. Would you be willing to move it there? FourViolas (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We have already talked about that (out of place) comment and its motive. There is nothing more to say about it. Talk pages are for discussing content, not contributors. Please focus on the content of the page, what it really says, and its verifiability.

A serious misinformation was present for almost five years, since the Revision as of 01:50, 29 November 2012: "B12 supplements are produced industrially through bacterial fermentation-synthesis; no animal products are involved in that process. ... <ref>Mangels, Messina and Messina 2011, p. 179.</ref>, but the source does not say anything like this. The closest content we can find in the reference is this: "Dietitians should also be able to provide suggestions for brand names of b12 supplements that are vegan", which lets it clear that supplements may have been made with products of animal origin.

During this almost five years, the sentence in question was edited and reworded on several occasions, but no one corrected it. This was the writing in August 2017: "No animal products are involved in the production of B12 supplements".

It is necessary to provide accurate information and correct this important error that was present on the page for so many years. The information and sources deal with supplements and fortified foods, which are needed in vegan diets, so they are directly related. Their inclusion is justified per WP:WINAC. "It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic ... Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack."

I agree removing "which may be of animal origin".

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree the previous version was misleading, but your version violates WP:WINAC in that it "provides more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require"; it's clear OR, and is non-neutral regardless of your intentions. Can we go to a version directly supported by actual texts about veganism, such as Some brands of B12 supplements are vegan.<ref>Mangels</ref>? FourViolas (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The information is supported by reliable sources and fits them, is very abbreviated, simplified, and is adjusted to what any reader can understand, especially considering that we have to repair the damage that has made the misleading information that was present almost five years, the general content and level of detail of the rest of the page, and that it belongs to the body of the article.

An example of information that "provides more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require" would be to write something like this:

Extended content

"Microbial de novo biosynthesis of vitamin B12 occurs through two alternative routes: the aerobic or anaerobic pathway, in bacteria and archaea, respectively. Some strains can also synthesize cobalamin by absorbing corrinoids via a salvage pathway, as shown in Table 1. Tetrapyrrole compounds including cobalamin, heme, and bacteriochlorophyll, are derived from δ-aminolevulinate (ALA) and a complex interdependent and interactional relationship exists among these tetrapyrrole compounds in numerous bacterial species (2). To maintain vitamin B12 at stable levels, its biosynthesis and transportation is regulated by a cobalamin riboswitch in the 5′ untranslated regions (UTR) of the corresponding genes. Large scale industrial production of vitamin B12 occurs via microbial fermentation, predominantly utilizing Pseudomonas denitrificans, Propionibacterium shermanii, or Sinorhizobium meliloti (7). However, these strains have several shortcomings, such as long fermentation cycles, complex and expensive media requirements, and a lack of suitable genetic systems for strain engineering. To date, most of the research on these producers has focused on traditional strategies, such as random mutagenesis and fermentation process optimization, with only limited research on metabolic engineering. Recently, engineers have shifted their attention to Escherichia coli as a platform for vitamin B12 production. E. coli has become a well-studied cell factory that has been extensively used for the production of various chemicals, such as terpenoids, non-natural alcohols, and poly-(lactate-co-glycolate) (8–10). Furthermore, metabolic engineering and synthetic biology strategies have been extensively applied to improve the production of these compounds (11, 12). Escherichia coli synthesizes ALA via the C5 pathway and has been used as a microbial cell factory to produce ALA via C4 and C5 pathways (13, 14) and E. coli can also synthesize vitamin B12 via the salvage pathway. The closely related Salmonella typhimurium is able to synthesize vitamin B12 de novo. Many genes involved in vitamin B12 biosynthesis in S. typhimurium have been shown to be functional in E. coli (15–17). Transfer of 20 genes from the S. typhimurium cob locus allowed the production of vitamin B12 in E. coli (18). These advantages facilitate the de novo production of vitamin B12 ...... "

I agree on the sentence you propose, to complete the information.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 08:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Any other opinions? As I see it, the fact that you are only describing those components of B12 manufacturing which could be animal-derived makes it clear that you are not simply providing "background information", but trying to prove a point by SYNTH. It's not our job to "correct an important error that was present on the page for so many years" at the expense of following the actual policies; that's WP:POINT. FourViolas (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I concur with FourViolas. It definitely appears to be a case of POV-pushing and SYNTH.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The proposal "Some brands of B12 supplements are vegan." may contain an unsupported weasel word. Does the source use the word "some"? See WP:WEASEL. QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The quote is "Dietitians should also be able to provide suggestions for brand names of b12 supplements that are vegan", which indicates that some are without taking a position on whether all are. If you prefer, we could add the Dietitian's Pocket Guide to Nutrition ("Patients following a vegan diet need B12-fortified food or vegan supplements"), Cousins 2009 ("There are vegan b12 supplements"), or Davis 2014 ("Vegan supplements can be found in local natural food stores or sourced online"). FourViolas (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources presented do not indicate if it is some or many brands. Those are weasel words that give a specific meaningful where the source or sources did not give such a meaning. See WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." If the wording was slightly changed it would be sourced. "There are brands of B12 supplements that are vegan." is sourced. "Certain brands of B12 supplements are vegan." is also sourced. The sources are ambiguous. Therefore, the wording can also be ambiguous without including unsupported weasel words. QuackGuru (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand which specific meaning you think is being misleadingly conveyed, but "Certain brands of B12 supplements are vegan" sounds good to me. FourViolas (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:WEASEL there are specific words that weasel words. See WP:WEASEL: "Words to watch: ...some people say, many scholars state,..." For example, the source does not indicate it was "some" brands. Since the sources are ambiguous the wording can also be ambiguous. "Certain brands of B12 supplements are vegan" does not indicate as to whether it was "some" or "most" brands. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, although it's not a strict blacklist: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. I come from a math/logic background in which "some" simply means "at least one, but not necessarily all," which seems like exactly as much information as the vague sources give us.

