Talk:Veganism

Recent edits

Hi Nirvana, can you say what you're looking to achieve with the edits? For example, I can't see the point of pointing out that vegan is the first few and last few letters of vegetarian, because it's obvious. Ethical veganism isn't just about animal products but about animal use. The vitamins subsections are part of the "vegan diet" section. Dietary veganism is about eating a plant-based diet; how strict it needs to be is an open question, as the article explains. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the term "vegan" being derived from vegetarian is obvious, the article should say it. Vitamins are part of health aspects. Adult dietary veganism is about eating a 100% plant-based diet, it is not an open question. The only thing I believe some vegans may argue over is honey. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine that anyone seeing the word "vegan" can't also see that it's derived from "vegetarian." Yes, vitamins are part of "health aspects," and both are part of "vegan diet." I'll tweak the subheads further if you like. And how strict it has to be is indeed an open question; e.g. products derived from insects and the Paris exemption. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana about the word vegan - it's not at all obvious how the word was created. I'm not sure about the strictness of so-called dietary veganism, but if the question is whether a food is vegan or not, then there are no exceptions. (A person who identifies as vegan might still eat non-vegan foods, e.g. by accident, due to ignorance or because they're somehow stuck in Paris with nothing else to eat.) TheLastNinja (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it's not invariably 100 percent plant-based. Some vegans, perhaps most, allow insect products to be used. So the question "is honey vegan?" will be answered differently by different people. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by insect products? I am not aware of vegans eating any insect products other than honey.[1] I would disagree that "perhaps most" vegans allow insect products to be used.[2] When you say "used" do you mean eaten or used in other ways? We are discussing diet here. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Carmine, perhaps. – anna 12:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there are many/any vegans out there that knowingly consume crushed insects. Happy to be proved wrong though. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to prove anyone wrong on my part, just commenting that I have seen confusion over it, even on the part of vegans. I doubt most are unaware or apathetic, but I don't think either of us are qualified to make sweeping judgments on that without numerical data. Less murky than honey, more than most other ingredients. – anna 14:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana, if you read the article here, it explains. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm a bit confused: are you proposing to change anything, or are you defending changes you've already made? FWIW, going by the references in the paragraph you just linked, it doesn't seem to me that any of the organisations mentioned (VS, AVS, VA and VO) are outright stating that honey and other insect products are considered vegan foods or that they should be labelled as such. VA and VO are merely saying some vegans might still choose to consume such foods. Just saying. TheLastNinja (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Vegan Outreach says:

So is honey vegan? Our best answer is 'We don’t know.' If one is concerned about doing harm to insects, it’s not clear that the production of honey involves any more pain for insects than the production of most vegetables or alternative sweeteners, since the harvesting and transportation of all crops involves some insect deaths. ... Saying that honey is a significant ethical issue brings in a range of other issues that people can easily dismiss veganism, reducto ad absurdum. Can't eat honey? Can't kill cockroaches? Can't swat mosquitoes? Squashing flies with your car is the same as eating veal? ...

And this brings us back to the original question of what is a 'vegan'? Perhaps instead of defining a vegan as 'someone who does not use animal products,' we should define a vegan as 'someone who reasonably avoids products that cause suffering to nonhumans.'[3]

Given that some of the vegan organizations take this approach, this article has to be careful how it defines "veganism" in Wikipedia's voice. That was the only point I was making. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The original Vegan Society defined veganism very early on as “the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals”, and now defines it as “a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose.” So it’s clear from just about the beginning, that veganism differentiates itself from vegetarianism in that it’s about avoiding exploiting animals, as opposed to just avoiding killing them.
Honey is made from human exploitation of bees. It should be as clear to anybody that honey is not vegan, as it is that eggs, milk and wool aren’t. (All four of these involve human exploitation of animal biology and behaviour without killing the animal.)
Here is the Vegan Society’s current position on honey: http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/animals/bees-and-honey.aspx
That some vegans eat honey does not mean that honey is vegan, it means that some vegans are more lax than others in the practical application of their vegan philosophy, or that they are simply ignorant of the fact that honey is not vegan.
Enjoying honey is different from enjoying plant products whose “harvesting and transportation involves some insect deaths” in that it’s possible to raise plants without intentionally killing insects, whereas honey production intentionally exploits insects.
Taking the same logic about as far but with a little left turn, to say that using bees as pollinators in plant agriculture isn’t necessarily nonvegan, would be wrong – farmers are typically agnostic about what bees are pollinating their crop; their relationship with the bees is a kind of symbiosis rather than exploitation. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 13:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Dietary and ethical veganism

Further information: Talk:Veganism/Archive 6 § Ive never heard of ethical veganism; Talk:Veganism/Archive 6 § This article simply does not reflect reality; and Talk:Veganism/Archive 6 § Veganism is a philosophy, not a diet

Further information: Talk:Veganism/ethical and dietary sources

Hello. Me again. I'm the person who says that this article is incorrect in splitting out veganism into dietary and ethical distinctions. Well, I spent a few minutes searching Google Books for definitions of veganism, and have pasted them below. NONE OF THEM define "ethical veganism". NONE OF THEM define dietary veganism as something separate from the philosophical belief of veganism.

