Talk:Veganism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Recent reversions

What's up with recent comments by Joseph2302? I think you are being strangely harsh with Vegan Bug who might be wrong but doesn't deserve the vituperation of your recent comments. Am I missing something here?

TonyClarke (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@TonyClarke:, maybe I was a bit harsh, but it was caused by repeated edits like this on another page. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. But just reverting with POV and unsourced might have been more in keeping with civility policy? TonyClarke (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes probably, it was probably uncivil. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Too much of an OR battleground.

The current state of knowledge on the subject of the vegan diet seems to be that there is no generally acceped opinion on whether a vegan diet is beneficial or harmful. That is what this article should say. At present it is something of a battlground in which various editors quote selected studies to try to prove something (that the diet is a good one, or a bad one). To draw and suggest to our readers conclusions of this sort by assessing the evidence ourselves is original research. Summaries from independent high quality secondary sources showing what is the generally accepted opinion on the vegan diet are what is needed here. If there are no such sources then we should say very little or nothing on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Martin Hogbin:I am truly sorry to get involved in this mess but I think you are way out of line. Your perception that there is no scientific consensus on the health effects of veganism is not a substitute for a reliable source saying so. Indeed, there are reliable secondary sources saying otherwise, and it is not up to you to decide that an exceptionally high standard of "quality" is required in this specific case. Moreover the version of this article as I found it contains a fabrication which you have been strongly pushing for: "there is no clear evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer." Leaving aside the question of whether a vegan diet does prevent cancer, the source cited does not say this. In fact, it explicitly lists a lot of clear evidence that a vegan diet may be cancer protective, then comments that the *degree* of cancer protection was less than expected, and notes the lack of epidemiological studies showing veganism to be "significantly" cancer protective as of 2009. I will update the article to reflect this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not at all out of line. Quality secondary sources are always preferred in WP. What secondary source do you says states that there is a significant health benefit for a vegan diet.

The two sources on cancer (including, bizarrely, the one you cited to say that there is no benefit) both say this. Other sources say there is a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes, but this is a bit off-topic as we are talking about cancer. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to add that there is a , 'lack of epidemiological studies showing veganism to be "significantly" cancer protective as of 2009'. Refrence to insignificant findings is positively misleading.

It must also be pointed out that the reports all refer to well-designed and implemeneted vegan diets with supplements where necessary. There is undisputed, clear, and well documented evidence that poorly designed or implemented vegan diets have significant negative health effects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What you are saying may or may not be true, but it's OR. Anyway, the many negative health effects of poorly planned vegan diets are already mentioned. (B12 deficiency, low bone density, etc. It's all there.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Veganism and cancer

I made an edit after looking at the sources cited and finding out that they say the opposite to what is said in the article.
What the article says is "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people".[126][11]

• A quote from "Health effects of vegan diets" by Winston Craig:
  "Vegans consume considerably more legumes, total fruit and vegetables, tomatoes, allium vegetables, fiber, and vitamin C than do omnivores (14–16, 20, 23). All those foods and nutrients are protective against cancer (25)"
• In "Beyond Meatless, the Health Effects of Vegan Diets: Findings from the Adventist Cohorts", Table 4 puts the risk of cancer for non-vegetarians at 1 (100%), then in Table 7 shows that for vegans the risk of all types of cancer is 0.86 (86%).
  

Reverting my edit and saying "this is an article about veganism not vegetarianism" is a straw man argument, as I never said anything about vegetarianism, nor did the parts of the article I referred to. --Rose (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no general agreement that veganism has any beneficial effects regarding cancer. To state this in the article we must find a quality secondary source wich makes that statement. Editors here cannot select primary sources in order to promote their cause. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The Nutrients review says

Not so clear patterns are observed for cancer outcomes. While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes. [my bold]

Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

None of what you both said directly addresses what I said here or proves that the sentence I mentioned is based on the sources and not the imagination of the editor that put it there.
Moreover, the next sentence refers to the same source as mentioned in my second point above, yet it uses completely different words: "Compared to non-vegetarians vegans may be at greater risk of urinary tract cancers"
By this logic, the preceding sentence must say "Compared to non-vegetarians, vegans may be at reduced risk of multiple types of cancers". Again, see Table 7 for proof, which is also what the "urinary tract" quote is apparently based on. --Rose (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Forget Table 7. The reason we use review articles is that they contain expert assessment of the raw data. We use that expert assessment as the basis for encyclopedic content. We must not perform an amateur reinterpretion of that raw data as that would be WP:OR and is specifically prohibited by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying I shouldn't look for evidence backing up a statement in the sources cited for that very statement? And if I should, then it's not there. Which would mean you have to use a different source or change the sentence in accordance with the references. --Rose (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's not your place to re-write the conclusions reached by the authors of a reliable source and offer your own inexpert "peer review". Alexbrn (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion is this: "Overall, vegans experienced modest risks reduction (14%) for all-cancer". Taken from that "Beyond Meatless" article that's currently used to back up the part of the sentence we're discussing. Quite far from the truly inexpert "There is no good evidence" that has appeared out of nothing. --Rose (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not a conclusion, that is a description of one of the data points (your Table 7 again). I quoted the conclusion above: overall, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower. That is what the source concludes. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how whatever is in the section "Abstract" has more (or less) weight than what's in the section "Results" from the same article. The authors are the same too. --Rose (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Rose is right, those fighting quackery and pseudoscience have yet again failed to understand the difference between a slight but non-significant health effect, and a non-existent effect. This statement does not imply that veganism significantly reduces cancer risk, but it also does not imply that veganism has no effects on cancer whatsoever. Whether the evidence is good or bad is not addressed by the authors here. The most neutral statement would be "Although cancer risk may be slightly lower in vegans, the of specific role of vegetarian diets has not been fully elucidated." -A1candidate 14:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about vegan diets, not vegetarian diets - and the text does not mention a "non-existent effect": that's a straw man (or are you yet again leaping in with a contrary position before becoming familiar with the text at hand?). We say "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people" which is a good summary of the source(s) -- the evidence of effect is not "good" because there aren't "clear patterns" in it as a basis for drawing a conclusion. Saying it is slight but insignificant is wordy and confusing, especially since significant is a problematic word. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest something like "A vegan diet provides a moderate reduction in general cancer risk, although compared to non-vegetarians vegans are at greater risk of urinary tract cancers". The word "moderate" comes from "modest", from the source. --Rose (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I see original research and using lower quality sources being used to refute a secondary review; the failed verification tag should be removed, and primary and lower quality sources should not be used for text covered in higher quality or more recent secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Both of the sources being brought up (at least by me) are directly from the article, from the brackets right next to that problematic statement. --Rose (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Table 7 shows a relative risk of 0.86 for cancer overall, with a confidence interval of 0.7 to 1.00. Thus the study clearly finds a "statistically signficant" reduction in all cancers relative to the control group. On the other hand, this study exclusively includes non-randomized studies, and MEDRS speaks to the lower reliability of non-randomized studies. (Those who chose a vegan diet are probably less likely to smoke and probably make other healthy choices). The article explicitly discusses this limitation of the study, and asks whether the results are applicable to non Adventists. It is far from a ringing, highly certain endorsement that veganism has cancer benefits. I'd characterize the study overall as suggesting "a possible benefit". I certainly would not try to quantify any possible benefit from a non-randomized study conducted solely in Adventists, and I don't think the article's authors are encouraging that at all. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone change that sentence and word it differently, based on the discussion above? If I try to do it, I'm afraid my edits will be reverted once again. --Rose (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
And in doing the above, I think we should avoid mentioning vegetarianism altogether if there's evidence of vegans being at reduced risk of cancer, and based on that, we obviously should not have the article say "there's no good evidence". --Rose (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest a wider view of cancer and veganism. I think that the issue is not simply whether veganism protects from cancer. Instead, the cancer problem has arisen because of a huge increase in animal and high fat, high sugar products in our diets, as our western (and some eastern) countries have become more prosperous and less labour-oriented, and because of a reduction of plant based foods. So we are less active (cars, supermarkets, TVs, social media) and have more saturated fats, sugar and cholesterol circulating in our bloodstreams, so we have more cancer: and more high blood pressure, and diabetes, etc.. Veganism is not the main answer, although it is part of the answer. We need to eat less, be more active, eat more plant foods as our ancestors used to do, and reduce high fat foods. Veganism goes some way towards that, but it is misleading, for all these reasons, to say that veganism protects against cancer, since so much more is needed. One implication of this is that we will never be able to prove that veganism reduces cancer - so we are always going to have the kinds of arguments here if we focus on veganism alone. MHO, End of rant TonyClarke (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, 99% studies about risks of developing cancer aren't worth befuddling encyclopedia readers with. Correlation guesswork. The other 1% are theoretical, because every rule has potential exception. Even if the most solid study ever done shows vegans/Mormons/Jacksons have a "significantly" increased risk for an unlikely thing (say, even by 200%), and it somehow holds absolutely true for people outside the study group, too, even in future cases (virtually impossible), the difference in actual risk is still too slight for a human mind to comprehend.

