Talk:Veganism/Archive 6

• /archive1
• /archive2 (May to September 2005)
• /archive3 (October 1 to November 18, 2005)

Please sign with time stamp for all comments. Every time. Cheers. Gtabary 18:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And please add new talk to the BOTTOM of the page. Every time. Thanks. Angr (t·c) 00:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Skinwalkers edits

I providing a linkable reference for someone to post in the article and get rid of this moronic claim that vegans have higher anorexic rates. Actually, it should be removed immediatly. The article main article I believe you are refering to is [[1]]. Another you refer to is [[2]] which has no reference to anorexia and the only reference to vegan simply gives a definition to vegan. The third article you refer to is [[3]] which also as absolutely no reference to "vegans".

There is absolutly no reference in any of these studies backing up what 'Skinwalker's claim "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder."

For example, the first article referenced here states: A retrospective study was carried out of 116 consecutive patients with anorexia nervosa to ascertain the extent and nature of vegetarianism in this population. Sixty-three (54.3%) patients were found to be avoiding red meat. In only four (6.3%) of these did meat avoidance predate the onset of their anorexia nervosa. Of the remaining 59 patients (best termed pseudovegetarians), 25 (42.4%) patients continued to avoid red meat by the end of treatment. Pseudovegetarianism was associated with a longer duration of anorexia nervosa, a lower weight during the course of their illness, and living away from the parental home. The reintroduction of red meat into the diet was more likely if vegetarianism were of a short duration.

Pseudo, by the way, means fake. I want data on vegan rates of anorexia. If this is your source material in which you were so elusive (obviously it is since you use similar wording on "meat avoidance predate the onset of their anorexia nervosa"), it indicates a patent attempt to subvert, with false data and week reference, the integrity of the Vegan article on Wikipedia. I don't believe after this you should have much of a say anywhere on this page. Once again let my reiterate, you knowingly provided false data Skinwalker. What is your responce to being deceptive. Skinwalkers Pal - 29 November 2005

Skinwalkers's latest edit is a revert stating that there is "no consensus on the talk page for removing this material" However, Skinwalker never talks but rather just does revisions as he sees fit. Apparently he spends much of his time on this as well. HMMM. Idleguyspal. 01 December 2005

Hey "pal" do us a favour and stop misquoting people. I never said "no consensus on the talk page for removing this material" and your tone is particularly aggressive/abusive against me both here and in my talk pages. If this continues I'm afraid I'll have to seriously look at something to curb you. Tx Idleguy 05:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out how Idleguy has snitched to the admins to defend himself here ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty, look for " I need some help ". Now tell me if that is unbiased?

Well that got you talking finally. I wouldn't say any of my response to you abusive, aggressive maybe (it's the way of the world right?) but not constituting vandalism or sourcing on false information or putting forth POV. You have attemped to subvert the intrgrity of the vegan and environmental vegetariansim pages time and time again. I am serving a reality check to you here and you don't like it. You are an interesting guy Idleguy, the others who have tried to politically attack these pages are mainly religous fundamentalists from the U.S. (The G.W.B. variety) of a non-eastern background such as yours. I am glad you have finally initiated discussion. I hope to hear more of it. Sorry for hurting you feelings once again. Namas Te or Allāhu Akbar and Subhān Allāh Idleguyspal. 08:50 02 December 2005

Ethics NPOV

Right now only there is only positive analyses of Vegan ethics, i feel that some inconsistencies should be pointed out, maybe I went to far with suicide, but the paradox of eating fruit by vegans while 1000's of insects were killed in its production is relevant--Hq3473 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• incosistensis is spelled inconsistancies, Hq3473. They should be pointed out, yet I would imagine most vegans don't become vegan because they are killing a larger number (larger number being the key, as most vegans are thoughtful and pragmatic) of organisms by practicing a vegan lifestyle. Could you site source material please? Vaggot 02:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • a site detailing death to animals due to use of chemicals in grain production, yet you do not see vegans giving up bread.--Hq3473 05:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Maybe vegans should give up eating anything, or just eat the human kill of the day.

Do you really care about the destruction of the small animals? Why should I care so much as you? Vagot 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • By the way, I only support organic farming, no f-ing chemicals. That is great that you do however. Good for you, in that Australian kinda way.

Vagot 06:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • even in organic farming insects are killed, for example Colorado potato beetle maybe handpicked from potato plants(often because they are immune to pesticides), maintaining the product "organic", and yet destroying hundreds of beetles. And anyway the point of my mod. was no to save small animals but to demonstrate an inconsistency in moral justification for veganism by pointing out that a lot of animals are harmed in production of “vegan” products.--Hq3473 13:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible for you guys to miss the point any more completely? Vegans don't expect to get their impact down to zero. The point is to dramatically reduce the amount of death and suffering. I suppose you would criticize environmentalists who reduce their energy consumption by 99% to be failures because they're still consuming some infintesimally small amount. Michael Bluejay 17:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I've once again edited the paragraph that seeks to paint veganism as a contradiction, ignoring the point and spending far too many words on the opposition. It now explains the criticism and the vegan response, which is exactly what an article about veganism should do. --Joehaer 01:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks fair enough.--Hq3473 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cannibalsim

I see no reason to remove ny comment about cannibalism. Since product derived from humans are not considered "animal", veganism in prinicple does not prohibit cannibalism. In fact some vegans do argue that by not eating its own dead humans are wasting a valuable sustainable resourse. --Hq3473 01:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Could we see some source material on this? Vaggot 02:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Sure, for example in a published article By Richard Routley which you can be found at [4] canibalism is mentioned as an alternative to pure vegetarian options in food consumption. --Hq3473 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, I don't attend the prestigious University of Queensland, but doesn't eating humans seem a little extreme even to you? How many vegans would eat other human beings? How many so called omnivores eat other human beings? I have never met anyone who aligned themselves in such a way. Interesting, but it is doubtful this holds much consideration for the vast majority of vegans. Show me some more exploration on the subject or perhaps a viable study on how many vegans are so because of such a consideration. Vaggot 03:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Vegans may not be cannibals for reasons other then them being vegans. The point I am trying to make is that there is nothing in ethical VEGANISM itself (Cannibalism may be forbidden by health Veganism) that would forbid eating human flesh for VEGAN reasons. Most vegans are not in fact cannibals for other reasons, mostly because a lot of societies frown upon cannibals in general, and sometimes make cannibalism illegal.--Hq3473 13:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I find your comments to be utter tripe. Human Beings most certainly are animals, and slaughtering a Human for consumption is just as bad as slaughtering a Cow for consumption. I am a Vegan, and Violence, in any form, is not Vegan. If an act causes suffering directly or indirectly, then it is not a Vegan act, plain and simple. That includes killing.Canaen 02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy and Donald Watson RIP

I am sorry to raise these two issues in the same breath but, firstly, as it directly relates to this topic, I would like to point out that Donald Watson founder of the Vegan Society and inventor of the world sadly passed away aged 95 (1910-2005) on 16th November at his home in the north of England.

It death is a great loss to us all and but reaching such a fine age, he was a great example to the world if the realities of the vegan diet and lifestyle. Donald had been vegan for more than 60 years. Dates added to topic page.

---

Please excuse the headlining of this edit but as one individual Idleguy seems to be using threats of reporting and accusation of vandalism to subvert this topic with his own politics, I would like to raise this to the top.

There has been much discussion of the inclusion by Idleguy of a environemental critique of veganism using a case statistics that are actually about deforestation caused by an increase in soya bean production when that soya bean production is for the meat industry and an argument against rice production in face of meat production on the basis that certain forms of rice production use a lot of water, ignoring that meat production uses as much as 10 times more. The non sequitors in his arguments have been pointed out many times by more than one source on both this and his own talk pages but he continues to ignore them

Now, simply put, neither soya nor rice are synonymous with vegan.

• Some vegan eat neither.
• Certainly non-vegan eat more of them and drive consumption of both - so primarily in the case of soya does the meat industry. You cannot blame vegans for that.

If there are issues arising from their production then they belong on a relative webpage not a disassociated one.

As much as I welcome a proper scientific environmental critique of vegan diet, this is not it. Indeed, I think an environmental critique is going to be one of the weakest critiques of veganism possible.

The vegan topic has grown too long and under the guidelines needs to be shorter. It cannot grow to accomodate every claim and rebuttal. The intention of the Wiki is to define topics, offer links and source for further study. It ought not be a political soapbox or discussion forum, there are plenty of those elsewhere. This current edit - without the meat industry's soya beans argument- is just under the maximum.

I have worked hard to remove many duplications, correct punctuation and remove unnecessary flab to get it back within the limits. No essential information is lost. There may be the odd typo but I suggest we work with it as it is. In truth, it would make a better contribution if it were shorter again

Question ;

• Would it not be better to hive off say " Vegan nutrition " to its own relative topic?

