SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) + link |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
:(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 [[Talk:Veganism/Archive index|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. <br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]])</span> 18:27, 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 [[Talk:Veganism/Archive index|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. <br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]])</span> 18:27, 9 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 [[WP:SOURCES|reliable sources]] who have written about veganism have said, preferably [[secondary source]]s. 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 with ''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 here what those sources have said. <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 01:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:46, 11 May 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Veganism was one of the Social sciences and society 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 |
Toolbox |
---|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Veganism is a philosophy, not a diet.
I changed the content of the article to correct the common mistake that veganism is a diet, when it is in fact a philosophy, and that the word "dietary veganism" is nonsensical use of vocabulary, and that "strict vegetarianism" fills that role quite fittingly.
From the wiki on Donald Watson, "founder of the Vegan Society and inventor of the word vegan." [1]:
"From his early conversion to vegetarianism, he later came to view the abstention from the use of all animal products as the logical extension of this philosophy. A committed pacifist throughout his life, he registered as a conscientious objector in the war, and faced the harshest challenges to his ethical position[5]. It was at this time that the need for a word to describe his way of life, and a society to promote its ideals, became apparent; together with his wife, Dorothy, they decided on the word ‘vegan’ by taking the first three and last two letters of "vegetarian," - "because veganism starts with vegetarianism and carries it through to its logical conclusion," and the Society was founded in 1944[2]." [2]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_Society >
"The Vegan Society defines veganism 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."[3]
In other words the term was precisely coined to distinguish between a vegetarian diet to a philosophy including a strict vegetarian diet, with an implicit ethical stance, seeking to exclude the use of all animal products.
Interstates (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The sources supplied in the first reference used in the article make it quite clear that "dietary veganism" is a commonly used concept and definition with multiple sources that attest to this. What the word meant when it was originally coined is interesting and worthy of note but what is more important for us is how it's used today. Wikipedia is not here to promote any belief over any other, we're here to report on what reliable sources state and in this case the reliable sources confirm the use of dietary veganism. SQGibbon (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there are sufficient sources for the usage of "dietary veganism" to warrant the mention of dietary veganism in the lede. I think it's fine to mention it in the article, and to list a few examples of celebrities who have followed a vegan diet, but the vast majority of people who consider themselves vegans would follow a definition closer to that given by the Vegan Society. The term is currently given undue weigth in my opinion. TheLastNinja (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently learned that there are people that include vegans in an eating disorder called orthorexia nervosa (those obsessed with eating healthy food). Since veganism is a philosophy - not a diet - I am hopeful that this term never ends up on Wikipedia’s veganism page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassLadyBug (talk • contribs) 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The term "vegan" was coined in England by Donald Watson, who founded the British Vegan Society in 1944, motivation was ethical to sentient animals:
"We can see quite plainly that our present civilisation is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the products of animals' bodies". ( http://ukveggie.com/vegan_news/ )
— Donald Watson, Vegan News, nº1, November 1944.
Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Images: It does not seem right the first image, it gives the false idea that veganism is just one type of food. Would be more appropriate image of a human petting a non-human animal in a sanctuary.Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are vegans who don't particularly like animals but are either averse to their suffering or eschew animal products for health reasons, so I think an image of a human petting an animal would be more obscure. It might make some omnivores touchy or defensive as well if they think it implies that only vegans like animals (not as far-fetched as it sounds).
- I don't think there's anything wrong with the current image. It may be a philosophy to the majority of vegans, but the primary image should be both clear and central to the topic, which I think this one is. – anna 00:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Dinshah
Nirvana, I'm going to restore H.Jay Dinshah to the lead and how he linked veganism to the concept of ahimsa, as that seems quite important and central to the movement, and it's what the source says. [1] SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the information, it is just that the sentence is worded very clumsily. It currently reads like that both he and Watson coined the term, rather than just stating his link of veganism to ahimsa. Perhaps the sentence is too long and needs to be split into two. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- It currently says: "The term was coined in England by Donald Watson, who founded the British Vegan Society in 1944, and in 1960 H. Jay Dinshah started the American Vegan Society, linking veganism to the Jainist and Buddhist concept of ahimsa, the avoidance of violence against living things." I don't think that suggests Dinshah coined the term too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Nirvana, it would sound better if it were split in two. It's just too long at the moment. TheLastNinja (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It currently says: "The term was coined in England by Donald Watson, who founded the British Vegan Society in 1944, and in 1960 H. Jay Dinshah started the American Vegan Society, linking veganism to the Jainist and Buddhist concept of ahimsa, the avoidance of violence against living things." I don't think that suggests Dinshah coined the term too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This article simply does not reflect reality
Hello. I'm the guy who posted the note above about there being no such thing as "ethical veganism".
There's clearly been a lot of discussion above about this, and the article has been reverted to stating that all vegans split into two camps: ethical and dietary.
This simply does not reflect the reality out here in the real world. I know nobody at all who calls themselves an 'ethical vegan', and I run one of the largest vegan groups in the UK. I'm really sorry if this clashes with your views, and I realise you can provide lots of sources to prove me wrong, but I'm basing my views on reality.
This article is clearly trying to set an agenda. Somebody coming to it to learn about veganism will not learn the truth, but a distorted, constructed version of the truth.
To make this clear:
Veganism: Rejecting all animal products for any purpose (from food to leather seating) Strict vegetarian: Somebody who doesn't eat meat or consume any other animal product, but sees no issue using animal products elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.72.70 (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- We hear you, but the problem is that Wikipedia's articles have to be based on sources, and not on our own experiences or even reality itself. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR. Gabbe (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of reliable sources that explicitly reject this distinction. Can you name any? Then, i guess, we could add this view.-goiken 15:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- That would be shifting the burden of proof. We shouldn't ask ourselves "Are there sources that disagree with this view?" but rather "Which sources back up this view?". Lack of opposition from reliable sources is, by itself, an insufficient criteria for inclusion. Please see WP:ONUS. Gabbe (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of reliable sources that explicitly reject this distinction. Can you name any? Then, i guess, we could add this view.-goiken 15:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Photograph inappropriate
Why is there a photograph of "Lard from pigs" on a plate in this article? How is it relevant? It seems like it was posted just to be provocative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.171.49 (talk • contribs)
- In what way is it provocative? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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.[2] I would disagree that "perhaps most" vegans allow insect products to be used.[3] 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)
- 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)
- Carmine, perhaps. – anna 12:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by insect products? I am not aware of vegans eating any insect products other than honey.[2] I would disagree that "perhaps most" vegans allow insect products to be used.[3] 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)
- 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.'[4]
- 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)
Definitions of veganism from secondary 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
"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
"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)
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)
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 with 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 here what those sources have said. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)