This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bon courage (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 8 August 2020 (→Pet food section: POV pushing, false advise: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:40, 8 August 2020 by Bon courage (talk | contribs) (→Pet food section: POV pushing, false advise: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) view · edit Frequently asked questions
To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why does the article distinguish between dietary and ethical vegans? Aren't ethical vegans the only true vegans? The article makes the distinction because reliable sources make it. See Talk:Veganism/Sources for the dietary veganism distinction for a selection of sources. For example:
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Veganism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hlc63 (article contribs).
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
Sources for ethical/dietary distinction |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Importance of including the phrase "possible and practicable"
The official definition of veganism as defined by the oldest vegan society is "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." The current definition on Misplaced Pages is strong, but it misses the key "as is possible and practicable." The page would be improved by having this phrase in either the opening sentence or paragraph for the following reasons:
1) Animal use is so widespread (in the tires in our cars, in camera film, in our medication etc.) that it is hard to maintain a regular quality of life in society and 100% exclude animal products. Of course, this should not dissuade us from not exploiting animals where we easily can, such as eating plant-based food rather than animal-based food, or not wearing leather and fur etc., but the recognition should be there that vegans are not advocating for people to remove themselves from society so as to avoid animal products.
2) In addition, this phrase gives recognition to vegans from all walks of life who are all trying to reduce their consumption as much as possible. Some young vegans are threatened by their parents to eat animal products, some vegans are struggling to transition due to lack of time and energy if they are already struggling to make ends meet. While a whole-foods plant-based diet with beans and legumes is optimal for health and the wallet, it would be amiss to not recognize that it is easier to transition to a vegan diet with just beyond burgers and Miyoko's cheese which are both much more expensive than their animal counterparts (which is also in large part due to subsidies). "Possible and practicable" includes all individuals who are genuinely seeking to not harm animals, from all backgrounds, and all levels of accessibility to a transition to veganism.
3) As an active member of the vegan community, I believe this definition best represents vegans. The most prominent vegan activists use this definition, and as aforementioned, the most prominent and well-established vegan society operates on this definition. As a matter of the members of a group being empowered to define themselves, I believe this definition would be most apt as well.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MianOsumi (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- One of our strongest principles is that we don't rely on what the subject of an article has to say, we gather together what impartial third-party reliable sources have to say about the subject. You would have to gather references to third-party reliable sources which claim that this is what vegans practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Confused Animal Products section
The section "Animal Products", while containing good information and sufficient citations, is very disorganized and disjointed. Additionally it seems to have great overlap with the section "Personal Items". It doesn't read well as prose and is hard to navigate at a glance. It seems like this section was once well organized, but through small edits over time has ballooned out to the point where that structure is no longer sensible.
I think the best thing for this section would be to combine with the personal items section and rearrange the information found there into more subsections with possibly a single section header explaining broad strokes. I am currently thinking that the following section outline may be good:
- Meat, Eggs and Dairy
- Clothing
- Toiletries
- Animal Testing
- Insect Products
- Pet Food
- Other Products
Along with a section at the top differentiating between dietary and ethical vegans.
This layout would group things roughly by rationale (a vegan who does or doesn't abstains from honey likely does the same for silk so they are grouped together), while roughly order sections from one extreme (lax dietary veganism) to the other (extensive ethical veganism), while still trying to keep related sections adjacent (e.g. Animal testing and toiletries). Some things would likely be mentioned in more than one section (e.g. silk in both clothing and insect products), but I think this is fine.
This reorganization makes things overall flow better and makes it easier to find information on a specific product quickly.
I will probably do this edit in a day or two but I will post this here first in case anyone watching the page has any thoughts.
AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- AquitaneHungerForce, I propose that you put this outline in your sandbox first and post a link to that here in this section. This way, we can see exactly how it will look and better form opinions on the matter. We already have an "Ethical veganism" subsection in the "Philosophy" section. I need to see what you are proposing, which will also help to weed out redundancy.
- Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Very good idea, I had forgotten about the sandbox. I've started a version now: User:AquitaneHungerForce/sandbox.