" All and everything " topics can only expand so far.

Idleguy, by your own userpage you are not expert in this topic either by scientific education nor personal experience. Stop trying to use terminology such as " vandalism " and threats of reporting to support your POV. Open your mind to take on board what is being said to you.

Thanks for the rest of your support in making the Wiki a cleaner, tidier place and raising the standards of intellectual integrity.

195.82.106.64 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy has nothing better to do than to single handedly try and bring down anything vegan, in a so called neutral environment.

He believes that vegans motivations for being vegan are based on positions from the likes of Foundation for Animal Use Education, or the Cattlemans Association. It may be that these organizations believe it is ethical to kill animals for food, vegans don't. The motivation section needs to be, once again overhauled, and any critisism should be moved to the Idleguy's beloved critisism section.

Biased edits

The addition of "Criticism of environmental motivations of vegans" is a meat eater activist attack and has no place in this article. After all, is it a motivation for those who have adopted veganism based on the fact that rice is a water hog? If any vegans have become vegan because rice is innefficient I would like to see some source material or a study backing it. Bink 18:20, 8 Nov 2005

This is my initiation of discussion for my edit. Please respond.

Please respond in a super clear explanation of why it is that vegans become vegan because it is environmentally irresponsible. Do you have source material? Most vegans do believe it is environmentally responsible to conduct their diet in such a way. The general effects of certain farming practices is an interesting subject, but does not relate to motivation of most vegans, which is the section in question as far as neutrality. Bink 17 Nov 2005

Respond

I agree with you strongly. It is a very weakly composed paragraph of little direct relevence. A very weak attempt by meat eaters to try and diminsh the vegan environmental position. I mean, what the heck is water supposed to do in a paddy field but seep out [!?!] and dont indigenous agricultural system develop in harmony with local conditions, e.g. paddy fields where there is lots of available water. What is the amount of water required to produce one kilo of steak and don't those beef cattle need to be fed on agrarian products? They dont just grow out of the earth. Its a fumble of non sequitors.

I think we could be pretty brutual with some of the edits on this article and keep it down to a description of what vegan is and not a flame war to argue the toss over it. There are enough of them. Face it guys, you will lose on the environmental argument every round.anon 18:20, 19 Nov 2005

indigenous agricultural system develop in harmony with local conditions. Nearly all of which include the use of animals. - FrancisTyers 20:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"keep it down to a description of what vegan is" except that some things that vegans claim are disputed by non-vegans. Whether a vegan diet is healthier than a non-vegan diet appears to be disputed. Whether being vegan stops exploitation and cruelty to animals is disputed. Whether crops are more environmentally friendly than livestock is disputed. If something is disputed, then the article must present the different points of view. In the course of describing what a vegan is, if you can do it without introducing any disputed facts, then there is no need to provide the countering non-vegan point of view. But the only way to do that would be to delete a lot of what vegans view as important to why they are vegan, and the article would be worse off. Better to report the vegan point of view and include the non-vegan view for disputed pieces than to not report at all. FuelWagon 16:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. anon 07:08, 22 Nov 2005

Agree. - FrancisTyers 20:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no functional that mandates for every group of people making a claim, dispute of said claim need be included in an article. Especially not in the abundance that FuelWagon wants. This only clutters the article. Further, I am of the opinion that most of the dispute is not genuine, in that it originates from lobbyist groups. This does not mean to disgard said disputes offhand, but as far as I am aware the body of evidence about the health detriments of meat centric diets (that is the typical North American diet) is substantial. We would be remiss if we simply mentioned disputes of this without a similarily hefty body of scientific work. Shawn M. O'Hare 20:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem with meat-centric, but the idea that any diet that includes meat is automatically less healthy than a diet that excludes it is not true. The article should make it clear in the wording exactly what manner of "meat eating" diet is unhealthy and not just tar all meat-eaters with the same brush, so to speak. - FrancisTyers 20:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Vegans, by defintion, do have a problem with a "meat-centric diet, and yes, do believe it is unhealthy." Anti-FrancisTyers 20:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

personal attack by user FarkinVigger removed --Doc ^ask? 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I was simply illustrating a point here. It was not a personal attack in anyway, as I was responding to the latest edit on the article by 64.203.165.126 who stated on the opening paragraph "All vegans are f--gots." This is the personal attack you should be concerned with. This is the type of thing perpetuated by these edit wars that is getting out of hand. FarkinVigger 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed a paragraph from Criticism and controversy section. It is POV and not backed by any source material: "Criticisms have also focused on the prevalence of eating disorders within people espousing a vegan lifestyle. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation. Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder." FarkinVigger 15:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I modified and reinserted the paragraph on eating disorders, with both pro and con references from peer-reviewed nutritional and medical journals. Is the formatting of the references correct? It seems a bit kludgy for wikipedia's format, but as I found these in a Pubmed search I can't link directly to the abstracts. If anyone wants to check these sources they are welcome to do their own Pubmed search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

Cheers, Skinwalker 23:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to edit out "Vegan, the New Black" as one of the big drawbacks, even larger than having to pay close attention to labeling is in fact discrimination. It is in fact a display of discrimination that you would even attempt to discredit that it as POV. It is a very big drawback and one that discourages some from veganism. Thus, should be attractive to you.

Is the following paragraph not a major drawback to veganism and thus a good critisism? The first four paragraphs of the Crit section must be "POV" then. Many vegans don't find the fact that reading labels, contacting companies for information, and foregoing a number of things that may include cruelty to animals, is a big enough inconveinience as to decide not to be. Many vegans are willing to go the extra step and deal with it gracefully. This is not a major drawback for many vegans.

Also, many of those who practice veganism have felt discrimination from individuals, employers and media assaults. According to a British article: After 60 years of ridicule, Vegan is the New Black. In other words, in the face of massive dicrimination of vegans for the last 60 years, it is finally gaining popularity and better understanding than ever before. [[5]]

Skinwalker, do you spell vegetarian vegitarian?

Chow, Fleshstomper 24:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't catch that spelling mistake. Thanks for mentioning it. It's been corrected in the article.

As for the "massive discrimination of vegans" stuff, shouldn't it be "massive discrimination *against* vegans"? Seriously, though, it's really, really offensive to compare perceived discrimination against vegans against 400+ years of documented enslavement and prejudice against people of African descent. Vegans are not economically marginalized in society. They are not ghettoized and forced to live in segregated communities. Vegans predominantly come from white, middle-class backgrounds where they have received little if any experience with race-based discrimination. To compare discrimination against vegans to discrimination against black people trivializes their protracted struggle against real and systematized discrimination.

Finally, why do you assume I'm anti-vegan? Skinwalker 01:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't, yet you lend yourself to it so well since you can't even spell vegitarian. What are you mysterious one? It is an enigma that I am dying to know. but lets stay on point here. I want some source material.

Finally, why do you assume I'm not African American? Big up to Brooklyn, Fleshstomper 2:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Discrimination is discrimination, my friend, no matter how protracted it is. Perception is reality. I'm sure you'll be able to to pick up the obscure reference here. Your a smart and quick smartstomper. No.

WishinWhite 4:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The following paragraph is part of the critisism that a certain percentage of vegans/vegetarians have been associated with eating disorders. Obviously there is a lot a non-linkable reference here. Could we have a good bit of corroboration on this or perhaps even some new articles? I have read that eating disorder rates are comperable in vegan/vegetarian/omni. There has to b solid reference here.

"Criticisms have also focused on the prevalence of eating disorders within the vegan and vegetarian communities. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders often predate the adoption of a vegan/vegetarian diet (O'Connor et al., Medical Journal of Australia, 1987;147(11-12):540-2). Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder. Studies of college women show that a significantly higher proportion of women who do not consume animal protein than those who do are likely to display distorted eating attitudes and beliefs (Klopp et al., Journal of the Am. Dietitic Assoc., 2003;103(6):745-7). Also, self-reported teenage vegans and vegetarians are more likely to be dissatisfied with their bodies and to be involved in both healthy and unhealthy weight control practices (Perry et al., Journal of Adolescent Health, 2001;29(6):406-16)." ::Chow, Fleshstomper 1:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why articles from peer-reviewed nutritional and medical journals are not "solid references". I admit that they're not linked at the moment, but anyone can do a PubMed search (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed) and read the article abstracts. I will try and fix the linking problems soon, but I don't see what the problem with this paragraph is, unless you are trying to suppress its content. I clearly stated that eating disorders "predate the adoption of vegan/vegetarian diets" and made it NPOV, without adding original research. Skinwalker 01:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am surely not trying to suppress content as to your assertation. I simply would like to see data backing it, that' all Skinnywalger. That is wonderful that you will link all of your sources in some way. Can't wait to see it. by the way, do you make the assumption that vegans have higher eating disorder rates?

