Talk:Veganism

lack of criticism page

If Veganism is to be seen as a philosophy then they’re must be a page dedicated to criticism. This isn’t due to the philosophy being “wrong” however the page currently presents this particular idea as being unfalsifiable thus unable to be disputed. 2601:201:8E00:8740:180:C03A:A7B3:F4C9 (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"Must be" only if there are sufficient reliable sources on the matter. Provide them. YBSOne (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal health benefits

I don't think it's accurate to say someone may practice veganism for personal health benefits. If this person doesn't have any other reason for eating vegan, what's stopping them from buying shampoo that contains animal ingredients or buying leather? Someone may adopt a diet that's coincidentally vegan for personal health benefits, but that's not the same thing as practicing veganism. 2001:5B0:4DD3:6908:E017:F7D7:D232:3C6F (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2025

CHANGE

"Early vegetarians included Indian philosophers such as Parshavnatha, Mahavira, Acharya Kundakunda, Umaswati, Samantabhadra, and Valluvar; the Indian emperors Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka."

...

"Greek philosophers such as Empedocles, Theophrastus, Plutarch, Plotinus, and Porphyry; and the Roman poet Ovid and the playwright Seneca the Younger.[<dummy_src>][<dummy_src>]

TO

"Early vegetarians included Indian philosophers such as Parshavnatha, Mahavira, Acharya Kundakunda, Umaswati, Samantabhadra, and Valluvar; the Indian emperors Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka."

...

"Greek philosophers such as Empedocles, Theophrastus, Plutarch, Plotinus, and Porphyry, along with the Roman poet Ovid and the playwright Seneca the Younger, are often cited as vegetarians or proponents of vegetarianism."

 Done I moved the reference to its correct spot and tidied up the grammar a bit. Thanks for your help. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Historical Background Reverted Edit

@Foristslow, why did you revert my edit [1]? As written, that section is incoherent and contradicts the cited source [2]. My edit fixes those problems. If you have an issue with something specific, is there a more targeted change you could make? Carleas (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, apologies for not leaving a reason my editor was playing up. There was no real improvement.If you wish to make a edit in the future please get consensus on the talk page as this page is semi protected.Thanks keep up the good work. Foristslow (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you say more? The current version of the page does not reflect the sources cited in support; my edit does. The current version of the page is also incoherent in places ("the language's polymorphic nature denotes a path or journey that differs only by subjective consciousness"). Fixing those are "real improvement".

Consensus isn't required before making an edit (see WP:BOLD). In any case, please address the substance of my edit. Carleas (talk) Carleas (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thankyou for your reply, the page is a semi protected page the section that you have edited has had several editor contributions. It is important to express the nature of the Chinese language to the English reader for context. The practice of abstinence from consumption of animal products and the relationship with particularly pureland Buddhism as it is the largest form of Buddhism practiced in east Asia. As I have said before your edit has not added value as it is not about the etymology of the character but about Veganism. Foristslow (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that "In the Chinese language, veganism and vegetarianism share the same initial interpretation and character, as the language's polymorphic nature denotes a path or journey that differs only by subjective consciousness" is confusing. I don't understand what is being conveyed in that sentence. I asked other people to read it and they didn't understand it either. Is 'https://www.chinavegans.org/news/how-do-you-say-vegan-in-chinese' the source for this? If so, I agree that the sentence doesn't reflect the information in the source.

I think that Carleas's edit was more reflective of the information in the cited article than the sentence in question. I think it would be an improvement to either use their edit or to clarify and clearly cite the information in the sentence. Qutecumber (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply, agreement on the sentence with path and journey. Removed it, the rest is fine as it is. Thanks Foristslow (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The rest is not fine as is, because it contradicts the cited sources. From chinavegans.org[3]:

The most commonly-used word for "vegetarian" or "vegan" in China, which you will see on restaurant signs, menus, food products, and the names of vegan organizations, is 素 (sù) or 素食 (sù shí)

This contradicts the first sentence in that paragraph:

The term "Pure Vegan" or "Pure Buddhist" (Chinese: 纯净素; pinyin: chúnjìngsù) refers to the practice of non-consumption of meat in China.

That source gives a different definition for 纯净素:

纯净素 (chún jìng sù, "pure [Buddhist] vegetarian/vegan"). Focused on cultivating mindfulness as well as abstaining from killing or harming sentient beings, the Buddhist vegan diet is more restrictive than a secular vegan diet. It excludes not only all animal products, but also the "five pungent vegetables" (garlic, onions, shallots, leeks, and chives). This is because these strong-smelling plants are believed to stimulate desire and aggression. (Fun fact: A large proportion of China's vegan population is Buddhist, so the Chinese vegan and plant-based market tends to favor products and restaurants that are free from garlic and onions).