No specific advice here, just ignore all studies. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia in this matter--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Health effects reversion

I have reverted this to a previous version as some problematic changes had happened, chiefly:

• The split into "advantages" and "disadvantages" brings too much editorial judgement to the table, when the sources make no such split - in some cases it isn't that clear cut.
• The "advantages" have been beefed-up and are principally asseted in Wikipedia's voice; the disadvantages are more attributed (at one point even referring to "one review") which bring a WP:YESPOV neutrality issue.
• On cancer, good sources have been downplayed/removed and a bold assertion - "Vegetarian and vegan diets are generally considered to be cancer-protective" moved to depend on a relatively a poor-quality source, PMID 21407994 (which was previously only used for providing some context to the better studies). Alexbrn (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm here because the cancer issue was brought up on the NPOV notieceboard. I have reviewed the source cited for the assertion, in your version, that "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people" and found that, not only is there no such statement in the source, the source actually says the opposite. This is explained in my comment above. I don't care about your restructuring of this section, but I've reverted part of the section to the previous version to reflect the what the sources actually say. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that is what has been discussed at the noticeboard, and the good sources used do say there is no clear or conclusive evidence (which I have paraphrased as "good"). Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(Add) To recap again, the two on-point reviews have the following in their conclusions (my bolding):

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

• While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes.

Also, Lanou should be used only for context as it's a weak source. You're putting way too much weight on it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify these quotes are from this 2014 review [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But the key word there is "epidemiologic." As the same sources note, besides the limited amount of epidemiologic evidence, there are other types of evidence which strongly suggest that vegetarian/vegan diets are cancer-protective. The article that quote is from itself lists a substantial amount of such evidence. To take a suggestion that more epidemiologic studies should be done out of context and paraphrase it as saying "there is no good evidence" is inaccurate. Again in the Adventist review, the fact that that epidemiologic result only showed a slight reduction in cancer does not mean that there is no other evidence that vegetarian diets are cancer-protective. There is certainly no source in our references which can be accurately paraphrased as saying "there is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer." --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The section in question is entitled Health effects - relying on laboratory research here is OR and misleading. The text you have removed is "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people" (my bold) which is both fair to the sources and pertinent. If you wanted to start a separate section of "health research" that would be a different matter. You have also copy/pasted text from Lanou, which is not a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have bolded another section of one of the quotes which seem to be being ignored. The quote actually says that vegans have a higher risk of cancer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: It does not. Urinary tract cancers are rare, and it is completely clear that vegetarians experienced a slight reduction in cancer rate overall. The other sources say the same thing.

For vegans the quote only mentions an increase in urinary tract cancers and an insignificant effect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's how you read it. I'm sure you can figure out why it's fallacious to conclude from those two things that cancer risk increased overall. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Regarding the plagiarism issue, it was one short sentence, not a word of which could have been changed without being debated here, and I think it is de minimis and will not cause a problem. I find your distinction between "Health Effects" and "Health Research" a little bit nitpicky, and including laboratory research in the same context as it appeared in review articles about cancer rates in vegetarians, where it was explicitly used as evidence that vegetarian diets may be cancer-protective, is obviously not OR. All that being said, I understand you have tried to enlist other more knowledgeable people into the discussion and I'd like to wait for their opinions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Anmother point which is often overlooked when considering dietary studies of this subject is that the data generally applies to well-designed and well-controlled vegan diets (with supplements where necessary. In practice, there is a considerable health risk from bad vegan diets. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to where it says this in the sources, or is it your opinion? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Strict vegetarians, such as vegans (who eat no animal products at all), must be careful to eat enough protein. Other nutrients that may be missing from some vegetarian diets include vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and iron (see Calcium, Vitamin B, Vitamin D, and Zinc). Some health care professionals consider vegan diets potentially risky, especially for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women.