Let's go ahead and reference studies on this website [[6]] that conclude vegans have a higher incedence of anorexia anorexia nervosa Fleshstomper 1:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am reviewing informaton from great veggie resource subsequently Everyone should take a look at this, thanks to Skinwalker. Let's see if we can finally link veganism to anorexia...nope no data. Are you sure it's there Skinwalker, as there is a lot of vegan/vegetarians in many studies, but not all, that conclude much of the world vegan/vegetarian population doesn't heed enough attention on B12. Some populations do however. HMMM. I would like to see some concrete data on vegan rates of anorexia nervosa. Simple enough. Find it!!!

Yeah, Fleshstomper 2:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, since I am black and a vegan, I have faced a level of discrimination I thought was non-existant in the U.S. today. I don't think it is overly offensive that I am discriminated by many caucasions as well as African Americans, as this is the path I've chosen. It is not a far stretch when we discuss any issue of discrimination in any level (it is alive and well), as well it is fact that there are numerous reports of vegan descrimination despite socio-economic statis or otherwise. I would hope that you would at least understand we are not "black people" but more appropriatly of African American desent. FIY I am still not finding any concrete "peer reviewed data." I must be a stupid Vigger :::Yeah, Fleshstomper 2:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You negative and taunting attidute is not helping you, and neither is your sockpuppetry (multiple IPs and signing comments with several nonexistent user names). I gave references that anyone can look up either in the cited journals or by *properly* using pubmed. Do you know how to look up scientific paper abstracts? Did you RTFM on article searching on pubmed? If you can rationally build a consensus on this talk page for removing my edits, go ahead. If that happens, fine, I won't complain. Otherwise, I consider this exchange pointless. I get the distinct feeling that I have unwittingly fed a troll. Skinwalker 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Me "attidute" as you say may not be helping me. My appologies Skinwalker. Your reference to troll is ironic and rather humorous in the context here. By the way, I didn't need to "read the f-ing manual" on article searching on pubmed, thanks a lot. Maybe you need to RTFM on linking because I have your link right here. But, let's stop patronizing each other and get to the bottom of this. By the way I will not make another change on the article itself until I establish a static IP on my router and create a login. I will however give a linkable reference for someone to post in the article and get rid of this moronic claim that vegans have higher anorexic rates. Actually, it should be removed immediatly. The article main article I believe you are refering to is [[7]]. Another you refer to is [[8]] which has no reference to anorexia and the only reference to vegan simply gives a definition to vegan. The third article you refer to is [[9]] which also as absolutely no reference to "vegans".

There is absolutly no reference in any of these studies backing up what your claim "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder."

For example, the first article referenced here states: A retrospective study was carried out of 116 consecutive patients with anorexia nervosa to ascertain the extent and nature of vegetarianism in this population. Sixty-three (54.3%) patients were found to be avoiding red meat. In only four (6.3%) of these did meat avoidance predate the onset of their anorexia nervosa. Of the remaining 59 patients (best termed pseudovegetarians), 25 (42.4%) patients continued to avoid red meat by the end of treatment. Pseudovegetarianism was associated with a longer duration of anorexia nervosa, a lower weight during the course of their illness, and living away from the parental home. The reintroduction of red meat into the diet was more likely if vegetarianism were of a short duration.

Pseudo by the way means fake. I want data on vegan rates of anorexia. If this is your source material in which you were so elusive (obviously it is since you use similar wording on "meat avoidance predate the onset of their anorexia nervosa"), it indicates a patent attempt to subvert, with false data and week reference, the integrity of the Vegan article on Wikipedia. I don't believe after this you should have much of a say anywhere on this page. Once again let my reiterate, you knowingly provided false data Skinwalker. What is your responce to being deceptive. Skinwalkers Pal - 29 November 2005

Bias

The section about health and veganism is absolutely flawed. There is for example no evidence whatsoever that meat is generally unhealthy - to the contrary. This article needs to be marked with a bias warning, it is a shame as it is to be part of an encyclopedia.

There is however, massive amounts of evidence proving that all of the hormones and antibiotics that are present in meat that has come from Factory-Farmed cows, are extremely unhealthy. This makes said meat unhealthy. We shall make the article much clearer. Canaen 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that, this whole veganism page seems more of an advertism for veganism then a neutral article.

RESPONSE: Go take a health class at your community college. The human body has *adapted* to meat-eating, but we're not built for it (our intestines are too long, our saliva is acidic, etc), and therefore obtaining nutrients from vegan food is preferable to obaning the same nutrients in the same qualities from meat, not only due to the cholesterol and natural hormones present in meat, but also due to the added chemicals and growth hormones.

The human body has *adapted* to meat-eating

http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

Indeed, thousands of years of adapting (evolution perhaps?). Humans have always been omnivores, hunters scavengers if you will. Given that Chimpanzees are omnivorous, you would have a pretty good case for at elast 4 million. Is Gorilla hunting documented? I've heard rumours but never seen anything conclusive. If you could find that, you could easily double your timescale. (16/05/2005)

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo, only common chimps are really omnivorous, whereas pygmy chimpanzees or bonobos are primarily herbivorous. Given the minor anatomical and genetic differences between the two chimp species, and yet the relatively large difference in diets I'm not sure it makes any sense to use chimps as evidence that humans(with our more pronounced differences from chimps) were omnivorous throughout prehistory.

Might I even be so bold to say that veganism is unnatural?? Why you ask??? Ok......I'll give you a hint and another HINT!

Veganism is not unnatural; many humans, while still in their natural states, practice Veganism. Jainism is one example. Go back to Hippocrates, who's miracle cure for almost any ailment was a diet free of Milk and Meat. We've been doing it for a long time. What we haven't been doing for a long time is producing animals, as opposed to hunting them. Humans in their most natural states gathered nuts, berries, and other edible plant matter, and hunted whatever animals they could, when they wanted to prove a point, or were lucky.Canaen 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

While not necessarily negating that theory, it has also been suggested that consuming vegetables with small amounts of dirt on them (which is how they most likely would have been consumed during most of human history) could provide enough b12 for a healthy human diet. It may also be that washing vegatables is "unnatural".

Go take a health class at Harvard

Strange, I think you made an enormous typo, don't you mean PETA College?

Check out an article on the natural human diet http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

Consumption of meat has been linked to heart disease, obesity, and some forms of cancer. The most effective treatment for a person with heart disease is a switch to a low-sodium, low-fat, vegan diet. Most reputable nutritionist' advocate a vegetarian diet, check the Physician's Committee for Responible Medicine (PCRM) if you dispute any of these comments.--Baumstev 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Physician's Committee for Responible Medicine is group that has been widely criticized for being associated with PETA. It is not a good source for use in an unbias article. Stop using goveg.com as a source for information either as it is obviously a pro-vegan website. Most scientists agree man is omnivorous. Man can not digest cellulose, a prime component in plants. (I never eat plants, especially grass with all that nasty cellulose, they're yucky) Just look at this and tell me man is a herbivore. [10] To say that man is a herbivore is nothing but propaganda created by vegetarians to convert man into a vegetarian creature. Evidence shows that people were hunter-gathers before the advent of agriculture. The head of the PCRM is not a nutritionist, he is a psychiatrist. He has written on nutrition but is really not a nutritionist. He don't know shit.

? ?, ?, 2005 (UTC)

Goveg.com is not used enough as direct a source in the article, it should however. The Natural Human Diet article on goveg.com, by the way, has pleanty of source material backing it, as does the rest of the site. Just because you don't agree with PETA's marketing aproach doesn't make it a non-realiable source. There are pleanty of well educated and successful vegans (not associated with PETA) in the world, including scientists, docters, nutritionists, athletes, etc.

AntiIdleguy 15:18, 28 November, 2005 (UTC)

Similar diets and lifestyles

I've split the latter portion of "Vegan cuisine" off into this heading because it seems to be an entirely seperate subject. Though most Anarcho-punks do indeed cook somewhat distinctly in comparison to those of Le Cordon Bleu (spelling?), their motivations don't really fit under "cuisine." Canaen 05:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To say that all anarcho-punks are vegan/vegetarian is a gross exaggeration. - FrancisTyers 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. I don't think that anyone tried to say that, however. If you are referring to my comment above, I was referring to the commonly-held belief that most anarcho-punks don't have the most refined eating habits. Canaen 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitions

Hey, TonyClarke, not trying to pick on you, but I noticed you changed seafood to sea animals. However, seafood != sea food. I mean, by definition (see Merriam-Webster for example) seafood is "edible marine fish and shellfish." I think this is people's understanding of the word as well and is more common than "sea animals" so it seems using this definition should be allowed. Doesn't need to be a big fight I wouldn't think. If no one changes it back I probably will, but I'll leave it for comments before I do it. Dictionary definitions should be allowed in most cases, I would guess. Superclear 22:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Though it may be more common, it is not neccessarily accurate, and it's definitely not neutral. It assumes that because it is possible to eat the animal, the animal must be considered food. I could eat a human, a lion, a wolf, an elephant if I wanted. However, I wouldn't call you daughter "LandFood."