To be honest, I could keep searching forever and find hundreds of similar examples. But these will do for now.

Will somebody please edit this article? I would do so, but it would get reverted by the individual who believes they own this article, and who I believe is trying to set an agenda.

Here are the definitions:

"Veganism is a practical philosophy oriented toward living without directly or indirectly harming or exploiting animals and actively seeking to end that harm and exploitation where it exists."

- Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism

- Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz

http://books.google.com/books?id=scpwmjE3TWYC&pg=PA239&dq=veganism&hl=en&ei=utzHTa_HNJKy8QOi3rn2Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=veganism&f=false

Note: Just noting here that the above does, in fact, make the distinction on p. 242. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle whose adherents seek to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose."

- Veganism: The History, the Ethics, Nutrition, Cuisine, and Groups

- Emeline Fort

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cgo8YgEACAAJ&dq=veganism&hl=en&ei=gtvHTcDsJYao8AO2ucH2Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg

Note: Here is a list of Emeline Fort's book. It appears to be a publishing-on-demand name, and I think some of the text you cite may have come from Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Noting that this book was indeed copied from Wikipedia. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Someone who follows a vegan diet avoids eating, drinking, wearing, using, or otherwise consuming anything that contains animal ingredients or that was tested on animals."

- Living Vegan for Dummies

- Alexandra Jamieson

http://books.google.com/books?id=YIMxKTATR7EC&lpg=PA337&dq=veganism&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=veganism&f=false

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.174.214 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

78.105.174.214, I agree with you that the distinction is dubious. Few (just one? (an old issue of Vegetarian Times)) of the sources SlimVirgin has provided seem to make this distinction. I therefore hold that this distinction is given undue weight and borders on a type of original research known as synthesis of published material that advances a position, which is a no-no. That said, I like what SlimVirgin has done for the article in many other respects, so I hope this issue can be resolved amenably. In light of this I would like to propose that the following sentence is removed from the lead:

Ethical vegans reject the commodity status of animals and the use of animal products for any purpose, while dietary vegans or strict vegetarians eliminate them from their diet only.

If the above issue is not addressed, I will go ahead and modify the lead as proposed. TheLastNinja (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed the sentence as 24 hours went by with no objections to my proposal above. The distinction seems to be made other places in the article as well, so we will have to go over and fix that. TheLastNinja (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You removed it along with a large number of sources supporting it (see footnote 1), which is a clear violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV. We report in the article what the reliable sources have written, not what we personally agree with. Please don't remove it again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what Wikipedia is about, and I'm glad you do too. As I said, it seems to me that you are in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE by giving undue weight to a distinction that has extremely slim support in the sources you have provided, and by combining sources to advance the position that this is a prominent distinction. As far as I can tell, only one of the 15 sources you provided seem to support this distinction. (A 1989 edition of Vegetarian Times.) I removed the sources because they did not support the sentence(s) in the article. Unless you address these concerns I will revert your edit. TheLastNinja (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your objection to the other sources I provided? These include Robert Garner and Gary Francione, two very prominent academics specializing in animal advocacy, one of them saying he's a dietary vegan and the other an ethical vegan. Are you saying they and the other sources are not reliable enough? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My main objection is not against any of the sources on their own, it's the synthesis of sources that is my main concern. Francione and Garner are both relevant and fine. I'm not saying you don't have sufficient reliable sources to say that dietary veganism is a term that is occasionally used. My main objection is you don't have sufficient reliable sources to claim that an important or prominent distinction within the vegan movement is that between "dietary veganism" and "ethical veganism". Just your VT'89 source talks about both dietary and ethical veganism, in all the other ones they are discussed on their own.

Your sources for "ethical veganism" are not using that term to distinuish it specifically from dietary veganism (as they don't even use that term), but from other motivations for veganism in general. In most sources I've seen the ethical concerns are at least part of the motivations for veganism. But by making a distinction between ethical veganism and dietary veganism, you are in fact changing the most common definition of "veganism". By using multiple sources to back up each term on their own, you are in violation of WP:SYNTH which says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. TheLastNinja (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But this distinction is explicitly made by the sources. WP:SYNTH isn't intended for examples like this.

