VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Riot Nrrrd
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Bad news: It's kind of a mess.

Good news: It's probably a fixable mess, unlike many of the entries on the related issue animal ethics (which may be beyond fixability
)

My belief is that a balanced (in that inconvenient facts are given fair exposure) description of ANY subject from a neutral POV (or at least makes an attempt at neutrality) can elevate discussion. I also believe that as it stands the entry does not reach this standard.

Does the wikipedia entry matter at all, problems or not? What are your thoughts?

EDIT: I should have said 'entry for veganism'. Ooops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,548 Posts
I find it to be quite good.

What's your problem with it?
 

·
Ex-*****
Joined
·
5,391 Posts
I agree with Dave. The main problem seems to be the undue weight given to the marginal term "dietary veganism".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,548 Posts
How is the "Dietary veganism" a marginal concept?
 

·
Riot Nrrrd
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Quote:
What's your problem with it?
Factual inaccuracies (notably the first paragraph under 'History and definition' gets objective facts wrong)
Facts irrelevant to the topic which may be elsewhere relevant (Gandhi's nifty - in fact one of my personal heroes. He was also a lacto-vegetarian or maybe even OL, not a vegan. Why are his reasons for being a LV relevant in the topic VEGANISM?)
Internal inconsistancies (the declaration 'The philosophical debate about the moral basis of veganism reflects a division of viewpoints within animal rights theory between a rights-based or deontological approach, and a utilitarian/consequentialist one.' is immediately shown as at best a partial fact by listing the ideas of 4 thinkers, one of whom holds to neither a deontological nor consequentialist approach!)
Failure to maintain neutral POV (the section 'Vegan Cuisine' is written largely from a carnists POV - answering the question 'how do vegans imitate animal products' instead of 'how or what do vegans eat')
 

·
Ex-*****
Joined
·
5,391 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Envy View Post

How is the "Dietary veganism" a marginal concept?
I suppose it's not just that it's marginal, it's also controversial. I could be wrong, but I believe most self-identified vegans e.g. here on VB would argue that there is no such thing as dietary veganism, and being vegan for dietary reasons makes little sense since veganism goes further than just food. Why would a dietary vegan avoid animal products in their clothes, footwear, furniture, body care products etc? Could a dietary vegan wear fur? Hunt ducks? Shoot wolves from a helicopter? Wouldn't it be better to use a different term such as strict vegetarian?

And although there are people who identifies as dietary vegans, they are vastly outnumbered by ordinary vegans. Well, that is my guess based on my limited experience. I have met several vegans, none of which identified as dietary vegans AFAIK. But I could be wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
The veganism wiki entry is just urgh. I noticed it a while ago and can't even bring myself to read it again. I contacted the Vegan Society about it but irritatingly they ignored me. They have the power to change it.

It has been written by ignorant omnis, anyone reading it would think that vegans have to run a gauntlet just to survive!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,548 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post

Factual inaccuracies (notably the first paragraph under 'History and definition' gets objective facts wrong)
Name it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post

Facts irrelevant to the topic which may be elsewhere relevant (Gandhi's nifty - in fact one of my personal heroes. He was also a lacto-vegetarian or maybe even OL, not a vegan. Why are his reasons for being a LV relevant in the topic VEGANISM?)
Because vegetarianism is relevant to the history of veganism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post

Internal inconsistancies (the declaration 'The philosophical debate about the moral basis of veganism reflects a division of viewpoints within animal rights theory between a rights-based or deontological approach, and a utilitarian/consequentialist one.' is immediately shown as at best a partial fact by listing the ideas of 4 thinkers, one of whom holds to neither a deontological nor consequentialist approach!)
Well, that would be a problem with that article, and not the vegan article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post

Failure to maintain neutral POV (the section 'Vegan Cuisine' is written largely from a carnists POV - answering the question 'how do vegans imitate animal products' instead of 'how or what do vegans eat')
Poorly worded yes, but we have to replace the meat with something, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

I suppose it's not just that it's marginal, it's also controversial. I could be wrong, but I believe most self-identified vegans e.g. here on VB would argue that there is no such thing as dietary veganism, and being vegan for dietary reasons makes little sense since veganism goes further than just food. Why would a dietary vegan avoid animal products in their clothes, footwear, furniture, body care products etc? Could a dietary vegan wear fur? Hunt ducks? Shoot wolves from a helicopter? Wouldn't it be better to use a different term such as strict vegetarian?

And although there are people who identifies as dietary vegans, they are vastly outnumbered by ordinary vegans. Well, that is my guess based on my limited experience. I have met several vegans, none of which identified as dietary vegans AFAIK. But I could be wrong.
If all those mentioned in text are adopting a vegan diet, then I'd say that it's more than just a fringe movement. It would still be a difference between "veganism" and "dietary veganism".

I don't think that it's given an unreasonably large chunk of the page though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,548 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Here's Johnny! View Post

It has been written by ignorant omnis, anyone reading it would think that vegans have to run a gauntlet just to survive!
Except for all the parts where they say that it's healthier to abstain from dairy and meat.
 

·
Riot Nrrrd
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Factual inaccuracies in the history section:

Quote:
They say the word "vegetarian" was first used by Joseph Brotherton
It wasn't and the IVU doesn't say it was. In fact IVU has an ENTIRE PAGE devoted to the pre-1847 uses of the word 'vegetarian' in print. An additional page details the incorrect OED designation of the first use of the word to 1839 in a book by actress Fanny Kemble. All these pre-vegetarian society uses are associated with the Concordium (a school/boarding house also called Alcott House). This is one of the two main groups involved in the formation of the Vegetarian Society and it is very likely the word 'vegetarian' was first used by someone associated with Alcott House. Brotherton was a pastor in the Bible Christian Church (BCC being the other major group involved in the VS formation) and chaired the first meeting of the society. The BCC and Alcott House factions are not known to have interacted prior to 1847, and 'vegetarian' is not believed to have been used by BCC associates before this point.