"Sea Food" makes implications about the animals that are definitely POV. I could write a dictionary if I wanted, and fill it with "facts" that Nazi researchers "discovered," heavily influenced by their ideology. However, it wouldn't be NPOV, and this encycolpedia is for NPOV information. Canaen 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend, but seafood (one word) is a definition. You may not like the definition, but it exists independently of your politics. I agree not every word is defined so that its meaning is exactly how it sounds, but to keep NPOV we should try to use standards when possible. I also would agree that if vegans commonly began using the term seafood to include sea plants, it would be legitimate to point that out in the article. That seems to not be the case as of now, but in the future who knows? No definition is sacred, but it must be a verifiable use. Superclear 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why not edit it to " edible marine fish and shellfish " which is non-contentious and more specifically accurate? Sea animals does seem to be just as uncomfortable as seafood. This raises interesting cultural and linguistic issues as seaweed or sea vegetables seem to have been only recently removed from out of the definition seafood but yet traditionally they would certainly have been included as seafood and still are in cultures bound to the sea and more natural environments. The definition of " edible marine fish and shellfish " is the weaker and more recent, and dare I say, a " meatocentric " one.

Sure, I don't see a problem with using the definition. We should just be careful letting emotions get carried away when some of these things are involved. Suppose the word "whitefood" had come to mean and be defined in all dictionaries as "potatoes." It wouldn't be saying all white food is potatoes, just that a word - whitefood - somewhere, independent of how it was originally formed, has a well defined meaning. This brings to mind a recent discussion I've had where some with a creationist who objected to the word evolution as defined in the dictionary; I didn't make up the definition! I would hope that, in general, legitimately verifiable definitions and styles would be left to the original editor. However, if it is really important to vegans to not use the word seafood, I think that it doesn't hurt anyone to use the definition it has been changed to. Superclear 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I noticed someone changed all the headings from being capitalized, as is the norm in most style manuals, to only lead word caps. It is completely fine to lower case the later, non-leading words, but it is an unnecessary change ... I wouldn't even consider changing it back. I'm far from an editing pro ;-) From the Chicago Manual of Style (14th edition): "In regular title capitalization, also known as headline style, the first and last words and all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinating conjunctions (if, because, as, that, etc.) are capitalized. Articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title..." I have heard some people advocate the style that they were changed to, also, though the counter arguement in style manuels is usually that headings are not sentences (no punctation) and are rather, titles. Please forgive a totally uninteresting comment. Superclear 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings): Capitalise the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations". This has been discussed several times before on the Manual of Style talk page. Vclaw 17:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Then, whoever changed it did the right thing. Thanks for the heads up on wikipedia rules! Superclear 18:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Though this seems rather irrelevant as the term "Seafood" is no longer in use in the article, "standard" definitions aren't always NPOV. "Nigger" was a "standard" word used in the U.S. in say, the 1920s, but it sure as hell wasn't neutral. Wikipedia should strive for neutrality over Standardization. Canaen 03:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hooray for 30k

The heroic anon works his wonder to pull this article within the Wiki 30k limit according to the guidelines!

I have put in a lot of work to remove the numerous repetitions, punctuation errors and unnecessary conditionals. Note that in general there is no need for a comma before an and.

Now, there are a few of you both pro-vegan but mostly anti-vegan that are not going to like this but it makes for a better Wiki. It is a good time for less equally more. And, yes, those daft environmental criticisms and Beef Association references got the chop.

Now look, this is meant to be merely an encyclopedia. Not a discussion forum. Not a flame war nor a place to make personal or collective insults and not a personal website.

If you want to discuss the matter further or grind your own personal axe, go start your own webpage and if the sources are good enough we will link to it from here. There is not the room for all and everything.

In the meanwhile, enjoy your veggie-burgers.

anon 06:59, 22 November 2005 (GMT)

I'd appreciate if you stop the vandalism. Trying to pass it as pruning the article to fit the 30K mark isn't fooling anyone. I've responded clearly in a previous heading above. I think you should read it before you engage in needless edit wars. Tx Idleguy 13:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sumbission is removed again.

I perfectly welcome an educated environmental critic of vegetarian and vegan diets but, for the reasons given to you by many contributors, your is not complete as yet. Using soya beans destined for livestock feed is not a good example against the vegetarian diet and neither soya beans nor even rice are synonymous with vegetarian and veganism. Nor is the discussion of the merits of agricultural techiniques.

As a self-professed gun loving warrior, I think it is clear where you are coming from and what you are doing here is trying to debase a subject matter you find personally challenging. But to be honest, you are not even doing that well.

Please stop. This one is for the Brahmins not the Kshatriya!

If you think you can come up with an educated argument, develop it elsewhere and then have it peer reviewed.

anon 14:34, 22 November 2005 (GMT)

If this is an encyclopedia, then removing the critisisms is clearly not NPOV.The Scurvy Eye 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

I don't see any consensus on this page for large-scale removal of content due to size concerns. There is a documented process for dealing with this situation as outlined in Wikipedia:Article size. The content removals should stop immediately. --Viriditas 11:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cite for contested statistic

Do we have a cite that actually contests this statement, "A commonly cited (and contested) statistic is that it takes 14 times more land area to support a meat eater than a vegetarian.". Otherwise I feel the paranthetical note should be removed, and will do it myself once I can get some time to research possibile articles that contest the statistic, or someone provides a cite. Shawn M. O'Hare 19:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

While the number is fairly uncertain due to the ambiguous nature of the statement, the general principle of an approximately 10x inefficiency is extremely commonly accepted... Hmm. --Joehaer 03:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Consumer Veganism

I removed the statement

"Some have criticized the classist nature of "consumerist veganism" (that which is reliant on processed foods), arguing that a vegan diet is much more common among those with class privilege."

The same can likely be said about the diet of any developed nation. Specifically, the criticisms deal with consumerism in general, and just happens to focus on a small subset of veganism, thus it is not really relevant to general veganism. The vegan diet as a whole, being just a restriction on the set of all foods, is not inherently reliant on processed foods, but the statement almost suggests this. If someone feels the need to put the statement back in, I suggest adding "However, consumerist veganism is a small subset of veganism proper, which has no inherent reliance on processed foods." or something more clever. Though then the statement just becomes superfluous. Shawn M. O'Hare 19:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

archiving needed

The talk page has become bloated and it is time for an archive. One of the admins can archive the page. Tx Idleguy 08:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can archive the talk page. I'm trying to do it now, but I don't like to archive any discussion that has been contributed to in the past two weeks. And since people are still responding to comments made months ago, it's difficult to find discussion topics ready to be archived. --Angr (t·c) 00:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe refactor the headings? Although this may be a problem, people probably don't like their comments re-ordering. Could you archive sections of the Talk page? (i.e. sections that haven't been contributed to very recently?) - FrancisTyers 00:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I did. I archived those sections that had no dated comment later than November 19. If someone contributed to a section more recently than that but didn't date their comment, it's their loss. --Angr (t·c) 13:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wool and Idleguy.

Yesterday I fixed part of the article listing Wool as a by-product of slaughtered animals. Then, Idleguy reverted to his misinformation. Wool is not a byproduct of anything. Wool production is an industry in its own right, and sheep are raised specifically for wool production. When sheep become too old to produce wool, they are sent to slaughter. Wool is not taken from slaughtered sheep. Yes, this is out of place. However, I cannot just post this on Idleguy's talk page, as it would go unnoticed, and he would be free to ignore it. We cannot confine things like these to User talk pages; it just doesn't work. Issues like this must be brought to the attention of the community. Idleguy appears to have nothing to contribute to this article. All he has done is make trouble with his bias ideas. There has been far too much controversy over his actions, and I suggest something be done to prevent him from continuing this. However, I am not experienced enough in dealing with these issues within the Wikipedia, and thus suggest that someone who has dealt with similar matters on the Wikipedia take further action, after an attempt to reach some sort of consensus. Canaen 02:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean this revert then I suggest a thorough reading for you'll find that I actually reverted to a more neutral version that included wool unlike your edit. Infact Angr did us a favour and removed wool for it was self contradicting. And rightly so. So it begs the question: What are you really against? The truth or an editor who won't compromise on facts? Idleguy 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, you reverted to a version that referred to wool as a by-product of a slaughtered animal, which it isn't. It's neither a by-product nor taken from slaughtered animals. The self-contradictory sentence I fixed was "Ideals commonly held by vegans... include sustainable agricultural systems that exclude, or make use of animal by-products such as blood...". Exclude or make use of is self-contradictory. --Angr (t·c) 13:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "compromise on facts" is an oxymoron. I'm not sure if you're trying to say anything, or just make me read incomprehensible blather. If you mean referring to what Vegans view as torture as "caring for" when you use the word "neutral," I suggest you go to http://dictionary.reference.com and look up the word. The Meat and Dairy industries are in place to produce products, and nothing else. That is what, at their simplest levels, industries do.