I assume you're discussing this without having read the sources. I first had to cite them, then I had to find links for them, then I had to type out what they said in a footnote. Then I had to restore them when you removed them, and now I'm having to type them out on talk, which isn't really fair! :)

A selection:

International Vegetarian Union, 2011: "Dietary Vegan: follows a vegan diet, but doesn't necessarily try to exclude non-food uses of animals." [4]

Gary Francione, 2010 (scholarly secondary source): "Although veganism may represent a matter of diet or lifestyle for some, ethical veganism is a profound moral and political commitment to abolition ..." [5]

Robert Garner, 2010 (scholarly secondary source): "I have been a vegetarian all my adult life, and I am currently a dietary vegan, and I do not wear leather." [6]

The Virginian-Pilot, 2006: "People adopt dietary veganism—a strict form of vegetarianism that avoids meats, eggs, dairy and honey all of the time and sugar some of the time—for a variety of reasons: health, ethics, religion ..." [7]

Lucas, Sheri in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 2005. "It is not ethical vegetarianism or veganism, but these rigid dietary habits and the goal of spreading them—especially dietary veganism—across the globe that [Kathryn Paxton] George attacks." [8]

Brenda Davis and Vesanto Melina, 2000: "Be assured that it is possible to be a dietary vegan, and it gets easier each day to find alternatives for a host of animal products." [9]

Joanne Stepaniak, 2000: "'Dietary vegan' is one way to get around the sticky issue of those who consume no animal products but do not extend animal-free philosophy beyond diet, but I'm not sure it is the best choice ... To put a qualifier before [the word] dilutes [its] meaning ..." [10]

Gail Barbara Davis, 1998: "A strict vegetarian, or dietary vegan (pronounced vee-gun) has eliminated all products of animal origin from his or her diet ..." [11]

Beard, Christine, 1996. "Vegan or Dietary Vegan: A person who does not eat meat or meat by-products, dairy products, or eggs. .... Ethical Vegan: A person who is a strict dietary vegan and who also avoids animal products in non-food items such as clothing ..." [12], p. 15.

Lawrence, V. in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1993: "McQueen, a vegan, joined the TVA [Toronto Vegetarian Assocation] in the mid-1970s. He says dietary veganism is only one stage in his progression but pure veganism, his final objective, is much more difficult to achieve ..." [13] (p. 1002)

Vegetarian Times, 1989: "Webster's dictionary provides a most dry and limiting definition of the word 'vegan': 'one that consumes no animal food or dairy products.' This description explains dietary veganism, but so-called ethical vegans—and they are the majority—carry the philosophy further." [14]

In addition, the term "ethical veganism" is common in academia to distinguish ethical and dietary vegans for various reasons: e.g., for legal reasons related to vegans' rights in prison.

Finally, go to any vegan forum and you'll find discussions like this. Some people argue "dietary veganism" is a meaningless term (along the lines of No true Scotsman), and others invariably reply: "But I'm a dietary vegan!" And ask whether they're not allowed to call themselves vegans just because they still wear the leather shoes they bought some time ago. We can't transport that debate to Wikipedia, so we simply note that the two approaches exist. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure you understand what I meant:

1) You claim there is a term "ethical veganism" and provide sources to support that view. Fine, I agree this term is used sometimes.

2) You claim there is a term "dietary veganism" and provide sources to support that view. Fine again, I agree it's a term which is used. It's a contentious claim, but you have provided ample sources so it's fine.

But then comes the synthesis:

3) Given the above, you claim that "veganism" can be divided into two categories: "ethical veganism" and "dietary veganism".

A few of the sources you have provided do actually make this distinction explicitly. The 1989 article from Vegetarian Times and Christine Beard's vegetarian cookbook (1996). However, I hold that these are not sufficient support for making this distinction in the lead of the article.

Francione doesn't use the term "dietary veganism" explicitly. He could well be taken to mean that those who see veganism "as a matter of diet or lifestyle" are mistaken, and he's using the term "ethical veganism" to be explicit about what veganism really is or should be. After all the chapter is called "Veganism" but talks almost exclusively about "ethical veganism".

Sheri Lucas' piece was not in your original footnotes, so you must forgive me that I didn't see this one before. The link only takes me to the first page, and I'm unable to search for anything without being logged in apparently.

Some of the sources you have provided seem to argue against the distinction, or that "dietary veganism" even is a valid term:

* IVU defines "dietary veganism", but then also provides a definition of "veganism" that seems to exclude "dietary veganism".

* Joanne Stepaniak puts "dietary veganism" in quotes, and doesn't seem to recognise it as "proper" veganism.