— cancer.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

See also American Dietetic Association. Position of the ADA: Vegetarian Diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:1266-1282. Accessed at www.eatright.org on March 2, 2010. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

While there is a trend to less cancers it was not significant per [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Vegetarians tend to have an overall cancer rate lower than that of the general population, and this is not confined to smoking-related cancers. ... Although there is such a variety of potent phytochemicals in fruit and vegetables, human population studies have not shown large differences in cancer incidence or mortality rates between vegetarians and nonvegetarians (99,152).

— Position of the ADA: Vegetarian Diets., p. 1274

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Query about removals

Studies

A lot seems to have been removed recently from the health section. I was wondering why this was removed. I didn't add this (as I recall), but I can't see what the problem is, apart from being a a bit laboured. It has been in the article for some time:

Between 1980 and 1984 the Oxford Vegetarian Study recruited 11,000 subjects (6,000 vegetarians and a control group of 5,000 non-vegetarians) and followed up after 12 years. The study indicated that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations than the meat-eaters, and that death rates were lower in the non-meat eaters. The authors wrote that mortality from ischemic heart disease was positively associated with higher dietary cholesterol levels and the consumption of animal fat. They also wrote that the non-meat-eaters had half the risk of the meat eaters of requiring an emergency appendectomy, and that vegans in the UK may be prone to iodine deficiency.

A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing mortality rates in Western countries found that mortality from ischemic heart disease was 26 percent lower in vegans than in regular meat-eaters. This was compared to 20 percent lower in occasional meat eaters, 34 percent lower in pescetarians (those who ate fish but no other meat), and 34 percent lower in ovo-lacto vegetarians (those who ate no meat, but did consume animal milk and eggs). No significant difference in mortality from other causes was found between vegetarian/vegan and non-vegetarian diets. In 2011 a study of self-reported diabetes-free people aged over 40 found a correlation between diet and cataract risk, with a vegan diet appearing the least risky.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The 1999 stuff is rather old, in an area which is still being researched as a rule of thumb anything over 5 years old should be avoided (WP:MEDRS). The report of primary research study is newer, but weak - we have better sources on diabetes risk. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

These older studies are interesting (particularly the 12-year followup), because it was much tougher in those days to be vegan, so the people doing it were more dedicated and had healthy diets as a result. Now that veganism is more mainstream, it's easy to eat an unhealthy vegan diet, because there are lots of prepared vegan foods in supermarkets (ice-creams, etc). I think for that reason these studies are quite informative. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDDATE, using recent sources is not a hard-and-fast rule, but we should try to find more recent sources where available. It's not a reason to just remove stuff that's a few years too old; rather, we should try to find more up-to-date studies to replace it with. I think that's probably doable in this case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Page views

Interest in veganism in the 2010s was reflected in increased page views for the topic on Wikipedia.

The material about page views is interesting, because it's reflective of the surge of curiosity about veganism during the 2010s, which plenty of sources discuss. It is or was an interesting social movement (in the sense of why that and why then, and what will come of it). I know that Martin removed the text, but I see someone earlier removed the image. Can someone say why material like this is being removed? It seems a little gratuitous.

The interest in veganism in the 2010s was reflected in increased page views on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia article on veganism was viewed 73,000 times in August 2009 but 145,000 times in August 2013; articles on veganism were viewed more during this period than articles on vegetarianism in the English, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish Wikipedias.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed that material because basing the content of Wikipedia on Wikipedia seems a bad idea to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys - Uploaded some pics

More on the way ! Ben :), Ben-Yeudith (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have uloaded some images to the article but sadly my contribution has been reverted by User:Flyer22. It's a long article so I do it in stages... I don't know how to put here what we call in the Hebrew WIKI "Tavnit Aricha" ("Under construction" template); I just put the image now... I have yet to make small fixes and finishes and hence the Sandwhiching problems User:Flyer22 spoke about - I am ready and waiting to fix these problems also. The article is in desperate need of New images and sexier\more piquant images. Please tell me how to add this "Under construction" template... I need that time to work on the article. If there is no such template in the English Wiki, I'll just continue the work on a MS Word document and then upload it to here and make the finishes directly. Thank you, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ben-Yeudith, yes, I reverted your image additions, per what I stated when reverting you. Those are too many images and they caused problems that are noted at MOS:IMAGELOCATION or elsewhere at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Why does this article need all those images, or "new" images? In this edit, you stated that you were trying to make the article sexier; I don't follow that logic, even if you were joking. And then there was this edit. Your edits compelled me to seek out a different editor, one who is mostly responsible for the state of this article, so that I can get her input on some of the latest changes made to it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That stated, I was already planning on her asking her if she'd abandoned this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I have taken these comments seriously and I will create another edit. Will glad if you would tell me what photos or galleries seem to you surly excessive in he edit? Ben-Yeudith (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see the picture of figs, captioned "Figs", retained. Beyond that, no opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

One thing. The purpose of this article and any associated pictures is to give our readers accurate and up-to-date information about veganism; it is not to promote veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin, did any of the photos seemed to you as promoting Veganism?... It is indeed important for me to here as much feedback as possible... Thank you, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I just want to make sure that we maintain a NPOV. The female pigs picture might be considered as supporting the vegan cause. The rest are all OK in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope that you actually do keep what I stated above in mind. If you re-add so many images, so many unneeded images that mess up the text (for different readers, depending on their screen formats) when the main point of Wikipedia articles is that they should be readable and WP:Verifiable with WP:Due weight, then I am likely to revert you again. If no one cares, however, or if editors seemingly do not care by letting your edits stay in, then I might ignore it. I might also de-watch this article. I don't like seeing articles deteriorate unless the deterioration is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I hope you don't have any intention of threatening me. Do as you like, but please "Sweet up your voice a bit". Ben-Yeudith (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated above. And if someone is editing WP:Disruptively, I generally will reply to them in a stern manner. There is no need whatsoever to sweeten up "my voice" with regard to you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I think there is... Anyways, It seems that things work quite different here from the Hebrew Wiki - There one might put "Under construction" template and work much time on an article (though we try to improve the laws there in this context). Ben-Yeudith (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Under construction exists here as well, but I'd rather that you don't construct this article if you are going to be adding a bunch of images (random or not). Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by random images? And what's the issue with the images, why are you so against changing or even adding to the existing images?... Ben-Yeudith (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ben, when there are too many images, it can cause problems depending on screen size and window width. As a rule, it's best to stick to one per section. Also, at least one that you added (the rice and beans) wasn't vegan; the beans recipe contained yoghurt. Not that you can tell by looking at it, but that's not the point. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Too promotional

I am not anti-vegan in any way but this article still reads like a promotional article for the Vegan Society. For example, we have, 'From the late 1970s a group of scientists in the United States – physicians John A. McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal D. Barnard, Dean Ornish, Michael Klaper and Michael Greger, and biochemist T. Colin Campbell – began to argue that diets based on animal fat and animal protein, such as the standard American diet, were detrimental to health'. That is, no doubt, true and well sourced but there is no mention of whether there were any papers published criticising the group of physicians or proposing a contrary view.