The sentence "although a conscientious non-vegan can sometimes find uses for most animal by-products." has no relevance whatsoever in the economies we're dealing with in these articles. When you go to the store, there's no bin marked "extras," there's packaged meat, Jello, and Dog Food. ::The consientious consumer has no control over what get wasted; that's in the hands of the industry. That sentence isn't staying until you prove it.

Write more clearly, and stop irrelevent, false information. I'm Against many things. This is not the proper discussion forum for them. Canaen 03:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately many editors like you are Eurocentric with a systemic bias which reflects in your editing. I decided to substitute produce with "cared for" (admittedly not entirely neutral) since cattle in many parts of the world is not necessarily raised for eating and your underlying assumptions that they are always "produced" for meat is false. A better word would be "reared" since that would cover livestock produced for meat and also for other purposes like ploughing, transport etc. Idleguy 07:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, no, they are not always produced for meat. That's not anything I've assumed. However, the purpose of Humans keeping domesticated animals is to recieve some benefit from it. You can't argue that point. Not many (although, yes, I bet some) people keep domesticated Cows for companionship. The human has to gain something if they're going to use the resources needed to raise a cow. The entire concept of Veganism, as it applies to our Enlgish-Speaking readers, is a very Western-centric idea in the first place. No, Factory Farming isn't very common among Australian Aboriginees. However, that has no relevance at all when we're talking about the Factory Farming that does exist very obviously in Industrial and Service economies. Just as you've pointed out that conditions in the U.S. aren't the same in rural India, the reverse is true.

This part of the article has nothing to do with people who keep cattle for work purposes. It's about energy in terms of food. The point is that you waste a hell of a lot of energy when you raise cattle for food, especially when compared to raising plants for food.

I'm still not sure if you're simply ignorant and confused, or if you are consicously trying to muddle the article.

I will agree that "Rearing," or "Raising" is a better term to be used when it should cover the livestock that you mention, however this is not a case for that. Never, ever, are domesticated animals truly "cared for," and I will make it known in this article.

Maybe in your country you don't have a choice, but if so that should be made clear. Some of us in the world do have a choice. Should we rename this article "Veganism of people in the developed world who only have access to factory farmed food"? Furthermore, you presume that all meat must come pre-packaged, if you had ever kept animals you would know this is untrue. - FrancisTyers 13:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In Industrial and Service economies (the U.S.A., Canada, developed Mexico, Europe, Australia, South Africa, non-rural China, Japan; this area is growing larger and larger as the world "develops," making less and less room for traditional agriculture), Factory Farming is the most prevalent way of producing animal products. In this English Wikipedia, directed to the English-Speaking World (U.S.A., Canada, Britain, Australia, South Africa, everywhere else in the commonwealth, many other places, most of which are either Industrial or Service economies), we should be focusing on Veganism in these places. Perhaps a seperate section should be devoted to Veganism in non-developed sections of the world, and Veganism in History should've been one by now. Hopefully this will settle it, and stop people from trying to confuse readers. I do not presume what you say; I simply was leaving out completely irrelevant information. I will make everything a lot clearer soon enough. Canaen 03:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be predicting the future. I don't see why systematic bias should be applied in favour of the "developed" world (last time I checked a majority of the worlds population were in the developing world) and leave out information about other countries/cultures. This is an encyclopædia not a guide to the First world. It should be also noted that in case you weren't aware, English is an official language of India. - FrancisTyers 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Eco-footprint counters

Have removed the links to these external sites as I understood that we are trying to keep the links section as lean and on-topic as possible. Whilst personally I agree that such calculators are useful I don't think that they belong on this page. quercus robur 12:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Eating Disorder Section

I reverted anon's reworking of the eating disorder section, as I felt that his version was needlessly POV and gave a distorted view of the science on vegan/vegetarianism and eating disorders. Does anyone (other than anon) have strong feelings one way or another about the version I reverted to? Thanks, Skinwalker 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This info probably needs to be put on the Vegetarianism page, with a note on this page that the same problems apply. I don't see anything in any of the sources that mentions "veganism" explicitly. Agree with reverting the bit about "maternal..."

Because of the limited sample size, it was not possible to assess dietary patterns of vegans—individuals who reported no animal products in their recalls.

That should be re-added if the study is being quoted from. Although you don't seem to quote from it. My biggest problem with this is that the sources all seem to point to "vegetarianism". Presumably any kind of non-standard "wierd" diet would be a good excuse for anorexia?

All of that was pretty neither-here-nor there. So, If the source doesn't explicitly mention veganism, it shouldn't be used on this page. By all means add it to the Vegetarianism page and make a reference to it. Anons edits were POV and irrelevant, but then so were yours :) - FrancisTyers 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only does it not refer to "veganism", it only refers to pseudovegetarians and self-described vegetarians. The source here even states: "The reliance of dietary surveys on self-reported dietary information presents a major limitation of this study and an opportunity for bias in the results." Idleguyspal 4 December 2005 (UTC)

(following discussion has been moved from Skinwalker edits)

Skinwalker re-inserted false reference to his claims: "Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder."

I rewrote it but it, Skinwalker then reverted it to his POV and he continues to misquote the evidence suggested in his source material. This is serious and others need to take a close look at this. Here is my rewrite of the paragraph which he claims POV:

There has been noted concern in studies on eating disorders within the self-described vegetarian communities. However, the only direct reference to veganism in the following sources states "Because of the limited sample size, it was not possible to assess dietary patterns of vegans." Another states "The reliance of dietary surveys on self-reported dietary information presents a major limitation of this study and an opportunity for bias in the results. [11]Although there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders often predate the adoption of a psuedovegetarian diet. Pseudovegetarianism was associated with a longer duration of anorexia nervosa, a lower weight during the course of their illness, and living away from the parental home. [12]. A study self-reported vegetarian college women may be more likely to display disordered eating attitudes and behaviors than nonvegetarians.[13].

This rewrite quotes perfectly, and is NPOV, the information contained the source material. True, written this way it invalidates his claim, but it also is 100 percent accurate to the source material. Idleguyspal. 4 December 2005

Your wording is better I agree, but could you define "Pseudovegetarianism"? You say pretty much what Skinwalker says but substituting "pseudovegetarian" for "veganism", which is fair enough considering his quoted source doesn't use it. - FrancisTyers 20:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

His sources refer specifically to self-described vegetarians and psuedovegetarians. Another word for this is pesco-vegetarian or even flexitarian, although this wording is not used in these studies. Vegetarian gives a better breakdown on vegetarian subcatagories. Just read the source material to see what I am talking about here. You will find two direct references to vegan. The only study that refers directly to "vegans" gives a defintion of veganism and later states that data was insufficient to assertain dietery habits of vegans. This is a simple matter of verification of source material. Idleguyspal 21:15, 4 December

Aren't all vegetarians "self-described vegetarians"? ;) Regardless this is not for the Veganism article if its talking about Vegetarianism. - FrancisTyers 21:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There are pretty specific definitions of vegetarian and it's subcatorgories. Reference to the exact catagory only lends credibility to the subject matter and secures it as undeniable NPOV. Idleguyspal 21:29, 4 December

I don't see anything on the Vegetarianism article about Pseudovegetarianism. It refers to Semi-vegetarianism, but then on the Semi-vegetarianism page there is also no reference to pseudovegetarianism. Does the article being quoted from define the term? - FrancisTyers 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Psudovegetarian is the term given by one of the studies sited here.[14] Maybe it should be added to the vegetarian page as a proper term since there is a valid source here. This source seems to indicate pseudovegetarians are avoiders of only red meat. Please review the source material here otherwise we could talk in circles for days. The definition of pseudo is: 1. False; deceptive; sham: pseudoscience. or 2. Apparently similar: pseudocoel. By this definition pseudovegetarian is either false vegetarian or possible vegetarian. I found only one other refence on a websearch so it looks as if it is not a usable term unless we reference and give credibility to newly defined word. It might be a listed as a word in a technical dictionary of some kind or another. Study is needed here obviously. Idleguyspal 21:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that search too and only came up with a couple of hits. If it was used, it would need to be qualified as a neologism and we'd have to find a concrete definition. I agree with your suggestion that in this article it seems to mean "avoiders of red meat", although it could mean either of the two definitions you've given. - FrancisTyers 22:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We could reasonably extrapolate that pseudovegetarianism is a subcatagory of semi-vegetarian. There is a page that does exist on [semi-vegetarianism] and this source material seems perfect in that context, not vegan however. I don't see any misquoted reference on many other pages. Defining morality is a very charged issue and seems to breed a certain amount of ulterior political motive in the edit war of these and similar pages, don't you agree? This is most certainly been used on both sides here. Therefore to maintain NPOV on this page sources need, at very least, to be referenced correctly. Idleguyspal 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a moral argument although I agree that sources should be referenced correctly. I don't think yo u can define someone as being moral by their choice of diet. In regard to the environmental questions, as far as I'm concerned the people who cut all non-human animals out of their diet have no higher ground than those who choose to eat non-human animals. It is possible to be both an environmentally (un)friendly vegan, and an environmentally (un)friendly meat-eater. There is no dichotomy between vegans (who are environmentally friendly) and meat-eaters (who aren't). :) - FrancisTyers 22:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree on all points here. I believe this section on "anorixia in vegans" should be removed (or perhaps moved to semi-vegetarian or vegetarain, although these studies give little to no reference to vegetarian as well as vegan) or rewritten to correctly reference it, don't you agree? I think the rest of this discussion could be in Eating Disorder Section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Veganism#Eating_Disorder_Section. Idleguyspal 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. - FrancisTyers 23:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to paraphrase our discussion here on the Eating Disorder Section and specifically agree on a consensus. Idleguyspal 23:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Environment Section

