Talk:Veganism/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Currently all sources for "commodity status" are radical vegans

There are only three viable sources to begin with and only one of them, Francione, actually defines ethical veganism to be about commodity status, but in an other instance above he wrote that ethical veganism is about not wearing or using animal products. And in another instance he wrote that the commodity status is on the periphery of the debate. The other two merely define themselves as ethical vegans and also state that they oppose commodity status. In addition all three sources seem to be radical vegans even if they are academics. Completely biased and untrustworthy sources.


In addition, like Sammy wrote: "Regarding Francione, he completely equates abolitionism with veganism and favors phasing pet species out of existence - I can provide numerous sources for that if you want."


Currently commodity status is completely unsourced in relation general veganism and has more to do with Abolitionism, Animal rights and Veganarchism.


My suggestion for the lead was:

"Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that opposes the exploitation and harming of animals. A follower of veganism is known as a vegan."


--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, I'm trying to be as respectful as possible, but you've written a great deal on this talk page (over 100 edits in the past two days) and it's apparent you have a basic misunderstanding of the subject matter. You also seem to be suggesting that we Wikipedia editors are all veganarchists or otherwise radical vegans who are trying to hijack veganism from regular milk-drinking vegans. This makes the conversation very difficult. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
That's just a bunch of untruths and a personal attack. You have nothing in your sleeve against the claims in this section so the only trick you can pull anymore is attack me personally. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll refer to 4V's opinion from Talk:Veganism/Archive_12#Academic_sources_and_.22Property_status.22: That's a wide range of different perspectives on different aspects of veganism, and I think it shows the current definition (and lede in general) is just fine. You're right that the "commodity" language only comes up in animal ethics literature, but almost all sources try to describe the associated philosophy in the definition, and it makes sense to use philosophers' words to describe the philosophy part. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
In your link provided only one of the 6 provided definitions mentioned commodity. Guess who wrote that definition: Gary Francione. In fact it is THE source I'm talking about. You are basing commodity on a single source.
Two of the ones in the link mention exploitation:
Veganism is a practical philosophy oriented toward living without directly or indirectly harming or exploiting animals, and actively seeking to end that harm and exploitation where it exists. Veganism is most commonly associated with eschewing foods of animal origin.
Vegans eat no animal products at all. While not eating meat, this also means excluding [etc etc]. Most also choose to avoid animal products in other areas of their lives….There are ethical, compassionate, environmental, and health reasons for veganism. Some people believe that all animal exploitation is wrong, no matter how well the animals are treated.
--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Smulewicz-Zucker. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to do with veganism let alone definition of it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This one identifies vegan philosophy as being opposed to the "existing property status of animals" and argues against this position. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesn't really. It identifies people having "personal vegan philosophies". Even added is "It must be realized by all that there is a key difference between personal philosophy and political reality." It doesn't identify all of veganism. And the person who wrote that bit is David Favre. Even though he disagrees and owns a farm with "sheep, chickens and the usual assortment of dogs and cats" he's still an animal rights activist... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
In addition I found an interview featuring him with a clearer description of his view of veganism:
Veganism can create a lot of debate. When this topic comes out in the class how do you control this debate in a way that anybody will feel like is being judged, while at the same time respecting the different point of views of your students?
If somebody brings it up I try to not let it become personal, and make it a public policy question and say that veganism is sometimes a very appropriate outcome and sometimes not. That really it’s not whether or not you’re a vegan, it’s what do you think about the killing of animals for food and the conditions under which the animals lived and died? That’s where there’s a great big schism, because some people believe that there should not be any killing of animals ever, regardless of their life. Other people believe that if animals have a good life, then the death might be justifiable or acceptable for purposes of eating. I asked the students when we do the chicken stuff, the question I always ask is well “do you know where that came from?” and if you don’t, aren’t you worried that bad things were imposed upon these animals to get them to the food store? And maybe you should be more selective in what you can do, and if you’re not maybe you shouldn’t eat that meat.
To him veganism seems to be about not harming animals. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Mr Magoo and McBarker, I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim that the academics Helena Pedersen, Vasile Staescu, Gary Steiner, Gary Francione (who is explicitly contrasted with veganarchism in the only RS discussing both, your assertions notwithstanding), Kathryn Gillespie, Rosemary-Claire Collard, Gregory R. Smulewicz-Zucker, Rhoda Wilkie, and David N. Cassuto are "all radical vegans"; and to support your claim that "commodity status of animals" is "more partisan" than "animal exploitation". Could you please do that? FourViolas (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote Francione is an abolitionist. Veganism =/= abolitionism. And Pedersen & Vasile also state that they are vegan because they oppose capitalism. Pedersen&Vasile are absolutely, 100% confusing veganism with veganarchism. Kathryn Gillespie, Rosemary-Claire Collard, Gregory R. Smulewicz-Zucker, Rhoda Wilkie, and David N. Cassuto are about animal rights in general and not about veganism, like the mention above them says. I tried cutting them out because they are completely unusable as sources in this article. Steiner defines ethical veganism to be about products so that's about it for him. And lastly, you yourself provided definitions which were about exploitation. Did you have anything else? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion/mass revert -apologies

I would like to explain a mass revert of mine yesterday.[1] I re-instated a mass deletion made by @TonyClarke:. I made 2 mistakes in my revert. First, I said Tony made deletions on the Talk Page; He had not - I apologise for making an incorrect statement. Perhaps we/I can get an admin to change that edit summary. Second, when I made the mass revert, I did this because I believed the mass deletion was all visible content related to a statement which is currently under (heated) discussion. I did not at the time understand much of this was invisible content/code deleted by Tony. I still don't know whether this deletion should be allowed to stand or not, but my own reasons for making the deletion were incorrect and I apologise for that. Tony, I am in no way trying to shift the blame to you here, but perhaps in the future, it might be easier for others if you made deletions of visible content and invisible content in two separate edits with 2 edit summaries. Just an idea. It might help editors like me who carry on working way past their bed-time! Sorry to all for any inconvenience.DrChrissy (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DrChrissy, no need to apologize. Tony removed the sentence part that is the subject of the RfC, plus its academic sources, swapped it for a phrase used by the British Vegan Society, and added an embedded link to their website. He also removed the second paragraph of the lead, which explains that there are different kinds of veganism. None of what he removed was invisible. SarahSV (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Civil discussion - Let us do it!

As of Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:26:36 +0000

30 days elapsed
17 threads created

Winston Churchill famously said 'To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war'. How about we try to discuss (yes again!) the issues that we disagree on?

