Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Criticism

Surely someone could came up with some criticisms against vegans --76.20.242.2 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to bring reliably sourced criticism to Veganism. This article, however, is about vegetarianism. -kotra (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

New Picture

I have been upset that there is no picture. I have been looking at many vegetarian related pictures from dishes to produce but nothing has seemed right. But i looked at the page and there is not a picutre of a vegetarian food pyramid! Why not have the main picture of a vegetarian food pyramid. Here is a good one i found online: http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info/images/pyramid_large.jpg Imatheocracy (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We would probably need a pyramid graphic that is freely licensed, and I'm not sure that one is. Besides, that pyramid is exactly the same as the old USDA pyramid except with "meat alternatives" and "fortified alternatives" added. Vegetarian diets aren't different from non-vegetarian diets in terms of balancing food groups. -kotra (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Food safety flags

One can not accurately perceive the weight of the facts stated, without knowing the quantities in question. Namely, the Food safety question with relation to vegetarism seems to be that food safety of vegetables is higher than food safety of meet. This however should not avoid the fact that meat is avoidable and vegetables are not for humans to survive. In this sense, the problems with meat are added on, and it should be clearly stated what is added-on to see what can be avoided, if one decides not to eat meat.

It is not possible to drive this discussion in to the either/either because even non-vegs have to eat vegetables. With relation to meat originated diseases there are traces to 100Milions of deaths, which would not have occured if the population would have been vegetarian. This can not be compared to few cases od diarrhea. There should be some balanced point of view. Atmapuri (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Any sources used in the food safety section (and any other section for that matter) really have to discuss vegetarianism directly. It is not good enough to find sources that say "meat contains uric acid" and "uric acid causes tooth decay" and add them here to promote the idea that avoiding tooth decay is a reason to become vegetarian. (Sugar, after all, is a much worse culprit in tooth decay than meat, and it's perfectly vegetarian.) Likewise with salmonella, E. coli, and bird flu - if the sources don't directly mention vegetarianism, they're not relevant to this article, and again none of those things are restricted to non-vegetarian foods. I notice we're even using the source [1] to back up the claim that "Various animal food safety scares over recent years have led to increased numbers of people choosing a semi-vegetarian or vegetarian diet" but without mentioning what the source actually says - namely that you can't get bird flu from eating poultry, and that animal-rights groups like PETA are using scaremongering tactics to encourage people to go vegetarian despite the fact that it won't actually decrease your (already microscopic) risk of getting bird flu. +Angr 08:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Any sources directy discussing vegetarianism are inherently biased and automatically of lower quality. Best sources are such which are affecting the decision of people to be vegetarians or not, but by themselfs do not consider vegetarianism at all. Vegetarianism is not a religion or a society. It is a decision of each person on its own. And an article in encyclopedia should accurately represent the reasons why people decide to be or not to be vegetarians and also how does the fact of being a vegetarian or not affect our existance as a human society. All aspects of vegetarianism must be represented. UN Report also does not mention vegetarianism nor did it came out of a vegetarian society booklet. However, it does represent a very important fact, about how does being a vegetarian or not affect our environment. If vegetarianism would have been a religion, then such a rule as you mention (has to directly mention the subject) would indeed apply.

In the food scares there are claims that vegetables can also carry E coli and that vegs can be contaminated by other means. This is not relevant to the article of vegetarianism, because both vegetarians and non-vegetarians are affected equally by contaminated vegetables. This is not the case for contaminated meat, which is what the subject of the article is about. Namely about meat consumption and not about organic food.

The uric acid and the dental health issue is not a minor thing. I have personal expirience, that the influence of meat is stronger than sugar, but that is not a reference to be included in the article. I do know that uric acid does play a big role, but could not find more direct evidence on the internet. I am not a dentist and most hits about uric acid are on the topic of gout. Furthermore, the section topic says "concerns". The existing references provided are sufficient to express concern.

It is true, that you cant get flue from eating poultry, but there is also something called social awarness. That is, that you abstain from doing things, which would cause harm to society as a whole, if everybody would be doing it. What individual groups are using as advertisement or not, is not the subject of the article. Social awarness also gives another point: It is not ones own sole responsability when deciding to eat or not to meat, but we also have to consider that in the process of doing so, (either farming or hunting) you could cause milions of deaths, as it has happened in the past, with most notable and well proven example being AIDS. In this context bird flue and swine flue and all other animal originated diseases do carry the flag. If humans would be vegetarian in the past we know now for a fact, that around 150 milion lives would have been saved.