With the mountain of sources that define veganism as a practice which is at least partly motivated by ethics, I feel that it's inappropriate to give so much weight to this categorisation that it can be part of the lead of the article as there is only minor support for the distinction in the sources. It would be better if "dietary veganism" was mentioned and discussed only later in the article.

I did read briefly through the sources you provided before, but there are limits to how much you can see without purchasing the books. Typing them out above helped, so I thank you for this.

I'm familiar with a few vegetarian/vegan Internet forums, and the consensus on there is that "dietary veganism" is a misnomer and that the proper term is "strict vegetarianism". TheLastNinja (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Francione and Garner wrote their book together, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation? (2010), and the book does make the distinction. They have a discussion, in the book, about veganism. One says he's an ethical vegan, the other a dietary vegan. Just as one says he's an abolitionist, the other a protectionist.

The sources mention only these two kinds of veganism, not a third, so it's not SYN to say there are two. I've looked at the vegan forums, and I can't find any such consensus. I see people regularly objecting when told they're not really vegans because they still use some animal products. But even if a consensus for that did exist there (in either direction), we couldn't be guided by it.

This debate reflects the division within the AR movement between abolitionism and protectionism. Just as we include both perspectives in the article about animal rights (prominently and equally)—even though some members of one side say the other aren't really animal rights advocates—we have to do the same here with dietary and ethical veganism, even though some members of one side say the other aren't really vegans. See WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO "dietary veganism" being in the lead is giving undue weight. Veganism is well defined, dietary veganism is not, it is a secondary term that relies on the definition of the first, hence why the article is called "veganism".Muleattack (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Muleattack. I think dietary veganism should be mentioned in the article, but discussing it in the lead is giving undue weight to a minority view of the definition of veganism itself. It would probably be more appropriate for the lead to mention different motivations for veganism (of which health is one) than to state a minority view. As it stands now, if we can't agree to remove it from the lead, then I feel we at least need to add content and sources that give the majority view for the definition of veganism as well. TheLastNinja (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Muleattack, you might want to bear in mind that veganism was founded as dietary veganism: that's all there was, at first. The current philosophy began with the elimination of animal products from the diet, not the other way round. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What it once was is not the issue. My point stands. Muleattack (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you SlimVirgin. It seems veganism was founded based on following a vegan diet for ethical reasons (non-dairy vegetarians, as Watson put it) and later was expanded to include the rejection of all animal products. Perhaps the issue here are the actual terms, as "ethical vegan" and "dietary vegan" are fairly recent (and not in mainstream usage?). Perhaps it would be better to tweak the lead to say, "There are vegans who do not use animal products for any purpose due to ethical concerns, while there are others who eliminate them from their diet only" or "Vegans do not use animal products for any purpose due to ethical concerns or eliminate them from their diet only", for example. The article can then refer to the terms ethical/dietary vegan and the various motivations (animal welfare, personal health, environment etc) later on. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But the terms are used, and that's going to increase as more people become dietary vegans without embracing the whole philosophy; and it has always been the case that people choose to stop eating animal products but don't go any further (except for the obvious things that are easy to avoid like not buying a fur coat or a race horse). I cited above a mixture of vegan writers, vegetarian groups, and mainstream media using the terms. I also cited The Animal Rights: Abolition or Regulation? (2010), in which Robert Garner identifies as a dietary vegan and Gary Francione as an ethical vegan. These are not two minor academics. They are two of the leading academics in the field of animal rights theory. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree both the terms are used. Other than the recent coining of these terms, the other issues are whether they are: a) comparing like with like, and b) distinct. Ethical vegan describes motivation versus dietary vegan which describes practice. Presumably one could be both a dietary and ethical vegan i.e. one who follows a vegan diet for ethical reasons (rather than a dietary vegan for health reasons, for example). Other than Become a vegetarian in five easy steps! by Christine Beard (1996), do any other sources compare the terms in the same book? If not, should the distinction and comparison be stated in "Wikipedia voice" during the lead? Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We can see that Vegetarian Times used the terms in 1989, and they didn't indicate that they had just invented them. Is that what you mean by recent? As for the rest of your point, that's your own interpretation; I haven't seen any source say what you said. And yes, the sources use the terms in the same book or article. Did you read the sources I supplied above? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Break

Yes I have read your text from the sources above. The other sources which seem to mention both terms are Vegetarian Times, 1989 and Sheri Lucas in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy. On another point and not actually my position on this matter, but perhaps this source supports the issue that other editors are having with the terms dietary/ethical veganism: Being vegan: living with conscience, conviction, and compassion (2000) by Joanne Stepaniak (page 9 and 10). Stepaniak would not like to see the meaning of the term veganism diluted in the same way as vegetarianism (i.e. the public now believe it is normal for a vegetarian to eat fish and chicken). She believes that veganism should be kept for those who follow the full philosophy. Those who only follow the diet should use the terms "total vegetarian", "pure vegetarian", "strict vegetarian" or "transitioning to veganism". Since 2000 there is a further term which has come into use which is "plant-based diet". Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can be reading them, Nirvana, because several of the sources make the distinction explicitly, and the rest implicitly. Also, plant-based diet has been around for a while. I'm curious as to what happened in 2000 to make you say it was first used then.