Aparently, he really said, 'Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war'. Same idea though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, would one of those who insist on having the phrase 'commodity status of animals' in the lead tell me, in a sentence or two, what they intend that phrase to mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Viriditas, rather than adding a quote box would it not be easier to just anwer the question. It is a very simple question, obviously relevant to improving the article, to which I have never got a straight answer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I wrote earlier:
The boxed quotes I typed above show that most high-profile pro-vegan philosophers reject animals' status as property (=legal nonpersons under the control of legal persons). The sources in the footnote [2] show that some vegan philosphers more specifically object to animals' status as commodities (=property which can be bought and sold), and one RS argues that some who say the former really mean the latter. In any case they all agree on the latter. Therefore [vegan philosophy] can be described as ...an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. This is sufficient to define it as well, because (except for blanket anticapitalists), only ethical vegans have a philosophical objection to the fact that animals can be commercially traded.
The basic idea is this: commodity status of animals, as explained in the article you wanted to delete, refers to the fact that animals are objects of trade, things which can be bought and sold as property. People who try never to buy animal products on principle obviously have some kind of problem with animals as objects of trade; that's tautologically true.
As has been discussed, we could get at very similar ideas by referring to an objection to "animal exploitation" instead. This would be easier to understand, but in my opinion has minor problems. It has less WEIGHT in the academic literature, being instead the preferred terminology of animal-rights advocacy groups; and, while the fact that animals are commodities is indisputably factual, per the UN and all kinds of people, the idea that they are "exploited" is more subjective, and the last thing we need here is an opportunity for more subjective disputes.
Speaking of which, I must respectfully decline to continue conversation unless you begin, finally, to propose alternative wordings supported by adequately weighty RS. FourViolas (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
FourViolas, thank you for your response but it is not quite what I asked for, which I think is quite reasonable. I asked, 'in a sentence or two, what they intend that phrase to mean'.
Are you saying that 'commodity status of animals' means simply that animals are 'objects of trade, things which can be bought and sold as property', or is there more to it than that?
I see no reason for me to provide sources just to ask what the phrase is intended to mean. Once that is clear we can discuss possible alternatives, with sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That quote box seems like it's uncivil to me. Sometimes things do indeed take a lot of discussion. This does not feel like Martin is being onerous or is filibustering, or drowning us in a sea of words for the sake of drowning us. It seems like it's a subject with many fine points and it's worth discussing. I do understand what Martin is getting at here. It seems like a good question for the purpose of collectively editing the article. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the problems with this conversation are amply illustrated by this edit of TonyClarke's, which inserted an inline external link to the Vegan Society website. Some vegans would prefer this article described their favorite brand of veganism, in the manner in which activist groups like to describe it. "Animal exploitation" is a common phrase. But if a group declares that it is for "the liberation of the Abkhazian people" (I made this phrase up) Wikipedia might describe it as an Abkhazian separatist group.
The irony of this is that Martin has been promoting the completely unsupported and frankly silly idea that commodity status of animals is somehow vegan rhetoric. Actually it's the most neutral way to describe what vegans are opposed to. It describes exactly what's written in the stub linked, and no one was confused about its meaning before Martin told them they were.
The necessity of using this phrase, and not the charged "exploitation" language, is further illustrated by Mr. Magoo's confusion. Vegans may know which practices are "exploitative," but non-vegans may not.
I think this is clearly illustrated in the case of insects. Many vegans do not use honey, because they oppose the exploitation of honeybees. Yet I recall seeing Bruce Friedrich ask a packed room full of vegans how many ate only organic food. I believe one hand went up. How can all the no-honey vegans present justify consuming food made with insecticides, which kill mind-boggling numbers of insects every year? It makes no sense until you consider what vegans are actually about: the bees are used, deliberately, for human purposes; this is permitted because of their commodity status. For the same reason, vegans do not typically refrain from throwing things in the garbage because rodents are crushed in landfills. Commercial use of animals might be close to the mark, but vegans also oppose hunting, which is also covered by commodity status of animals (see Pierson v. Post.)
That, and it's well supported by the sources, as has been explained at length. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Sammy, in order to make progress, all I and doing at this stage is to ask a question. What exactly is 'commodity status of animals' intended to mean. FourViolas has given me the answer, 'animals are objects of trade, things which can be bought and sold as property'. Is that what you take the phrase to mean? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Martin Hogbin: I think it means exactly what it says in commodity status of animals, a stub which I'm sure you have already read. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that the meaning of the phrase is complex and that it cannot be described in one sentence? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll copy it for you: The commodity status of animals refers to the legal status as property of most non-human animals, particularly farmed animals, working animals and animals in sport, and their use as objects of trade. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am really happy to see good dialog here. I see this as a complex and useful question. Because the phrase is linked to an article, that does provide a definition of the term. However, the term may have other connotations as plain language. Links are read as both text and as the content of the link, by various readers. Another example would be the use of the phrase fad diet (which was a real question at Paleolithic diet) -- wherein the words "fad diet" may differ to the common reader from what is defined in the article itself. I do hear in "commodity status of animals" mainly the property status and the selling and buying of animals, but i also do hear the objectification, you might say commodification, of animals as objects that can be used without ethical qualms (or with less than if they're viewed as beings). So... i hear both meanings in there, and i think both actually apply. I don't hear it as "vegan rhetoric" though i do hear it as sort of academic language in the philosophy of oppression field. Anyway, i like the term but i don't want to deny that there is more to the term than simply that animals are seen as property that can be bought and sold. There are implications about objectification in that, to me. SageRad (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I recall that this was why prefer "commodity status" to "commodification". But to the extent that you feel it still carries connotations of objectification (which I don't hear in this phrase, personally) I wonder if this is POV or just fact. Aren't commodity animals literally objectified - "treated as an object or thing as though they were a possession of another"? The POV issues don't really concern whether we present this fact - animals are indeed "objectified", pretty unequivocally, I think - it has to do with perceptions of whether animals should be objectified. Nothing in the phrase "commodity status of animals" indicates anything for or against that proposition. (By the way, in case anyone accuses me of sneakiness, I did just now add animals to the definition of objectification, which is well-supported in the literature on human-animal relations.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
SageRad, yes, it carries within it the idea of objectification. If you buy a human being as a slave, you're objectifying that person; you're denying the personhood of that being. Sammy and Sage, I'm not sure how that could be seen as a separate idea from commodification.
The phrase "commodity status of animals" is neutral. Most people agree with this status, and we've shown that academics who have nothing to do with veganism discuss animals as commodities. The United Nations discusses animals as commodities. The markets discuss animals as commodities. The fuss that has been generated here is fake. SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "commodity status of animals" is not the least bit neutral, neither is is clear in meaning. As Mr. Magoo and McBarker has pointed out above it is used almost exclusively in extreme animal rights literature. The UN does not ever use the term 'commodity status' it merely classifies animals as a type of commodity for shipping and similar purposes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sammy, so why do we not say 'Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and rejection of the legal status of of most non-human animals as property, particularly farmed animals, working animals and animals in sport, and their use as objects of trade'? Then our readers would know what we mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Better still would be: 'Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet. Some vegans also reject the legal status of of most non-human animals as property, particularly farmed animals, working animals and animals in sport, and their use as objects of trade'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I find it amazing how you can take so many different positions simultaneously. As we have been through many times, veganism is identified by many, many RS as a "philosophy" - a missing word in your solution, and your attempt to separate ethical veganism as though it were just a fringe group within regular veganism is, again, not supported. I'll return to an analogy I made before: how about we define Judaism by saying "Jews are an ethnic group. Some Jews also believe in God." It obfuscates the origin and the main point of the topic. I reiterate that most vegans are ethical vegans, veganism is often used synonymously with ethical veganism, and veganism had its origins in this "philosophy". --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Can we stick to discussing the article content please. How about 'Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet. Some vegans also have a philosophy that rejects legal status of of most non-human animals as property, particularly farmed animals, working animals and animals in sport, and their use as objects of trade'?
We would, of course, need a good quality source that clearly indicates that vegans do have the stated philosophy.
You also need a source to support your claim that, 'most vegans are ethical vegans' and that 'veganism is often used synonymously with ethical veganism'. If that is indeed true I find it somewhat puzzling that no major vegan orgaisation describes veganism that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
As for the first claim, this study found 82% of people following a vegan diet did so for ethical reasons, and this one found 81%. As for the second, here are a few papers discussing "veganism" which really only apply to ethical veganism: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. FourViolas (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I will have a look at your sources but even 82% is not enough to write the article as if all vegans are ethical vegans. We could certainly say 'Most vegans also...' though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hoffman et al

I have had a quick look at the Hoffman paper. I agree that it is a good quality RS but I do not think it can be used to say that 82% of vegans object to the commodity status (as defined above) of animals. The problem is that, although the reasons for becoming vegan are given as 'ethical' it is not clear exactly what 'ethical' means. One example question that they asked was whether, ‘‘I eat this way for the animals’’. That is certainly an ethical reason but it is a far cry from a 'philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals' (as defined above). It could just be that the respondents objected to some intensive farming practices.

General discussion

Even with your interpretation, the one thing that the sources do make clear is that not all vegans are ethical vegans and not all vegans reject the so called 'commodity status of animals'. I am perfectly happy that vegans discuss amongst themselves exactly what proportion of vegans are what I will call 'full on ethical' and whether we should say 'Some vegans also...', 'A few vegans also...', or 'Most vegans also...'. What is clear though is that we cannot say, or imply, that all vegans have a philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals, as defined by Sammy above. Your own sources clearly show that that assertion is false. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent my opinion. I never said we should imply that "all" are ethical vegans. See my comparison to Judaism above.
Please also read WP:REHASH and stop creating new sections and subsections to discuss the same issues. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I create subheadings to make editing easier and to separate topics.
I agree that this seems to be a rehash. Remember my six encyclopedia definitions demonstrating that veganism should be defined as a practice and an associated philosophy? You accepted that conclusion above.[8] FourViolas (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
FourViolas, your own sources just above clearly show that all vegans are not ethical vegans. I have never accted that all vegans are ethical vegans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sammy, I am not representing anything. The first sentence of this article implies that all vegans are ethical vegans, that is why I and many other want to change it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So, what is wrong with, ' 'Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet. Most vegans also reject the legal status of of most non-human animals as property, particularly farmed animals, working animals and animals in sport, and their use as objects of trade'? It is your suggested wording from your chosen reliable sources but it also makes quite clear to the general reader exctly what is meant and does not suggest that all vegans are ethical vegans, which your own sources show to be the case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin, the first sentence says that veganism is (emphasis added) "both [both denotes two things] the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals."
That is, veganism is not just one kind of thing. It is at least two kinds of thing. The next paragraph goes into more detail. The first and second paragraphs should be read together.
The puzzling thing is that when Sammy noticed that someone had inadvertently removed the word both, and he restored it, you removed it again, which suggests that you wanted the lead to imply that veganism was only one kind of thing.
Ditto when an SPA removed "particularly in diet" and inserted the British Vegan Society definition, and Flyer reverted the SPA, you restored the SPA's version. The British Vegan Society are ethical vegans, and arguably represent a particularly purist version of it.
Yet now you argue that you do not want the lead to represent only ethical veganism.
If you want the first sentence to say that there are (broadly) two approaches to veganism – those who focus on avoiding animal products, particularly when it comes to food, and others who adhere to a broader philosophy about the status of animals – that is what it currently says. SarahSV (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
SV, as you will see from the response to the RfC the sentence, 'Vegamism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals', is clearly ambiguous. You know what you mean to say but many readers understand it differently.
What exactly do you object to in my wording? Not only is it perfectly and unabiguously clear that not all vegans are concerned about, 'the commodity status of animals' but it also explains, in clear and agreed language from sources what that phrase means. What possible objection could there be to that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Good source for "Becoming mainstream" section