Anyway, is everyone else okay with "Certain brands of B12 supplements are vegan" and moving the other manufacturing information to Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production? FourViolas (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

FourViolas I repeat again: stick to the content, do not judge other editors intentions, that you are imagining.

You're wrong. I am not describing "only" products of animal origin. Please review the sources and appointments. Betaine is only of plant origin and choline can be both animal or plant origin. If you think that more products should be included, backed by references, I agree to add them.

Of course is the work of Wikipedia and its editors to correct the errors of Wikipedia and its editors, it would be absurd to think otherwise. What we can not remedy is the negative consequences of almost five years of misinformation, that hundreds of thousands of people have been read, and the use that multiple webs that proliferate documenting with Wikipedia content may have made of it. But at least we can avoid more mistakes in the future through objective and detailed information.

QuackGuru, what wording do you propose for this sentence "Some brands of B12 supplements are vegan"?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Certain brands of B12 supplements are vegan." without the unsupported weasel word "some". No source presented indicates it was only "some" brands because the sources are ambiguous. It may be only very few brands or it may be most brands but the sources remain ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right, your intentions don't matter for the purposes of this discussion, and I've struck my reference to them. The point is that this level of detail on manufacturing processes is excessive for veganism, as indicated by the absence of sources discussing them together, and belongs instead at Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production. FourViolas (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, you are very kind acknowledging that it was an inappropriate comment.

The information conforms to the same pattern as the rest of the page (see for example these three sections Veganism#Avoidance, Veganism#Toiletries, household Veganism#Clothes) and is brief enough. It is appropriate and necessary here.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca I see what you are doing here - the argument is that even B12 from bacterial culture isn't (or might not be) vegan because the cell cultures used to grow the bacteria (might) include animal-derived ingredients. You are going to need to bring sources that actually say that about the methods actually used to produce B12 supplements. Not easy information to find. But that is what is needed. I am doing some looking but there may not be sources with level of detail. But I suggest you drop this until such a source can be provided. Otherwise this is really speculation. I agree it would be useful to get clarified, one way or the other. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. What part of the paragraph do you think should be dropped until more references are located? --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It should just say that B12 is manufactured by bacterial fermentation. All the added stuff is SYN. We don't know what is in actually in the cultures. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have found a source of 2017 to document the current situation in (most) commercial vitamin B12 products. I adjusted. The text is now even shorter. I hope it is already solved. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that great source!

The information is very interesting, but I still don't understand why it belongs here instead of at Vitamin B12#Synthesis and industrial production. I just can't imagine anyone would come to the Veganism page in order to find the specific strain of bacteria most commonly used to make B12—if they wanted that level of detail, they would know to look for it at Vitamin B12. Sections like Veganism#Avoidance, while comparably detailed, are of no interest except in the context of veganism. But if others think it belongs here, I can live with the text as it stands. FourViolas (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, dead on perfect ref find, ballena. Thanks! Does this lay your concern about non-vegan manfaccturing to rest? Jytdog (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, it seems adequate. Best. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Dietetic organizations

We currently cite the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the German Society for Nutrition. To get a broader view, I looked through the websites and published position papers of the International Confederation of Dietetic Organizations and recorded all of their officially stated positions. I propose replacing the last section of the current diet paragraph in the lede with the following:

Multiple national and international dietetic organizations have stated that a well-planned vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of life, while others recommend or caution against vegan diets for infants or pregnant and lactating women.

References

Any comments or objections? FourViolas (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The part "Multiple national and international dietetic organizations" is not stated in any individual source and "while others" is also not stated in any individual source. I usually write what each source specifically stated. If different organisations stated the same thing then I would name each organisation following by what they stated. A review may be able to verify what dietetic organisations have stated for a broader view. QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is for the lede, where there's not enough room to give all the statements, which is why I put them in a footnote. It feels arbitrary to pick the AND and DGE, especially because that's not DUE balance. I agree it would be good to have a tertiary review, but AFAIK there isn't one; in the absence of one, I thought that "multiple" was WP:SKYISBLUE-level obvious from the given quotes.

Would you prefer The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, British Dietetics Association, Dietitians of Canada, and Nordic Council of Ministers have stated that a well-planned vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of life, while the German Society for Nutrition and Danish National Health Board recommend or caution against vegan diets for infants or pregnant and lactating women? FourViolas (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the proposal is verifiable after reading this? I am referring to the part "Multiple national and international dietetic organizations" and "while others". Also see WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." No source stated "multiple".

For the lede I would not prefer the specific lists of organisations. I would pick two major organisations for the lede given the absence of reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with QuackGuru.

In addition, it is not the same to say this that you are proposing: "caution against vegan diets for infants or pregnant and lactating women" than what the source really says: "The DGE (German Nutrition Society) does not recommend a vegan diet for pregnant women, lactating women, infants, children or adolescents."

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 08:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Read it again; the DGE recommends against, the Danes caution against, together they recommend or caution against. If it's this contentious I concede we shouldn't synthesize a summary, but if my list is accurate it's giving undue weight to the DGE to include it coequal with the ADN. FourViolas (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Further reading section

Removed from article per WP:ELNO. Little encyclopedic value. --Zefr (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• The Vegan, past issues.
• Baur, Gene with Gene Stone. Living the Farm Sanctuary Life: The Ultimate Guide to Eating Mindfully, Living Longer, and Feeling Better Every Day. Rodale Books, 2015. ISBN 1623364892
• Mangels, Reed; Messina, Virginia; and Messina, Mark. The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets, Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011.
• Mangels, Reed. The Everything Vegan Pregnancy Book, Adams Media, 2011.
• Naked Food Magazine, magazine and website

Early texts

• Riston, Joseph. An Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food, as a Moral Duty, Wilks and Taylor, 1802.
• Kingsford, Anna. The Perfect Way in Diet, Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1881.
• Shelley, Percy Bysshe. A Vindication of Natural Diet, F. Pitman, 1884.
• Salt, Henry Stephens. A Plea for Vegetarianism, Vegetarian Society, 1886.
• Williams, Howard. The Ethics of Diet, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1896.
• Wheldon, Rupert H. No Animal Food, Health Culture Co., 1910 (first known vegan cookbook).