I have removed a section which uses WP based data to provide content for WP. This is used for promoting veganism and in my opinion sets a dangerous precedent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If there are no "papers published criticising the group of physicians or proposing a contrary view" for that matter, there is nothing we can do about that. Not every pro-vegan statement in the article needs an anti-vegan statement, especially not for some type of false balance. As for what you removed, it's this paragraph, not a section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there are no sources expressing a contrary view to that expressed in the section (or whatever you prefer to call it) that I removed. It is quite clear from other discussions here that there is no general agreement in mainstream science that a vegan diet has significant overall health benefits, therefore that is the balance that this article should have. At present, the article refer mainly to benefits of veganism.

Regarding the 'section' which refers to Wikipedia readership, I think it sets a dangerous precedent for articles in WP to refer to WP. It could lead to a self-reinforcing effect, though in this case it is not completely obvious how such an effect might occur. It would be interesting to see what others think on this principle. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't remove the "From the late 1970s a group of scientists" material. It's still there, in a subsection of the History section. And I don't see a problem with that material; all that it is doing is documenting history and what scientists argued. Note the word argued. You are making a big deal out of nothing as far as that text goes. The Health effects section or other parts of the Vegan diet section are for countering health claims; again, not every pro-vegan statement in the article needs an anti-vegan statement. We shouldn't be countering a pro-vegan statement at every turn, as if that's an appropriate way to write a Wikipedia article; it isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to balance every piece of pro-vegan material with some anti-vegan piece, in fact I think it would be bettet not to have either but just a summary, with the existing sources as references, saying that there is no generally accepted advantage or disadvantage in a vegan diet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: Your opinion that "there is no generally accepted advantage or disadvantage in a vegan diet" is simply wrong. The well-established benefits and drawbacks are summarized in this 2012 review. I also don't share your perception that the article is in any way promotional. Quite the reverse, I think it bends over backwards in a completely unreasonable way to avoid discussion of the ideology involved in veganism until the bottom of the page, because this is edit-war fodder, and then gives undue weight to the anti-vegan argument about animals killed in crop harvesting. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No you are wrong. I said above, 'there is no general agreement in mainstream science that a vegan diet has significant overall health benefits'. One paper, which actually refers to vegetarianism, is not 'general agreement'. There is no wording in the abstract in any way referring to, 'significant overall health benefits', the best we get is (my bold), 'There is limited evidence of an association between vegetarian diets and cancer prevention'. There is also clear statements to the contrary, such as 'The health benefits of vegetarian diets are not unique', and indeed a warning of how vegetarian diets can easily go wrong, '... restrictive and monotonous vegetarian diets may result in nutrient deficiencies with deleterious effects on health'.

You are seeing what you want to see not what is there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: Before we discuss this further, why don't you provide a reference for your assertion "there is no generally accepted advantage or disadvantage in a vegan diet"? --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not need to do that. You need to show that the predominance of pro-vegetarian sources in this article represents the mainstream science view on the subject. If you cannot do that then we must present the two sides evenly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? You have repeatedly argued for the inclusion of such a statement in the article [3] [4]. Surely then it must have a source? --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Although I suggested some text for the article I am not insisting that any particular wording is used. All I am asking is that we make sure that the article does not present a view on the overall health effects of a vegan diet that is not in line with generally accepted mainstream science. At present we have a preponderance of statements which mention (true and properly sourced) health benefits of veganism. For the article to present a balanced view on the subject we should either add an equal number of statements of the (true and properly sourced) health disadvantages of veganism, or use a less confrontational approach and make no health claims at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is not called, 'Why you should be a vegan'

I have just removed a section arguing the ethical case for being a vegan and not consuming eggs or milk. Much of it is incorrect but even if it were true, we must keep in mind that most people are not vegans. If we are going to have ethical arguments on this page then we must fairly represent the non-vegan ethical and animal welfare position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It is however, perfectly relevant to explain why vegans are vegans. That is what the passage does - it is a list of facts which explain vegans' thinking, not an endorsement of veganism. Moreover I have no objection to including pro- and anti-vegan positions - please provide sources to support your NPOV concerns instead of excising information based on your subjective feelings. I also don't see the factual inaccuracies you refer to. Can you be more specific? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin, if there are factual errors in that section please list them. It seems accurate and straightforward to me. The point of it is to explain why vegans choose not to consume eggs and dairy. I didn't add the section (at least not in its original form, though I've edited it), but it has been in the article for a long time and seems appropriate. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to remove bias and correct some facts. The points that I have taken into account are:

1) Dairy cows are not 'kept pregnant', they have a number, maybe only one or two, pregnancies. ( I am looking into this, in the UK at least.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)) Whether there is anything wrong with this is a matter of opinion. Clearly some vegans consider it unethical.

2) It is now possible for cows to be made pregnant with only female calves.

3) Veal production has changed in many countries and has greatly improved animal welfare standards. Vegans may still consider this to be unethical but that is not a universal opinion.

4) It was not clear what the statement about goats was intended to mean and it was based on a vegetarian source so I removed it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin, could I ask you please not to keep removing material? If you think something is wrong or misleading, please post here, or if it needs a better source and you've looked and can't find one, ditto. But you've removed a lot already, including where you've been asked not to. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The text that I removed was more or less a duplicate of the incorrect text, referred to above, that I modified. We do not need the same thing stated twice in one article, especially that contains factual arrors as pointed out above. Perhaps you could remove it again on the basis that it is a duplicate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I rather hoped that you would remove the duplicate text but as you have not done that or responded here, I have removed it.

Restructuring the article

I find that the article at present gives excessive attention to historical and dietary information, which is not consistent with topics of academic research about veganism according to a Google Scholar search. It seems that there is a significant amount of research on the health effects of veganism, but academics give more attention to veganism as a philosophy or social movement. Few sources seem to endorse the who's-who type approach of this article, and the prominence of some persons mentioned here should be reduced. I would like to move the "Philosophy" section to the top and split it into three sections, on ethical, environmental, and dietary veganism, built mainly from academic papers. I would also like to remove many of the excessive images of food, and the one of elemental iodine. Since this will surely invite resistance, I'd like to solicit opinions before making major changes to the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good direction to me, especially if it mirrors coverage of this topic in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy, your Google Scholar search seems to confirm that diet/health is the focus in RS.