I came across this NY Times article. I think it could be a good source for a little more development in the "Becoming mainstream" section. Wonder if others agree and if so, what's the main point to be gleaned from it for content? In general it supports the claim that veganism has become more attractive and has a better image of late. i also note that some in the article prefer to say "plant-oriented" to avoid "the V word". Many elements about veganism as a social phenom. SageRad (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see how an article on a new cookbook supports the assertion that veganism is becoming mainstream. I am not sure what thate term means anyway. When does a minority activity become mainstream? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If the source is RS, it does not matter whether the subject matter is a cookbook or an article on the diet of astronauts. Is the author reliable? Is the publisher reliable? Those are the questions we should be asking. As for "When does a minority activity become mainstream?" - it become "mainstream" when we have an RS which says that. We might disagree, but to state that in a WP article we must provide an RS. It is not up to us as editors to decide these things.DrChrissy (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There is much, much more in that article than a new cookbook. There is relevant cultural commentary. SageRad (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there's encyclopedic information in the article. Leaving aside all the sparkly anecdotes, I'd suggest the main point is something like: In recent years, proponents of veganism in America have promoted a welcoming and "glamorous" image to counter common impressions that veganism involves puritanical self-deprivation. I don't think the source supports the stronger claim that these efforts have necessarily succeeded: "veganism has been edging into the mainstream for years now" and "nonvegans seem less likely to be dismissive" are the closest I can find to that, and that's not much to go on. FourViolas (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. SageRad (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
' In recent years, proponents of veganism in America have promoted a welcoming and "glamorous" image to counter common impressions that veganism involves puritanical self-deprivation', is strictly factual and would be fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done then. FourViolas (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
FV, I hope you can see why I was happy to agree with that wording but strongly object to other things. That sentence was roughly of the form, 'Proponents of veganism say X, opponents of veganism say Y'. It does not try to state the vegan view in WP's voice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Over the current wording of the first sentence of the lead itself, that veganism is associated with the abstinence of the use of animals for economic benefit, the consensus leans towards changing it to consider different reasons for veganism or beliefs related to it, most notably the difference in belief between ethical vegans and "general" vegans.
Both sides convey arguments with standing in policy. On the side that supports the current wording, it is argued that the sources point towards the current definition with due weight, and the rejection of animals as commodities is considered a form of veganism. On the other side, it is argued that there may be another reason to adopt veganism; for example, for example, merely dietary or religious reasons–and sources may separate these types of vegans. However, even factoring in the mass-ping of the unrelated mathematics, science, and technology section, which may have slightly skewed the results, there seems to be a consensus towards a change of the lead section; note that some of the editors saying "Yes" also support a change of the current wording.
There is one point that has a moderate consensus, and it is the acceptance of ethical veganism as a form of veganism generally. Therefore, it appears that the action that best fits the current consensus here is to compromise, and the result of this RfC is to edit the first sentence to mention the main belief ("philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" or similar) of ethical veganism as a belief that is not always, but may be followed by vegans. Esquivalience t 02:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'? 14:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • No As can be seen from the first reference, the lead is a synthesis of a number of sources that has been used to construct a definition based on the personal opinions of editors here rather than a definition from a reliable source such as a national vegan organisation.
The sentence does not conform to WP:LEAD, which says that, 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents'. This sentence fails to cover forms of animal cruelty that do not involve use of animal products or animal ownership (such as hunting) to which many vegans object but does include 'commodity status' that is relevant only to a limited section of vegans, 'Ethical vegans'. Many vegans do not object to animal ownership and may even own animals.
WP:Lead also says that '...the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view'. However, the term, 'commodity status' is vegan and animal rights rhetoric. The term is widely used in animal rights literature to promote a particular POV but there is no evidence that it commonly used elsewhere. WP:Rhetoric says, 'Rhetoric has little use anywhere in Wikipedia, and should always be used with extreme caution'.
The terminology is deliberately ambiguous in that it intentionally confuses two extreme meanings of the term 'commodity status' in order to persuade and motivate the reader to support animal rights. One meaning that 'humans can legally own animals', which those fighting to keep the term insist is the correct, is incontrovertibly true and non-controversial. This meaning is used to make the term sound reasonable and appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The other extreme meaning, that is actually better supported by animal rights sources, is the that 'We are allowed to impose any suffering required to use our animal property for a particular purpose even if that purpose is our mere amusement or pleasure'. These extremes cover almost the whole range of possible human treatment of animals. Our readers have no way of knowing what meaning is intended without wading through pages of animal rights literature.
WP:OWN says, 'No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page' but a number of the regular editors are exerting a significant degree of ownership of this page, insisting on having the exact words 'commodity status' in the lead and refusing to even consider alternative or compromise options like 'legal ownership' or moving 'commodity status' to the 'Ethical veganism' section where it is more relevant and can be explained more fully. The use of any of the definitions from national vegan organisations, dictionaries, or encyclopedias has be ruled out. There is even objection to gaining outside opinion by means of this RfC. Civil discussion is supressed by personal attacks, insults, and threats, see [9]. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes It gets to the heart of the issue; is neutral, being supported by heaps of reliable sources of many different POVs; and adequately describes how vegan philosophies differ from others.
  1. The boxed quotes I typed up from encyclopedias (from a a range of scholarly POVs) in the "academic sources" section above establish that the first sentence should be Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated [vegan philosophy].
  2. To decide how to describe [vegan philosophy], we should consult the consensus of vegan philosophers. Martin accepts these two points.[10]
  3. The boxed quotes I typed above show that most such high-profile philosophers reject animals' status as property (=legal nonpersons under the control of legal persons). The sources in the footnote [11] show that some vegan philosphers more specifically object to animals' status as commodities (=property which can be bought and sold), and one RS argues that some who say the former really mean the latter. In any case they all agree on the latter. Therefore [vegan philosophy] can be described as ...an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. This is sufficient to define it as well, because (except for blanket anticapitalists), only ethical vegans have a philosophical objection to the fact that animals can be commercially traded.
  4. Martin claims there is no evidence the term is used outside of vegan rhetoric. This is false, as he has been repeatedly shown. Non-animal-rights-affiliated scholars of law, sociology [12] [13], even cartilage pathology use the term, as does the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, which one might be forgiven for considering authoritative.
Martin has been arguing this point for many months now. He has not yet shown any evidence of having read through RS (other than a few WP:Dictionaries as sources) to support his point, which is based instead on his subjective opinion. As my links show, he has been shown many, many high-quality sources which address his concerns. FourViolas (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes per the strong and clear consensus at both Talk:Veganism#Definition of veganism in the lead and the previous thread linked from there, which have exhaustively hashed out this issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. There appears to be consensus in the discussion above that this represents the content of the sources. --Michig (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No I think people make dietary choices for a variety of reasons, not just because of their opinions about animals as commodities. People will avoid animal products for health reasons, or simply because they think it is gross. It could also be out of environmental concerns. I would say that those who are vegans due to a philosophy about animals not being commodities is a subset of vegan-ism and that it is not part of the definition of the subject. We need to be careful not to create our own definitions. HighInBC 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @HighInBC: If you look halfway down the thread Talk:Veganism#Definition of veganism in the lead, you will see FourViolas' thorough account of what high-quality sources say about this. The issue is not that we are guessing why people are vegan, it is that veganism also refers to a specific philosophy which is characterized by this criterion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • See specifically my point 1 and Talk:Veganism#Academic sources and "Property status". The clear consensus of a wide range of scholarly encyclopedias is to define veganism as a diet or lifestyle choice plus the ethical philosophical justifications for it. FourViolas (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not suggesting that my personal experience override the sources. I do think that the term has been usurped though. I will concede my point of view may be contrary to the sources. HighInBC 16:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. The "and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" wording could be changed to "or an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.", but both sides should be presented. And it's a fact that one side of veganism consists of those who only follow the diet, and the other side consists of those who follow both the diet and the philosophy. I see no WP:OR violation in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I struck part of my post above because veganism is not simply defined as a philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. The diet has to be included. So the "or" wording would not be accurate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Martin has been offered property-law specialists, philosophers, the commodity markets, and the United Nations to show (a) that animals are routinely referred to as commodities; (b) that the term "commodity status of animals" is used in academia; and (c) that ethical vegans reject this. It isn't hard to understand; it's used by many different types of sources; and it's a succinct way to summarize the key issue for ethical vegans.
One example of a law professor at Pace University School of Law using the phrase; he specializes in property law and has nothing to do with veganism that I can see:
David N. Cassuto, "Owning What You Eat: The Discourse of Food," in J. Ronald Engel, et al. (ed.), Democracy, Ecological Integrity and International Law, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009, p. 313 (emphasis added): "These relationships [between farmers and animals] did not necessarily maximize yield but were rather based on a set of normative guidelines even as the ultimate reality of the animals' commodity status inevitably imbued that bond with a sense of unreality."
And one example of a law professor and ethical vegan writing that ethical vegans reject this:
Gary Francione, "Animal Welfare, Happy Meat and Veganism as the Moral Baseline," in David M. Kaplan, The Philosophy of Food, University of California Press, 2012 (pp. 169–189) p. 182: "Ethical veganism is the personal rejection of the commodity status of nonhuman animals ..."