Academic studies

• Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. PNAS. November 22, 2015.

Articles

• Saving the Planet, One Meal at a Time. Chris Hedges for Truthdig, November 9, 2014.
• I’ve converted to veganism to reduce my impact on the living world. George Monbiot for The Guardian, August 9, 2016.
• Why all Christians should go vegan. Charles Camosy for The Washington Post. January 5, 2017.
• Go vegan, save the planet. George C. Wang for CNN. April 9, 2017

We should be using high quality sources as references. Agree we are not a collection of external links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The books, early texts and academic studies absolutely have encyclopedic value. I would recommend they be restored, and perhaps some of the external links for the early texts removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James. If there are secondary sources which establish any of these sources have actual weight, then they can be incorporated into the article. What we don't want is a jumble of links to stuff which a mere Wikipedia editor thinks might be worthy. WP:NPOV and all that. Alexbrn (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Zefr, Doc James and Alexbrn. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

^Go figure! Does it occur to any of you that you can remove the external links while keeping notable reading materials? Some of those listed above don't even have external links, so the reason for removal doesn't apply to them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that editors who are here attacking Veganism as detrimental to human health would also seek to remove articles, books and studies that might put Veganism in a more positive light.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You would be well advised to focus on content. If any of these sources are truly "notable" their weighty views should be incorporated in the article. Our job is not to "put Veganism in a more positive light". Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Wild animals

I restored this content [21].

Claudio Bertonatti is one of the most renowned naturalists in Argentina and has written dozens of papers [22]. His opinion is perfectly valid and with firm bases of knowledge, for his academic training and professional work as a conservationist of nature for more than thirty years, as well as his past as a vegetarian. He was vegetarian because of ethical motives.

His opinion is a perfect counterpoint for this section per WP:CRITICISM and WP:NPOV, with a focus on wildlife and non-exclusivly on domestic animals. Others may consider his position elementary. Well, they are respectable opinions too... Bertonatti defends the rights of animals and to avoid their "mistreatment, cruelty and agony", but criticizes that the impacts on "an enormous amount of animals from a great diversity of wild species: from invertebrates to fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals ... become 'invisible' to the distance of a large city and consequently are unemotional. And what does not excite is not evoked" and wishes that "the thousands of wild animals that die daily poisoned by the use of agrochemicals, badly injured or shot by the hunters associated with the defense of the crops or those who remain hungry and without shelter because their environment was plowed" also had the opportunity to receive the same consideration.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed this material as extremely WP:UNDUE.

CRITICISM and NPOV both require articles to be proportionate, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints. It is thus inappropriate to select material based on what we think would be a "perfect counterpoint"; we select material based on the prominence it is given in relevant secondary literature. Bertonatti's opinions about veganism seem to have been cited exactly once, in what appears to be a Master's thesis in Sociology. For comparison, Animal Liberation has been cited over 5,000 times, according to Google Scholar.

Less importantly, Bertonatti's qualifications as a naturalist are irrelevant when evaluating his reliability as an ethicist; imagine if we cited Kary Mullis at climate change on the basis of his being "one of the leading biochemists in America".

Wild animal suffering is an interesting topic in contemporary bioethics, but it's different from Veganism.

References

FourViolas (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits to lead

User:Harald Forkbeard about this and this and this....Please a) read and follow WP:V and WP:LEAD; b) review this page and its archives so you are aware of how heavily negotiated this article has been; and please stop adding unsourced content to the lead of this article (or any article). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And please be aware that content about health needs to based on WP:MEDRS sources and needs to reflect the WEIGHT given by those sources to the topic, so please keep that in mind as you consider adding content to the body of the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversy Over Defining Veganism

Within the wider vegan community -- as well as among those thinkers foundational to vegan philosophy *AND* diets -- the notion that so-called "dietary veganism" qualifies as veganism represents the minorty opinion. Wiki is supposed to be neutral. This article greatly over-represents this minority opinion. The attempts to subvert the majority, popular opinion within the vegan community can be demonstrated to be economically and politically motivated in many cases. comment added by Zhachev (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The neutrality policy is WP:Neutral point of view, which instructs us to represent all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources, not just those within the "vegan community". For example, a peer-reviewed paper about authenticity among vegans writes,

In this paper, I distinguish between health vegans, environmental vegans and ethical vegans. A health vegan eats a plant-based diet to lose weight or to improve physical health. However,they do not incorporate veganism into other aspects of their lives, nor are they primarily concerned with animal rights issues. An environmental vegan is concerned about the environmental impact of the meat industry. However,they may purchase leather products over polyvinyl chloride (PVC), thinking that leather is a better choice for the environment. An ethical vegan is one who adopts a vegan diet for moral, ethical and political reasons. The diet forms only part of a lifestyle that is structured around a philosophy of animal rights.