So that term does not refer to "the practice of non-consumption of meat", it refers to a specific religious diet with additional restrictions beyond meat. The article gives multiple other terms that specifically refer to the practice of non-consumption of meat, which I substituted in my edit.

The next sentence says that the "term...predates the Western Zhou Dynasty", but that isn't correct. From the source:

The character 素 was first seen in bronze inscriptions of the Western Zhou Dynasty (1027-771 BCE), but it probably dates back to even earlier.

The difference between "term" and "character" is significant, because the character's meaning has evolved significantly since then, and "term" refers to a word together with its meaning (also note that the source only says the character "probably" predates the Western Zhou Dynasty).

The sources also never reference "Pure Land Buddhism" as far as I can tell, but refer to Buddhism more generally. There is no justification in the source to refer to a specific sub-sect (c.f. Buddhist vegetarianism, which is also not specific to Pure Land Buddhism).

The text as written is not supported by the sources cited, it contradicts the sources cited. It is not "fine as it is". Carleas (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Two definitions of veganism

In the following passage, I can't identify the two definitions of veganism (it appears as just one definition). Maybe this could be clarified?

---

Since 1988, The Vegan Society gives two definitions of veganism:

Veganism is a philosophy and 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; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

— The Vegan Society, Definition of veganism, https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

The first definition by The Vegan Society is accepted among ethical and environmental vegans and the second definition by The Vegan Society is accepted among dietary vegans. Qutecumber (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Two definitions:

1. Way of living which seeks to exclude exploitation of and cruelty to animals for any purpose;
2. Diet which does without all products derived of or from animals.

Does that help, Qutecumber? They are close, i agree, but i think it's fairly clear that there are two definitions which cover two areas or views of life ~ a philosophy of life and a dietary practice ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Origin/History Section Needs Work

I've added a cleanup tag to the Origin section, which contains a lot of loosely connected information that often doesn't directly to veganism, doesn't distinguish veganism's origin from the origin vegetarianism, or explain how early veganism and early vegetarianism are related. The section should be shorter, leaving longer discussion in History of Vegetarianism, and keeping content specific to the history of veganism on this page. This has been suggested before [4], not sure what came of that discussion.

Tagging users who have contributed to the section and to History of Vegetarianism: @Unionjackrabbit @EiersalatmitGurken @Daniel of Lebanon @Foristslow @OatPowered @DrOrinScrivello @Veg Historian @Blausonorisch Carleas (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The entire history section needs to be revised and updated. It's on the to-do-list. I am hoping to sort it out by the end of this year. It is not something I can complete right now. Veg Historian (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Insect products

The section "Insect products" includes the line "Vegan groups disagree about insect products". This is classic WP:OR not fully supported by the source. The source is a 2008 article from Slate Magazine [5], hardly a reliable source in this topic area. This is original research because the article does not say that vegan groups "disagree about insect products". The article is talking about honey. The article does not list any organizations that disagree about honey. There is a broad consensus from every vegan organization in the world that honey is not vegan.

These are the most well known groups, organizations and websites in the world that advocate for veganism that have published official statements on honey: American Vegan Society [6], Vegan Society [7], Animal Aid [8], Vegan for the Animals [9], Plant Based News [10], Vegan.com [11], Animal Justice Project [12], PETA [13], Veganuary [14], Viva! [15], Middle East Vegan Society [16], Animal Ethics [17], Animal Outlook [18], Anonymous for the Voiceless [19], Vegan Awareness Foundation [20], Nederlandse Vereniging voor Veganisme [21], China Vegan Society [22], Surge [23]. All of these organizations say honey is not vegan.

I suggest that the line "Vegan groups disagree about insect products" is removed from the article. Not only is this WP:OR, it is misleading readers. There is a broad consensus that vegans do not consume honey or insect products. I have not seen one vegan group or organization advocating their use. If possible we could cite some of the above position statements on honey if required. In a nutshell there is no disagreement from vegan groups about insect products. Veg Historian (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I suspect that I OUGHT to think about this a little longer. Perhaps a different rewording makes sense (e.g. While not in reality vegan, 'animal advocates' or 'animal advocacy groups' disagree about honey). MaynardClark (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not that simple, and we should not completely remove that sentence. There is indeed a debate among vegans about honey in particular, and (perhaps less prominently) insects in general. Here are a few sources (including Slate posted above, since Slate is a WP:RS):