This is a separate issue from dietary veganism, which the lead makes clear. SarahSV (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No... Maybe with a change: The phrasing seems to reflect the sense of most reliable sources and the discussion that's been had here for the last week or two. I don't think "commodity status" is entirely a subculture term, and it's a good and useful and accurate one. It helps to define the philosophical underpinning of veganism as understood by most reliable sources. However, if "the commodity status of animals" is disputed by other valid viewpoints, then it may be worth using attributing: "and an associated philosophy that rejects what many view as the commodity status of animals". (Changed from previous vote as shown here. SageRad (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I do think that i see the point that Martin Hogbin is making, about the difference between the term "legal ownership" and "commodity status". I think there is a distinction, but recognizing that, i think that "commodity status" is more accurate to express the entirety of the cultural attitude toward animals that is seen and expressed by the vegan viewpoint, and which is a real thing and therefore not reifying something by using a special term. I do see that there are many shades of interpretation, however, and would be open to understanding more about the objections to the term. SageRad (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@SageRad: I just noticed you change your vote to include the "what many view as" idea. This is the heart of Hogbin's issue it seems, but the problem is that there are no other significant views. He keeps saying that this is disputed, but no source as far as anyone here is aware actually disputes it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: Thanks for noticing the change. Yes, i've been thinking a lot about POV and neutrality lately, and i think this could make sense, and could actually be more powerful for all concerned in a sense. Let me explain. Firstly, it's possible that a person can see some use of animal products as very much commodified relations, and yet other use of animal products as not commodified relations. As an example, i have personally kept chickens and had relationships with them (please don't laugh, i mean as beings i respected and cared for them, and they for me as well, as far as i can understand chickens). I definitely see commodification of chickens happending on a large scale with CAFOs, but i could also see symbiotic non-commodified relationships being possible. I could also see eating wild animals, or finding eggs in the wild, as being part of nature's food cycles, and not as commodification. That's one level. I can also see though i do not share, that some people really do believe that non-human animals are here for humans to use, and that it's not commodification. I don't believe this, nor do i think most people believe this, but it's a real viewpoint in the world. As for sources, i'll have to look for this. Nothing comes to mind immediately. It's my knowledge of some people's viewpoints on which i am drawing. I started a new section below about the lede paragraph. Perhaps we could develop this more in that section. SageRad (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@SageRad: I think we had this issue before regarding the difference between "commodity status" and "commodification". The former doesn't presume that animals shouldn't be commodities, and literally refers to their legal status. The issues you are bringing up have nothing to do with the fact that animals are, legally and practically, commodities, and this is not a matter of opinion. As far as I'm aware , this has not even been disputed by anyone outside of Wikipedia. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
SageRad, would you mind striking your 18 January comment and adding a new one underneath? Your 25 January edit changed the comment significantly, but not the date. It's better to strike in such cases. SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes: The "commodity status" phrasing is solidly supported by reliable sources, and its use in the mainstream is growing quickly. Edwardx (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes fully supported by the sources, and objections that livestock are not commodities fly in the face of common sense - there are markets where livestock are traded and have been traded for a very long time, and even futures are traded, for example on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (see the list at that section-link). Drive across Iowa and you will hear all day how the market for pork belly futures is doing. The USDA tracks these commodity markets and reports on them - see here where you will find Cattle, Chicken, Eggs, Goats, Meat, Sheep, Swine, and Turkey all listed specifically as commodities that they track. It doesn't get more commodity than that, and again it has been that way for a very very long time in the actual work of agriculture. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health (recognised as a reference organisation by the World Trade Organization (WTO)) certainly views animals as "commodities" - see the first sentence here.[14] DrChrissy (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not dispute that certain animals can be classified as commodities, it is the term 'commodity status' that concerns me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • NO The Vegan Society defines veganism as "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." i think that is adequate. It covers commodification, but also points to explloitation which may not be associated with commodity status. So i believe, like others here , that rejecting the 'commodity status' is not enough to cover vegan principles, e;.g. avoiding abuse and neglect of pets. TonyClarke (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Tony, two points. First, all kinds of people reject cruelty to and exploitation of animals, not only ethical vegans. The issue for those who see veganism as a philosophy is the rejection of the commodity status and conseqences thereof; that goes to the very heart of ethical veganism. Second, it would be inappropriate to start the article with one society's definition. The definition of the British Vegan Society might belong in the lead of that article. We refer to it in this lead, in the third paragraph where we discuss the history in the 1940s and 50s. But in 2016 there are other vegan societies and competing views. Our job in the lead is to summarize them. SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah for this comment. I should have made clear that I didn't intend to actually have the Vegan Society definition used. Instead, it illustrates, for me, how avoidance of exploitation is wider than 'commodity status' as motivation. Individual animals can be exploited without being seen as a commodity. But just my thoughts! TonyClarke (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Well supported by the sources. I'm having a hard time figuring out how this is even controversial. Capeo (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The proposed definition is well supported by a sufficient number of sources. One concern is that we would use in the lead a society's definition. However, in view of the fact that other sources use the same wording I think this is a minor problem. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No: (Here from Maths, science and technology RfC service, and not at all vegan.) The proposed definition is undesirable for the article primarily because it occupies space that has a better use. It should be emphasized that "animal products" includes meat, dairy, eggs, edible products derived from animals such as gelatin, wearable products derived from animals, and indeed products of all kinds derived from animals. The definition should also discuss how vegans feel about animal research and companion animals, if applicable. I don't feel that "commodity status" adequately covers that.
The lead, IMO, should be written as if the reader will read only the lead and nothing else. That includes follow-up links. "Commodity status of animals" is a concept the meaning of which is not clear from the title of the article. Might it mean that vegans think animals should be free for all to use? (Commodification of nature uses that definition!) It is better to use the first sentence to tell, say, a reader of primary school level, what "veganism" means in terms of what things are done and not done. Roches (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Roches: The main problems I see with your proposal are that it is likely to involve synthesis, and is very long and complicated requiring lots of qualifications - different vegans regard different things as acceptable, disagreeing over honey for example, and this is discussed later in the article. You should also be aware this is a long-standing stable wording, and that the article commodity status of animals was written only recently, after one editor (the same one who posted this RfC) complained that it was "vegan propaganda". The issue, per the discussion above, is not to encapsulate all the things vegans do in a phrase; rather, it's accepted by the sources that there is a vegan philosophy which is characterized by this belief. If you still feel the term is unclear, what other wording would you suggest to convey that the vegan philosophy is based on opposition to the current state of affairs wherein animals can be legally owned and traded? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No Apart from the reasons as already thrashed out, the whole lede as it stands is confused, ambiguous, long, and reads like advertising copy for a lobby group. It needs total rewriting. I have not checked on the rest of the article. 105.229.39.88 (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)— 105.229.39.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes Well since you insist on dragging this out Martin. I will past my comments here and someone else can close it later with the ineveitable result. Its unlikely to get a different response given the quality of the arguments above. Consensus already exists that the definition at the start of the lead should contain the wording regarding commodity status of animals. Strongest arguments for inclusion refer to the numerous reliable sources that are available. The strongest argument against comes from HighInBC who notes that this definition will not reflect all Vegans - no definition can encompasss everything, however he also states this may be contrary to the reliable sources. Other against arguments are less weighty, as SlimVirgin points out - relying on the Vegan Society definition assumes the Vegan Society speaks for all vegans. We go by what reliable sources say. See the numerous arguments on this page where this has been explained repeatedly and at length. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
As you will see above, I am far from alone in my objection to this wording.
  • No See above, but in summary, it should fall under section 6 as a philosophy. Having looked at a few sites, veganism is a dietary choice, it does not appear to be a belief about the commodity of animals specifically. The sentence should be placed in section 6, it is not appropriate in the introduction as it is too narrow and might dissuade some users. Jab843 (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: Jab843 is one of 18 editors canvassed by Martin Hogbin, who opened the RfC. [15] SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've realized that several, probably most, are listed at Wikipedia:Feedback request service, so this is not canvassing. But it's also worth noting that, contrary to what Jab seems to be saying, veganism is not just a dietary choice. That is a mistake, as the lead makes clear. SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead, which gives a definition of veganism, should include all vegans. At present it excludes dietary vegans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Martin, please don't pretend that's what this RfC is about. You keep changing your mind: first, it was rhetoric that animals are "commodities". Then it was established that they are, so it became rhetoric that they have "commodity status". Then you wanted to define veganism according to the Vegan Society definition. Now you want to define veganism as a diet, and say it's just some (dietary) vegans who don't want animals to be used commercially. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Martin, you were the one who wanted to use the definition of the British Vegan Society; see your edit here. You removed "particularly in diet," and added a definition that excluded dietary vegans entirely. The current first sentence does not exclude them. This twisting and turning is very disruptive. SarahSV (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jab843: This is not actually the subject of this RfC, which is about the specific usage of "commodity" or perhaps "commodity status". That the vegan philosophy is relevant has not been disputed. See this paper which shows that a majority of vegans have ethical motivations, and this paper which explains this. The latter opens with