This is a perpetual issue; you can see many more quotes at Talk:Veganism/Sources for the dietary veganism distinction. FourViolas (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Veganism/Archive 16#Recent edits to the lead vs. recent WP:RfC discussion and Talk:Veganism/Archive 16#New suggestion for definition of veganism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that the paper I cite above follows the first sentence with a footnote

Some vegans think these terms are unnecessary as they believe veganism is not a diet. These people define health vegans as "pure vegetarians" or "plant-based eaters." Nonetheless, I use the terms "health vegan" and "ethical vegan," because these are the terms my participants use.

and a full paragraph

These are not merely descriptive differences; they are value-laden within the vegan community. Some leaders in the vegan movement (citations) applaud anyone who tries to eliminate animal-based food in their diet. As the goal is to reduce animal suffering, the factors that motivate veganism are irrelevant. Other vegan leaders, such as Francione, Best and Regan, are more critical of people who simply choose an apolitical vegan diet. [...] They want to preserve veganism as an anti- establishment politic, as well as an ethic about animal liberation,

What would people think of adding the fact that some ethical vegans dispute the legitimacy of the use of "vegan" by dietary vegans to a footnote in the lede, probably the current footnote [d], cited to this paper? It's worthwhile to give readers a heads-up that the terminology is disputed, and it might cut down on perpetual objections from ethical vegans. FourViolas (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor above for pointing this out! I've read a nice portion of the linked material, before I even made edits. I'm not suggesting intentional bias towards the vegan community be included, at all. What I am saying is that the article has major issues, not the least of which is being utterly confusing, academic, and multifarious in its definitions of the term "veganism", as found within the article -- even just the lead. Ask a widely recognized strict vegan expert (like those mentioned above) about so-called "dietary veganism" and get back to me, because as stated previously, the prominence of the concept in this article and academia is chasms away from how veganism defines itself. The person who coined the term vegan revised the definition precisely in order to exclude so-called "dietary vegans", they did this over 60 years ago. And that's in the article! I'd recommend putting the dang flags back before anything else. This article does not seem credible in its current state. comment added by Zhachev (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You have come here making claims with no actual citations. That is not how Wikipedia works. Bring actual sources to support what you are saying. That is an obligation, not something optional. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

FourViolas, I wouldn't mind the footnote addition.

Zhachev, Jytdog is right. Also, do look at the past debates about this (linked above) if you have not already. There are many people who simply adhere to the vegan diet. Stating that they are not vegans because they do not adhere to the vegan philosophy, such as not wearing leather, could be argued as a very strict and/or radical viewpoint. When people and sources talk about veganism, they are usually solely talking about the diet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

_____

References

What is meant by "mince"?

In the "Soy" section, I see the word "mince". Does that mean ground meat? If so, maybe we should just delete it because it's immediately followed by "veggie burgers" which would be redundant. Mksword (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Mince is defined in the synonyms for ground meat. I linked the sentence to meat analogue in a revised sentence, with a ref added discussing these products. --Zefr (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Veganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111043541/http://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/meat_atlas2014.pdf to http://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/meat_atlas2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104151356/http://vegansociety.com/User-Hubpages/Businesses/Trademark/Trademark-Standards.aspx to http://www.vegansociety.com/User-Hubpages/Businesses/Trademark/Trademark-Standards.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104220525/http://vegansociety.com/uploadedFiles/User_Hubpages/Education/Education_Resources/Honey.pdf to http://vegansociety.com/uploadedFiles/User_Hubpages/Education/Education_Resources/Honey.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.veganoutreach.org/guide/qa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124174515/http://www.emagazine.com/magazine/the-cheese-challenge to http://www.emagazine.com/magazine/the-cheese-challenge
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121223025827/http://www.vegansociety.com/businesses/trademark/standards.aspx to http://www.vegansociety.com/businesses/trademark/standards.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130202025258/http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/cruelty-free-list/just-vegan to http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/cruelty-free-list/just-vegan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticisms

This article might be improved by a section on the criticisms of veganism that have been made. The main one that I have seen is that it ignores the cost to animal life involved in producing the foods that vegans are willing to eat, grains, pulses, etc. For example, a farmer said "the cure for veggies is to take them ploughing", meaning that grain production involves the killing of great numbers of insects, nematodes and small mammals, such as field mice, frogs, toads, possibly birds also, etc. Hence, the argument goes, vegans are living in a self-indulgent delusion. It would be helpful if this sort of approach could be fully explored and evaluated in the article. Seadowns (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seadowns: Be WP:BOLD and source it... Kleuske (talk)

Already at Ethics_of_eating_meat#Animals_killed_in_crop_harvesting, where it's more appropriate because the same objection applies to vegetarianism FourViolas (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've attempted to add a section and it was summarily reverted. Good luck getting a word in esgwwise against the shill army! Wolfmankurd (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticizing veganism is hard, they have a lot of hard core fans that are quite radical and don't want anyone to dent their view of the world. A bit like feminism and environmentalism. Don't even try and waste your time, they're "perfect". Beatitudinem (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparent soapboxing from citation quotes

Hey Jytdog, I noticed that you effectively reverted the quotes I added in the previous edit. Although I usually would not care, since I understand that sometimes lengthy quotes can be considered superfluous, your edit summary seems to cite WP:SOAP as the rationale. This is confusing for me. Could you please explain what you mean by that?

My initial impression is that you might be suggesting that my inclusion of those quotes constituted soapboxing (advocacy?), but I would rather you state so than assume so. If that is your rationale, however, then I am not sure how including relevant quotes from the source which substantiate the claim being cited (which is the function of the quote parameter) qualifies as that. If my use of the quote parameter does, then please let me know because I am unaware of any policy or guideline which defines such use as a violation of WP:SOAP (or any other policy or guideline).

I bring this up not to quibble, but because the result of this discussion will inform my usual editing practices going forward, especially on this article. (I have recently been filling out many citations and adding quotes during the process.) I would rather not unwittingly engage in behavior that appears to violate WP:SOAP, so any explanation you or anyone else could provide for why the quotes I have added appear to violate such guidelines would help me ensure I avoid such behavior. If there is none, then is there any other reason why the quotes should be omitted? If not, then naturally I recommend reinstating them.