Would you mind posting a draft of the structure on a user subpage so I can get an idea? I don't mean do a lot of work on it, but if you could roughly map out the structure that would help. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

• I'm not keen on the philosophy at the top. Veganism is mostly about diet, in the sense that most RS discuss it in terms of diet and human health (including its opponents), and most vegans are only dietary vegans. This article went through a period of stressing veganism as a philosophy, and implying that if people didn't embrace the whole philosophy they weren't vegans, but the page was unstable for a long time because of it. The current version gained stability by following the sources.
• The philosophy section could use some work. In particular we should remove or reduce the "animals killed in crop harvesting" section. I didn't add it, and I've never tried to remove it because it's interesting, but it is significantly UNDUE. That apart, the whole section could use a rewrite.
• I like the images of food and dislike walls of text.
• Most of the readers of this article are probably new vegans and people considering it. The dietary and health aspects are useful for those readers.
• Wikipedia articles usually begin with history. Medical articles are the only exception I can think of, where they often put history at the end, but it can look odd.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, if you want to add more philosophy at the top, you could develop the avoidance section (including renaming it), then link to the philosophy section for more information. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with restructuring the article too but please let us make sure that it is NPOV. There is no significant generally accepted health benefit of a vegan diet in mainstream science so the article must not try, directly or indirectly, to present a different POV. We cannot, for example, have a majority of quotes or sources which claim a health benefit for veganism.

Note that it is not up to me to prove there is no significant generally accepted health benefit of a vegan diet, NPOV is the standard for all WP articles. It is up to anyone who edits the article in a way that suggests a particular POV to show that that is the generally accepted POV of mainstream science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The key issue with vegetarianism and veganism has always been whether the motivation is (or ought to be) human health or ethics. From the 19th century on, the stress was on human health. That became particularly true for veganism from the 1970s, when prominent doctors began to recommend it, and it reached a height in the 2000s when studies began to show health benefits and social media became interested.

Some ethical vegans responded to the stress on health with dismay, because they saw it as diluting the vegan message. As a result lots of "no true Scotsman" exceptions developed: you're not really a vegan if: you don't accept the whole philosophy, or you eat honey, or you still use that old leather sofa you bought 20 years ago. This page went through periods of taking that position and was very unstable as a result.

Re-structuring the article to make the philosophy dominant, with dietary veganism a subset of it, would mean presenting the article according to the minority view. That's why the sections have been kept separate. The article doesn't impose the philosophy on the dietary aspects. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to describing the progress of vegan philosophy so long as it is made clear that that is what it is; the philosophy of vegans and not the philosopy of the majority of people.

Regarding health effects, as I keep saying, there is no generally accepted, significant, overall health benefit of a vegan diet, so however the article is structured it must not suggest to the reader in any way that there are significant health benefits to veganism. Health aspects must be presented in an NPOV way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin, there is evidence showing health benefits. Ditto cows are kept pregnant and male chicks are culled. The latter two are common knowledge, yet you're questioning them. Also, please don't repeat that "vegans finds this unethical." The article describes at length what ethical vegans find problematic; there's no need to say it after every example. I've just had to find a Cambridge University Press source that cows are kept pregnant, because the sources that were there weren't enough for you, even though this is very well-known. It's not much fun having to work like this. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know male chicks are culled, I have never claimed otherwise.

The text in the article must not be stated from a vegan perspective but from a neutral perspective, that is a fundamental principle of WP. Stating that cows are made pregnant is not a reason for objecting to milk production unless you regard this as unethical. The majority of people would not find making a cow pregnant unethical so the argument as it was originally was is from a vegan perspective, as in the argument, 'Cows are made pregnant to produce milk, this is obviously unethical, therefore milk production is bad'. I accept that my wording was not particularly elegant and you are welcome to improve it but it must always be clear what is being said or asserted in Wikipedia's voice and what is just the opinion of vegans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 'there is evidence showing health benefits' from a well planned and implemented vegan diet but most of the results are not statistically significant and the possible benefits are quite small, however, there is also evidence showing health problems from a good vegan diet and significant problems from a bad one. Overall there is no generally accepted, health benefit of a vegan diet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: You bring up some important points, so perhaps I should scale back my proposal. One thing I am particularly unsure of, though, is the assertion that "veganism is mostly about diet," so I tried to look into this. I found a 2014 study by the Humane Research Council (a pro-vegan organization) which says that in a scientific survey of 11,000 Americans, the top reasons cited by current self-described vegans were health (69%) and animal protection (68%), with environmental protection (59%) being a close third.[5] (You have to wait about an hour after registering to see the report.) Of course weight is about balancing coverage in RS's, not personal views of individuals - but it's my perception that the Google search shows more social science than health science papers; moreover most of the health science papers are not MEDRS compliant, and we ought to take into account that more papers are published overall in medicine than in the humanities. So, I'm in favor of giving ethical, health, and environmental topics approximately equal weight. After seeing your comments I would propose making a more modest change to the article structure, something like the following.

I. History - I'd like to make only modest revisions, mainly by including a reasonable discussion of the ideology of early vegans.

II. Reasons for veganism - Discuss the motivations of dietary, ethical, and environmental vegans.

III. Vegan diet and consumer items - Separating the question of what vegans typically consume from what health effects it has; it should be clear that some vegans only follow a vegan diet.

IV. Vegan health and nutrition - No major changes except maybe condensing it a little and finding some more recent sources.

V. Miscellaneous (not an actual section title) - I mean for this to include things like issues of social identity and discrimination which are covered in RS's. For example some scholars have argued that ethical veganism should be regarded in some contexts as a religion.[6][7][8]

VI. Criticism (only if it proves necessary to have a separate section.)

Comments on this? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy, I'm fine with I and II. Not sure I understand III. I'm also fine with IV (I'm in the process of condensing it). Agree with V. I was reading a paper the other day that argued veganism is a religion, and was thinking of adding it. Re: VI, I would oppose a separate criticism section because it will be a magnet. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The best way to avoid being a magnet for criticism is to make sure that the article is neutral and non-promotional. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Great, so let's forget about my proposal for sections III and IV for now, and I'll start collecting references for the revised philosophy section and the proposed new section. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We still need to discuss the principles that I have stated above. The alternative is edit warring. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, that sounds good to me. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Removals again

Martin, again, please stop removing text. Here is the latest (your removal in bold). This was not only well-sourced. It was important to mention Gandhi's position because it flows into later points that mention the health v. ethics tension.