    Vegans charge moral vegetarians with inconsistency: if eating animals is a participation in a wrong practice, consuming eggs and dairy products is likewise wrong because it is a cooperation with systematic exploitation. Vegans say that even the more humane parts of the contemporary dairy and egg industry rely on immoral practices, and that therefore moral vegetarianism is too small a step in the right direction. According to vegans, moral vegetarians have conceded that animals are not means; that human pleasure cannot override animal suffering and death; that some industries ought to be banned; and that all this carries practical implications as to their own actions. Yet they stop short of a full realization of what speciesist culture involves and what living a moral life in such an environment requires. Moral vegans distinguish themselves from moral vegetarians in accepting the practical prescriptions of altogether avoiding benefiting from animal exploitation, not just of avoiding benefiting from the killing. Vegans take the killing to be merely one aspect of the systematic exploitation of animals.

It does not use "commodity" because it accepts the term "exploitation"; I think "commodity" is perhaps more neutral. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but with a change To my mind, the problem here is that people are vegans for different reasons. There is no doubt that some people are vegans because they wish to dissociate themselves from the idea of supporting the notion that animals are commodities. Taking this one step further, some people will have an almost knee-jerk rejection of that idea with no self-analysis of why they feel that way, whereas others will carefully consider and perhaps even research the political, animal welfare, etc. issues. There are also people who are vegans without any consideration whatsoever of the commodity aspect. Some people might be vegans simply because they don't want to harm animals. Consider also the family that raises their children as vegans. The child in their early years is extremely unlikely to be aware of the commodity status of animals, but we would still define them as vegans. So, I agree with commodity status being retained in the definition, however, I suggest the following wording. Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet; some abstainers follow an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.DrChrissy (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, 'Yes, but with a change' is 'No'. I think everyone, including me, could agree to the current wording with the change of their choice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi DrChrissy, these are good points. The function of the word both in that sentence is to indicate that veganism is both the practice of not using animals, particularly as food, and that it is also an associated philosophy, etc. The word both does what you're suggesting: it makes clear that we're talking about two approaches. The second paragraph expands on that theme. SarahSV (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah. But doesn't your edit of adding "both" exclude accounting for vegans that abstain but do not follow the associated philosophy. Some vegans may be vegans simply because they have a deep empathy for animals but have absolutely no idea about their status as commodities. (This is a really complex topic. I used to work with a Ph.D. student in animal welfare who identified himself as a vegetarian. I was amazed when one lunch-time, he started to eat the chicken someone had left-over when they had finished eating. He justified this by saying he was a vegetarian because he disagreed with the animal welfare and commodity issues of mass animal production. He then argued further that because he had not purchased the meal himself, he was not contributing to the production chain. Interesting thinking.)DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
This is very interesting because I happened to find myself in a similar situation last night. I've been a vegetarian that leans vegan for just under 30 years, for all the good reasons. I've never been a "religious" vegan, but I try to avoid supporting animal products whenever I can. Yesterday, I was in a supermarket checkout line behind strangers, in this case, a woman and her young son. She was trying to pay for her food with food stamps (very common in a welfare state like Hawaii where the cost of living is too high for the average person) but for some reason or another it didn't cover the ground beef she was trying to buy for her family and she was short on cash. I had a quick argument in my head (Homer Simpson style, between the angel and the devil) and my better nature won out and I bought the food for her. I do not wish to support the meat industry or the exploitation of animals but situational ethics demands flexibility. Your friend who ate the meat was probably doing a good thing by not wasting food, but I've personally chosen to fast or go without in similar situations. We must avoid moral absolutes in our definitions. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, the sentence is "Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals."
This means that veganism is two things, broadly speaking:
  • (1) It is a practice (something that people do) that involves not using animal products for whatever reason; this practice centres around what they eat; and
  • (2) it can also be a philosophy (something that people believe), which centres around a rejection of animals as commodities – that animals are property and objects of trade.
The next paragraph expands on the different forms of veganism, so this first sentence is just the briefest of introductions. As for your point about someone who is a vegan because of a deep empathy for animals, but who had never considered and opposed that animals are bought and sold, I doubt that such a person exists. SarahSV (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this Sarah. I think you have looked into the philosophy behind veganism waaaaay more than I have so I will defer to your argument.DrChrissy (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You should indeed. My actions were as recommended here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
There's already an indication below that you may not have chosen randomly. In addition, it seems you chose editors from the "math, science and technology" list, which isn't really connected to veganism, and particularly not when discussing the philosophy of veganism, which is the subject of this RfC. The "religion and philosophy" list would have been appropriate. Together with all the other issues, this is not good behaviour.
I'm not sure what to do now – whether this RfC should be regarded as too undermined to continue, whether we should ask another 18 from the philosophy list, or whether we should just keep going. SarahSV (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No I've been a strict vegan for five years and a much less than strict vegan for 23 years since, I've been trustee of a charity which had veganism as one of its founding tenants and know quite a few of the prominent UK vegans. In that time I have never heard the wording "commodity status of animals". Yes there have been long and intense discussion on ethics of keeping and rearing animals and the whole issue of factory farms, but I can not recall anyone using the word commodity. The word carries a particular POV which may be used by some authors but I do not think it is representative of veganism as a whole. There may be space lower down in the article to discuss animals as a commodity but it becomes a too subtle point for the lead. There are better more neutral ways of phrasing it.
I was one of the people Martin Hogbin asked. I suspect it is because I have a Vegan userbox on my home page. --Salix alba (talk): 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Martin was supposed to ask people at random from that list, and said he had done so. Otherwise it's canvassing, and if he has selected 18 people that he believes will deliver the result he wants, we will have to close the RfC.
I am also on the Science & Maths RFC list so he might have found me that way. --Salix alba (talk): 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Salix, this isn't about any editor's opinion, or which words people have heard in conversations, but about what the sources say, and the sources support this. I'm not sure what "particular POV" it carries. Ethical vegans oppose that animals are owned and can be traded. That goes to the heart of ethical veganism. SarahSV (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I can see what Salix alba is saying (although I don't know what the POV is). The exact string of words is not really at issue, nor is it meant to convey anything polemical - "commodity status" is essentially a very neutral way of conveying what vegans may call "animal exploitation". If we included that wording, we would probably have to go to "what vegans consider to be animal exploitation" or something similar, and then this would give the misimpression that vegans simply want meat, milk, and eggs to be produced more humanely. The wording currently in the article is very well supported by the sources and gets at the right idea. I also have to reiterate that this RfC was started as a debate over whether "commodity status" applied to animals was a neutral and objective term, which it clearly is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
To expand on the problems with referring to Commodification and Commodity status of animals treating animals as a tradable good is a little different from veganism. You can have exploitation of animals without involving trade, trapping a wild rabbit and eating it would not be compatible with veganism, neither would milking a pet goat. Indeed our project has had endless discussions of the whether we should keep bees for honey - exploiting but not trading. On the other hand many vegan keep pets, whilst all those I know have been rescue dogs, I'm not sure how vegans would feel about trading pet dogs, gerbils, or draft horses (I think the Dongas road protest group were vegans who use draft animals). "animal exploitation" is much closer to the language used and you will find that term much more prevalent in the vegan literature (academic literature is a separate question). --Salix alba (talk): 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Salix alba: Well, so maybe this is the confusion: trapping or killing a rabbit makes it your property (see commodity status of animals and Pierson v. Post); likewise you are legally entitled to milk a pet goat because the goat is your property. The term encompasses the current status of animals as property. The reason that "commodity" is used is that some authors, like Favre, would allow animals to have an "improved" property status short of personhood. But the point is really that vegans want to end commercial use of animals; granting animals a legal status higher than (movable) property. I do think this is fairly universally agreed, even if vegans in conversation don't express it in exactly these terms. Anyway it's definitely what academic sources say. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, something you are not allowed to exploit is probably not your property. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No Or Change It I went to the commodity article linked and after farmed animals it describes "companion animals, working animals and animals in sport". I seriously doubt the general and broad school of veganism rejects pets. I actually know a bunch of strict vegans who own pets. They object to the use of leather and similar items, but not pets. This differentiates them from vegetarians. I think Martin's absolutely right here and at the very least the wording should be changed. What the lead currently describes is the subsect of veganism known as strict ethical. There exist ethical and strict ethical. It's obviously a mistake to describe the general school as the subsect. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Magoo, you have things exactly the wrong way round. it was Martin who wanted to stress ethical veganism in the first sentence. We have been opposing that. The current first sentence describes both forms. The next paragraph elaborates. Someone suggested adding "and exploitation," which would be fine, but that's not the issue before us. SarahSV (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like that to me. He wants it moved below to the body, doesn't he? And the article originally did stress ethical veganism next to the commodity bit in the lead but an edit warrer who's no longer with us removed the "ethical" part from next to the commodity and thus now it stands next to all of veganism. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
That is correct. I proposed that 'Commodity status' could be included in the artice in the 'Ethical vegans' section, where it deoas apply and that more detail on its meaning could also be given there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Martin, you are making no sense. You have been arguing quite extensively for including the Vegan Society definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals" in the lede. You can't simultaneously argue that ethical veganism does not belong in the lede. And I do not believe that you share Mr. Magoo's extreme confusion about the nature of the subject matter, which means you are being disingenuous in agreeing with him here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Calm down. It makes perfect sense. Remove the other definition, move in another. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No It absolutely appears that catenating two items which are not specifically held in common by all vegans is likely to be misleading to readers. Especially as it is quite clear in this case that the proposed wording is nicely incomprehensible to normal Wikipedia users. This does not prevent having a section discussing "use of animals" as a topic within the broader topic, but that such a position should not be presented as a dominant and requisite basis for the topic. Collect (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Veganism is about avoiding certain types of food. It does not have to be accompanied by any philosophy, it could as well be a matter of culinary preference, food sensitivities, financial considerations, customs, etc. Some sources mention the philosophy so it should be discussed in the article, but it is not a part of the common definition of veganism. “WarKosign” 07:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Did you get get a chance to look at this collection of encyclopedia definitions of veganism? Several define it as a philosophy, several define it as a practice supported by a philosophy, and only one (focused on health) doesn't mention the issue. You're quite right that people may be vegans for dietary or other reasons, but RS seem to disagree that veganism should be defined without referring to ethical vegans' philosophy. FourViolas (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No - it's certainly a reason that many vegans are vegan, but it don't think it should be worded in such a way that it implies that one must agree with that philosophy in order to be considered a vegan. The definitions of veganism I've seen which include a philosophical component seem to be primarily from vegan-associated sources which are expanding upon the accepted definition and including what veganism means to them. Objectively all wonderful things, but I don't think that they can be considered integral to the common definition of the term. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No. (brought here by bot) The addition directly refers to ethical veganism, which is not the focus of the entire article. It's far too narrow to be in the lead definition of veganism. All the sources, while high quality and reliable, specifically refer to ethical veganism, not veganism in general. It may be better like this: "Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the consumption of animals." or "Veganism is both the practice and the associated philosophy of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet." --Iamozy (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No -- As I non-vegan, I do not understand the concept of rejecting the "commodity status of animals". I would not generally associate it with veganism. Can the associated philosophy be described in a more accessible way? BTW, I've not been solicited by the editor Martin Hogbin :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes but change it - It appears that the consensus above supports the inclusion of this per reliable sources. However, I agree with an above user in that vegans are vegans for many different reasons. There is definitely a group of vegans in this world that reject the notion of animals as commodities. Just because one vegan doesn't agree with this statement doesn't necessarily mean it can't be included in the article. I would go with what reliable sources say, and possibly change the wording. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No, rewrite - The current wording feels clunky. I don't have a suggestion for replacement wording, but it should focus on there being two distinct philosophies for veganism - ethical and environmental - without putting undue weight on what I assume is the former. This would also help tie the lead into the article's content, which I don't feel is provided by the current lead. For what it's worth, I was also brought here by an FRS bot, not that it matters, because apparently I've signed myself up in every list (whoops)--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

A question has arisen about the validity of the RfC. Martin has been discussing the RfC on other talk pages, trying to persuade people to comment here. He has placed an AfD notice on Commodity status of animals which, although unlikely to succeed, places a question mark over the page while this RfC is open.

He has also notified 18 individual editors. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] These editors are from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. The instruction there is that editors should choose names randomly to avoid canvassing. But Martin seems to have chosen them from the "math, science and technology" list, even though the philosophy of veganism, which is what this RfC is about, has nothing to do with that. He didn't chose any from the "religion and philosophy" list that I can see (Martin, please correct me if I'm wrong about that). In addition, one person who has responded has a veganism box on their user page. That could be coincidence.

Options: (a) Ask an admin to declare the RfC invalid, and re-open it at a later date. (b) Ask 18 editors from the philosophy list to comment. (c) Carry on as though nothing has happened.

Any thoughts? SarahSV (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've found one user so far, Abhishikt, who is on the philosophy list as well as the math and science one. SarahSV (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This RfC shouldn't even be on the math and science list, and yes, people there might be more likely than people at the two actually relevant lists to both be uninformed and to share Martin's anti-vegan perspective. Honestly, though, this question is so inane that I can't justify subjecting more people to it. There's no way we can be true to the sources without including a statement of the type under discussion, so the question boils down to which specific words we use. New editors coming in can't believe we are writing reams about something so picayune, and mostly comment on an issue that isn't on the table, and then we have to explain that no, we are really just debating how many angels fit on that pinhead. It's a waste of everyone's time. So I guess (c). --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it has become absurd. SarahSV (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC
By all means ask randomly selected editors from the philosophy list to comment here. I started with math and science because it was the first lits with some relevance to the topic that I came across. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Picking up from some suggestions that we add "exploitation," the sentence part – "an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals – could be changed to:

  • an associated philosophy that rejects the exploitation and commodity status of animals
  • an associated philosophy that rejects the exploitation and commodification of animals
  • an associated philosophy that rejects the idea that animals are commodities to be exploited

SarahSV (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I made my feelings on this language known in this edit and others. We do not need to use primary-source language ("exploitation") that presents genuine NPOV issues, and do not need to pretend that the fictitious NPOV issues in "commodity status of animals" are real. Note that the objections to the current language are from
(a) Vegans who want to use primary definitions such as that of the Vegan Society
(b) People who thought the issue had to do with whether the philosophy aspect should be incorporated in the definition at all
(c) Martin, who paradoxically agrees with both of them at the same time
(d) Magoo, who fundamentally does not understand what veganism is
(e) Possibly SageRad, who seems to be ambivalent about whether "commodity status" might have ideological connotations
Except for the last one, these are not concerns which we can address while representing the sources and without violating policy. We should not be considering abandoning the right answer just because the conversation has become confused. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Sammy, you really must stop insulting eveyone who disagrees with you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this is a manufactured dispute. Still, if some people would like to see "exploitation" added, I see no harm in it. It should be easy enough to find secondary sources, so there would be no need to rely on vegan societies. SarahSV (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I do see harm in it: (1) it's vague, potentially leading to confusion like that of Magoo over whether vegans approve of humanely produced animals products; (2) it can be understood as partisan language. I hate to sound stubborn but if we're admitting it ain't broke, let's not fix it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What about my suggestion, which is perfectly clear and uses sourced language suggested by Sammy:

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet. Most vegans also reject the legal status of of most non-human animals as property, particularly farmed animals, working animals and animals in sport, and their use as objects of trade. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As no one has responded, can I assume that there is no objection to this wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't imagine why you'd assume that, as multiple editors objected when you proposed this wording in [thread] three days ago. Please stop saying the exact same things in multiple places and then acting as if no one is answering you.
The basic problem is that veganism is defined as a philosophy by many RS. For just one example see Zamir and for others see the article's references and the accounting by FourViolas above.
There is arguably more support for the following wording:
Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle based on rejection of the commodity status of animals. Vegans abstain from the use of animal products, especially in diet. Some follow a diet free of animal-based food without adhering to the philosophy, and are called dietary vegans.
I will suggest that, after this RfC, it may be best to go to formal mediation, where we can have a structured RS-based discussion, rather than a chaotic opinion-based argument sprawled over multiple threads. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with including 'philosophy' only 'commodity status' so why not:

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet. Most vegans also hold the philosophy that rejects the legal status of of most non-human animals as property, particularly farmed animals, working animals and animals in sport, and their use as objects of trade. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is another sense (arguably the primary sense) of the word veganism. Your version makes dietary veganism the primary (indeed only) sense of the word. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that some ethical vegans use or eat animal products? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I am trying

How about this then? Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet and in many cases includes a philosophy that rejects the legal status of of most non-human animals as property, particularly farmed animals, working animals and animals in sport, and their use as objects of trade Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not bad, I suppose. Stylistically it's a bit clunky (lots of dependent clauses strung together); one advantage of "commodity status" is that it carries all those implications in one short phrase. Substantively, I feel it's not quite enough to say that veganism "in many cases includes" vegan philosophy; a lot of sources act like veganism is the philosophy, which incidentally implies the lifestyle. In my opinion "as well as an associated philosophy" captures the not-quite-equivalent relationship better, or perhaps "and often/usually an associated philosophy". FourViolas (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Praise indeed! You say, 'one advantage of "commodity status" is that it carries all those implications in one short phrase'. That is precisely my objection to using it. You may know, or at least believe, that "commodity status" carries all those implications in one short phrase' but how is a general reader supposed to know that? Following the link to a hastily-written and more complex description, actually makes it even more confusing. It took me, as a person with an interest in the subject, several weeks to find our exactly what 'commodity status' was intended to mean. WP:LEAD says [my bold], 'The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is', or as one RfC respondent and WP:LEAD says the lead should, 'Provide an accessible overview'.
I think your argument that all vegans are really ethical vegans must be your own personal opinion, or at least that of a small group here. The sources that addressed that question, provided by you, did not support that assertion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Another relevant quote from WP:LEAD says [my bold], 'The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article'. Martin Hogbin (talk)
Is the plan to ignore me now. I have proposed a form or wording intenden to resolve this dispute. The words or not mine but those selected from a reliable source chosen by Sammy. Another opposing editor above has show some willingness to accept this wording.
The proposed wording is supported by a RS and conforms to the requirements of WP:LEAD in that it describes the subject in a clear an accessible way. There is a clear consensus in the RfC so far (17 to 11) not to have 'commodity status' in the lead. I therefore propose we have the wording at the top if this section in the lead of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it's alright in regard to the concerns of some others, though i really think that the ethical reasons for veganism generally include more than just the "property status" of animals and into the conditions and exploitation of non-human animals. For instance, Some people avoid these items because of conditions associated with their production. from [52]. Why would the "legal status as property" be noted so prominently but not conditions of exploitation? SageRad (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Katherine Wayne

@Martin Hogbin: I wonder if the content of Katherine Wayne's paper which you added accurately represents her views. Did you read the conclusion of the paper? It begins:

The preceding scenarios and discussion are not intended to make any substantive claims against the vegan diet or vegan lifestyle. Indeed, it seems clear that in almost all cases, given the pervasive exploitation and intense suffering that is involved in collecting animal products, we are morally obliged to refrain from purchasing, consuming, and otherwise using animal products. Thus the preceding scenarios and discussion are meant to provide a conceptually based criticism of veganism. In levelling this criticism, as will now be clear, my article aspires not to make a uniquely theoretical point but to render recognisable the vast possibilities for mutually satisfying, respectful, and productive relationships between caregivers and those for whom they care. Moreover, recognising veganism as practically justified can create space for better understanding of the ways in which asymmetrically dependent relationships can and do go wrong, both in terms of the damage they do to individuals and the oppressive social structures they reinforce.

I'll edit it to better reflect what was actually said in the paper. However, note it's a low-impact journal and the article has gotten one citation. This sort of criticism of abolitionism, but not vegansim per se, is probably better attributed to Zamir. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

What I wrote was taken from the abstract. If an overall conclusion is to be taken from the paper that should be done by an independent person (as in the case of the abstract) rather than an editor here. Your personal opinion of her conclusions or the impact of the source is not relevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Martin, it's not my personal opinion, it's what the source says. You can't just twist a source to suit the POV you want to insert in the article, when that POV is not represented in the source's content. This is essentially what you did with Lamey also, cherry-picking and exaggerating a statement which is directly against the point of the paper. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Abstracts are written by an academic paper's author(s), not by some kind of impartial interpretation committee, and WP:MEDRS#Choosing sources explains why it's a bad idea to cite a paper after reading only the abstract. Anyway, I've added Zamir's criticism, in the context in which I found it in a peer-reviewed secondary source. FourViolas (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence RfC closed

I have closed the RfC on whether the first sentence should include, change, or remove "the commodity status of animals", with a consensus to perform the following:

edit the first sentence to mention the main belief ("philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" or similar) of ethical veganism as a belief that is not always, but may be followed by vegans.

There is no consensus to change "the commodity status of animals" itself. This means that the first sentence should not include the rejection of the commodity status of animals as a belief of veganism generally, but as a belief that may also be adopted by vegans. The justification for this close is covered in the RfC's closing statement.

The following modifications to the first sentence were proposed in the RfC. This second RfC will decide how the first sentence should be modified. Any proposals for an alternative wording should be started in a separate level-3 section and include "the commodity status of animals" or similar as there is no consensus to change this. Esquivalience t 02:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Esquivalience, I was about to ask why you archived the discussion, but I see that you went into the archive to close. Editing the archive in this case is obviously understandable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Esquivalience, would you mind withdrawing this RfC so that we can go to a different dispute resolution forum instead? This RfC is badly posed - there are simply two different meanings of the word "veganism" as many sources attest. Furthermore, this question has been a proxy for a broader dispute, and I'd rather go to mediation than have another aimless RfC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Like Sammy1339, I don't see that another RfC is needed about the lead sentence; I think the previous RfC settled it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The previous discussion seemed to be another status quo ante discussion on whether "commodity status of animals" is an appropriate term to describe ethical veganism itself. This discussion, while the proposer intended it to be another long RfC about the term itself, had another consensus unrelated to the original intent, and that the first sentence should imply that there are different philosophies regarding veganism, and not all vegans follow all of these philosiphies. For example, and an example that I do and should not support, oppose, or propose but was the only proposed alternate wording in the RfC that is not another attempt at changing commodity status of animals itself, is Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet; some abstainers follow an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. Esquivalience t 00:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, this is missing the point that another meaning of the word "veganism" is that philosophy. The current lede explains that and also makes clear that not all vegans are vegans in that sense of the word. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I accept that the last two revisions sufficiently implement the RfC result in that the lead should summarize the accepted notion that there are different reasons for veganism. However, the wording of the first sentence (not regarding the CSOA dispute) may still be regarded by some imply that both dietary and ethical veganism are necessary philosophies for vegans to accept without the context of the second paragraph.
I will withdraw the RfC as attention from all parts of the encyclopedia does not seem to be necessary on second thought, but there should be a short discussionthis should be left to see if there are any objections on whether the current revision sufficiently implements the outcome. Esquivalience t 00:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The War against Veganism

I feel this is a topic that needs to be added to this Veganism article. There's several factual cases where people have been murdered by assassins paid by the meat and dairy industry for speaking out about the importance of veganism. There's currently a case in the United States brought on by a prominent vegan spokesperson and physician where the egg board is in a law suit for their involvement for adding false data to our food pyramid.Timpicerilo (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Any such allegations would have to be verified in reliable sources and not given disproportionate attention. FourViolas (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Over 1100 activists have been murdered in Brazil standing up to the Cattle industry over the last 20 years. Cattle ranching is destroying the Amazon and is one good reason many people are turning vegan.
Dr. Neal Barnard of the non profit physicians committee for responsible medicine is suing the government claiming the egg industry used it's influence to weaken warnings about cholesterol.
The PCFRM also has a lawsuit against the USDA by alleging conflicts of interest. Those conflicts of interest include the Secretary of Agriculture's statutory duty to foster "new or expanded markets" and move "larger quantities of agricultural products through the private marketing system to consumers." And the lawsuit points to the fact that the advisory committee members for the dietary guidelines have ties to meat and dairy food-product industries, such as Dannon, Kraft Foods, and MacDonald's, which creates direct conflicts of interest.Timpicerilo (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
That may be so, but we need high-quality, trustworthy sources to prove it. Also, these sources need to discuss this in the context of veganism; otherwise it would be WP:Original research and inappropriate to include here, although possibly appropriate at Ranch#Ranching_in_South_America or something.
I feel I should repeat that Wikipedia is not an advocacy tool; it's supposed to be a neutral, objective information source. If your intention is to promote veganism, I strongly encourage you to put your energies elsewhere: start a blog or volunteer for Mercy for Animals or something. Trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with Wikipedia will only lead to frustration in the long run. FourViolas (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm no animal activist in fact I still hunt animals for sport but my goal is to make sure the article represents facts WP:NPV and to allow veganism to speak for itself. Above are just examples but there's no shortage of trustworthy sources. What is needed are more informed people because to write about something you need to know about it and it helps when you have been both a meat eater and a vegan.Timpicerilo (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent health information

User:Timpicerilo, I appreciate your assistance, but it's very important to follow WP:MEDRS when discussing health-related content, and your recent edits [53] [54] haven't been compliant with that guideline. I know it's an unusually high standard, but in general we can't accept blogs or news articles, even ones which would be considered reliable for other purposes; we need secondary sources (those which summarize and review previous sources), which have been published in respected peer-reviewed medical journals, ideally within the last 5 years.