The problem that I see in this article is a POV which sees vegetarianism as a sort of secterian cult, which sometimes gets too loud. This POV is attempting to ignore proven scientific facts about influence of our diet on our existance as a human race. It gives an impression that by sticking our heads in the sand, all the problems will go away and we will be saved, just be the grace of our ignorance (which is not the purpose of encyclopedia). Atmapuri (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, articles discussing vegetarianism are not necessarily inherently biased, but using articles that don't discuss it directly in order to make a point about vegetarianism violates WP:SYNTH. The fact that E. coli and salmonella can be present in vegetarian foods shows that no discussion of those problems is relevant to this page. And even without uric acid from meat in their mouths, vegetarians still have to brush their teeth, so oral hygiene isn't relevant to this page either. The article isn't a paragon of NPOV writing anyway, but your additions have made it worse rather than better in that regard. +Angr 13:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." and "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing." All conclusions made depend upon the reader. He is given the opportunity to create his own judgment, where the job of the editor is only to provide relevant facts. It is not acceptable to avoid relevant facts, to prevent conclusions of people reading the article in one or the other direction.

About E Coli. As stated before. Issues with meat can be avoided by avoiding meat. That can not be said for vegetables. That is what the article is about. What do vegetarians think they gain by being vegetarian. You can add statements which would guide the reader to a different conclusion, but you can not remove facts relevant to the subject.Atmapuri (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Issues with meat" obviously cannot be avoided by avoiding meat when the exact same issues arise with vegetables. By putting information about the uric acid content or E.coli/salmonella risk of meat into this article, you're violating WP:SYNTH by leading the reader to an unpublished conclusion, namely that these topics are related to vegetarianism, which they aren't. It is extremely disingenuous to give a list of "bad things that might happen to you if you eat meat", attributed to sources that don't even mention vegetarianism, and then claim you're just allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions. These topics are unrelated to vegetarianism, and you cannot add facts irrelevant to the subject. +Angr 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues with meat are not same as issues with vegetables in terms of quantity with relation to Salmonella and E coli. If you eat meat and vegetables you are affected by food scares from both meat and vegetables together which is more, than if you eat only vegetables. Although technically you can get both problems from either source, but if you have two sources, the chances are higher. As you say "Leading the reader" is not forbidden under WP:SYNTH. Making the conclusion myself in written form in the article would be. If I understand you correctly, if a bad thing can happen to you, if you meat, that information may not be published, if the source does not mention vegetarianism? I can not agree with that. Vegetarianism was created mostly because of bad things that can happen to you because of eating meat and those facts are the core of the subject. Atmapuri (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Leading the reader to conclusions that the sources don't make is prohibited by WP:SYNTH, and using this article to outline all the bad things that can happen to you if you eat meat is prohibited by WP:NPOV. +Angr 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The sections of the article that you complain about have already been edited by Wiki Admins. Any violation's of the policy would have been rectified already within a blink of an eye because the article is well read. Using WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV is thus without grounds. I have been notified by Admins to address the issues related to this before and had to do so already. There is no synthesis and no unreferenced material and no complaints by Admins on the current content. You can fix NPOV, if you feel there is one, by adding referenced material which will turn the mind of the reader in the other direction. Atmapuri (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur, it definitely IS WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV what Atampuri is posting. Seriously consider a wikibreak. Cheers--Sikh-History 06:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the adittions of Atmapuri are now referenced, I think is not correct to say all is WP:SYNTH and all is WP:NPOV. Akhran (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No disrespect, but the issue is not about referncing but about WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. I can refrence the article all I want, but if it is my POV and my own conclusions backed up by sources then it does not matter if it is referenced. His additions are making an already disputed article worse, and wide open to such tagging. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then he must talk in the article only about what he can demonstrate with the references and no the hypothesis he could do based in the references. But say, per example, that some products derivatives of animals are bad for health isn't NPOV per se. Akhran (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but unless the sources explicitly talk about that in the context of vegetarianism, they aren't relevant for this article, which is Vegetarianism, not List of all the horrible things that will happen to you if you eat meat. +Angr 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, List of all the horrible things that will happen to you if you eat meat are an important part of the reasons that makes people turn vegetarians. Different would be if that was List of all the horrible things that will happen to you if you eat not organic meat, for example. Akhran (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. We are not here to preach, just present things. We are not here to create WP:SYTH or create a POV, what Atampuri is creating is this.--Sikh-History 20:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We are here to create an article with complete information. And one of the most important things in "Vegetarianism" would be the reasons that makes people turn vegetarian. And health is one of the important reasons that makes people stop to eating meat and turn vegetarian. Try to hide information when that is referenced only because it may create good opinion of vegetarianism really seems to me an attempt to "create a POV". Akhran (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is trying to hide information, but this clearly is WP:SYTH.--Sikh-History 13:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean WP:SYNTH, I disagree too. If Atampuri adds any information invented by his, information that is not at the references he adds (if he "advances a position"), I think then we will discuss about that concrete addition, not say "all his editions are SYNTH, all his editions are POV" (I know, you didn't say with that words, but that's the message I receive from your comments). Akhran (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I have to agree with Angr on this. That particular section is one of those that clearly jumped out at me as having an NPOV problem. Also, I'd just like to point out that I eat a very high-protein, high-carb diet with very few fruits and vegetables outside of fruit juices (as a result of a stomach disorder in my formative years preventing me from learning to eat any but the very blandest of foods - namely, unseasoned meat and grains). I get my vitamins from multivitamins and fruit juices, and that's about it, yet I am willing to wager that I am healthier in terms of both physical health and medical history than the vast majority of vegetarians. Now, I realize that my personal experience is not admissable evidence (probably partly because I eat very little in the way of red meat), nor do I intend it to be taken as such - I merely point out that vegetarianism (or lack thereof) is not a hard-and-fast definition of a "healthy" lifestyle, nor is a meat-heavy lifestyle necessarily less healthy than the alternative. Jgr2 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think when good references indicate that even a small consumption of meat increases the likelihood of contacting certain diseases, that abstention from meat eating, as in the vegetarian diet, becomes a healthier alternative. If the relationship is as clear and causal as cigarette smoking and lung disease, then citing anecdotal evidence is not of much use. We all hear of people in their hundreds who attribute their long lives to smoking and drinking daily. Claiming that a vegetarian diet is healthier does not mean that vegetarians do not get all the same diseases as meat eaters, only that statistically they get them less frequently. Generally, this info is gathered by long term population studies such as the 60 year long Framingham Heart Study [2]. Bob98133 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're selectively reading studies, there. As the article says (and believe me, I read the studies involved thouroughly, including the metastudy, and wrote part of that section) people who eat diets that are heavy in fish are the healthiest, with ovolactovegetarians and people who occasionally eat meat are tied at a fairly low mortality rate, and vegans and constant meat eaters are also tied at the top end of the mortality spectrum. Your point about it being "as clear and causal as cigarette smoking and lung disease" thus strikes me as a bit hard to swallow. The studies to me are saying that omnivory is, as our evolutionary history would seem to suggest, the healthiest course for humans. This discussion really isn't about which path is healthier, anyway; it's about whether or not listing off all the horrible things that could happen to you if you eat meat is appropriate in this article, and I reiterate that it is not. Jgr2 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does not list "all the horrible things" that "could" happen if not being vegetarian. It does list only some of those horrible things that "have happened" before and could therefore happen also in the future. Listing "all the horrible things", would extend the section by several times. In a world where most of the people are not vegetarian, any concentration of arguments which speak for it, will appear unnatural, implicitly increasing the strain on nerves of those not being vegetarian. There is a distinct desire of people to separate the cause from the consequence and for everything to be a "a matter of free choice" without any consequences, and the consequences described as the stroke of faith and bad luck. However, we are not free from the chains of natural laws and when those are spelled our refusal of acceptance is the first thing to face. Namely that we are their prisoners. You are saying that you saw the evidence in favor of fish based diet, but maybe that evidence was also a a selection? Atmapuri (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? There's