Environmental section revisited

Regarding the comments about the environment in the "Criticism and controversy" section - these charges may be true, but how are they directly related to people being vegans? They are more of a testament about bad farming practices and environmental concerns. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The article talks about environmental considerations in this section Veganism#Environmental_considerations from a purely western notion. I decided to show that in the majority of the world, these environmental aspects hold little to no ground and that in fact it's quite the opposite. There is a lot of resentment among the educated and the scientific community that veganism/vegetarianism is being portrayed as being environmentally better in all places around the world, which is frankly not true. The environmental considerations and its criticisms are thus two sides of the same coin and in Wikipedia both have to be portrayed to get the full picture. --Idleguy 04:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The other option would be to add a {{globalize}} tag until more information is found from non-US sources, see my comment above. - FrancisTyers 00:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Environment Section factually incorrect???

The environment section is plainly being dominated by an anti vegan propagandist called "idleguy" who lists "guns" as one of his favourite things. The poor grasp of facts displayed in this section is breathtaking.

I added more data to the section, and our anti vegan gun lover simply changed it back. I have written him a letter challenging him to put up a factual basis for his arguments and as yet have recieved no response. Here is a selection from it :

"Your comment that the production soybeans is encouraging the destruction of the Amazon is correct. Everything you state from that point, that vegans eat lots of soybeans so meat eaters are more environmentally sound, is demonstrably false. A 2003 World Bank Study found in Brazil's Amazon "recent deforestation in significant parts of the region is basically caused by medium- and large-scale cattle ranching". The WWF who you quote as your source, in their Impacts of Soybean report plainly state "The market for soybean products is mostly driven by the livestock feed industry". So do you deny the evidence of the WWF when you mistakenly think it supports your case, but ignore it when it is shown to actually be directly against what you would like to believe? As for your using Greenpeace to give creedence to your argument, I have been a member and volunteer with Greenpeace for years, so if you would like the official position on this matter, which I am sure you don't because it won't agree with what you are saying, I will be happy to provide it.

The assertion in the criticisms section which you removed my reply to, that rice is the leading cause of methane output, also goes against the EPA figures. These figures show that7 rice produces 2 to 3 times less methane worlwide than animal products. If you actually read the report that you quote as backing up your assertions, you would find that the very first table used in the report Table 1 lists Enteric Fermentation (mostly cattle) and animal waste as combined producing well over twice as much methane as rice production. Even this table is old, if you read the IPCC report it states "For instance, intensive studies on emissions from rice agriculture have substantially improved these emissions estimates (Ding and Wang, 1996; Wang and Shangguan, 1996). Further, integration of emissions over a whole growth period (rather than looking at the emissions on individual days with different ambient temperatures) has lowered the estimates of CH4 emissions from rice agriculture from about 80 Tg/yr to about 40 Tg/yr (Neue and Sass, 1998; Sass et al., 1999).".

As for your assertion that rice is damaging because it uses 5,000 litres of water per kilo of grain, government studies in Australia show that a kilo of beef uses between 50,000 to 100,000 litres. Even the article you cite as evidence is talking about the increased use of more efficient methods of rice production which halve the water consumption you selectively quote from the article."

Personally I don't even understand why most of this sort of anti vegan garbage isn't in a "flesh eaters" section. If you want to make an argument about how great murdering defenseless animals and keeping them in factory farms is, create a section and contribute to it. Create your own anti-veganism page, just don't screw up what should be an informative page for everyone else.

People eat meat out of habit and greed, for no higher reason than that they like it. Any pretenses they have that this is some thought out rational, ethical position, come to after considering all the facts, is complete intellectual dishonesty.

Cameron Green

Cameron, proselytizing about veganism and demonizing meat-eaters isn't going to help your case, and that's not what this page is for. This page is to discuss the article, not to debate the merits of veganism. If you believe that the article contains demonstrably incorrect figures or statements then feel free to edit accordingly, including sources for any material you substitute. Michaelbluejay 04:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

However, his first and primary point is valid; I don't see any criticism from French Corsairs on the Royal Navy's page, and I believe that Catholics and Lutherans both have their own articles devoted to thier religions. If someone earnestly wants to create a non-bias, factual article filled with whatever benefits to eating meat that they can find, then they have a right to it. However, an article on Veganism is not the place to say "OMG! VEGANS SUCK SO HARD! I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY'RE SO STUPID!" As noted above, personal blogs exist for a reason. Canaen 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just checked the pro-life article and it includes rebuttals from the pro-choice side of things when certain ethical imlpications are made by the pro-life view. A simple example is that the pro-life article contains the following sentence.

Proponents for the usage of "anti-abortion" cite that "pro-life" is a loaded term implying the negative opposite "pro-death" or "anti-life" instead of "pro-choice."

I think this shows that the pro-life article or the "Catholic" article or Royal Navy article does not get carte blanche to advocate for their cause if advocating for their cause results in implications of wrongdoing or unethical behaviour on their opponents. That the term "pro-life" impies that to support abortion means you are "pro-death", requires some rebuttal from the "pro-choice" point of view. This is exactly what I'm seeing in the veganism article. There are bits and pieces of text in the article that implie unethical behaviour on the part of people who are not vegans, that they support "cruelty to animals" and "exploitation of animals", and that is sufficiently biased to require that the opposite poitn of view at least get mentioned in order to present their side fo the story. FuelWagon 15:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To Mr Green: I'm sorry I couldn't respond immediately as my PC was down during this time.

Let me start by saying that the current veganism article talks primarily about animal meat processed only in the developed world. Your talk about Australian beef also is the same path. Here's some news. In many countries in the developing world like India (which has the world's highest cattle population) cows are not bred mainly for the meat but for their milk. Now each cow produces anywhere from 5 - 20 litres per day. multiply that by the number of productive years in a milch animal and you'll understand that it's not just about a kilo of meat as you project it but tonnes of milk produced in its lifetime. Talking about the farm animals, the bulls and buffaloes are put to multiple purposes in such agriculture oriented economies. They are used in ploughing the fields, transporting people and produce through bullock carts etc. So merely stating that they are raised only to produce meat is also nothing but selective presentation of the same data from a purely western view of the world. Infact the combined uses of the animals far outweigh the problems, contrary to your thinking. The western world my dear friend is NOT the whole world. India has the highest heads of cattle in the world and is the world`s leading producer of carabeef and you would be astounded at the waste that they thrive on. They eat everything from regular paddy and other plants unfit for human consumption to discarded vegetables, waste including sometimes paper. The article if anything currently assumes that animals throughout the world are fed produce exclusively grown for them. The manure is used as a natural fertilizer and so doesn`t produce soil contamination or food residue to the extent produced by chemical fertilizers. Sure, they (manure) do contribute to a miniscule amount of overall methane production, but not greater than the burning of fossil fuel.

Rice emissions have been studied by many including IRRI and has been acknowledged as the leading source of methane gas and one source has been provided within the wikipedia article itself. The reference which you claim to show that the reverse is true, is with all due respects leaving out the "wetland" part which has since been mainly converted to rice cultivation. [15] is yet another newer source that explains clearly what really is the leading contributor of rice emissions.

While it is true that cattle ranching is one of the leading culprits, to project it solely as the main reason is false. Subsistence farming, logging, largescale intensive farming and "development" are, combined take a larger toll according to almost all sources in the amazon alone. Now that you want to expand, here's news that'll shock you. In tropics, the major reason for deforestation is the farming of such pristine forests and not as otherwise projected. [16] will show that they are the primary reasons for deforestation. Thus if one takes the whole world the cause is clear: agriculture takes the first place followed by animals and then others. [17] is another one that gives a global perspective. In fact the article should reflect not just the amazon but also a global perspective exposing that farming is the main culprit worldwide and I'll make changes accordingly.