I understand Stepaniak's point. I realize that several writers wish the two terms (dietary veganism versus ethical/lifestyle/pure veganism) did not exist, because there's a feeling that using the term veganism for dietary veganism dilutes the force of it. But the distinction does exist, and those terms are used. As I said, we could add a section about the debate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On the text you supplied, I can only find three sources that compare both the actual terms. But that is fine, this is enough. At first I could only find one such source (my mistake). I only said 2000 because this is the date of her book. She did not list "plant-based diet" as an alternative. I think it would be useful to add a section about the debate, as there are editors of this page who share her convictions. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "plant-based diet" has been around long before 2000. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are more than three on the list that make the distinction: Francione and Garner, International Vegetarian Union, Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism, Sheri Lucas, Christine Beard, Valerie Lawrence, Vegetarian Times.

I'm fine with having a section about the debate, assuming enough sources exist for it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are clearly reading more into most of those sources than what is obvious to others. The IVU does not make a distinction between ethical and dietary vegans, as I have pointed out earlier. As for Francione and Garner's book, can you please write out the section where they make the distinction and discuss the terms in context? Sheri Lucas, Valerie Lawrence and Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism are not among the sources for the article. TheLastNinja (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Francione and Garner - agreed, International Vegetarian Union - does not list "ethical vegan" ("vegan" versus "dietary vegan" only), Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism - cannot find this listed as a source, Sheri Lucas - agreed, Christine Beard - agreed, Valerie Lawrence - does not list "ethical vegan" ("dietary vegan" versus "pure vegan" only), Vegetarian Times - agreed. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In over six years of editing WP, I don't think I've experienced this kind of unwillingness to read the sources. Ninja, I've linked to the Francione/Garner book on this page and in the article, so you can read the discussion there. Nirvana, the sources listed are clearly making the distinction between "dietary veganism" and a veganism that is all-embracing ("ethical," "lifestyle," "pure"); see Talk:Veganism/ethical and dietary sources. The Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism, which you weren't able to find:

Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz. Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism. ABC-Clio, 2010, p. 242:

"Vegans are divided into two sub-categories: lifestyle vegans and dietary vegans. Lifestyle vegans eschew all animal products in their diet and life ... Dietary vegans exclude animal products only from their diet." [15]

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism refers to the difference. Is the Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism in the actual article? I cannot find it. Also are Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy and Valerie Lawrence in the Canadian Medical Association Journal listed on the article? If not, should they be (I believe this was LastNinja's issue)?

The reason I looked for both terms within each source is because the article is not stating that there is just "vegan" and "dietary vegan" (as per the International Vegetarian Union source), but also another term called "ethical vegan". Hence it seems correct that some of the sources also compare "dietary vegan" to "ethical vegan" which, as I now acknowledge, plenty do. Should there be a further section on the reference titled "For ethical and dietary veganism:" detailing those sources which compare both? Or was your intention to have these sources on Talk:Veganism/ethical_and_dietary_sources to save space on the article? Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only on Wikipedia's most contentious articles that long lists of sources saying the same thing are added to footnotes; it's not good practice. I started to do it because you and Ninja continued to contest the material, then when I realized you weren't reading the sources anyway—and when Ninja actually removed them—I stopped adding to them, and placed the list instead on a talk page for future reference. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a long discussion that I don't really have the time or patience to wrap my head around but here are my views in brief on the subject.

1) Dietary veganism is a term that is commonly used and should be included in the article.

2) Ethical veganism is only used when differentiating between regular veganism and dietary veganism. The article is called 'veganism', not 'ethical veganism' or 'types of veganism' and 'The Vegan Society' is not called 'The Ethical Vegan Society'. As such, dividing the group in to two in the first paragraph is giving undue weight to the term 'ethical veganism'. Also, since veganism is already defined in the first sentence there is no need to specify 'ethical vegans' when defining 'dietary vegans'. So I would suggest that instead a sentence is used such as 'those who choose to follow only the diet but not ethical approach to veganism are commonly referred to as dietary vegans' thereby avoiding redefining veganism as 'ethical veganism'. Muleattack (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ethical veganism is only used when differentiating between regular veganism and dietary veganism." Not so, as the sources show. I can only ask again that people ignore their personal opinions and personal experiences.