• Slate, 2008 [24]: "There is no more contentious question in the world of veganism than the one posed by honey."
• Vegan Outreach, 2008 [25]: "What about honey and silk? Again, it depends on one’s definition of “vegan.” Insects are animals, and so their products, such as honey and silk, are often not considered vegan. Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products, because they do not believe insects are conscious of pain. ... The question remains a matter of scientific debate and personal choice."
• happyherbivore.com 2011 [26]: "Honey, it seems, is a hot topic among vegans; one that's constantly debated, often with a good bit of fervor!"
• The Guardian, 2016 [27]: "While I personally don’t consume honey and haven’t done for many years, I can wholly understand why some self-proclaimed vegans have no issue in purchasing local, raw honey. Of course, this is a hugely contentious issue that evokes strong emotions ... Are you a significantly lesser vegan if you consume a small amount of honey given to you by a “balanced beekeeper”? I don’t yet have the answer to that."
• livekindly.com, 2017 [28]: "The Honey Debate – Vegan or Not Vegan? ... This is tough one and it will always be a contentious issue within veganism"
• Adam Reid (Johns Hopkins University) in Between the Species, 2017 [29]: "... whether vegans properly so-called may (should?), or may not, consume honey ..."
• Vegetarian Times, 2021 [30]: "If there’s one hot-button issue among vegans, it’s honey. While some vegans will eat it and use it, others won’t, which can cause some heated debates among this group."
• David Killoren (Australian Catholic University) in The Routledge Handbook of Vegan Studies, 2021: "one might argue that bee nervous systems are incapable of producing conscious suffering and therefore veganism’s prohibition against consumption of honey is too restrictive"
• TreeHugger, 2022 [31]: "Honey stirs up more debate in the vegan community than perhaps any other food. By definition, vegans do not consume animal products. Honey, as a product of bees, does not meet the vegan criteria. But some argue that the ethics of small animals are more complicated than a technical definition."
• VegNews, 2024 [32]: "Few topics about the vegan diet seem to be as sticky as the debate over whether or not honey is vegan."

I looked for sources about vegans and honey specifically, but I guess we could find similar sources about vegans and insects in general. Based on the sources provided in this thread, I think we should say that most vegans don't consume honey and other insect products, but some do. Or something along these lines. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

How many persons 'passing as vegans' have deliberately swatted a mosquito? Is a mosquito a morally significant person? Once we insist on not accepting 'merely dietary' vegans as 'real vegans', we have debates on 'where to draw the line' (Prof. Bart Gruzalski, PhD, professor emeritus of philosophy and religion from Northeastern University, Boston, then of CalState). Those who think that 'ahimsa' means 'pervasive harm reduction' and deliberate efforts to reduce one's own 'negative externalities', we can draw the lines variably, including (a) not flying in an airplane or (b) not driving a car or riding a motorcycle or (c) no using factory-produced handheld devices with lithium batteris, or (d) not buying anything packaged because of the ecological harms of discarded packaging (therefore, all food would be raw and bought from produce department or produce stand). MaynardClark (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

In my original post, I listed the current (between 2022 and 2025) official positions of the leading vegan organizations in the world on honey this included - American Vegan Society, Vegan Society, Animal Aid, Animal Justice Project, Animal Ethics, Viva!, Animal Outlook, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Veganisme, China Vegan Society, Veganuary, PETA etc. All of the organizations say very clearly that honey is not vegan. Whilst I appreciate Chrisahn's research the sources that he has linked to are mostly outdated and none of them are from leading vegan organizations. The only organization he cited was Vegan Outreach from 2008. As of 2025 Vegan Outreach no longer holds that position. TreeHugger is not a vegan website it is a conservationist website, Vegetarian Times is not a vegan magazine. The Slate article is from 2008. The Happy Herbivore article is from 2011. I believe it is misleading to say "some vegans" consume honey as no consensus viewpoint or official statement from an organization supports that. Not a single vegan organization in the world allows vegan consumption. If we go down this route; next users will be trying to add sourcing to the article saying some vegans eat oysters. There is a very clear consensus on criteria and definition; I am not convinced we should be inventing "debates" where none exist. The organizations say honey is not vegan, so there is no real debate about this as they are the most reliable on this issue. Veg Historian (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

1. These organizations don't speak for all vegans. Veganism is not an organized religion. And even if it was – by your logic, there's "no real debate" about abortion among Catholics, because the Catholic church has an official opinion on the issue. By your logic, we'd have to delete the Attitudes of Catholic laity section from Catholic Church and abortion. Of course we don't, because it's well documented that many Catholics don't agree with what their official organization says. The same is true for vegans. If there is a well-documented debate among vegans, we report it, even if most vegan organizations take a certain stance.