Thank you for your time and any input you are willing to provide on this matter. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I meant WP:SOAP. The quote parameter can be useful if a source is not freely available, otherwise it is clutter and here in particular it was very soap-ish in appearance. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you therefore recommend that I avoid using the quote parameter unless the content is not freely accessible online, Jytdog? If so, should I proceed to clean out the quotes I have been adding in the citations, at least where similar in form to the ones you removed from this article? Or should I leave them for now and let someone else determine which are worth omission? Lastly, is this usage guideline according to a particular Wikipedia policy or guideline I should review and remember, or is this just your personal recommendation? If the latter, then that's fine, too. I just want to know whether such behavior violates established policies or guidelines on Wikipedia, since I am not aware of that being the case.

Alternatively, if there are any such articles or essays (or sections thereof) you know on when to use quotes in citations, that would also be helpful. I have seen citation quotes used inconsistently and without any clear rationale throughout Wikipedia, so I have been relying on my own interpretation of what scant usage guidelines I could find. For example, the most specific I have encountered is under WP:HOWCITE's section entitled "Additional annotation", but that seems capable of supporting both my inclusion of the quotes and your exclusion of them. Thanks again for whatever further input you are willing to provide. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no general advice; i just found these quotes to be very soapy. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you find any more in this article from me, feel free to remove them at your discretion; I probably won't dispute them, since I'd lack any compelling reason to do so. I only decided to discuss this, since I was concerned that my actions were being mistaken as deliberate soapboxing. If you would like to discuss such edits with me first, you can of course reply here or on my talk page. Regardless, I appreciate your assistance and explanations, and I'll try to consider whether any future citation quotes I include might even give the appearance of soapboxing. Have a great day / night! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Content based on opinions

Moved to talk [23].

I trimmedcontent this content, based on opinions [24] and it has been added again [25]. For health claims we need to comply with WP:MEDRS. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Vegaphobia and Veganism merge

• No merge - Vegaphobia should be separate from Veganism, just like Islamophobia, Biphobia, Antisemitism, Albanophobia, Audism.... Nessie (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kleuske (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You have only provided an Argument from fallacy. also, read WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. Nessie (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Merge or delete Vegaphobia entirely, I'm unsure if if there is anything worth saving :( Joereddington (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Changes in vegan culture during the 2010s

I do not understand the rationale you provided in your edit summary when you reverted my edit, BallenaBlanca. You stated that the two people are "unknown" and "non-notable" persons, yet I do not see why that matters. The first person, Sophia Nguyen, is simply the author of the cited source; she's about as "unknown" and "non-notable" as almost all the authors cited in the citations of this article (and basically all Wikipedia articles). I only included her name to provide attribution given that the assertion appeared to have been more of an opinion than a fact to me, and to clarify that Nina Gheihman (the second person) was not the author to anyone reading just the paragraph. As for the notability of Gheihman, this likewise seems irrelevant given that we cite rather obscure academics, authors, and journalists on Wikipedia all the time. What matters is the content and the sourcing rather than the claimant per se.

Regardless, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, since such guidelines only pertain to the notability of a subject in determining whether they should have their own article. Since this is about article content, what matters is whether the content is verifiable, has a neutral point of view (especially in being given due weight), and adheres to Biographies of living persons policies. I considered my edit to have satisfied all those conditions; if I did not, I frankly would not have submitted it.

With that said, what specific issue do you have with the content I added? If it's just the notability of the persons being mentioned, then I naturally suggest reinstating the content. If it's more than that, though, then perhaps I can try to address it. Thanks for your time. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nøkkenbuer: Sorry for the delay in answering. It seems that your edit was violating WP:NMCHK.

However, if other users agree to use this same source rewriting the text, I will not oppose it.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted changes to Veganism article

@Zefr: Hello, I reviewed the "Veganism" article recently, and it referenced a study [citation 237 in the article]. I downloaded the study and after detailed review of the study, I had suggested the following edits to the "Health effects" section, to make the section accurately reflect what the study was stating:

1. Add the following statement (extracted from the same citation 237 in the article): "The review notes that disease incidence and mortality are two very different outcomes, with cardiovascular and cancer mortality being greatly influenced by the treatment approaches." The reason why this edit is important is because (as the citation notes) it is an important distinction - mortality is influenced by treatment regimens. As the study authors note, that largely explains the difference between lowered risk of heart disease (as the section notes) and the fact that mortality rate are unaffected.

2. In the "Health Effects" section, the last paragraph ONLY mentions the negative aspects of Veganism- namely that it can cause B12 deficiencies, etc. which is indeed noted in the references. However, Veganism does have benefits as well, as noted in the SAME citation [23]. Hence I took verbatim the following sentence, and edited the last paragraph to add it up front in the paragraph: "A vegetarian diet is associated with many health benefits because of its higher content of fiber, folic acid, vitamins C and E, potassium, magnesium, and many phytochemicals and a fat content that is more unsaturated."

Both the above edits were rejected and reverted. Please reconsider, as I am only trying to make the section more accurate and balanced, using the EXACT SAME references that the article currently references (citation 237 and 23).

This is my first Wikipedia edit, and I am hoping it will be a positive experience, with editors of this article being unbiased. My interest is in accuracy, and ensuring the article notes both positive and negative aspects in the "Health Effects" section, which it currently does not (ESPECIALLY THE LAST PARAGRAPH, which only notes the negative aspects).

Since I am new to Wikipedia edits, please suggest an alternative mechanism/process for editorial communications, if this Talk page is not the appropriate mechanism. (I was unable to find a user-friendly way to directly respond to the edit comments on my own Talk page).

Thanks!