- (I apologize if this pings you, I could not find information on exactly what causes a ping.)
- AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'll review later. Right now, I will state that, per MOS:HEAD, headings should typically be in sentence case.
- As for pings, see WP:Ping. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mind explaining what changes you've made in your sandbox -- how your version differs from the article version?
- Zefr, any thoughts? Anyone else, any thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is minimal real content change. Most of it is reorganizing the existing content from the two sections of the article into a single section with a more readable and navigable structure. I used the subsections outlined above sans the "Animal testing" section, since there was actually very little content there that didn't already fit into an existing section. A few sentences I found were not useful at all I've left at the bottom of the article to not be included in the final version. I've also added a few sentences to make things flow:
- I added the lead sentence.
While vegans broadly abstain from animal products, there are many ways in which animal products are used, and different and individuals and organizations that identify with the practice of veganism may use some limited animal products based on philosophy, means or other concerns.
Because no sentence in the article as it exists seemed appropriate as a lead in for the new structure. - I changed the lead sentence of the Meat, eggs and dairy section from:
Vegans do not eat beef, pork, poultry, fowl, game, animal seafood, eggs, dairy, or any other animal products
to:
Like vegetarians vegans do not eat meat (including beef, pork, poultry, fowl, game, animal seafood). The main difference between a vegan and vegetarian diet is that vegans exclude dairy products and eggs.
So that it works better as a lead in and connects meat consumption to egg and dairy consumption. (I've put these together in the same section because meat had only one sentence in the original article and meat, egg and dairy non-consumption is virtually universal to those who identify as vegan) - I changed the sentence:
Vegetables themselves, even from organic farms, may use animal manure; "vegan" vegetables use plant compost only.
to:
Fruits and vegetables, even from organic farms, often use animal manure as a fertilizer. This manure may be bought from factory farms and thus may be relevant to vegans for ethical or environmental reasons. "Vegan" vegetables use plant compost only.
To better match the source given for the claim.
- I added the lead sentence.
- Other than that there may be a few very small wording changes with the intention of making things flow together. I hope that provides enough of a explanation, if there are any specific questions I can answer them too. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm reviewing the changes. Will likely get back to you tomorrow. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think that your version should have a "General" subheading immediately under "Animal products" so that the initial material there is not overlooked from the table of contents. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- That is certainly doable. Is that common practice? It seems a bit weird to me. If that's the only thing I probably merge in the changes with that. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's common practice. It's used at various articles I watch or see while patrolling via WP:Huggle, and I added it to some of the articles I watch.
- That is certainly doable. Is that common practice? It seems a bit weird to me. If that's the only thing I probably merge in the changes with that. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is minimal real content change. Most of it is reorganizing the existing content from the two sections of the article into a single section with a more readable and navigable structure. I used the subsections outlined above sans the "Animal testing" section, since there was actually very little content there that didn't already fit into an existing section. A few sentences I found were not useful at all I've left at the bottom of the article to not be included in the final version. I've also added a few sentences to make things flow:
- Yes, feel free to incorporate your changes. You are certainly correct that we don't need the "Personal items" section out there on its own, as opposed to being positioned as a subsection in the way you have it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since it seems uncontroversial and beneficial this edit has been made live. Although further improvements may still be possible. For the sake of making it easier to track I am going to copy what is currently the "Excess" on my sandbox page. This may be of interest to future editors and I figure it would be best not to have it burried in the history of my sandbox page.
- Here is everything from the article that I have not moved into any of these sections. I mostly believe that these are redundant, or otherwise not needed. They are included here only for transparency.
- Animal products in common use include albumen, allantoin, beeswax, blood, bone char, bone china, carmine, casein, castoreum, cochineal, elastin, emu oil, gelatin, honey, isinglass, keratin, lactic acid, lanolin, lard, rennet, retinol, shellac, squalene, tallow (including sodium tallowate), whey, and yellow grease. Some of these are chemical compounds that can be derived from animal products, plants, or petrochemicals. Allantoin, lactic acid, retinol, and squalene, for example, can be vegan. These products and their origins are not always included in the list of ingredients.
