Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

Dr Weil?

Resolved

 – Sinneed (talk · contribs) re-removed the material. Gabbe (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this edit. The webpage in question appears to be a WP:SELFPUB, and it is used for information about vegetarianism, rather than for information about Dr Weil himself. So it fails WP:RS. For claims about the relationship between vegetarianism and health I suggest we follow WP:MEDRS. Gabbe (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

free-range eggs, etc.

Editor Sineed recently removed that vegetarians might prefer free-range eggs from the "Other dietary practices commonly associated with vegetarianism" section. I agree with removing this, since it is not referenced, but I don't agree on it being removed as not relevant to vegetarianism. It's quite possible that vegetarians, or other who think about food sources and production, may prefer locally grown, free-range, etc. products; however, I doubt that there is info to reference how common this is, or even that it amounts to a difference in diet. Bob98133 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it certainly does amount to a difference in diet. What else is it? A difference in farming, yes. But an egg farm ultimately deals with diet. Thus, I think we should look for a reference for the claim, and include it.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. My title ("the fish peddler") is ironic and not meant to convey that I approve of peddling fish. :-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

fish: meat, not meat, or "meat"

In the description of pescetarians, user:Flyer22 citing Merriam-Webster's dictionary edited the article to say: A pescetarian diet, for example, includes "fish but no meat." which is a change from: A pescetarian diet, for example, includes fish but no other meats. I recommend a revert back, because, whether they view it that way or not, fishes are members of the Animalia kingdom, and animal flesh used as food is considered meat, per Wikipedia. Maybe this would be a nice compromise: A pescetarian diet, for example, includes no meat except for fish, which some pescetarians do not view as meat. Still, that wouldn't be true, because they, pescetarians, aren't saying that, unless it's referenced. It's a dictionary saying it. So, I recommend a revert back. What do the rest of you think? And, I'm sure you're doing a good job Flyer22, I don't mean this as a personal attack, but simply trying to find the best way for this article.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Abie the Fish Peddler. This discussion has been had in the past, and recently revisited before now. The definition says "fish but no meat." Most pescetarians, from my experience, also do not consider fish meat; they think of it in that "restrictive sense" the Meat article's lead mentions. Additionally, so do plenty of non-vegetarians. And let us not forget that some dictionaries define fish-eating as vegetarian. If fish was universally considered meat, we would not have to name it in the lead under the things vegetarians do not eat, and the Vegetarian Society would not have to stress it as not being vegetarian. Q Chris changing Webster's definition is not how things are supposed to work here, though I understand that Chris was trying to compromise. We go by sources; the source says "no meat."

When I first brought up the "fish subject" back in 2008, it was because I wanted both viewpoints represented, due to knowing self-proclaimed vegetarians who eat fish. While I myself do not eat fish, I respect their right to call themselves vegetarian; this prompted me to research the term a lot that year, to see why people are always offering me fish even though I am a vegetarian and why a lot of pescetarians classify themselves as vegetarian; what I concluded from sources was that the definition of "vegetarian" had evolved to include fish; others agreed with me. And some did not. Thus, we came to a compromise for the lead. WP:UNDUE and just about every other aspect you can think of was debated here. The point of the lead was/is to present this viewpoint, while also being clear about its position among vegetarians, sort of in the way that the Pedophilia article presents the common usage viewpoint of pedophilia but not without noting its correct definition first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. After reading your words above, and rereading the lede, the quotes seem to be a perfect balance. Thanks for the clear recap on past discussions.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you have not read it yet, here is the link to the most recent discussion I mentioned, which links to the very long, past discussion about this topic more specifically. I realize why I angered some fellow vegetarians back then (in that very long 2008 discussion), but we resolved it civilly enough. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, Abie, if you haven't noticed, we also note this "I'm still a vegetarian" issue in the Semi-vegetarian diets section -- the fish and poultry topic. I personally have not heard as many people who eat chicken, for example, refer to themselves as vegetarian, but I suppose it exists enough for a mention. I am sure that a lot of this confusion exists due to the fact that the words "pescetarian" and "flexitarian" are not in as widespread use as the word "vegetarian" is, and people not knowing how to describe themselves when the only meat they eat is chicken. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For quick future reference, here is a Google link to the big "Fish is not meat" debate; this debate is all over the Internet, and existed long before pescetarians started calling themselves vegetarian (such as in Catholicism). Given its common association with vegetarianism, I felt that it was/is definitely something that should be addressed in the lead. We, of course, have done that.