To give some details to Npr2015's text (I'm unsure why sinebot didn't help them out. The edit in question appears to be [26] and the source in question is [27], which does indeed have text in verbatim (which, I think produces WP:COPYVIO issues, but I also don't think that's the point). I understand the point to be "If this source is an okay source for negative aspects of a vegan diet, why isn't it an okay source for the positive ones?", in which case I can see why Z's talk message was confusing for a new editor. Would you (NPR2015) say that's a fair summary? Joe (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I provided this information on Npr2015's Talk page, indicating that the sources provided are not of sufficient quality to conclude that veganism provides health benefits. In WP:MEDASSESS, there is a hierarchy of source quality, with prospective cohort study and observational study evaluated in PMID 26853923 as the lowest quality clinical evidence. A systematic review in a high-quality journal would be needed. Randomized controlled trials on the health effects of foods are generally next-to-impossible to design or control, so are absent from the literature, i.e., there is little available to review. I wasn't convinced the edits made by Npr2015 added much to the discussion or met the standards of an encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think everything Zefr has written is correct, my understanding is that this is the problem: surely Zefr's comment applies all other mentions of that source in the article, so they should be removed as well? I feel like my position is that the revert was probably fine, but didn't go far enough... Joe (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The section would be better entitled, "Health research", as "effects" are difficult to prove, and there are past or ongoing studies to discern potential health or anti-disease benefits; this would allow retention of the existing sources, but in need of better WP:MEDRS reviews. Regarding nutrient deficiencies, these are measurable and objective, so reviews covering them could be included when available. The section seems fair in representing the general state of understanding to me. --Zefr (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Image of Donald Watson

I believe the article should contain an image of Donald Watson . He was the founder of the worlds first vegan society and the person who coined the term vegan. He is a significant figure in the history of the movement. A free image exists on Wikimedia of him shortly before his death in 2008 reading the historic copy of the first vegan newsletter ever published in 1944. I am including this in the section of Coining the term vegan . Lumos3 (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• The File:Donald watson.jpg image is purely decorative in this usage here. The image is not referred to by any prose, much less sourced prose, as being important to a discussion of Veganism. Watson himself of course is crucial to that discussion, but the image is not. Nothing is lost in the prose of the article by removing this image. This generates a crucial failure of WP:NFCC #8. There is no contextual significance of the image. Again, Watson is contextually significant, but the image is not. The rationale you added (thank you for adding it; most people don't!) notes the image is for illustration. I agree. But, illustration in this case is insufficient. That is sufficient for the Donald Watson article as we have no free license images of him. Elsewhere on the project, there needs to be a tie into the prose, and that far preferably with sourced prose. Otherwise, the article reads the same with or without the image and no contextual information is lost by not having the image. That's the failure of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Lumos3: Please note that per WP:NFCC/WP:NFC, lacking a consensus to use this image here means it needs to be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

“6000 BCE”

The notion that Jainism has a history that long is suspect to most non‐Jains and should probably not be presented uncritically 72.184.20.135 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the claim. The source is not even close to a reliable source on archeology, history or Jainism. Other sources used to back up simular claims are not exactly great, either. Kleuske (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Cats cannot be vegans

The section headed "Pet food" says that veganism is sometimes extended to cats and dogs. I have long understood that cats cannot be vegetarian and need to have meat in their diet. Is this an inaccuracy in the article?Vorbee (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Certainly, in the wild, cats cannot survive without eating meat. The jury's still out on whether it's possible to make vegetarian pet food that satisfies their dietary needs. Also, there's a difference between whether it is possible and whether it is achieved in practice by current vegetarian pet foods. This is all discussed in the current wording. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The posters on this page are pro vegan, and they will push that all veganism is good.--Mapsfly (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Except for lizards, spiders, and most bats. Should gather them all together and, Cage match? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

variant pronunciations

The various common pronunciations of this word are an important aspect of this concept and discussions about it. There is no reason to remove well-sourced information about this, and not only because it's one of the common reasons readers look up this article. It's especially weird that someone thinks they have the right to demand a justification for including well-sourced information instead of first leaving it in and starting a discussion about it here. Spurious arguments like claiming that info in a footnote clutters the lead make such editing look even more like vandalism. --Espoo (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted myself for now, but it is unnecessary clutter. It is something numerous editors have complained about. As seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 19#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence, "Many editors view IPA as the most non-necessary parenthetical addition to lead." As for vandalism, I suggest you read WP:Vandalism. Removing that material, well-sourced or not, is not vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No quick fixes

I had – and have lost – a tab open with a source that said the health effects of a vegan diet on preventing cancer require about 15 years to appear. This is (a) not surprising, given that most solid cancers grow for years before they're detected, and (b) not what the average fad dieter is hoping. (This review also found about a 20% reduction for several common cancers, but higher risks for a few other kinds of cancer.) I assume that the minimum-time-to-benefit is shorter for heart disease, but I haven't looked for any sources on that subject.

If anyone can find a source that addresses this subject, I think that it would be good to include this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding the Gallery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to adding the gallery into Vegan article is like Vegetarianism , I think first to moving Vegan food or is same picture in gallery in this article , There is want to collect veganism photographs in there can collecting the picture is really important thing , If anyone can help me to removing vegan picture into gallery most ? I think it's not vandalism for this article. Geoffreyrabbit (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The gallery is not needed at all. You only added one to this article because I pointed out in the RfC at Talk:Vegetarianism that there is no gallery at this one. Well, I see that we need an RfC for this one as well. Otherwise, you will just keep edit warring. If you keep edit warring against WP:Consensus, though, you will be WP:Blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC:Should the gallery be included?