Lots of dietary vegans call themselves vegans, period -- Carl Lewis, for example, whose book I was reading a couple of hours ago. He writes that he became a vegan in July 1990. By that he means a dietary vegan. Gary Francione calls himself an ethical vegan: "Ethical veganism is nonviolence in action; it is dynamic harmlessness. ... A world that moves toward ethical veganism will be a world that moves toward greater peace and justice". [16] Lots of people do. Again, the sources are what matter for us, not personal views. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So Gary Francione calls himself an 'ethical vegan', how many others do? Is it common for people to refer to themselves as 'ethical vegans'? I don't think it is. The term is most commonly used when differentiating between vegans and dietary vegans.Muleattack (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted some sources -- see above for the link to the page -- and there are more available on Google and in libraries. Yes, people refer to themselves and others as ethical vegans. Do you have a source for what you're saying? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, you can post some sources showing individuals referring to themselves as 'ethical vegans' but when you look at the vegan society website or vegan action or other such groups they do not refer to themselves as 'ethical' vegan groups but that is what they are. Muleattack (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all the societies assume that. For example, Vegan Outreach: "Plant-based diets can be very healthful. In fact, many people initially choose to go vegan to benefit their health." [17] That's a description of dietary veganism, but they just call it "going vegan."

Look, I can't keep arguing this point. The sources make the distinction, and so we do the same. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources don't give the undue weight though. A smattering of individuals referring to themselves as 'ethical vegans' should not give the term enough weight for it to be in the first paragraph. Not when large groups such as the vegan society and vegan action do not.Muleattack (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're claiming undue weight but you've offered no sources to support that; and no secondary sources at all. Even the sources who wish people wouldn't split veganism into these two camps acknowledge that the camps exist.

I think this has to be my last post on the issue. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but several people are posting here on the basis of personal opinion and what a couple of vegan societies say, without having read the secondary literature, which is what the article must be based on. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

As I wrote earlier, this article has been plagued for a long time—more than most—with the problem of editors adding their own opinions, and removing material they personally disagree with, no matter how well-sourced it is. To do that is to misunderstand what Wikipedia does. Our articles are simply supposed to document what reliable sources who have written about veganism have said, preferably secondary sources. That is, we offer an overview of the relevant literature. See our three core content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.

We must, per WP:NPOV, offer a neutral overview of this, which means we include views that we agree and disagree with, the majority- and significant-minority views of the reliable sources. It's a violation of the neutrality and sourcing policies to remove views simply because we don't like them, or because they don't fit what we personally believe "veganism" is or ought to be. For Wikipedia, veganism is defined by the reliable sources who write about it, and we simply tell our readers what those sources have said.

As for the issue of "dietary veganism" and whether it exists, of course it does, and always has. There are committed animal rights advocates who self-identify as dietary vegans (e.g. Robert Garner, source, plus he avoids leather). To deny this is to fly in the face of significant evidence. I understand that some vegans feel dietary restrictions aren't extensive enough to earn the label "vegan," and I respect the reasoning behind that. But it's personal opinion, and it simply isn't borne out by the sources, so it's not a view Wikipedia can adopt.

We can, of course, include reliable sources who say dietary veganism isn't really veganism, if such sources exist. But that would involve the addition of a view, not the removal of the view that dietary veganism is real. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this is a particularly problematic issue for this article. Kellen^T 18:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

I am not sure what is happening here, but from Archive 7 to Archive 15 is blank. It seems the archive system, automatic or otherwise, is not working. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed SlimVirgin has already taken this up (see here). Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Per SlimVirgin's request at User talk:Misza13, I have consolidated the archives and the current one is #6. The others are there for the moment pending someone to doublecheck my work and they need to be deleted for housekeeping. If you check the index, you will see that it is current with all old threads excepting the one that was just archived (will be indexed within 24 hrs.) Nothing is awry.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Veganism - prevention and treatment of disease