nothing metaphysical about it; you are obfusticating your own arguments with talk about free will and natural law, as well as nitpicking at semantics - the point is that the metastudy mentioned in the article found that the mortality ratio for several diseases commonly associated with dietary practice was "lowest in fish eaters (0.82) followed by vegetarians (0.84) and occasional meat eaters (0.84), and was then followed by regular meat eaters (1.0) and vegans (1.0). When the study made its best estimate of mortality ratio with confounding factors considered, the mortality ratio for vegetarians was found to be (0.94)." The facts, I think, speak for themselves. The whole point of peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly study - which is, after all, the base Wikipedia is built upon - is to prevent possible bias from affecting the drawing of conclusions. If you really think, as you seem to imply, that the study itself is biased, then by all means find a peer-reviewed, scientific study that is not a result of this societal "bias," and show us the data. Jgr2 (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked the reference and for vegetarians death ratio is always less than 1, where 1 are regular meat eaters. It is constantly and persistently lower than all other groups (occasional meat eaters, fish eaters and vegans). I guess you are referring to the overall where the difference is said to be reduced to %16 and the reason for this are "other causes". These other causes could be car crashes or what? Fish eaters are then leading by 2%. This analysis was not done for proper vegetarians, but mixed lacto and ovo vegetarians in the same group, which clearly indicates basic misunderstanding of vegetarianism and the culture. Vegetarians are typically lacto-vegetarians and one egg contains more hormones than 1kg of red meat. If you avoid one egg per day, you saved yourself more hormone intake than leaving out one big stake of hormone treated beef on its upper legal limit. It also analyzed only US vegetarians and did not cover the length of life living as a vegetarian. Veganism is known to be a tough choice requiring great care for nutrition. The study also did not compensate for the style of life and the biggest effect on life expectancy: the amount of food consumed daily. The less you eat the longer you live. The conclusion from the study from my perspective would be: Fish eaters generally eat less then vegetarians, but both eat less than meat eaters. Problem is also the pollution of the environment. Maybe fish eaters don't get served hormone enhanced meat as frequently as do those which eat red meat. Maybe they eat less. To separate a diet from the culture and environment is very difficult. That is why studies are done on specific type of disease linking to specific type of diet. The biggest black spot in the study you show are "other causes", which translates to "no information" and we don't know, especially when considering the size of the fish eating population. 150 deaths and 2% difference is "not" a reliable statistical estimate especially due the size of the "dark spot". From the point of authority, most doctors and scientists are meat eaters and in most cases where there is a dark spot, they will lean towards their own case due to metaphysical reasons mentioned before. Atmapuri (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but see, your conclusions don't matter, and neither do mine. The conclusions I am referring to are those drawn by actual scientists, published in a peer-reviewed journal. In reference to the "other causes" - I suggest you actually read it thoroughly; they explain EXACTLY what that means. Also, "The less you eat the longer you live?" Uhh... no? One in six people on Earth are starving, and I'm pretty sure their life expectancy is lower than the average fat American. Sure, obesity reduces your lifespan, but that's precisely what they were measuring with the studies. Jgr2 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Sineed- I know why you deleted it I think, but all I want to say is that I found a source, http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777; article: Vegetarian Diets and it says that "The vegan or total vegetarian diet includes only foods from plants: fruits, vegetables, legumes (dried beans and peas), grains, seeds and nuts". Therefore, I believe that the vegan is the same thing as a total vegetarian. If you don't believe me, then you are more than welcome to go to the site yourself. I am sorry if I keep insisting, and you have every right to delete my edits and/or prove me wrong. I won't be offended. I'm just telling you that this is where my information came from. It's a credible source. Sorry again if it causes any inconvenience. Turquoise 101 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sineed- I know why you deleted the edit "vegan, or total vegetarianism" or something along those lines I think, but all I want to say is that I found a source, http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777; article: Vegetarian Diets and it says that "The vegan or total vegetarian diet includes only foods from plants: fruits, vegetables, legumes (dried beans and peas), grains, seeds and nuts". Therefore, I believe that the vegan is the same thing as a total vegetarian. If you don't believe me, then you are more than welcome to go to the site yourself. I am sorry if I keep insisting, and you have every right to delete my edits and/or prove me wrong. I won't be offended. I'm just telling you that this is where my information came from. It's a credible source. Sorry again if it causes any inconvenience. Turquoise 101 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacy

under the "Psychological" section of the argument, it claims "The "Appeal to nature" logical fallacy invites one to believe that something is good or right because it is natural."

This is also known as a naturalistic fallacy, but it a fallacy in ETHICS not logic. This should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.180.247 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You might click the source, contact the publisher, and voice your objection.- Sinneed 00:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaining to the publisher would only make sense if the particular words used were attributed to the source. But they aren't in quotation marks, so I assume the idea, not the wording, is supposed to come from the source. So we should feel free to change the wording without a new source.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by the sentence anyway. Is the point that vegetarianism is natural, and it would be a fallacy to think that therefore it's good? Or is the point that eating dead animals is natural, and it would be a fallacy to think that therefore eating dead animals is OK? And why does that appear as the first time under a title "psychological"? It seems like a non-sequitur. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The logical fallacy has been used by both sides of the argument. Like much of the article, I have no reason to think the section as written belongs at all.

+veg fallacy - given in the article

+meat-eater fallacy - given in the source for what the fallacy is

Well we could quote if needed but...why? Personally, I'd apply the editorial hatchet.- Sinneed 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• To be clear: I think deleting the section might be better than leaving it in. However, it does contain sources, and these logical fallacies are indeed cited by both pro-veg and pro-meat sorts, so I hesitate. If, however, we are going to include these logical fallacies, we should surely warn our readers of what they are: wp:NOT a wp:SOAPBOX.- Sinneed 04:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing a poem posted anon