I believe WWF despite their good intentions still point to only one reason for soybean production. That they are used for cattle feed. A less biased sourced would tell you that soybean contents cannot be consumed entirely by ruminants or humans alone. Both contribute to its production and in sheer dollar terms, the human consumption of soybean is higher than that goes to animal feed. [18] shows the varied uses not mentioned by Greenpeace or WWF If you cannot stomach the fact that your tofu or soy sauce comes from a rainforest being destroyed, then no amount of data can convince you otherwise. Sorry. The fact that I love guns does not inherently label me as a propagandist. I'm just here to correct facts .

Your line "People eat meat out of habit and greed, for no higher reason than that they like it" is a sweeping statement that intends to pass value judgements on entire populations few of whom you have had real contact with. A trip to Africa and Asia should clear many of those misconceived notions of how the world works.

Cheers Idleguy 18:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your line "A trip to Africa and Asia should clear many of those misconceived notions of how the world works" is a sweeping statement that intends to pass value judgements on entire populations few of whom you have had real contact with. More than likely, Many vegans have gone to Africa and Asia and many other third world countries. Do you see how childish this is Idleguy? Don't you have anything better to do?

Cheers Anti-Idleguy 26 November 2005

There is plenty of source material out there on the subject of the environmental degradation due to inefficient agricultural practices. In fact, livestock takes a lions share of it (directly or indirectly). I would like to compile a list of reputable sources, with the help of those interested in getting down the facts (vegan and non-vegan). Many vegans who factor environmental concern in their decision have seen statistics on meat to grain ratios, percentages of water usage in livestock production, percentages of land use in livestock prodution, comparative energy usage, top soil loss, fecal contamination of water supply, and even starvation rates.

Although Rice is produced at a rate of 1550 to 2000 litres of water to 1 kilo of grain, beef is produced at a rate between 50,000 to 100,000 litres of water to 1 kilo of meat. [19] How about a little veg/omni cooperation on this? Just the facts maam.

Sure, its difficult to find precise numbers though, the British Council puts that at 5000 litres of water per 1kg grain (the amount that you had down prior to your edit to change it to a lower value). Some sources put Chicken as low as 2,800 litres of water per 1 kilo of meat [20]. Most sites that feature this information however are clearly biased as pro-vegan/vegetarian. Animal aid raises that to 3,500 litres of water per 1 kilo of meat, whilst lowering rice to 1,910 litres of water per kilo. Furthermore, do these statistics take into account all the usable meat, or just the meat that people commonly use? Also, I think if we're talking about comparing like for like it is probably worth comparing nutrition content aswell as mass. Also, are we talking about cooked or uncooked values? Most people boil rice in water whereas you can cook most meat just by frying or grilling it. - FrancisTyers 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I made an edit on the ratios because it is quoting the Australian study. The list of references below should give clarification to some of the questions we all have. The chicken water usage quoted by FrancisTyers also quotes rice at 2,700 not 5,000 litres of water. It also states in this article that vegetarians use far less virtual water than non-vegetarians. Interesting article, thanks. Vigger 5:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Cornell Science News [21]

Australian government studies[22]

Time Magazine - Ed Ayres, "Will We Still Eat Meat?" [23] 70 percent of the grains and cereals we grow are used for livestock production

British Council [24]

• Nutrition information rice per 100g
• Nutrition information chicken per 100g
• Nutrition information beef per 100g

USDA land usage statistics [25] According to the United States Department of Agriculture growing the crops to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the water supply and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the United States.

Environmental and Nutritional Facts drawn from Diet for a New America by [John Robbins] There is a much needed article for this book that should be done.

Amount of soy grown in United States consumed by livestock: 90% Amount of corn grow in United States consumed by livestock: 80% Amount of total U.S. grain production consumed by livestock: 70%

Do we have figures for other countries? It would be a shame to base the environmental section of this article just on what the US stats are. Is the meat eating culture of West Papua more or less environmentally sustainable than that of the US? - FrancisTyers 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't, at least not for now. Groups who care enough to do this kind of research are usually based in the U.S. or Europe. As this is the English Wikipedia, it's not so much of an attrocity. Most of our readers are not from West Papua. Though such information would be interesting, it is not entirely relevant. Canaen 20:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the {{globalize}} tag be added then? I realise most of our readers aren't from West Papua, considering their internet access is probably restricted by violent occupation. However, how about China or India, or even Russia? I'm not saying that this tag is necessary for the whole article, but if the environmental section is going to rely solely on US data perhaps it would be appropriate. - FrancisTyers 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ecological footprint calculator

• Another Ecological footprint calculator

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.2 PLANETS. ^___^ - FrancisTyers 01:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the best foot forward calculator link. The foreward slash at the end messes the link up somehow. Idleguyspal 05:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it works now. I got 1.5 PLANETS! - FrancisTyers 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Worldwatch This site seems to provide more "global" data that could be used to give a worldwide perspective.

Dairy ecological footprint study

GRACE Global resource action center for the environment

John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Global Food Security

Separate article

I think this almost warrants a separate article, Veganism and the environment. Has there been any research done into the airmiles used by the exotic foods that vegans (at least the ones I know) enjoy (I'm not talking just about tofu)? What is the total environmental impact of equal amounts of tofu-chicken versus a free-range organically produced chicken? I realise only a subsection of the vegan population eats "tofu chicken", but then there is a subsection of the meat-eating population that eats "only locally produced, free-range organic meat". - FrancisTyers 21:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I see there is already an article Environmental vegetarianism. Perhaps the Environment section of this article should be merged into that and we should just have:

Environmental veganism is the belief, based on ecological science, that the production of meat and animal products at current and likely future levels is environmentally unsustainable.

and a pointer to the Environmental vegetarianism article, perhaps with a qualification that not all vegans are environmental vegans? - FrancisTyers 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all vegans are environmental, dietary, ethical, sexual, feminist, or even other catagories not discussed here including hybrids e.g. environmental/dietary, dietary/religious, or ethical/spiritual/economic. It seems a little cumbersome to state this disclosure as it is already in the initial paragraph of Environmental vegetarianism. Maybe it could be expanded from "economic, philosophical, religious, cultural, or ecological." Idleguyspal 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that bit is mentioned in the lead. We can just shift the 'environmental criticism' section out too. - FrancisTyers 00:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also shift this particular discussion primarily to the Environmental Vegetarianism talk page. Idleguyspal 01:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearing up Environmental criticism: this is why the page is protected

Italicized lines are what I have removed.

In most Asian countries, where rice is the staple food, plant cultivation is the most prevalent cause of environmental damage. The cultivation of paddy requires far greater quantity of water than most crops grown in Europe/America. Cultivating a single kilogram of rice requires 5,000 litres of water [26] and thus places a huge stress on the water supply far higher than would be needed for animal husbandry. In fact rice cultivation is seen as the main culprit behind methane emissions. [27]

Rice is not inherently linked ot Veganism. Some Vegans, and some Ominvores, and someone of probably every such orientation, choose to omit rice from their diets for the above information, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Veganism as-is. It is perfectly good information (besideds the second-to-last line), but it just doesn't belong here. Furthermore, the large amount of Rice Cultivation is not present because of Vegans; it is present because of Asian cultures, who have used Rice as a dietary staple since antiquity.

No where in the article is Rice Cultivation promoted. I see no reason for a criticism of Rice Cultivation anywhere in this article. Canaen 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the increase in soybean consumption - a product used in many vegan and non-vegan foods and in US cattle feed - has led to concerns over its environmental impact. Greenpeace have complained that soybean cultivation in Brazil is encouraging Amazon rainforest deforestation. The increase in soyabean cultivation and extensive farming has led to losing large tracts of forest land leading to ecological damage as per WWF and other sources. In most of the tropical countries, farming is cited as the primary cause for forest loss [28]. According to the FAO, 90% of deforestation is directly attributed to unsustainble agriculture.

All of this Soybean cultivation is not for making Tofu; it's for making cattle feed. Do a quick Google Scholar search for "Soybean Cultivation" and "Cattle Production" and you'll find out soon enough. The top 5 or so are even specific to Brazil.The FAO, then they released that information, was including currect Cattle Production under the term "unsustainable agriculture." The Beef Industry, directly or indirectly. causes the vast majority of Amazonian Deforestation. Get you facts straight, people. Don't try to write anything which you don't understand. Canaen 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No where in the article is Soy Bean Cultivation promoted. I see no reason for a criticism of Soy Bean Cultivation anywhere in this article. Canaen 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Revisiting the section, the entire Environmental criticism is flawed. Someone please prove the rest of it, or else it will stay down.