Why was my edit reverted? [18] The references say it. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you removed "Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against obesity, heart and renal diseases, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis." You added instead that vegan diets have been found to "treat" many degenerative diseases, without saying what you meant, when that is somewhat contentious. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. The references point to not only preventing but also reversing many degenerative diseases. It may be contentious but that is what the research concludes and sources point to. If you want to keep the list of diseases (which I don't think is necessary in the introduction, as they are covered in more detail under "Health arguments") then it should read "Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against and treat obesity, heart and renal diseases, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis." I praise you for what you have done for the article, but also caution that more discussion is sometimes called for in the WP:BRD cycle. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You stated it in Wikipedia's voice, though it's a claim that few medical sources make in such stark terms. It's fine to attribute it, which we do later on in the article. I don't mind removing the list of diseases; it's the word "treat" that's problematic. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the list as you suggested, so it now reads: "Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease." Is that better? "Offer protection" is something few sources would argue against, so it's safe to put it that way. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is better but still does not resolve my main issue. I do not know why the issue of a vegan diet treating disease is too controversial to state in the introduction, it is what the sources say. This somewhat goes against your Wikipedian philosophy of editors just being neutral conduits of information rather than filtering to their point of view. The majority of the sources are about treating and reversing disease. It is much harder to prove that diet prevents or "offers protection against" disease (as how do you know the subject would have gone on to develop the disease) than it is treat a subject that already has the disease and publish the results. Sources:

• Prevention = "China-Cornell-Oxford Project On Nutrition, Environment and Health at Cornell University", Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, accessed February 2, 2011.
• Treatment = Campbell TC, et al. (Oct 2002). "Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of borderline hypertension". J Altern Complement Med. 8 (5): 643–50. doi:10.1089/107555302320825165. PMID 12470446.
• Treatment = McDougall, J. et al. "Effects of a Very Low-Fat, Vegan Diet in Subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis", J Altern Complement Med, volume 8, issue 1, February 2002. doi:10.1089/107555302753507195
• Treatment = Esselstyn CB Jr. (Aug 1999). "Updating a 12-year experience with arrest and reversal therapy for coronary heart disease (an overdue requiem for palliative cardiology)". Am J Cardiol. 84 (3): 339–41. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00290-8.
• Treatment = For a paper about the health effects of certain lifestyle changes, including a vegetarian diet, see Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, et al. "Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial", The Lancet, July 1990, 336:8708, pp. 129–133. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)91656-U
• Treatment = Trapp, C.B. and Barnard, N.D. "Usefulness of vegetarian and vegan diets for treating type 2 diabetes", Curr Diab Rep, volume 10, issue 2, April 2010.

If a medical journal publishes results challenging the above then this can also be noted. Nirvana2013 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what my point of view is on this issue, Nirvana, so you can't reasonably say that I'm filtering it through my POV. And you would need to quote from your sources so we can see what they say that supports your edit. You would also have to produce secondary sources. See WP:PSTS.

It also depends what you mean by "treat". If you mean "reverse," that's very contentious. I can think of one physician who advises people not even to eat honey in order to reverse diabetes, but it would be extremely unusual to find a doctor giving that advice, so we can't state it in WP's voice. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right and I apologize for my assumption, I do not know your POV on this issue. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see you have two issues with including the word "treat". Firstly I would need to quote from the sources. The title of the studies are self-explanatory in terms of disease treatment, but if you need more quotes then these can be added. There are many secondary sources, such as the The Kind Diet by Alicia Silverstone. "Doctors like Dean Ornish and John MacDougall have discovered that plant-based diets have the power to reverse heart disease, diabetes, even cancer" (page 7). However, I doubt incorporating secondary sources from celebrities adds much weight to the article. I think this is one case where primary sources suffice. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You would have to quote from the sources to show that they support what you're saying; the titles alone don't tell us that. You would also have to find secondary sources, medical or scientific ones, or otherwise authoritative; the sources you produced are all primary sources. See Wikipedia:MEDRS#Respect_secondary_sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So a peer review of the clinical trials/published studies would be needed as an authoritative secondary source? I am not sure this exists yet, but perhaps another editor has more knowledge in this area. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to state a medical issue in Wikipedia's voice, you would have to show that it's mainstream and relatively non-contentious, following the source recommendations at MEDRS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Veganism is the practice of eliminating the use by human beings of non-human animal products."

The way this reads is that veganism involves stopping others from using animal products rather than it being a personal endeavour. Muleattack (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to exclude dietary veganism from the definition of veganism — which is fair, given the many sources that defines veganism that way. But the next sentence of the lead then looks a bit strange. TheLastNinja (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my previous comment was a bit off-topic to the issue you are raising. I propose to rephrase the sentence to say: Veganism is the human practice of eliminating one's use of non-human animal products. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It also sounds a bit clumsy. I prefer "Veganism is the human practice of eliminating the use of non-human animal products" or "Veganism is the personal practice of eliminating the use of non-human animal products." Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Nirvana's second proposal, so I'd be happy to use that. TheLastNinja (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana's second proposal would be fine with me. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I also concur and have made the change, hopefully without anyone's objections. BernieW650 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It was Nirvana's second sentence that people were agreeing to, Bernie, so I'm just going to tweak your edit a bit. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin! I agree its even better now. BernieW650 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Consumption