The dispute concerns Veganism#Gallery. One view is that we usually do not include galleries, per WP:Gallery, and the gallery does not appear needed. The other view is that a collection of veganism diet pictures in a gallery is an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Galleries can be nice or fun to look at it, but they usually are not needed and they often grow out of hand, as can be seen, for example, at the Blond article (its "Historical cultural perceptions" section). There were a lot more pictures there than is seen now, but they were reduced after the excessive pictures were complained about. Geoffreyrabbit is the editor who added the gallery to the Vegetarianism article, and he has added one to this article as a result of an argument I made there at Talk:Vegetarianism. There is also an RfC about the gallery there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• No Gallery not needed. Waddie96 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. Redundant images and potential for endless additions; WP:NOTGALLERY. --Zefr (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Remove I am generally against galleries or images that require broad construing to bear relevance to the article (see Tension Headache), and for the first 4 photos there is nothing native to them which directly aligns then with Veganism. Vegans breathe air, should a picture of the sky be added? no. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - Summoned by bot. Gallery does not improve overall quality of the page. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• If the gallery (not present in the current revision of the article) is wanted, then it shouldn't be in a section labeled ==Gallery==. In principle, I've no objection to adding more images, and sometimes gallery formatting is a useful way to achieve that goal. However, I think that when we use gallery formatting, the more typical uses are to show the same thing in several stages/styles (for "compare and contrast" value), so this wouldn't be the particular images that I'd include that way. A good use for a gallery might be showing the ingredients for a relatively common dish – maybe a pizza? – in meat, dairy, and vegan implementations, to show how the different diets differ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Letters and numbers

Why does this article initially have letters as in-line citation reference codes (up to h) and then switch to numbers, from 28 onwards?Vorbee (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Paryushana Parva.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Note alternate pronunciations

Please mention pronunciation debate [28]. Jidanni (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Where? Also see Talk:Veganism/Archive 17#variant pronunciations. The lead currently has a note on pronunciations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Genesis 1:29

I noticed that an editor had added a 'Religion' section and referenced Genesis 1:29, but was reverted. Genesis 1:29 seems applicable to the page, and is maybe the oldest (or one of the oldest) references of a "vegan" diet (at the time 'vegan' wasn't needed because it was just 'diet'). Why the revert and not just a clean-up on the new addition? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the source fails WP:V and is simply a myth. --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Still I think that the fact that a vegan diet is mentioned in Genesis is an interesting fact that is worth to be mentioned on the Veganism page. --Jan Vlug (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The notable and historical factor here is that the diet is mentioned near the start of the bible, on the first page, and not that it can be verified as being from "god". It was written by whoever wrote Genesis, and because Genesis was accepted as gospel (to coin a phrase) it eventually passed this particular suggestion about diet into the Jewish and Christian religions. If there is an earlier written mention of what can be called a vegan diet then that would be notable as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"particularly in diet"

"particularly in diet" virtually means only in diet, which is not accurate. I suggest "at least in diet". Any objections to "at least in diet"? Alec Gargett (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Alec Gargett, and dietary vegans (which the lead and article discusses) are vegan only in diet. They do not follow the philosophy. I'm not sure what you intend by "at least in diet." But the "particularly in diet" aspect has been extensively discussed. See Talk:Veganism/Archive 16#Recent edits to the lead vs. recent WP:RfC discussion and Talk:Veganism/Archive 16#New suggestion for definition of veganism. And the latest short discussion, before this one, is seen Talk:Veganism/Archive 16#Defenition of Veganism (and the misconception of "dietary veganism").

As for your changes to the article, given that this topic is contentious, it is best to discuss potential significant changes here on the talk page first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe the changes I have made are contentious. But that is a separate topic so please bring any specific issues you have with those up under a separate heading. The possibility of "at least in diet" was not discussed in the discussion you link and therefore that discussion does not apply. I think the meaning of "at least in diet" is much clearer than "particularly in diet". Vegans avoid animal products at least in diet, and often in other ways too. What is your objection to "at least in diet"? What does "particularly in diet" mean and how is is it more accurate than "at least in diet"? Alec Gargett (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussions are relevant because "particularly in diet" was discussed and is the WP:Consensus version. For why, all you need do is read the RfC on it or this discussion. Skimming the RfC discussion, "both" was used so that the article began with "Veganism is both." We could re-add "both" if it would help.

You stating that "at least in diet" was not discussed is like other editors stating that their proposed wording wasn't discussed. Whatever proposed wording that has come after "particularly in diet" doesn't negate the fact that "particularly in diet" is the WP:Consensus version. As to whether "at least in diet" should be used instead, we can see what others have to state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You still haven't explain whether you think "particularly in diet" is more accurate. "At least in diet" is more accurate, yet you refuse to allow it simply because it wasn't considered earlier, a circular argument. Alec Gargett (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Do stop telling me what I refuse to do. And it goes without saying that you don't know what I've considered. If I didn't consider it, I wouldn't be entertaining you at all or suggesting that others watching this page weigh in. You haven't explained why "at least in diet" is more accurate, given the heavy emphasis the topic has on the diet more so than the philosophy. I think SlimVirgin added "particularly in diet." And if she did, her reason (given that her reasons for editing tend to be thought out) for adding it was no doubt valid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for the ping. Alec, this sentence has been discussed many times and has settled into: "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." Note "and". The meaning is clear, namely that some people abstain from eating them, and others abstain from any use for ethical reasons. Both groups are called "vegans". "Particularly in diet" doesn't mean "only in diet"; it means there is a focus on diet. If I say I like fruit, particularly bananas, it doesn't mean I eat only bananas, or almost only bananas. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to ping AlecGargett. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn's reversion and refusal to discuss