I don't feel that this common use association will stop any time soon. Many vegetarians are often offered fish (and other seafood), as if it's a usual part of a vegetarian's diet. I recently came across another editor, editor I dream of horses, who it seems faces the same thing (even though linked humorously on her user page). I already mentioned that I face it often; it does not terribly annoy me, but it sometimes makes me want to address the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...the tie-in with Catholicism makes me think it has something to do with Jesus being a fish-eater. Have you come across anything of that sort? If so, maybe we could fill in the Christianity section a little more.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why fish is not considered meat by Catholics, such as on Good Friday, but here is a link to a Catholic forum discussion about it (which is also one of the results from the debate link above). I truly am not sure on this specific matter. Perhaps a Catholic can help, if we have one editing/or looking out for this article? Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Naturalnews.com links

I've removed the citations to naturalnews.com. I don't think this is an appropriate source for an encyclopedia. WP:RS asks us to use "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Naturalnews.com doesn't meet this bar; large parts of it are given over to assertions that the pharmaceutical industry is conspiring to poison and kill patients for money, or that the FDA is in the business of kidnapping alternative-medicine proponents who threaten the status quo. This isn't the sort of source that a serious, respectable reference work should rely upon. And on a topic as visible and well-documented as vegetarianism, there should be a plethora of higher-quality sources on which to rely. MastCell ^Talk 04:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Now, that's really clear! Nice and reasonable catch. And it doesn't even seem like those sentences wil be hurting desperately for lack of a source. They seem covered. By the way, thanks for the generous edit heading, "sorry, my bad". I was starting to wonder whether I'd gotten a little too comfortable here on this article. If anyone feels like I'm moving at a snail's pace, I am not aware of all the archived discussions, and haven't the time just yet to become aware. So, I apologize if I ask yet another person to rehash old info. If you clue me in on my retardation, I'll back off.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all - you were completely right to ask me to elaborate. I probably should have posted here first, but I was sort of on a WP:BRD approach. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please wp:Be Bold, the article has sprouted some bits that just need to GO. It was a good edit, and a good revert, and a good re-cut, and a good discussion, I think. - Sinneed 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie the Fish Peddler, you are no problem at all. You are polite, and take things to the talk page to work them out (for example, you did that before reverting me on the "fish" issue). If anything, I feel that you are a great editor addition to this article. We can always use more editors watching out for this article, and certainly more Wikipedians as respectful as you are. It is only natural that editors who are new to watching/editing certain articles will need to be informed of some past discussions. Are you fairly new to Wikipedia? If so, let me take this time to welcome you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I just noticed this, Flyer22! Very kind of you. I admire your work as well. Cheers!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we add youtube links?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 If so I think this is a decent expose of animal cruelty in the meat industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonova (talk • contribs) 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a source? No. As a link in the "external links" section? Probably not, see WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNO. The video would have to be directly relevant to the topic of vegetarianism, this video seems tangential to the topic. Gabbe (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely non neutral

This article does not show a neutral point of view. Things as vegetarian diet and health are, at least, under debate (specially about vegetarian diet among children), and here are presented as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.110.69 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So, feel free to shape up the article with valid sources cited.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, you are not the first to state that about this article, but everyone who does so does not state specifically what they feel should be done to make it more neutral. And if they do, they do not provide reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to "Beyond Vegetarianism"

Why a link to Beyond Vegetarianism on the "External links" section is inappropriate? A link to it was deleted twice. I won't add the link for the third time, but I'd like to know what's the problem with that site, specially when it's already used as a source (#94). 201.50.150.137 (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:EL (and WP:ELNO)? Gabbe (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. After carefully reading WP:EL, I still can't see why this is not an appropriate link. Please, enlighten me. Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. 201.50.150.137 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Meat-packing industry connotation

With these diets, the word "meat" is often used in its restrictive meat-packing industry connotation.

This is an odd statement. Who says this meaning of "meat" came from the meat-packing industry, and why is that relevant? I assumed it was much older, as it's my understanding that Christian fasting from meat (as in Fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church) did not include fish (hence the misleading phrase "fish on friday").

For these reasons, I've reworded it to leave out mention of meat-packing. -kotra (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that Abie the Fish Peddler stated it that way because the Meat article currently says "The word meat is also used by the meat packing industry in a more restrictive sense—the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish and poultry." Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And, you are correct in your surety, though I feel no allegiance to that "meat-packing industry" line. I actually prefer Kotra's version.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Animal-to-human disease transmissions section.