Ironically the word vegetarian's first use is misattributed to a LO vegetarian at the expense of an unknown pre-vegan vegan!

Here's the IVU page: http://www.ivu.org/history/vegetarian.html

Quote:
we have to replace the meat with something, no?
That is exactly the POV I'm objecting to. We need healthy food, we need tasty food, we need interesting food (I do anyway
), but we most assuredly do not need to assert the centrality of animal products. Why should anyone believe us that no one needs animal products culinarily if vegan cuisine is presented as an endless stream of imitations of non-vegan cuisine? The first step in correcting a lie (in this case the centrality of animal products) is to avoid reconfirming it ourselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
Dave, are you going to fix those things?

I, for one, agree with you 100% when you said "we most assuredly do not need to assert the centrality of animal products." As someone who basically grew up vegetarian, it's absurd to think "we have to replace the meat with something." Um, no. And I'm pretty sure that millions of vegetarians worldwide who grew up veg for religious reasons don't think that way either. And neither did the many societies of humans who ate plant-based diets out of necessity, consuming animal products in moderation or only in celebration.

I have added more to the resources section. And I made a few other minor edits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
It's not absurd to say "we have to replace the meat with something". Many veg*ns (myself, for instance) were not born veg*n, and do in fact need to replace the meat with something. Like it or not, our food culture is centered on meat. Claiming, writing, or suggesting otherwise would violate Wikipedia's no-bias rules. Yes, from your POV of growing up veg*n, there is nothing to replace. But no one but you and those like you can relate to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
I don't agree. We don't need to replace meat with anything. Omnivorism and veganism are 2 different ways of eating.
Wanting to replace meat with something would be like for a French guy asking Japanese what they replace baguettes or blue cheese with. Would you ask an inuit where he gets his carrots from? Would you ask a fruitarian what they replace tofu or seitan with? They don't replace it, they just eat differently.
Of course, I do understand why an omnivore would want to know thank, because I asked this myself before becoming vegetarian, but it's a wrong way to think, it applying the omnivorous conception of a meal to our conception of a meal.
We don't need to replace meat, we need to completely review the way we eat and organise or meals, we need to get rid of our omnivorous (is that even a word??? ^^) paradigm and adopt the vegan one.

It could be interesting to have in the entry though a paragraph explaining the transition between omnivorism and veganism, because it not just suppressing meat and eating the side dish, but if someone really understands what veganism is and where we get our proteins, fat, sugar, vitamins, minerals and such from, how we organise our meals, it wouldn't even be necessary.
(but saying meat dishes can be easily veganised if need be could be interesting)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
Here's an example of a recent change I made. Judge for yourself.

OLD:
Ingredients such as tofu, tempeh and the wheat gluten-based product seitan in East Asian diets are widely used in vegan dishes, and animal products can usually be replaced by plant-based ingredients. Plant milk and plant cream based, for example, on almond milk, grain milk, or soy milk are used to replace cow's milk and cream; cheese can be replaced by cheese analogues; and eggs can be replaced in recipes by apple sauce, ground flax seeds, or commercial starch-based substitute products. Meat analogue products or "mock meats" made from ingredients such as soy or gluten include vegetarian sausage, mince, veggie burgers and can be bought in health food stores and supermarkets.

NEW:
Vegan cuisine is as varied as the people who eat it and can come from a variety of cultures. Any plant-based dish may be vegan, so long as it is prepared without the use of animal products. Some examples include succotash, bean burritos, ratatouille, falafel balls, masala dosa, steamed edamame, pasta primavera, pea soup, rice and beans, salads, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and more.

Ingredients such as tofu, tempeh and the wheat gluten-based product seitan are widely used in vegan dishes that aim to mimic nonvegan dishes. Animal products can usually be replaced by plant-based ingredients. Plant milk and plant cream based, for example, almond, grain, or soy milk are used to where nonvegans use cow's milk and cream; vegans use cheese analogues where nonvegans use cow's or goat's cheese; and vegan recipes will call for apple sauce, ground flax seeds, commercial starch-based egg substitute products, or other foods instead of chicken's eggs. Meat analogue products or "mock meats" made from ingredients such as soy or gluten include vegetarian sausage, mince, veggie burgers and can be bought in health food stores and supermarkets. Commercial meat alternatives are available in almost every country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

I suppose it's not just that it's marginal, it's also controversial. I could be wrong, but I believe most self-identified vegans e.g. here on VB would argue that there is no such thing as dietary veganism, and being vegan for dietary reasons makes little sense since veganism goes further than just food. Why would a dietary vegan avoid animal products in their clothes, footwear, furniture, body care products etc? Could a dietary vegan wear fur? Hunt ducks? Shoot wolves from a helicopter? Wouldn't it be better to use a different term such as strict vegetarian?

And although there are people who identifies as dietary vegans, they are vastly outnumbered by ordinary vegans. Well, that is my guess based on my limited experience. I have met several vegans, none of which identified as dietary vegans AFAIK. But I could be wrong.
As far as I am concerned you are quite correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Some people feel the need to 'replace' meat and some don't. That probably needs to be reflected in the article if its going to be included at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
it's comforting when transitioning, I admit. With the new entry, then the omnivor knows what they can use instead of meat and that they can find meat substitutes to enjoy bbqs with their friends!
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top