- Some vegans will not buy woollen jumpers, silk scarves, leather shoes, bedding that contains goose down or duck feathers, pearl jewellery, seashells, ordinary soap (usually made of animal fat), or cosmetics that contain animal products. Non-vegan items acquired before they became vegan might be donated to charity or used until worn out.
Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change abstaining to refraining Peyono (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not Done Abstaining works here --VVikingTalkEdits 13:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Pet food section: POV pushing, false advise
High Priority. Immediate attention is needed!
The content in the section Veganism#Pet food is contradictory to the content in the four sections referred to in the "see also" section hatnotes: Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, Dog food#Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, Cat food#Vegetarian and vegan diet, Cat health#Diet and nutrition. There are 22 citations (includes combination footnotes) for 5 sentences, which is Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill and WP:REFBOMB. I checked one citation:
- "Nutritionally complete vegan pet diets are comparable to meat-based ones for cats and dogs."
and the citation does NOT support the content it was hung from. The source includes many concerns about a vegan diet for pets including "caution must be exercised before drawing definitive conclusions from these results. Nevertheless, they do raise significant concerns." The "Conclusion" section of that study is full of "may", "but", "although" and other conditional words, several cautions to the health of pets on vegan diets, advisories for close monitoring by veterinarians because of the inherent nutritional deficiencies of such diets, and ends with the hope that further studies will lead to more information.
There are many policies within Misplaced Pages cautioning editors to not provide controversial content that could lead to readers following false advice, especially that which could lead to illness and/or death! WP:MEDRS comes to mind. (See also Misplaced Pages:Cherrypicking and WP:POVPUSH.)
Please fix this section immediately, or remove it until someone has time to work on it.
— Normal Op (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- The section you take issue with is small and notes what vegans think, and also that "this practice has been met with caution and criticism, especially regarding vegan cat diets because felids are obligate carnivores." It is a section about views. I am a WP:Med editor. I can contact WP:Med to weigh in. Or you can do it yourself and make sure that your post is neutral per WP:APPNOTE. Alexbrn is also a WP:Med editor and edits this article. As for WP:MEDRS? Whether or not Misplaced Pages's strict medical sourcing guideline, or concern for medical information, extends to non-human/veterinary topics has been addressed before. But I suppose it can be revisited. Either way, there is absolutely no urgent matter here.
- Don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Frozen: Please do get the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine editors to weigh in... especially if they know anything about animals. Even better, maybe some of them are veterinarians. Funny that you should accuse me of only looking at one citation, when you seem to have focused on only one part I wrote and missed THE FIRST SENTENCE where I point out that FOUR OTHER WIKI ARTICLES CONTRADICT THIS ARTICLE. Normal Op (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- No need to ping me to an article I'm obviously watching. Again, you can contact WP:Med yourself. We can also wait for Alexbrn to weigh in. But don't start tag-bombing this article because it includes views that differ from yours. I don't tolerate gaming the system/wikilawyering, just like I don't tolerate activism on Misplaced Pages in either direction. Your "you seem to have focused on only one part I wrote" line makes no sense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Frozen: Please do get the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine editors to weigh in... especially if they know anything about animals. Even better, maybe some of them are veterinarians. Funny that you should accuse me of only looking at one citation, when you seem to have focused on only one part I wrote and missed THE FIRST SENTENCE where I point out that FOUR OTHER WIKI ARTICLES CONTRADICT THIS ARTICLE. Normal Op (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- That section is badly WP:OVERCITEd. By definition, anything that is "nutritionally complete" is going be ... well, nutritionally complete, so it's kind of a nothing statement which begs the question. The claim is sourced to PMID 27657139, which is in a MDPI journal and so suspect: I'd remove it and make sure our content is in WP:SYNC between articles using more reputable sources - though from a quick look it's not immediately obvious what these might be. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
____
Sources |
---|
|
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Animal rights articles
- Top-importance Animal rights articles
- WikiProject Animal rights articles
- B-Class Food and drink articles
- High-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- Top-importance Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use Oxford spelling
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press