PLEASE stop removing the word consumption. You don't use a steak, you CONSUME it. You do not consume leather, you USE it. Before censoring words, pleas read a dictionary before editing. --Sfiga (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Consumption is a subset of use, obviously, and there's no need to repeat in the first sentence all the ways in which animal products could be used. People aren't completely stupid. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"People aren't completely stupid....." where do you live in a cave?? if not can i move there? wherei live people ARE completely stupid. and they are two different words, I will keep putting the word in as it is more correct. --Sfiga (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the drama. The current version is clear enough. Kellen^T 11:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

there is no drama, i am just trying to make the sentence correct. HOW DO YOU USE A STEAK?? answer that and i will stop.

wtf? i thought wikipedia tries to be correct. why are people trying to make incorrect statements? i do not understand why a few are so adamant at using the WRONG WORD! --Sfiga (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that this isn't a dictatorship with you in the center? And that you're WP:EDITWARRING? Kellen^T 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sfiga, the sentence you're changing gained consensus in the section above this one. If you want to change it, please try to form a new consensus here on talk.

"Consumption" is a subset of "use"—that is, consumption is a form of use—and there's no point in listing in the first sentence all the ways in which animal products can be "used" (they can be eaten, drunk, worn, etc). "Use" is a generic term that could mean any one—or all—of those practices. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sfiga is correct, slim virgin and kellen are wrong. The term "use" is not a subset of consumption. Although it can be used as a definition to mean the same idea as consumption, the word is a more accurate term than 'use' and should replace 'use'. --71.147.49.125 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said that "use" is a subset of "consumption", they said "consumption" is a subset of "use". The article in full makes it quite clear what veganism is, and the lede section only needs to be a general summation - and as it is the overall use of animals to which many vegans object, it seems reasonable enough to use the wider concept in the opening statement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It amazes me how people are fighting to "dumb down" wikipedia, I only expect that from trolls. this is why wikipedia is banned at my university. our professors told us anyone using wikipedia will get an automatic fail. reason: anyone is allowed to edit and most people do not know how to write or what they are writing about. After reading the discussions here, it is apparent that Slim and kellen have proven to me they will fight to keep poorly written paragraphs and inacurate information in. I have replaced the intro sourced from the Oxford English dictionary. This is an academic definition. So, PLEASE stop reverting back to the poorly writte version. I thought wikipedia strives to improve the access of knowledge. why fight to keep it wrong?

--Sfiga (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sfiga, you now want to say that veganism may simply be a belief. [19] So a person could be vegan while tucking into a steak in a fancy restaurant, her fur coat draped over the back of her chair, her feet in expensive leather Jimmy Choos. So long as she believes humans ought not to use non-human animal products, but is struggling to put it into practice. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the definition from the Oxford English dictionary, I am not saying it. You are the one who wants to 'use' a steak instead of consuming it. You really do not seem to understand word choice. why are you doing this? fighting to dumb it down?

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/221868?redirectedFrom=veganism#eid15925772 Pronunciation: /ˈviːgən/ U.S. /ˈvɛdʒən/ Etymology: < veg- (in vegetable n.) + -an suffix. Thesaurus »

1. A person who on principle abstains from all food of animal origin; a strict vegetarian.

Derivatives ˈveganism n. the beliefs or practice of vegans; abstention from all food of animal origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfiga (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing belief. The sentence really is fine as it is, and if you read the section above this one, you'll see it gained consensus from several editors. Also, it's best not to rely solely on dictionary definitions, especially from the online versions. See WP:SOURCES for the kinds of sources regarded as reliable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't rely solely on online sources and tried to change it to reflect an accurate, independent definition but you and your friend fought me tooth and nail to keep a generic word. you fought to keep it generic and imho wrong. I really hate wikipedia because of so many people who fight to dumbdown articles. I really should stop using it. --The source i used is the paid subscription of the OED, which is the only official version, so your logic of not using an online source fails. OED is a credited source of the english language mr. Cambridge person. You guys love to drop wp templates in defense of common sense, hint: it use your brain, it is more accurate. I guess you have taken 'no original research' to a whole new level. sorry to try and improve wp, won't happen again :(

--Sfiga (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and an article should encompass the various nuances of a concept in a non-prescriptive form. As it says in the article, some vegans abstain from consuming animal products because their ethical opinions lead them to forego all use of animals in any form - thus it is derived from more than just an abstention, and a wider concept exists. So please, stop changing it against the apparent current consensus, and discuss what you want here *before* you make any changes -- edit warring will get you blocked. Also, please try to assume good faith - see WP:AGF, and try to lose the battlefield approach to editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)