2. None of the sources I provided are outdated. They show that not all vegans have the same opinion regarding honey and insect products, and that the debate has been going on for at least two decades. I'm sure we could find sources showing that the debate is much older, probably older than most of the organizations you mentioned. Unless you find several reliable sources saying "the debate among vegans about honey is over", the fact that not all vegans agree on this issue is well sourced and has to stay in the article.

3. It's possible that some of the organizations you mentioned have moved towards a somewhat stricter position regarding honey (and insect products in general) in the last 15 years or so. If there are sources supporting this claim, we could include it in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Chrisahn, the main point is that this line on the article - Vegan groups disagree about insect products is WP:OR. This is why I raised the topic of organizations. Groups = organizations. My point is correct. All current vegan organizations consider honey non-vegan. The 2008 Slate magazine article does not claim vegan *groups* are in "disagreement" about insect products. Nearly all of that article is just talking about honey. So this source is being misused.

The important question is, what current vegan groups are in disagreement over this? Well the answer is none because I listed them all above. None claim honey or consuming insect products is compatible with veganism. In the early days of the Vegan Society there was a discussion about honey and the Society decided very early to be against it, we are talking 1945 here. Honey was banned, you could not be a member of the Vegan Society and consume honey. The ban was later lifted. In the 1970s the Vegan Society had no real position on honey and some members consumed it but this was not a huge debate, it was of minor importance. In 1988 Arthur Ling wrote an influential article, "Ain't So Sweet: The Other Side of Honey" [33]. At the end of 1988 honey was officially added the list of banned foods. The Vegan Society does not consider honey vegan. No vegan organization has ever endorsed honey. I cannot find any sourcing for any other vegan organization debating honey.

"The fact that not all vegans agree on this issue is well sourced and has to stay in the article", except it isn't well sourced. There is no *current* debate about honey within vegan organizations. The Slate magazine source is being misused. Just so we are ultra clear here, do you agree that the line "Vegan groups disagree about insect products" is clearly not accurate to the source? As stated vegan groups are not in disagreement about this and the slate source is mostly talking about honey, not insect products. As a historian I am interested in accuracy. The line on the article is false and misleading. If the section is going to be updated with actual content about groups then we must mention the current position of vegan groups (there is no disagreement). Veg Historian (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

"It's possible that some of the organizations you mentioned have moved towards a somewhat stricter position regarding honey". Incorrect. The original position statements from the oldest vegan organizations in the world did not allow honey. It is briefly covered in Virginia Messina's The Vegan Sourcebook (page 119) which notes "Abstaining from the use of honey is a requirement for full membership in that society, as was stated in its original manifesto, a policy that is consistent with the position of the American Vegan Society since its founding in 1960". I have no objection if historical content is added documenting the discussion about honey within the Vegan Society over 70 years ago but it is not accurate to claim this is a *current* debate within vegan groups. As above the American Vegan Society disallowed honey since its formation in 1960. So far no evidence has been presented that any vegan organization is actively "disagreeing" over honey or insect products and no WP:RS supports that. Individuals are not organizations and this discussion is about *groups* (organizations) per my original post. Veg Historian (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "vegan groups": To my mind, that means any group of vegans, formal or informal, not specifically organizations. But I understand that "groups" is a bit ambiguous, and after reading your initial comment again, I see that we were talking past each other a bit. Sorry about that. I wouldn't mind changing the sentence from "vegan groups disagree" to something like "vegans disagree" to avoid that ambiguity. I think it's clear that there always has been some debate regarding honey (and probably insect products in general). As you said, the Vegan Society first banned honey, then lifted the ban, then banned it again. Vegan Outreach said at least until 2017 "Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products ... The question remains a matter of scientific debate and personal choice." It's well documented that it's still an issue among vegans. We could say something like this: "While all major vegan organizations currently ban honey and other insect products, some vegans consume honey, and the debate whether honey can be considered vegan remains." Just a first draft. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Minor quibble: I wrote: "The fact that not all vegans agree on this issue is well sourced and has to stay in the article". You responded: "except it isn't well sourced. There is no *current* debate about honey within vegan organizations." The difference is: I wrote "vegans", not "vegan organizations". — Chrisahn (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

P.P.S. I'm not convinced there is no debate at all about honey within vegan organizations. Sure, their current official position is that honey is not vegan. But that doesn't prove that all members of these organizations completely agree with that. It's generally true for any organization with more than one member, be it a political party, religious organization, etc., that there tends to be some disagreement among individual members, even about core beliefs and opinions. So unless you provide a source, we shouldn't say "there is no debate within organizations". (I'm not saying it's hotly debated. Just that it's unlikely that there's complete agreement.) — Chrisahn (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)