Also, we can't selectively remove information unfavorable to veganism [55]; if we did, we might be accused of WP:ADVOCACY for veganism (WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox) instead of doing our job by reporting the best-quality information available from a neutral point of view. FourViolas (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The source was from a peer reviewed medical journal published within 5 years. I used the wrong link from the Physicians committee for responsible medicine that was talking about it. It should have been from [56]Timpicerilo (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
That's actually a primary study, which would be fine in most subject areas, but WP:MEDRS requires significantly more than that, emphasizing a need for review articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed (ec) that that's a much better source, but still primary. We would require something like the two review papers it cites [57] [58], which surveyed all published literature and concluded that there was not good evidence that dairy consumption has significant bone-fracture-prevention effects (although they do not say that it causes negative effects). However, those are from 2005 and 2006, and might be out of date, so we'd need to look for more recent literature reviews discussing this issue.
However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to discuss the lack-of-benefit of dairy in an article about dairy-free diets, as those papers don't mention veganism per se. I think that information would be better placed at Milk or something, reserving this article for similar-quality sources which specifically discuss vegan diets. FourViolas (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
There's several new peer reviewed research papers that now contradict
"A 2007 report based on the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, which began in 1993, suggested that vegans have an increased risk of bone fractures over meat eaters and vegetarians, likely because of lower dietary calcium intake. The study found that vegans consuming at least 525 mg of calcium daily have a risk of fractures similar to that of other groups"
which by the way is not within the last 5 years. I think it should be replaced with the latest data I feel this is important to keep up I remember learning in college that physicians at one time would recommend smoking to relax heart patients. My point is it's important to keep up with the latest research.Timpicerilo (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree it would be a good idea to find a more recent review paper. Because medicine is so complicated, there may well be "peer-reviewed research papers" (primary sources) which support, as well as others which contradict, this information; that's why we insist on reviews. FourViolas (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I suggest it needs more emphasis on how a well planned vegan diet is not lacking in calcium and is just as good as an omnivore's diet. The research proving this point is abundant:

[Weaver CM, Plawecki KL. Dietary calcium: adequacy of a vegetarian diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59:1238S-1241S][Zhao Y, Martin BR, Weaver CM. Calcium bioavailability of calcium carbonate fortified soymilk is equivalent to cow’s milk in young women. J Nutr 2005;135:2379-82][ Heaney RP, Dowell MS, Rafferty K, Bierman J. Bioavailability of the calcium in fortified soy imitation milk, with some observations on method. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:1166-9][Weaver CM, Plawecki KL. Dietary calcium: adequacy of a vegetarian diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59 (suppl):1238S-1241S][Feskanich D, Willett WC, Colditz GA. Calcium, vitamin D, milk consumption, and hip fractures: a prospective study among postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr 2003;77:504-11][Chiu JF, Lan SJ, Yang CY, et al. Long-term vegetarian diet and bone mineral density in post-menopausal Taiwanese women. Calcif Tissue Int 1997;60:245-9][Appleby P, Roddam A, Allen N, Key T. Comparative fracture risk in vegetarians and nonvegetarians in EPIC-Oxford. Eur J Clin Nutr 2007; 61:1400-6][Ho-Pham LT, Nguyen ND, Nguyen TV. Effect of vegetarian diets on bone mineral density: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 90:1-8][Frassetto LA, Todd KM, Morris RC, Jr., et al. Worldwide incidence of hip fracture in elderly women: relation to consumption of animal and vegetable foods. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000;55:M585-92][Sellmeyer DE, Stone KL, Sebastian A, et al. A high ratio of dietary animal to vegetable protein increases the rate of bone loss and the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr 2001;73:118-22][Weaver CM, Heaney RP, Nickel KP, et al. Calcium bioavailability from high oxalate vegetables: Chinese vegetables, sweet potatoes, and rhubarb. J Food Sci 1997;62:524-525].Timpicerilo (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of veganism?

A lot of pages and articles have a section dedicated to criticism of the topic. It is rather conspicuous by its absence from this article. Is there truly no criticism of veganism?2.101.140.223 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Frank. O

I have suggested this before but been shot down in flames. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#.27Criticism.27_section Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggested it also, but I think the other editors were right to shoot it down, because separate criticism sections are no longer regarded as best practice per WP:CRITICISM. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:Criticism is not policy but just an essay by a handful of editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
True, but the policy WP:NPOV#Article structure all but says the same thing:
The policy also refers editors to WP:CRITICISM several times in footnotes, implying the essay is generally uncontroversial. Some reliable criticism is already incorporated into the article: e.g., "faux-leather is bad for the environment", "vegetarianism in nursing mothers has been tied to future B12-deficiency-mediated neurological problems", and "veganism wrongly fails to recognize everything's 'ecological embeddedness'". FourViolas (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That policy does not in any way advise against a criticism section. These are found in mant WP articles. It does though say, 'Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints'. This article completely fails to present a NPOV in that respect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
It just seems to me that while there may be criticism in the piece, it's buried. It isn't 'encyclopaedic' to do that, indeed it's about as unencyclopaedic as one can get. I've seen the occasional piece where this has happened and it's almost as if someone, somewhere, wants to keep any inconvenient facts or statements out of the casual eye. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to stimulate thought, no? If this is the case, then it makes sense to have a concise centralised section with an overview of criticism. To fail to do this just strikes me as dishonest, against the spirit of wiki and frankly, downright wrong. 2.101.96.49 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Frank O.
Lots of people have lots of ideas about what encyclopedias are for and what Wikipedia should be. WP:POLICIES are those principles which we have decided, as a community, to prioritize when disagreement exists, in order to prevent endless bickering. Policy in this case is clearly recommends folding debates into the narrative of the article as a better way to achieve fairness and contextualize information appropriately. FourViolas (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:Criticism States that while separate criticism sections should be avoided, sometimes they are necessary. I think this is an instance in which a separate criticism section is necessary. As it is, the article presents veganism as if it is an uncontrovesial topic. The word "criticism" is never used once in a challenge to veganism, and the word "controversy" never appears in the entire article. Criticism is underrepresented in this article, either as a separate section or as integrated content throughout the article. This is a violation of WP:NPOV --Iamozy (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that "criticism is underrepresented" and assertion that a fair treatment of veganism needs to have a separate criticism section (despite clear policy recommendations) require significant WP:RS to back them up—that's how WP:NPOV works. Can you show us reliable secondary coverage of criticism of veganism, and explain why it is not possible to integrate it into the text as policy recommends? FourViolas (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I have always maintained that this article is overly promotional of veganism and lacks criticism of it. I do not much care whether it is in a separate section or spread throughout the article but we certainly need to present an opposing view. Veganism is very much a minority view but it is presented as if it is almost universal. Clearly more people do not accept veganism than do but this is not reflected in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is a good example of bias in this article, ' Well-planned vegan diets can reduce the risk of some types of chronic disease, including heart disease'. That is true but fails to mention that some disease is made worse by veganism and also conveniently assumes that what the source call 'vegetarianism' is veganism.
Although well planned vegan diets may be OK they are much easier than omniverous diets to plan badly, see for example, [59]. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"Easier to plan badly"? People turn to this article for information it's our responsibility to not misinform the public when it is harmful to their health.WP:NPOV A well planned vegan diet is proven to be healthier than the omnivores diet and it reduces the major causes of death. It's far easier to come up with examples of people dying or getting sick from a omnivores diet.[60][61][62][63]Timpicerilo (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section in the talk pages

Perhaps we could collate and discuss criticim of veganism here on the talk page and then decide whether to add it in a separate section or in with the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not a regular contributor to this article, but I can be if no one else wants to add the topic criticism of veganism to the article. Here are some resources that can be used to begin. I have no issue with whether or not it is in a separate section or interspersed throughout the article. My problem with this article is that criticism seems to be barely mentioned at all.
--Iamozy (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
1. No-impact journal, one citation. I think this has to be excluded per UNDUE.
2. Not a criticism of veganism at all; actually it is a criticism of Davis' criticism of veganism. Davis' argument is full of holes, and most of the citations it got are articles refuting it in one way or other. It currently is discussed in ethics of eating meat.
3. This is a very interesteng source which could be useful for this article, but there appears to be no criticism of veganism in it. Thanks anyway, I will read it!
4. Again, I may be misreading, but I don't see any criticism of veganism in this paper.
5. B12 is a perennial issue on this article. I actually think it bears mentioning that veganism is one of the leading causes of B12 deficiency in the developed world (which is very rare however). This is not a MEDRS source, but I'm sure that statement can be sourced elsewhere.
6. popsci.com is very far from an RS, let alone MEDRS. Per WP:NEWSORG we really can't use this op-ed on nutrition.
7. WSJ is not a MEDRS.
8. Not a MEDRS.
9. Not a MEDRS.
10. Veganism:Why Not - this is from theanarchistlibrary.org and offers an "anarchist perspective." I doubt this is an RS, but if it is I don't object to it.
11. Not a MEDRS.
12. This one might actually work, although note that this appeared in 1976, when animal ethics was brand new in academia, and was later published in a journal with impact factor 0.00.
13. Pollan. This could be good, if people want to lower the standards a little to allow notable journalists instead of just academcs. In that case, this should be included together with Jonathan Safran Foer's notable response to it.
14. This is by Ingrid Newkirk and I think you must not have read it.
15. Davis' flawed argument doesn't belong here because the overwhelming criticism of it would drown out the argument itself.
One criticism that does belong is Zamir's paper that I keep citing. The philosophy section could use a rewrite anyway. I'm not trying to be contrarian but it's harder than it sounds to find reliably sourced criticisms of veganism. The academic ethics literature is basically against meat eating, as lamented here and evidenced here. The pro-meat arguments are aptly summarized in this series of articles:[64][65][66][67] and this belongs in ethics of eating meat anyway. The problem with health criticisms is that they are never MEDRS and what actual MEDRS sources say varies from neutral to positive. There are probably social criticisms we're missing; I'm not completely sure about that. Pollan seems to fall in this category, arguing that people have an interest in preserving meat-related traditions; Josh Ozersky also put it even more bluntly in this op-ed:

First of all, I get the point made by animal-rights activists. Their primary arguments (that eating other animals is unnecessary, that their lives are as valuable as ours, that eating meat has catastrophic effects on our environment) are, to be honest, unanswerable. I admit that. I just don't want to stop eating meat. In fact, I want to eat even more of it than I do, if that's possible. But you won't hear me making bumper-sticker arguments like: "If God wanted us to eat lettuce, he wouldn't have given us teeth." Like my hero Tony Soprano, I understand there are certain moral realities in my life that I just have to make my peace with. And my peace rests on this side of pork chops.