The first known vegan cookbook, Rupert H. Wheldon's No Animal Food: Two Essays and 100 Recipes, appeared in London in 1910. Historian Leah Leneman writes that there was a vigorous correspondence between 1909 and 1912 within the Vegetarian Society about the ethics of dairy and eggs; to produce milk, cows are kept pregnant and their calves are removed soon after birth and killed, while male chicks are killed in the production of eggs. The society's position remained unresolved, but its journal noted in 1923 that the "ideal position for vegetarians is abstinence from animal products." In November 1931 Gandhi gave a speech, "The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism", to the society in London (attended by 500 people, including Henry Salt), arguing that it ought to promote a meat-free diet as a moral issue, not only in the interests of human health.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. I only intended to remove the duplicated wording. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Okay, thank you. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing the Pig lard image

This image situated at "Animal products" chapter seems to me just superfluous... I see no reason to have it here. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Since none of the eminent (and active) editors of this article and talk page showed any resistance, I've removed the pig lard image from the article. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that was a good move. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Alt text in images

There is a lot of alternative text for images that is not really helpful for screen reader/disabled users. In particular, many of the alt texts just state "paragraph", as in |alt=paragraph. Could these alts be either removed or made useful? Epic Genius (talk) ± 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been told to add a word to stop screenreaders reading out the captions. But people using them apparently prefer a short word rather than a description, according to feedback from Wikimania. So I add photograph, map or chart, as appropriate. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Epicgenius. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. I think if that's the case, the screen reader could read just "photograph" or whatever the file is. In my opinion, it is not the best solution, but I'll go with whatever is comfortable for the majority of users. Epic Genius (talk) ± 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone deleted the photo of a Vegan-demonstration in Tel-Aviv

This photo appeared in the article for about 2 months (I think a bit more). I uploaded it, and I have no clue why it was deleted from the "Demographics" chapter. I think it is good for the readers (which most of them aren't even Israelis); It gives English-speaking readers surprising data about Veganism in a rather remote country like Israel... (Remote compared to their homelands yes?) :) Ben-Yeudith (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It happened in this edit which was part of a long series of edits by SlimVirgin. It might well have been an oversight as the editor was moving a lot of information around and tightening the flow of the article. Helpsome (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I believe Flyer22 removed it, then I think I did, and I'm about to remove it again, mostly because it's not clear what it is, partly because with certain browser widths it will bleed into the section (and photo) below. Ben, perhaps you use a large monitor, but this and the previous images you added caused image and text crushing because there were too many and they were placed too close together, which is why Flyer reverted. If we want a photograph of vegans in that section, there are clearer ones around, but I think the section is too short for a photograph. If we do add one it will have to go on the left.

Also, you replaced an image of the four food groups with a general image of fruit and veg, without alerting people to which thing is part of which group. Are all the groups in that image? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I see you have reverted the demonstration image - This demonstration is of the yearly Vegan march that happens in Israel (This one is from August 2013). Indeed I use a large monitor and almost never edit from mobile (at least in that period). Of course that I have no obligation to remove anything that looks bad on mobile screen in any article - We all agree that the readers' experience should be at best... If moving it to the left and reducing the size a bit can help, than I think it's worth a shot... :)

I am sorry about the Vegan food groups, I thought of showing more of a general non-specific usage of term; The categorization for groups is indeed subjective (one could put "Bulbs" into "Vegetables" and one would not, but I am okay with sticking to the formal understanding of the term "Vegan food group", which I've just very recently known btw.

Blessings, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mobile isn't an issue, as it has its own interface now, but laptop and desktop sizes vary. When placing images, shrink and expand your browser window to check what other people will see.

As for the demo image, English speakers can't see what it is, and the file page doesn't say. Any image in that section should ideally be a more general one, rather than supporting one view of veganism. But again, the section is too small for an image. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I must say I don't find a pic showing Vegans demonstrate as supporting Veganism --- In an article about Veganism, just as I won't find a picture of pro-soviet protestors in 2015 Russia, supporting communism --- in an article about the Russian communist party... But I guess it's subjective... Ben-Yeudith (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That it supports veganism isn't the issue. People are vegans for lots of different reasons. Many aren't animal rights supporters (re: some of the placards); many don't go on demos. Some do it only for health reasons, others for environmental reasons. Also, the file name and page don't say what it's a photograph of. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

All you have written here is known to me. my response aimed for what you wrote here: "Any image in that section should ideally be a more general one, rather than supporting one view of veganism". I don't know what is "one view" for that matter... All I know is that a picture that well demonstrates Vegan presence somewhere, is good... The file name is indeed ireadable for most Egnlish speakers and should be changed (I'll try to do that anyhow), and the caption, It could easily be more informative... Ben-Yeudith (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

About 2 images in the article

1. I don't understand why this article features a Black strap Molasses image... Molasses are NOT the main Iron source (or one of the main sources) for many if not most Vegans worldwide. No self or society proclaimed Vegan I've ever met, wherever in this planet, has ever admitted to me that his main source of Iron is BSM. This is enough for me to suggest the removal of this very nice image (I must say) from the article.

2. The Cochineal image at the chapter "Vegan toiletries" also seem redundant to me... Even if at least most of the Vegans worldwide won't use Cochineal, I don't see why an image of it should appear in the article - I think that a nice internal link from that chapter, to the Cohcineal article would do better... For example:

Many Vegans would prefer cosmetics that includes Material XYZ (say Paprika oleoresin) instead of the more common Cochineal.

Blessings, Ben, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ben, we've already lost several images, including that of Donald Watson, so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't remove any more. Otherwise we'll end up with a wall of text. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

For the "Iron" section, how about this?

Mediterranean bean salad. Beans and leafy green vegetables are good sources of non-heme iron.