An IP feels that this section is biased, because it comes from "biased books." I replaced the IP's tag with a neutrality tag, but that IP should come to this talk page and state his or her concerns. We cannot work on making that section more neutral unless we also see this bias the IP speaks of, or at least help to make that section more neutral even if we do not see the bias. I do not see this supposed bias. And if the IP does not come to this talk page to state his or her concerns, the neutrality tag should be removed. No tag should be placed on that section unless it is clear what the perceived problems are. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22's assessment. But I don't even think we should wait.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what the anonymous IP meant is that the sources used are mostly books favouring vegetarianism. Per WP:MEDRS we should prefer medical textbooks, position papers, articles published in reputable peer-reviewed journals and other such high quality sources when dealing with medical claims. I assume the books mentioned in this article all have citations to reputable medical journals in them, so it shouldn't be too hard to look these up to list the original references. Gabbe (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, that sounds reasonable. I move for citing more secondary sources.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am the person ("IP") who deems most of these sources unreliable as they are clearly advocating a vegetarian diet (or any diet, for that matter). I completely agree with Gabbe that medical topics should primarily be backed up by reputable medical sources. Partisan sources might not necessarily lie, but spread misinformation by exaggerating the relative risks. It is also a matter of verifiability; for example, I was unable to find/verify the studies mentioned in Hill, John Lawrence (1996). The case for vegetarianism. You are right that I am biased myself, but only in favour of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.95.114 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No one here has called you biased, IP. And thank you for explaining your concerns. I definitely see what you and Gabbe mean. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Biomagnification

Has there been done any research on the health benefits of a vegetarian diet in relationship to biomagnification?--158.39.241.19 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add a "Notes" section

This article has several notes listed among the regular cited references, and would be more accessible in their own section. I will make the move so my intention will be clear, but feel free to revert me, and discuss here. Good day!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I created the section, cleaned a few extraneous references and moved one note to the notes section. I still have more to do, but will have to continue tomorrow.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with a Notes section. The note section should be deleted as well as the notes themselves; if a reference isn't comprehensible when it it reviewed by other editors, notes aren't going to help. Or if that's unacceptable, create a new article Notes for the Vegetarian Article. Bob98133 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point, Bob, though I know I am against the idea of a separate article for the footnotes. Are you saying that editors can understand the notes even when they're mixed in with the regular references? If so, I think you're right, but I still think we should be striving for neatness, as opposed to clutter, and also to write and design the article for the laypeople and not editors. What do you think? Until I hear back from you, I plan on moving all of the notes to the section, so that the references section is completely comprised of references, and the notes section completely comprised of notes that explain particular issues in greater detail. If the consensus ends up being against me, I will gladly accept my edits being reverted.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Separating notes and references into two sections is an accepted practice in Wikipedia (see WP:REFNOTE), and can help organize information into understandable areas. I would support this here as the references section is unnecessarily long otherwise. -kotra (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been slow to reply after commenting. I'm willing to see how the notes section works out. While footnotes are acceptable in wiki, if an article has to resort to footnotes to be clear perhaps the writing of the article should be changed. I know this is a problem with an article so big and controversial, so let's see how it goes with notes. Bob98133 (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-vegetarianism

Should this term be even included in this article?

Based on the UK's Vegetarian societys definition...

"A vegetarian is someone living on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits with or without the use of dairy products and eggs.

A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or slaughter by-products"

see: http://www.vegsoc.org/info/definitions.html

How can somebody be 'half' of this?

There doesn't appear to be any room for grey-area, you are either a vegetarian or you are not. By including the word semi-vegetarian the article confuses people as to what a real vegetarian is.

Are there any traceable origins to the term semi-vegetarian? It just seems to have a sprung up recently with a load of other misleading terms.

For example.. after reading the 'semi-vegetarian' wiki article, it would appear that a semi-vegetarian is just a meat-eater on some kind of restrictive diet, ie atkins, raw meat diet, paleolithic diet etc etc, what types of meats that are / arn't restricted are not even defined.

Eating just one type of meat, no matter how infrequently still makes a person a meat eater, they don't need a special definition for this do they, as surely not every meat eaters habbits are the same. Especially a definition that doens't even define what kinds of meat can / cannot be eaten.

It would be similar to a vegetarian who does not eat celery calling themselves a celertarian or similar, it's just bizzare as surely we all have our own eating habbits based upon our overeall diet.. vegetarian, vegan, meat based, macrobiotic, etc etc.