But I think that especially in an article on a controversial subject we ought to try to keep the quality of the sourcing higher than op-eds. There are an abundance of pro-vegan ones which are not represented here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Davis is given two paragraphs, and his rebutters one, in Veganism#Environmental veganism, which is his DUE or more. I agree that the whole philosophy section needs attention—ideally rewriting to secondary sources, because otherwise there are a bunch of rabbit holes of such primary disputes, e.g. Hsiao vs Bruers, Erdos vs Hsiao, which are not worth including and need a systematic filter. Also, I agree that medical criticisms need MEDRS instead of sensationalism, but op-ed-quality sources which could be read as advocating veganism should be trimmed from the article as well. FourViolas (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I thought we had nixed Davis. We should - his argument is bunk. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I think burger veganism probably worth a sentence, with refutation; his main paper has been cited 41 times, which is a lot for a philosophy paper, and I bet there's a secondary source which would indicate due weight. I'm wary of Pollan's opinion piece, because you're right that Foer's response would seem to be warranted, and it's a slippery slope to every talking head's op-ed. I think, though, that the kind of lifestyle-section story SageRad brought up above could help to fill the need for social criticisms. As in that case, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is the way to go: "critics of mainstream vegan movements have argued that the lack of diversity among their leadership, and their frequent comparison of animal exploitation to slavery, betray racist attitudes" and so forth. FourViolas (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Sammy1339 It seems to me that you are misunderstanding what I mean by "criticism of veganism". It doesn't only mean peer-reviewed journals that argue specifically against becoming a vegan. Criticism comes in many forms (as in source 3, which criticizes the white-centric narrative of vegan discussion/philosophy), and I see almost none of it in the current state of this article. We are not writing a review article here. There are plenty of third-party criticisms of veganism, and the fact that it is ignored (which implies to the reader that it doesn't exist) is misleading. Wikipedia isn't concerned with whether you think the criticisms are good. There is substantial evidence that criticism does exist and it's been thoroughly documented. There is a difference between saying "Veganism is unhealthy because..." and the "The health implications of a vegan lifestyle have been critically discussed by..." WP:MEDRS only applies to making medical claims within an article. It does not invalidate sources that document the public discussion of health. --Iamozy (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually we're discussing all kinds of criticisms, from philosophical counterarguments to health claims to political activism. The health claims do need a reliable peer-reviewed secondary source; WP:MEDRS is clear about that, see WP:MEDPOP. However, Breeze Harper's interesting work should definitely get in. I looked around a while ago for a secondary source to help frame it, but didn't find one; I think it's worth including under WP:YESPOV anyway.
However, I don't agree that we need a special "criticism of veganism" section. It would make more sense to incorporate Harper's work into, say, §Demographics. There, it would be usefully surrounded by information about the cultural context of contemporary veganism, rather than segregated into an oppo research section which would inaccurately imply that Harper opposes veganism (despite being a longtime vegan herself). Do you see what I mean? FourViolas (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
FourViolas, perhaps you would be better to ask yourself whether you see what Iamozy and I are getting at. The article, as it is now, is written almost entirely from a vegan perspectve, ignoring criticism from non-vegan sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
What sources would you like to include? --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
How about those listed above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
How about the policy-based concerns we've been discussing? Per WP:BURDEN, it would be great if you started reading and writing up reliable sources. FourViolas (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I know I've missed the boat here, but I just want to make a couple of comments on the list of sources above. "Against Principled Veganism" is in no way a criticism of veganism; it's a criticism of abolitionism from an alternative animal rights position. (The author is a vegan, and claims in that article to support something close to Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka's Zoopolis approach. It's a fascinating article if you're familiar with animal rights literature, but not very useful if you're looking to criticise veganism.) That said, the Journal of Applied Philosophy is highly regarded, and should not be dismissed. As for the "Not Only Humans Eat Meat" paper, that's one of mine. I'm pleased to see that someone's noticed my work, but if it's critical of veganism, that's news to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Too much misinformation in this article, B12, iodine, calcium are more of a problem for meat eaters than they are in a well rounded vegan diet. Vegans get natural B12 in good spring water just like the animals and our ancestors have, iodine from kelp or salt like the meat eaters, and if you follow Dr. Greger's study's from nutritonfacts.org calcium lacking in vegans is a joke. Also check out: [68]Timpicerilo (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of reliable sources here

We all agree that what is said in WP should be verifiable by a reliable source. In the case of science subjects, learned or peer reviewed journals are considered one of the best quality sources. The reason for this is that the peer review process ensures that claims not supported by good quality experimetal or mathematical evidence are not published. Scientific results from peer reviewed journals can generally be relied upon to be correct and accurate and accepted by mainstream scientists.

The situation regarding religion, ethics, and philosophy is different. There is no scientific truth in these subjects, just opinion. Those published in quality journals may well be by respected academics or subject specialists but it cannot be said that makes them true or correct, in fact those terms have no real meaning in these subjects. Wherever they are published they remain opinions, not facts, and must be clearly identified as such. The problem in this article is that is is written to present the minority opinions of pro-vegan sources as facts and to substantially exclude the opinions of vegan critics, who form the majority of the population. This opinion is clearly expressed in many reliable sources, including those listed above. Whilst we should still stick to quality sources we are not arguing about scientific facts but people's opinions on ethical issues. Sources that are not published in peer reviewed journals or independently published books are perfectly acceptable for this purpose.

For example, it is clear that most people's ethics do not preclude them from using animal products. Most religions specifically support the use of animal products and many give detailed guidance on what products may be used or consumed and how animals must be slaughtered. The vast majority of national goverments permit and control the use of animal products and many have strict laws controlling various aspects of animal treatment. Whilst this may not be literally criticism it shows the light in which veganism must be presented in WP; as an extreme minority ethical position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Veganism#Demographics makes it clear, by asserting facts rather than opinions, that veganism is practiced by a small minority in every country in which data is available. We reflect the best quality RS we can find; we are certainly not going to misrepresent those sources based on OR about the implications of this demographic fact, or based on prejudicial attitudes. That is not how WP:NPOV works. Do you have any concrete suggestions, perhaps based on those of Iamozy's sources which we agree are reliable, for material to add to the article? FourViolas (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not misrepresenting anything just pointing out some obvious and well establsihed facts. I presume you are not disputing them?
My main point was that the pro vegan opinions in this article are presented as facts but many critical opinions of veganism are rejected on the basis that the sources do not meet the standards for scientific facts. This is much the same point that Iamozy makes above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Some proposed changes based on two reliable sources

I have added opinion from two of Iamozy's sources. I hope they are not just summarily reverted. They represent sourced critical opinion on veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Lamey

Is anyone seriously doubting that some philosphers have argued that 'animals have minimal or non-existent moral status'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are some relevant quotes on that subject, 'The idea that non-human animals have significant moral status is comparatively modern'.

It's actually an extreme minority view. I would challenge you to find a source for it - I have tried. The only one I know is Timothy Hsiao, an adjunct professor whose paper has not received much attention and doesn't merit mention here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Certainly most historical moral philosophers, from Aristotle to Hume to Kant, have held such positions; but as Sammy's sources above demonstrate, the contemporary ethics literature is very one-sided. I mentioned Hsiao to a professor who has published extensively on animal ethics; she hadn't heard of him (understandably, as the only citations of his article have been two refutations and his own assertion that they didn't work), but was interested because he's very unusual for trying to be taken seriously with a pro-meat position, and she thought her classes might be more interesting if they weren't "just arguing about the right reason for animals having moral status." That's her prerogative, but the relevant conclusion for us is that, bizarre as this may seem, "meat is fine" is actually a WP:FRINGE position among experts who study this branch of ethics. FourViolas (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

'Sentient beings'

This is another vague and unscientific term used by vegans included in the article without attribution or comment. Who or what are 'sentient' and how do we know? There is no general scientific agrement on this, or even on what the term means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Meat and Dairy Industry involvment

I welcome participation by all but it has been brought to my attention recently that the Meat and Dairy industries has paid advocates to push their agenda on Vegan Wikipedia pages. I would like to remind everyone to keep a neutral point of view when working on articles and follow: WP:NPOVTimpicerilo (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Timpicerilo: Hey, are there any links to evidence for involvement by these companies? I'd say this is important to identify conflict of interest editors on the article. By extension, can you name any potential COI editors? NottNott talk|contrib 12:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I will do some research and try to get solid proof before I outright accuse any editors this is something we are going to need undeniable proof of.Timpicerilo (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Omega-3 fatty acids, iodine

Relatively new to veganism is Omega-3 derived from Algae grown in closed-culture manufacturing. It's clean, safe and free of ocean-born contaminants. Using this variety of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acid may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease according to the FDA. This information could be added to this history of veganism.NutritianMagician (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add any objective (or most seemingly objective) sources you have. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to look around maybe something like this?[69]NutritianMagician (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The meta-analysis being dicussed is a good source, exactly the kind WP:MEDRS requires, for the topic of algal DHA and blood lipids. My concern would be WP:OR; the paper opens with a few reasons fish oil might be undesirable as a source of DHA (overfishing, environmental effects of aquaculture), and surveys a few studies which included a vegetarian cohort, but never mentions veganism. I'd be okay with a sentence along the lines of "Vegans may use DHA supplements derived from algae instead of fish oil;[1] a 2011 meta-analysis concluded that algal oil may be an effective replacement for fish oil.[2] The proper place for this would be Veganism#Omega-3 fatty acids, iodine. FourViolas (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Some reliable source discussing algal oil supplement use by vegans
  2. ^ EUFIC source

Intro Changes 4/14/16

I edited the introduction today to further clarify dietary veganism from the philosophical forms of veganism. I believe this extra information helps those not involved in the community to understand that ethical and environmental veganism is more of a lifestyle, whereas strict veganism and the ever-growing plant-based diet followers are mainly titles used in relation to the consumption of food only. I linked to the plant-based diet wiki page for those who want more info. I also edited minor grammatical errors and made minor formatting changes such as italicizing the first use of "Dietary Vegans" to follow the format used for the other distinctions of veganism. Chesedit (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veganism/Archive_14&oldid=717677012"