As for the cochineal image, maybe it could be replaced with an image of a collection of non-food items that are advertized as vegan? Although I don't have such an image, there are probably vegan websites that would happily license one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the cochineal image. Cochineal is one of those ubiquitous products that make life hard for vegans. Re: the bean salad image, I like it too, but we have rice and beans already. Re: vegan products, you run into copyright problems when showing images of products with labels, but I have no objection if we can find some free ones. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure I'm right about labels and copyright, because there are lots of labelled items on Commons. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I accept the point about cochineal. Maybe a caption or some text in the article explaining its relevance would be useful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, If I recognize any image as inappropriate, I will try to remove it. Rest assured that we won't end up with a wall of text, not by me at least, for I'll take care in replacing the deleted ones with more suitable, and elegant pics. Generally, Elegancy is important for every article, and this one is no exception. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

user:Martin Hogbin could you elaborate why do you support keeping the Cochineal image here?Ben-Yeudith (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The bean salad pic is beautiful, but I would prefer an image that shows a Legume-Ceral combination. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the purpose of this page is not to promote a vegan diet by showing nice pictures of vegan food. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I now support the cochineal image for the reason given by Sarah above, 'Cochineal is one of those ubiquitous products that make life hard for vegans.' It is neutral in that it does is not promote or discourage veganism and it is encyclopedic in that it educates people in the unexpected difficulties that vegans face today. The only problem is that this was not explained in the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin you have asked this from me and others several times now, it's not honoring you, please don't ask me of this again; Images of Vegan foods or food sources doesn't necessarily promote Veganism, it could very well just show what Veganism is. If you'll have any concrete claim - we would need to debate it at the right time.

Maybe I miss the point here - You have to make any concrete claim about why to include the cochineal image --- on the same level you could say that airplane noise, or traffic jams makes life hard for Vegans... The more plausible thing to do is put a picture of any Cochineal substitute. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Pigs image

I have just noticed that someone has restored the image of pigs in gestation crates after I removed it. I do not want to edit war but I think that it is important to agree the principle that it is not the purpose of this page to promote veganism.

There is no direct connection between veganism and the prevention of bad farming practices such as that shown in the picture. It is not even necessaray to be a vegetarian to improve the treatment of farm animals and veganism is most certainly not necessary. In the UK at least, there is a strong movement to free range pork. Showing bad farming practices is improper promotion of veganism. If you want to show pictures of animals relating specifically to veganism than show some cows grazing in pasture; this is what only veganism would prevent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: You obviously have strong feelings on this subject, and it's sometimes difficult to predict what you'll find promotional. You also removed a video of an egg farm, calling it promotional, even though it was obviously produced with a pro-business perspective. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me explain why I think the battery farm and the gestation crates should not be in this article. Both those images are of farming practices that many people, including some meat eaters, find unacceptable or at least undesirable. Putting those images in this article makes the suggestion to our readers that the way to stop these practices is to become vegan.

In fact vegans object to all forms of milk and egg production so we should be showing the things that specifically veganisn would prevent. Cows grazing or being milked would be an appropriate image and free range chickens. That gives a truer image of exactly what it is that veganism involves preventing. Martin Hogbin (talk)

@Martin Hogbin: Actually the egg farm video you removed was not of a battery operation. More to the point, though, I don't agree that including images of the main things that vegans object to gives a suggestion that readers should become vegan - the article on pacifism shows images of violence, for example, I think appropriately. I also find your theories about what veganism "would prevent" a little OR-ey. But to pursue this line of thinking, examples of practices that vegans specifically object to are veal crates and chick culling, associated with nearly all milk and egg production. So you would support images of those practices? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not think you quite understand my point. The point is that veal crates are not a necessary by product of milk production. Milk can be produced without calves being put into crates, in fact it is common to use AI to produce only female calves now. Why not show a grazing cow, you cannot produce cow's milk without cows, or maybe cows being milked, thois are unavoidable in milk production.

Chick culling might me OK, I do not know if it always associated with egg production. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: Sexed semen increases the chance of conceiving a female to 90%, not 100%, and moreover is not used for most pregnancies, and is not used at all by many (most?) dairies.[9] Nearly all milk produced in the world comes from dairies where calves are culled.

During World War II, pacifists opposed the actions of the Allied servicemen who rescued comfort women from the Japanese.

Now, I did once have a heated online exchange with a vegan about the merits of her philosophy, and I distinctly remember how the moment when I suggested that ending the production of milk would seem to entail a genocide of cattle was the moment she stopped talking. So, I can understand where you're coming from. However, I don't think it's appropriate to make that argument in a Wikipedia image. On the pacifism article, we see armed men, a guy being shot, anti-war protests, and pacifist propaganda posters and political cartoons - all relevant stuff in my view. If the authors of that article had followed your line of thinking in suggesting that we include an image of cows peacefully grazing or being milked and say "vegans oppose this," they might have ended up with something like the image at right. The statement in the caption is quite true - but it also violates all three core content policies, engaging in unsourceable, POV original research by pushing the arguments described in the article to their logical extreme in order to represent the ideology as dangerous to those it is meant to protect (war victims/farm animals.) Instead, our selection of images should directly reflect opinions vegans actually assert, which are against things like the culling of male animals, not against the existence of cows.

As for chick culling, it looks like Wikimedia Commons doesn't have an image at present, but I'll try to look for one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that you quite get my point yet. To produce milk it is necessary for cows to eat and for cows to be milked. It is not necessary for male calves to be put into veal crates or to be killed at birth, even though this does happen. Many vegetarians an omniviores, as well as vegans, object to those practices Showing these emotive images in an article about veganism is therefore misleading becuase it give the reader that impression the only way to prevent them is veganism.

Let me put that another way. Supposing sexed semen were 100% effective and universaly used, vegans would still not drink milk. Vegans object to animal products whatever farming practices are used. Showing cows grazing or at least being milked gives a truer picure of where vegans draw the line, so to speak. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: So, in a sentimental fantasy world where calves are never culled, cows are not slaughtered when their milk output declines, repeated pregnancies are not necessary to induce lactation (or else we'd have an exponentially increasing herd), and all the cows are generally content and not mistreated in any way, would vegans still object to milk? My guess is that a few deontological abolitionists still might, as well as some environmental vegans, but probably most vegans, including almost all of the utilitarians, would no longer object in that case. More to the point though, all of this is speculation. The article has to be about what vegans actually say, not what we imagine they might say in a counterfactual scenario. Per WP:V and WP:OR. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of this article suggests that vegans have an objection, in principle to any human use of animal products or any form of 'exploitation' of animals. It is not restricted to any particular farming practice.