I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this before re-shaping the article to omit the word 'semi-vegetarian' from the main artcle, and move it to a stub at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neosophist (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The conflict you are addressing... that semi-vegetarians are very much not accepted as vegetarians at all by the society... is the point of the mention. It seems adequately notable. I am certainly amenable to further discussion but would strongly oppose removing it.- Sinneed 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sinneed, and point you to the discussion above...at #fish: meat, not meat, or "meat". Semi-vegetarianism is a notable topic. And whether we agree with these diets being called semi-vegetarianism or not, that is what they are called. Mention of this most definitely belongs in this article. Fish and other seafood have more weight in not being considered meat, though. See the discussion I already linked to. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I also do not believe that anyone is confused about what a vegetarian is after reading the lead of this article; it makes it quite clear. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I also tweaked the lede. I think it's been much improved with all of our efforts. I am remembering that it is the editors who see fault with the article and don't say anything that cause the most harm to WP.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording of lead -- Fish or fishes, and should we specify that fish and birds are animals?

This was taken from my talk page in response to Abie the Fish Peddler about the wording of the semi-vegetarianism part of the article's lead; we encourage others to weigh in on this matter:

Do you really feel that we need to specify that fishes and poultry are animals, though? We make it clear that semi-vegetarians use the word "meat" in a restrictive sense, and that vegetarian groups such as the Vegetarian Society do not consider semi-vegetarian diets to be vegetarian. That already makes it clear that they consider these creatures to be animals. It just seems as though we are undermining our readers' intelligence. As you know, I felt the same way about the addition of omnivorous. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And, oh...I had checked the Fish article before I changed fishes to "fish," and I did not see the word "fishes" used much there. "Fishes" just sounds awkward to me, perhaps because I do not hear many people say "fishes." They usually just say "fish." Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, we're not specifying anything, we are presenting what the vegetarian groups specified, as per the referenced link. As for fish and fishes, I had always thought the difference was between when the animal was prepared as food and when it was in the sea. Your reverting me, caused me to look it up, and I see that it's rather a matter of species than food.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was more a partial revert, LOL. Anyway, I know that we are presenting what the Vegetarian Society specified, but it is still us specifying what they specified. I still see it as unneeded, for the reasons I stated above. It just sounds so unnecessary and as though we are trying to stress to people, "Yeah, you are eating animals."

The fish or fishes section you pointed to in the Fish article notes that those words are often used interchangeably. And that is what I mean. People generally do not state "fishes," and I do not feel that they are wrong for not doing so. While "fishes" may be technically correct, "fish" typically covers different species of fish. Or is it that you feel "fishes" should be used in order to cover sharks and seafood? Most people do not think "shark" when they hear or see the word fish. But they also do not think "shark" when they hear or see the word "fishes." I am okay with leaving it as "fishes" as you have, and it is not as awkward to me now that I have looked at it more, but still... We should probably simply state "...and has led vegetarian groups, such as the Vegetarian Society, to note that such fish/seafood or poultry-based diets are not vegetarian." and leave it at that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it reads better as fish than fishes. As for specifying that fish and birds are animals, people do IMO frequently get the terms mammal and animal confused, believing that fish and birds aren't animals (as they aren't mammals). The cited Vegetarian Society page alludes to this fact so I think it may be worth keeping the clarification but rewording it to sound less patronising. Muleattack (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The current wording looks good to me.. "Fishes" to me means the animal, whereas "fish" (plural) means the meat... but this is just my personal view, not a reliable source of course. Both seem acceptable according to [1][2] (American English, FWIW) so I see need to debate it indefinitely. Mentioning that they are animals seems useful here as it briefly explains VegSoc's reasoning. I do not see the current wording as patronizing, merely explanatory, but if that's a common interpretation, it should be changed. -kotra (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you two for weighing in. I suppose I will leave those parts as they currently are for now. If I can think of what I feel is a better way to word the "fishes and birds are animals" part, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Abie the Fish Peddler, are you too against "fish" being used in place of "fishes"? I see that from the edit history...people finding "fishes" to be awkward or wrong wording has already started. Since either can be used, why not just go ahead and have it be "fish" for better reading to people? Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22! No, I'm not too against "fish" being used in place of "fishes". That would be fine by me. I concede that it seems "fishes" is falling out of usage.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will change it to "fish." I definitely took your feelings about this into consideration, but I feel that most people find the word "fishes" awkward; it is simply not heard/seen too often, at least here in the United States. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sikhism

The recent edits to the "Sikhism" section have reminded me that it was a cluttered section, and now is moreso, though I think the IP editor added a valuable quote or two. Here is what I propose for the section, my goal being to only keep the quotes which most directly deal with vegetarianism.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC):

====Sikhism====

Main article: Vegetarianism in Sikhism

Followers of Sikhism do not have a preference for meat or vegetarian consumption. There are two views on initiated or "Amritdhari Sikhs" and meat consumption. "Amritdhari" Sikhs (i.e. those that follow the Sikh Rehat Maryada (the Official Sikh Code of Conduct) can eat meat (provided it is not Kutha meat)."Amritdharis" that belong to some Sikh sects (eg Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Damdami Taksal, Namdhari, Rarionwalay, etc.) are vehemently against the consumption of meat and eggs (they do however, consume and encourage the consumption of milk, butter, and cheese).