Sometimes considered vegetarian As such, diets which consist largely of vegetarian foods but also include fish or poultry are sometimes considered vegetarian. I see this sentence as problematic because "are sometimes considered vegetarian" sounds like "in certain contexts, these are considered vegetarian"; claiming the pescetarianism = vegetarianism view as an occasionally true fact. The intended meaning, however, is "some people consider it vegetarian". When I hear "sometimes considered vegetarian", I think things like "considered vegetarian when it's just a little bit of fish" or "considered vegetarian on certain holidays" or such; it sounds like an objective judgment of fact as opposed to a subjective, individual viewpoint. That is why I prefer we be more specific that we mean "some people" consider it vegetarian. Unfortunately, Flyer22 is correct that "considered by some" is a weasel word. To fix this, we should be specific as to who considers pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism. Pescetarianism cites Shorter Oxford English Dictionary that basically does this. I do not think that is enough, though, as SOED doesn't say it bases its definition of "vegetarian" on the definition of "meat". I have been searching for other reliable sources to cite for those who consider pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism, and have unfortunately not found any. But I think this is the necessary way to go, since the current wording seems misleading (to me anyway). -kotra (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC) "are sometimes mistaken as vegetarian" ? Muleattack (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I think it's best to avoid saying outright it's wrong like that; better to say "Vegetarian Society says it's wrong" and such; we don't decide these people are mistaken or not, but we can cite others who have decided that. -kotra (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Kotra, the pescetarianism = vegetarianism view is an occasionally true fact. Have you, as a vegetarian (I believe that you are one), never been offered fish? It has certainly happened to a lot of other vegetarians, and is so commonly thought of as vegetarian that the Vegetarian Society felt they had to speak out about it. I mentioned above that it (being offered fish, when people know that I am a vegetarian) has happened to me often, as if fish is a normal part of a vegetarian diet. However, I have not come across as many people who believe that eating chicken is vegetarian. It is usually seafood that is sometimes considered to be vegetarian. Who considers eating fish or poultry to be vegetarian cannot be specified to just one group. There are various reliable online articles, and books on Google Books categorizing fish or poultry-eating as vegetarian, but we cannot specify these views to one or even just two groups of people. I am not sure how to word it if you still object to the current wording. Let's all try to think of a different alternative, one that does not involve us out-right calling these people wrong (for the reasons Kotra stated). Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC) (re: Flyer22) I think you are confusing fact with opinion. Certainly there are people who think pescetarian is a form of vegetarianism. This is opinion. I was saying "sometimes considered vegetarian" sounds to me like this opinion is sometimes not just an opinion, it is a true fact. As in, "sometimes we, society as a whole, consider pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism". I do not think we are intending to make that claim. A subset of society considers pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism all the time, not all society considers pescetarianism a form of vegetarian sometimes. That is the problem I see with the current wording. -kotra (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Hmm. Thanks for further explaining what you mean. I still do not see it as coming across that way, but I understand how you do. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC) A proposed way of putting it: "Vegetarianism is a diet which is more commonly adopted individually, as opposed to one which a person is born into. Given the prevalence of meat-eating in many cultures, as well as personal tastes and beliefs, people have adopted a spectrum of variations on vegetarianism..." And then we could go on to explain semi-vegetarianism, pescetarianism, veganism, etc. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC) You are proposing that for the beginning of the lead? In either case, I would have to say I would not be for that wording. That is giving too much weight to different views on what vegetarianism is. It is saying that vegetarianism can basically mean anything, considering how people define it. Sure, people can define things how they want. But vegetarianism is not truly considered to involve meat-eating, as we know. The main reason fish gets as "pass" is because a lot of people do not consider fish to be meat. Which means that even in that case...vegetarianism is still considered a meat-less diet. We have to be clear about what the prominent definition of what vegetarianism is, then go into the semi-vegetarianism stuff...like the lead already does. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC) To clarify, this is what I propose for the complete introductory section: Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet.[1][2] Vegetarianism may be adopted for ethical, health, environmental, religious, political, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or other reasons. Vegetarianism is more commonly adopted on an individual basis, through development of personal tastes and belief systems, as opposed to diets which people ascribe to by being born into a culture which conditions its members for.(ref)http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/4/1061(ref) Given the prevalence of carnivorism in many cultures,ref needed as well as the wide-array of tastes and beliefs, people have adopted many variations on vegetarianism, including some which are contested as not being vegetarian at all. A semi-vegetarian diet consists largely of vegetarian foods, but may include fish and sometimes poultry, as well as dairy products and eggs. With these diets, the word "meat" is often defined as only mammalian flesh.[3] A pescetarian diet, includes "fish but no meat".[4] The colloquial application of the word "vegetarian" to such diets[5] has led vegetarian groups, such as the Vegetarian Society, to clarify that such fish or poultry-based diets are not vegetarian, due to the fact that fishes and birds are animals.[6] Veganism, fructarianism, lacto-ovo vegetarianism and other such diets are seen as denominations within the broader definition of vegetarianism. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I like the "colloquial application" sentence, it solves the problem I raised fairly well. I do think there is a problem with the premise of the "commonly adopted on an individual basis" sentence, though. The reference you cited doesn't seem to mention vegetarianism, and in any case, it is only true for vegetarians in western society, who make up a minority of the world's vegetarians. By far the most vegetarians in the world are in India, where it is a cultural/religious practice; most vegetarians there are in fact "born into it". I do not have statistics or studies on this on hand, but we would need a better citation for that sentence if we were to include it I think. -kotra (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, so what if we take out the first sentence? Here's a nice, simple version, I think will work: Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet.[1][2] Vegetarianism may be adopted for ethical, health, environmental, religious, political, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or other reasons. People have adopted many variations on vegetarianism, including some such as veganism and lacto-ovo vegetarianism, which are seen as denominations within the broader definition of vegetarianism, and some such as semi-vegetarianism and pescetarianism whose designation as vegetarian is contested.[3][4][5][6] --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC) The reason I favor this version of the lede is mainly because it doesn't spell everything out right in the lede. It does give the majority-held definition, it does mention variations on vegetarianism, and it even hints at some debate. And then, the next section is where we have spelled out the issue of varieties of vegetarianism in detail.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Proposed new lead I find the proposed lead too short and more confusing. This is a large and complex issue. I think the lead needs to be carefully expanded, and I think it has (despite the many setbacks) been slowly improving.- Sinneed 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I have to agree with Sinneed. I prefer the current lead. It covers all the points adequately. I get that Abie the Fish Peddler is trying to help Kotra's problem with that one part of the lead, but I do not feel that the lead needs such a drastic re-do all just to better word one sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I admit, even I prefer the lede, as it is now, to the lede I proposed above. However, I think, Kotra's problem, is now our problem. I feel the lede, as it is now, is only near perfect. And, though it will keep growing and changing through time, I feel that there is a "perfect" state, a state of consensus, which we can bring the article to, at the present time. The lede currently says "sometimes" as opposed to "some people" or "some situations" which would be more accurate and just as easily understood. Thus, I propose that we swap in this line for accuracy and clarity: "As such, in some colloquial situations, diets which consist largely of vegetarian foods but which also include fish or poultry are considered vegetarian." Yes, the last suggestions which I made were a bit radical. I'm sorry I didn't warn you before I made them. But, I'm back to reasonable suggestions now. (At least, I think I am.)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) What about using the words "may be" in place of "are sometimes"? It can be: "As such, diets which consist largely of vegetarian foods but which also include fish or poultry may be considered vegetarian." Because I would still like to avoid the word "some" on Wikipedia (though it cannot always be avoided in editing here), and because I prefer that we only mention colloquial once in the lead, I feel that my suggestion of "may be" is the better choice. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, I changed it to "may be." Is this sufficient enough a change for you, Kotra? Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, I think this might sound worse. Sorry to be difficult, but the current wording "As such, diets which consist largely of vegetarian foods but also include fish or poultry may be considered vegetarian" sounds even more like this is a legitimate, unobjectionable usage of the term "vegetarian". When, in fact, we have found no evidence of people arguing it is a legitimate usage, only people who misunderstand "vegetarian" (I am not saying this viewpoint is true, but all the sources we have found yet say this). However, I see that "some people" is inadequate and my efforts to describe who exactly the people are have thus far failed. Therefore, why not just remove the sentence entirely? "Colloquial application of the word 'vegetarian' to such diets" is still mentioned. As in the following: Semi-vegetarian diets consist largely of vegetarian foods, but may include fish and sometimes poultry, as well as dairy products and eggs. With these diets, the word "meat" is often defined as only mammalian flesh. A pescetarian diet, for example, includes "fish but no meat". The colloquial application of the word "vegetarian" to such diets has led vegetarian groups, such as the Vegetarian Society, to clarify that such fish or poultry-based diets are not vegetarian, due to the fact that fishes and birds are animals. This retains a mention that colloquially "vegetarian" is applied to such diets, while not attempting to explain by whom. This looks to me the most graceful option so far, especially as the lead shouldn't go into too much detail. -kotra (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I am not seeing how "may be considered vegetarian" sounds even more like this is a legitimate, unobjectionable usage of the term "vegetarian"...since we make clear that it is not truly legitimate or unobjectionable. But I am okay with removing the line entirely, as you propose. Its existence in this article is only recent anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC) You're right that if one continues reading past that sentence, it is clear it is far from unobjectionable. I mainly am concerned that people will read up to the sentence, not read any further, and think "there it is, Wikipedia says I may consider semi-vegetarians vegetarian." Isolated by itself, it is easy to come to that conclusion. And people do sometimes stop reading just after finishing the sentence they think answers their question; I have been guilty of this laziness myself. I now see that "are" is stronger than "may be" though so you're right, "may be" is an improvement over that... but still I think people would be mislead by the sentence. Since you are ok with removing the sentence and nobody has objected, I've done that now. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to revert and discuss of course. If I'm alone in my views on this, I don't want to make changes against consensus. -kotra (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Re: Flyer22's reinsertion of the ref from the "Shorter OED". I think that ref fits well where you put it.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I agree. -kotra (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Pictures of notable ones? Maybe there should be pictures of non-disputed, notable veggies as the picture on the left, like the way they do with nationality articles. Perhaps, um, Paul McCartney, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison and Leonardo da Vinci? Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost BACK FROM EXAMS 03:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Those would be better suited at List of vegetarians I think. This article does not discuss notable vegetarians, so any pictures of them would be out of place, stuck next to text entirely unrelated to the pictures. -kotra (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC) GA status Hey, Flyer22, and everyone! I think if we keep moving down the article like we've started doing maybe we can apply for GA status once we reach the bottom. Thoughts?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I agree. We all work well together, and this article is just about at GA status. Even during GA status, there may be some suggestions made for further improving this article. My point on that is...when we all feel that this article is ready for GA but may need more tweaks, we should still go ahead with the GA nomination. What needs to be tweaked can be worked out then. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Got it. Especially since it might take a month or so until the reviewing administrator gets to us, right? --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Yes. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)