We do say in the text what vegans say but we are arguing here about emotive pictures of what vegetarians and many omnivores also consider to be bad farming practice. Vegans do not have a monopoly in concern about animal welfare so having pictures here of badly treated animals unfairly promotes veganism as the only way to prevent animal cruelty. The pigs picure, in particular, is inappropriate here. Sure, vegans do object to gestation crates but so do vegetarians and so do many meat eaters. There is no direct revevance of the picture to the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: Nobody has a monopoly on concern about anything. To use another example related to what I wrote above, the article Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War includes an image of the dead after the My Lai massacre. Obviously many in the pro-war camp were horrified by this event too. Does that mean it's not relevant to the article? No, of course it is, because of its use as a political point by the anti-war movement. You don't have to look far to find vegans protesting gestation crates, veal crates, chick culling, or battery cages, but I think you would have to look very hard to find them protesting the fact that cattle eat grass or lactate. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not want to be drawn into an analogy with war. I am sure that some vegans protest about gestation crates and other bad practices but so do vegetarians and meat eaters. These things have no special relevance to the subject of this article. What exactly is the reason that you want the specific image of pigs in gestation crates here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I've made it explicit that the fact that other groups are concerned about the same thing does not make the thing less relevant. Can someone else weigh in here? --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sammy1339. While non-vegans may protest the same things, that doesn't mean it isn't an issue directly tied in with veganism. Helpsome (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There must be thousands of things that vegans object to that non-vegans also object to but we cannot put them all in this article. The article should show things that are specific to veganism. What is the reason that you want the 'pigs in gestation crates' picture in this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this page is on my watchlist; there is no need to ping me every time you comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Vegans often reference gestation crates in their arguments; the concept is difficult to understand without an illustration; therefore the illustration should be included. The images are not exclusively relevant to discussion of veganism, but they are undeniably "directly relevant". The pig image is a clear illustration of a specific instance of a phenomenon—agricultural mistreatment of animals—which is the foundation of the largest variant of veganism. Almost every image on WP could be used on multiple pages, but that's not a problem according to policy. FourViolas (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin you have asked this from me and others several times now, it's not honoring you, please don't ask me of this again; Images of Vegan foods or food sources doesn't necessarily promote Veganism, it could very well just show what Veganism is. If you'll have any concrete claim - we would need to debate it at the right time.

I am not sure who wrote this but I do not object to picures if vegan food but we must be careful that we do not make the vegan food look nice and any non-vegan food (for example lard or pork) look unappetising. That is all I meant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I miss the point here - You have to make any concrete claim about why to include the cochineal image --- on the same level you could say that airplane noise, or traffic jams makes life hard for Vegans... The more plausible thing to do is put a picture of any Cochineal substitute. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, we cannot have a pictures of everything that vegans do not like, especially something that generates unjustified sympathy for their cause.

Regarding cochineal, I would be happy with a picture of cochineal or its substitues because that reperesents a difficulty faced specifically by vegans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would still like to remove the Pigs image as being not specific to veganism and replace it with a cochineal (or substitute) an image which shows a real problem that specifically vegans need to overcome an image specific to veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Advertisements

It is not the job of this page to help people become vegans by listing commerial suppliers of vegan products. We should state that vegan products are available and I see no harm in mentioning vegan organisations that will provide lists of commercial vegan product suppliers but we should not list specific companies.

There is a great fuss made in some places about paid-for editing and how companies are said to pay people to promote them in WP. Here we have unpain editors giving commercial organisations free adverts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these edits. I would still support an image of assorted vegan products, but in the body of the text we have the option to use generic wording and should, unless there is a compelling case for the significance of some specific products. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against an image of vegan products, peferably not displaying any brand names too prominenetly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The product and supplier names are helpful to readers. When we display images of book covers and write articles about books we don't regard them as ads. What matters is whether they're informative. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not our job to help readers be vegans. We tell our readers where lists of commerial suppliers of vegan products can be found; that should be sufficient. There is a great fuss in some places about paid-for-editing yet here we have unpaid (I assume) editors wanting to promote specific brands in an article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The inverse is also true: it isn't your job to try and make it harder for people to learn about veganism. That seems to be your goal here. Helpsome (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My job here, and yours, is to help produce an encyclopedia not a shopping list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Literally nobody has argued for making wikipedia a shopping list. You keep trying to strip anything positive about veganism out of the article as "promoting veganism". There are thousands of other articles on wikipedia that might bother you less. Why not go try one of those? Helpsome (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do keep trying to strip anything positive out of this article, and I would also object to something negative about veganism being added. That is because Wikipedia must present a neutral point of view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that policy. It states that an article should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If significant views are positive, then you don't go deleting them in the name of neutrality. It further states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." Helpsome (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Advertisements for specific brands are not, 'significant views that have been published by reliable sources'. Whether or not you intend it to be, mention of a product brands promotes that brand above other brands that are not metioned. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If the brands are of large-scale international manufacturers than I'm guessing there shouldn't be a problem, At least in Hebrew Wiki we don't have such prob. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I know that WP cannot be a completely brand free encyclopedia but brands should only be mentioned when they have encyclopedic value, for example some major historical or scientific importance or they are so well known that it would silly to try to ignore them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Vegan restaurant in Manhattan

This is also advertising and should go. We have Veganz, the first ever; that has encyclopedic value. We do not need one particular brand of vegan restaurant in one particular place as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

Martin, you acknowledged above: "Yes, I do keep trying to strip anything positive out of this article ...: You then said you would do the same for anything negative, but you haven't.

There's no reason or policy to stop us from mentioning companies or brand names. Please don't refer to those edits again as advertising or commercial plugs. The point is to be informative to readers (the restaurant you mention is well-known). Most readers of this article are probably vegans or people considering it, so the aim is to supply accurate source-based material that they will find helpful or interesting, just as Cricket in England is written for readers who like cricket, and every article we host about books, films and video games is written for people who might want to read, watch or play them. To think solely in terms of positive or negative is to miss the point. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

They are advertising, whether or not they are intended to be. Yes Cricket in England is written for readers who like cricket but it does not mention brand names of cricket equipment manufacturers. There is a policy (WP:NOTADVERTISING) against using WP to promote a cause of any kind. One vegan restaurant is fine. particularly the first one ever, that makes it notable but what is notable about Blossom and why do we need pictures of two? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said, articles about books, films and video games, and thousands of others do mention companies. WP:NOTADVERTISING is anti-puffery, not anti-brand names, and the restaurant image is there only because you didn't want the animal-fat image (a product difficult to avoid). We don't have pictures of two restaurants. We have a photograph of one well-known vegan restaurant in NY, the first chain in that city that I know of, and a photograph of the first branch of the first European chain of vegan supermarkets. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree. It is not important enough for me to propose an RfC or other form of dispute resolution.

I am guessing that many of the contributors here are vegans. They naturally want to show their way of life in a good light and help other vegans and encourage others to become vegans. None of this is in any way bad but the enthusiasm spills over into this page and that is bad. Unless it gets worse I am not going to fight over it any more but I would ask editors to bear in mind that, this page should not promote veganism and it should not provide information specifically for vegans; it is for all readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)