Feed for animals in an agrarian economy is seldom cultivated for purposes of animal feed and is often the by-product of crops primarily grown for human consumption, thus creating a meat output from hay and other plant produce. Thus, factory farming is often limited only to poultry in many parts of Africa, Asia and South America. In these regions animals are often seen as a sustainable way of life providing much needed protein and milk. The recent outbreaks of avian flu, which spreads rapidly through close-packed poultry-pens, has caused some concern over the safety of current factory-farming practices.

The first line isn't an environmental criticism, though it is valid. If someone wants to make a new section for information like that, go ahead. But it doesn't bleong here, and the rest of that bit is just incoherent blather.Canaen 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy, and anyone else, stop adding these back in, until you explain yourself. At the very least, they need to be re-written. Canaen 07:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Distinctions - "Veganism so-called"

Veganism, so-called, is primarily prevalent in Industrialized nations. To get my point acrossm let's look at this example:

Johnny is a Vegan. He lives in the U.S.A., and subscribes to PETA.

Patricia (I have a poor knowledge of names for Jains) is a Jain. She practices Ahimsa, and does simple work all day.

They have the same beliefs regarding the prevention of suffering, but the "Veganism" movement is certainly only prevalent in the first person; the second simply considers herself a Jain, not a Vegan. She probably has never even heard the term "Vegan.

I suggest, in the interest of Countering systemic bias, we either use "Similar diets and lifestyles" or create another section to include information that may be good, but irrelevant to Veganism so-called. I'm not saying this as well as I should be - hopefully I'll be able to on the morrow. Basically, I want to make sure that this article is not completely Western-centric, however I do not at all support the idea of muddling information relevant to Westerners with other information completely irrelevant. This article has had a tendency to do just that, I have noticed, giving a feeling of invalidity to many reasons that Vegans claim to be Vegans for. Canaen 05:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy's attacks in general

I think my patience has run out on these editors: anon with ip address: 64.105.20.237 and more recently User:Canaen who is abusive by calling me as "ignorant" in his edit summaries and threatening me with vandalism warnings. He and his coterie have constantly sought to present a very lop sided view and rubbish anything and anyone else as vandals when the opposite is true. Anon 64.105.20.237 has been going around in these and related talk pages signing off with a username "Idleguyspal" which is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. misleading username by anon and personal attacks by both are entirely out of spirit.

I suggest that someone stop these vandalistic editors and save me from these attacks. I'm also reporting these two for harassment or whatever is appropriate. Idleguy 08:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have told you, "ignorant" is not an abusive term. You simply seem to have a lack of comprehension. I won't ignore that for the sake of sounding polite. Please stop trying to connect me with other users, as I am connected in no way with them. I notced that you inform me of reporting me as soon as I gave you a final warning on your Talk Page. I also noticed that you deleted the warning, in violation of Wikipedia Policy. May I ask why? If you want your Environmental Criticism section to stay in the article, then tell me how exactly qualms about Rice and Soy Bean Cultivation are related to Vegans, and who criticizes Vegans for being Vegans because of this? Canaen 08:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to disguise yourself with innocence. You have implied that me and several other users who have called you on several flaws in the article of having ulterior motives, something which is far more offensive than an accusation of ignorance. Ignorance is something to be remedied; Ulterior Motives say negative things about a person's character. Canaen 09:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The environmental section and environmental criticisms should not be in this article, they should be in Environmental vegetarianism. Factory farmed chicken is not inherently linked with meat-eating in the same way that rice is not inherently linked with veganism. PS. trade in manure?? - FrancisTyers 10:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll state the obvious. When other sections (ethical/health) draw criticisms from all quarters, environmental motivations too are bound to have a flip side. What I added - with proper sources - were just that. Environmental considerations section is riddled with POV statments and dubious statements and thus it required an apposite critique. If you think that vegans are only in the west, it cannot be further from the truth. Vegetarianism on a mass scale was already on in India thousands of years ago and equally so were the first vegans in the form of Jainism and some other extreme sects of Hinduism. These religious motivations supercedes any western notion and so cannot be rubbished just because it doesn't fit with your concept.

Many such vegans therefore consume rice and soy and therefore the environemental criticism has been levelled on them. Remember, in terms of sheer dollar value, the human consumption of soybean produce places a greater stress with cattle feed being only one part. the difference is that in terms of volume, soybeans are consumed almost equally by cattle and humans taking into account the global production. In terms of value, human uses for soy is greater. That is the difference. I hope I've made myself clear. You are asking for your POV statements to stand without taking into account a global view or the negative aspects of such a diet/lifestyle. And please be polite and open minded. Good day. Idleguy 11:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Many vegans use computers, wear blue jeans, use electricity, write with pencils, why then - by your own logic - do you not write a paragraph criticising veganism because of them? you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest Idleguy. Are all those humans that consume soya products and rice vegans? No, of course not. Only a tiny percentage are vegan. So why not put your criticism in a page for humans or, say, Chinese because they each lots of soya? Where are your figures for soya consumption?

Idleguysucks 11:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what Idleguy is trying to point out is that: 1. Many vegans use soya products instead of animal products. (I don't think you can contest this, here is a ref anyway [29]), 2. Animal products have an environmental impact, 3. Soya products have an environmental impact. - FrancisTyers 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I note Idleguy and friends are now organising apersonal attack on Canaen who wishes to become an admin. Idleguy has also gone about complaining that he has been accused of vandalism, when he himself has been accusing others of the same. I agree that he is also ignorant. That is to say, quite correctly in English, that he is deliberately " ignoring " all the discussion and negative consensuses against his block repetative block inserts. I also strongly agree that the Environmental criticisms that he erroneously continues to attack to this topic have no logical place in the article. He is in short nothing more than a troll. He also contines the same weak defences against numerous other contributors, accusing others of being Eurocentric, which has to be essentially racialist in essence or of vandalism rather than actually answering to the discussion.

Check out what Idleguy has written to the admins to defend himself ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty, look for " I need some help "

Does stating that Idleguy is a troll help matters? I think it could be construed as a personal attack. I also think that the article is Western-centric, I wouldn't call it Eurocentric though. As I've stated above the Environment section and the Environment criticism section should be moved into the Environmental vegetarianism article, with a brief, one sentence pointer from this article. - FrancisTyers 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I protected this page due to this massive edit war that has developed. Please talk this out or use dispute resolution. Please. No more personal attacks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that what has become the "opposing party" to me will agree to using words instead of reverts..Canaen 09:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read NPOV. I am not an "opposing party" to you in any way, nor am I the author of the section you removed. --Viriditas 09:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Swedish study?

Dr. Per-Olof Åstrand of the Swedish Karolinska Institute conducted an informal study of diet and endurance using nine highly trained athletes, changing their diet every three days. At the end of every diet change, each athlete would pedal a bicycle until exhaustion. Those with a high protein and high fat meat (carnivore) diet averaged 57 minutes. Those that consumed a mixed (omnivore) diet, lower in meat, fat and protein averaged 1 hour and 54 minutes: twice the endurance of the meat and fat eaters. The vegetarian, high carbohydrate diet athletes lasted 2 hours and 47 minutes, triple the endurance of the high-protein group. (Source: Åstrand, Per-Olof, Nutrition Today 3:no2, 9-11, 1968) [21]

I'm removing this as soon as the protection comes off. 1. The 'source' comes from www.filipinovegetarianrecipe.com, 2. The 'source' does not mention veganism.

Suggested addition of a picture of Donald Watson

Hi

once the protection is off, I'd like to propose the inclusion of a link to the subject page of Donald Watson (1910-2005)and photo of him.

As Donald has recent died, if a moderator seeks fit to add it during these protected periods out of respect, the image is available as vegandonald.jpg.

There is another article just on Donald Watson that ought be linked to at the same time.

Thanks

Mitsu 18:10, 5 December 2005 (GMT)

Theres already a wiki-link to the Donald Watson article from the Vegan page- also a photo of uncertain copyright origin (it would be good if explicit permission to use the pic could be gained from the Vegan Society quercus robur 20:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Skywalkers snitching lies to the admins

Hi

I'd just like to flag up the dishonest snitching to the admins Skinwalker is using to mess around with this article.

It funny how meateater trolls like Skinwalker and Idleguy know and use all the tricky buzzwords, like "sockpuppet, the 3RR rule that they use whilst ignoring that they are doing.

This is Skinwalker snitching to Woohookitty

• • Hi... I've been harassed by this user as well. My contributions to Veganism have been reverted by this individual without consensus, and I've been subject to personal attacks on Talk:Veganism and my user talk page. He is editing in bad faith and misrepresenting other editor's positions to support his POV. In addition to User:Canaen and ip 64.105.20.237, he uses User:Mitsu, User:Bob3 (blocked) and the ip's 212.18.228.53 and 81.187.71.200 (among others) for sockpuppetry. This guy's been a thorn in our sides for at least a week, and the recent lock of Veganism has lead him to escalate his incivility on talk pages. Thanks for your help, Skinwalker 18:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How can he know all these folk are the same folk?

The biggest joke is that they are not!