I made basic formatting improvements to the article improving readability with explanations in the edit description. Flyer22 Reborn has reverted them without explanation claiming I need to discuss on the talk page first. (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Veganism&type=revision&diff=880230898&oldid=880224464) However, since I justified the edits in the edit descriptions and he did not provide any explanation for reverting, and there is no plausible explanation, this seems unreasonable. I agree with the arguments made in Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain_reverts and Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary and think Flyer22 Reborn should follow the advice in these essays, especially since this is not the first time he has done something like this. I attempted to discuss this with Flyer22 on his talk page, but he reverted my contribution to his talk page, again saying the description that I need to discuss every edit including minor edits that I make to this article on the talk page first. This would make progress on Wikipedia incredibly slow if it were followed and has no apparent benefits. He does not seem at all willing to discuss why he objects simple formatting edits or even whether he even looked at them before reverting. For an example of me trying to discuss a relatively minor edit first above. I did not get a good explanation for his opposition to my proposed change but I know from previous experience that Flyer22 would revert regardless. I could provide a very good explanation for the reverted formatting edits too, but I don't see the point of requiring me to "discuss" and get approval for every single edit in advance no matter how minor (or any of them) except to discourage me from attempting to improve the article by making it no longer worth my time. There is a lot of work to be done on this article and if I have to discuss every little thing before hand it will make the whole process much more time consuming for no apparent benefit. Alec Gargett (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I stated on my talk page, Wikipedia:Reverting and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary are essays. They are not policies or guidelines. I reverted you on my talk page because you came to my talk page with an attitude, accusing me of violating policies, and because I prefer article dispute matters involving me to be had on the article talk page instead of on my talk page. Before you changed your above paragraph in this section, you also inaccurately called these essays policies and accused me of violating them. I am under no obligation to retain your changes, which are not WP:MOS changes. They are personal preference changes, and I have addressed them below. Also, in the future, do not start a talk page discussion with an editor's user name in it. The "and refusal to discuss" aspect of your heading is completely inappropriate. All you would need to do is be patient and wait for my reply. I don't spend 24/7 on this site, and I do not have to reply to you on my talk page. When you are rapid-editing a talk page discussion, it is hard to reply anyway because you are repeatedly causing WP:Edit conflicts. And as for you taking the time to discuss your potential changes, see WP:CAREFUL and WP:CAUTIOUS. Most of your edits were not WP:Minor since they were modifying content. And what you call "a lot of work [needing to be] done on this article" may not be an opinion shared by other editors. Also, I am a she (not a he), by the way. Since you have only been editing Wikipedia as "AlecGargett" since 2019 (with one minor edit in 2007), I chalk up your mistakes to inexperience.

For others reading, I reverted AlecGargett on these changes. It seems that AlecGargett has a point on not having both an "Animal products" section and a "Vegan diet" section since the "Animal products" section also concerns the vegan diet. Thoughts?

As for changing "Philosophy" to "Vegan sub-types and philosophies," I don't see the need. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You have not actually addressed my main points. You have claimed in every reversion that I need to get consensus for *any* change to the article on the talk page first. This is not how Wikipedia works. There is no basis for this in Wikipedia policy. The burden of proof is on you to justify your self-asserted policy to revert everything that I haven't first asked and received permission for on the talk page, which achieves nothing except making the process of editing much more difficult and time consuming for the sake of it. Alec Gargett (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The "refusal to discuss" began when you reverted without any explanation, when you failed to answer my question above, when you reverted edits to your talk page with no indication that you intended to engage substantively. That's not just a matter of patience. WP:CONSENSUS does not state or imply that further improvements are impossible, that proposals for new suggestions must be opposed and must require a talk page discussion first, or that all further changes should be reverted without justification. Alec Gargett (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not wish to take sides, I just note that a WP:SPA against an established editor is not a good omen, especially for controversial topics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Your statement that I "claimed in every reversion that [you] need to get consensus for *any* change to the article on the talk page first." is false. Do point to where I stated that. You can't. This revert and edit summary is specifically about those changes. And I addressed those changes above. I also addressed your complaint about not wanting to discuss first. Unlike the essays you pointed to, WP:CAREFUL is a guideline and WP:CAUTIOUS is a policy. I reverted your edits because I disagree with your format changes, in part, and because formatting changes are something others are likely to want to weigh in on before changes are made. I replied to you on the talk page and was in the process of replying some more before you bombarded me with your nonsense above and on my talk page. There was no refusal to discuss, no matter how much you claim that there was. I was not obligated to explain my objections in the edit history when I intended to discuss the matter here on the talk page. Sometimes a revert with an edit summary asking the editor to discuss on the talk page, where the one who reverted will weigh in, is the best course of action. Now, given your attitude and you thinking you actually know more about how Wikipedia works than I do, I don't want to discuss a thing with you. You speak of knowing "from previous experience that Flyer22 would revert regardless." What previous experience? Were you using some other account? I don't remember any interaction with you before now, and I have a very good memory. You speak of the burden being on me. No, that is not how Wikipedia works. Are you not familiar with WP:Burden? Nothing that WP:Burden states points to the burden being on me. By contrast, WP:ONUS states, in part, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It is up to you to explain why we should go with your changes. Not the other way around. But I made an argument for your "Animal products" and "Animal product replacements" format above. Yes, consensus can change, but it has not changed thus far with regard to your edits. You have yourself to blame for others not wanting to weigh in thus far. People generally don't want to comment in a section attacking another editor, especially an established editor, unless it's something like WP:ANI. Create another section proposing your changes, and you might get somewhere. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

On a quick look most of the reversals make sense. The one that stands out is the correct revert of the section heading 'Animal product replacements' back to 'Vegan diets'. There is no replacing of animal products implied in the name 'vegan', people just don't eat animal stuff. Vegans don't replace eating animals or their excretions, they just don't use them as food. So I'd prefer the vegan diet going before any discussion of eating animals, and the sections about what to avoid does seem too long in explaining the obvious. Alec, are there one or two changes you think are important to make, maybe they can be discussed without walls of text either way. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)