In the case of meat, the Sikh Gurus have indicated their preference for a simple diet, which could include meat or be vegetarian. Passages from the Guru Granth Sahib (the holy book of Sikhs, also known as the Adi Granth) say that fools argue over this issue. Guru Nanak said that over consumption of food (Lobh, Greed) involves a drain on the Earth's resources and thus on life. The tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh, prohibited the Sikhs from the consumption of halal or kosher (Kutha, any ritually slaughtered meat) meat because of the Sikh belief that sacrificing an animal in the name of God is mere ritualism (something to be avoided).

SGGS Page 1350 Full Shabad

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false.

Those who do not contemplate them are false.

You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ((1))

SGGS Page 1377 Full Shabad

Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine

- no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. ॥233॥

Quotes not needed. I've already removed them. No other religions in section have quotes. Bob98133 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, quotes do belong in Vegetarianism in Sikhism, but Vegetarianism#Sikhism should summarize that article as succinctly as possible, and so quotes are probably not necessary here. -kotra (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand and agree. However, a new issue comes to my mind upon reading Bob98133's comment that "no other religions have quotes". One does. It's the Classical Greek and Roman thought section. I added it among my first edits at this article. Personally, I think it fits nicely, however, that last comment of yours, Bob, made me wonder whether any editors think it sticks out unnecessarily.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

whoops I reinstated the quotes on vegetation and missed the talk. The Anonmous IP has actually mistranslated those sections before inserting them. He/she is being very naughty. I added a specific quote about vegetation, but it can be removed if you wish to. Abbie, before you start weilding those quotes I suggest you take a look at this article, which explains, them. Thanks--Sikh-History 11:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not looking for suggestions on how to edit, Sikh-history. I do what little I can, and am not accepting pushes for more. I do, however, appreciate the website you linked to above, and that you caught the mistranslations. As for the quotes you added, I find in them no direct connection to vegetarianism. As I understand them now, the quotes seem to imply that Sikhism objects to vegetarianism. If that's the case, I think that point should be made clearer. If it isn't the case, I think the quotes should be removed all together.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the quotes imply and that is why I said they should be cut (I added them back thinking there was vandalism, I didn't see the conversation). Sikhism has no view either way on Vegetarianism and eating Meat and those quotes show how Sikhs see life in everything (only Human Life is seen as being special), and therefore leave Vegetarianism to the individual. There are groups within Sikhism, that are fanatically Vegetarian (a throw back to Vashnavite Hindu converts). It is interesting however, to note that the Sikhs who are Vegetarians produce quotes that state that meat shouldn't be eaten (albeit misquoted or out of context), but seem to get into a dither over eggs. Due to the extensive travels of the First Sikh Guru (from China to Sri Lanka to Egypt) he was well aware of the different religious views on Vegetarianism, and therefore left it to individuals. Regards--Sikh-History 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If all this can't be included in a reference, then drop it. I've cut it again. Perhaps the article needs rabbis, priests and every other religious group talking about how their religion relates to vegetables. That would eliminate the WP:UNDUE and make the article unreadable. This content should not be re-added to this article. Bob98133 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regards to you, too! Hey, I took your perspective into account and after a little research, I have come up with this new proposal for the section. I'm curious what you think.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC):

====Sikhism====

Main article: Vegetarianism in Sikhism

The tenets of Sikhism do not advocate a particular stance on either vegetarianism or the consumption of meat, but rather leave the decision of diet to the individual. The tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh, however, prohibited "Amritdhari" Sikhs, or those that follow the Sikh Rehat Maryada (the Official Sikh Code of Conduct) from eating Kutha meat, or meat which has been obtained from animals which have been killed in a ritualistic way. This is understood to have been for the political reason of maintaining independence from the then-new Muslim hegemony, as Muslims largely adhere to the ritualistic halal diet.

"Amritdharis" that belong to some Sikh sects (eg Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Damdami Taksal, Namdhari, Rarionwalay, etc.) are vehemently against the consumption of meat and eggs (though they do consume and encourage the consumption of milk, butter, and cheese). This vegetarian stance has been traced back to the times of the British Raj, with the advent of many new Vaishnava converts. In response, to the varying views on diet throughout the Sikh population, Sikh Gurus have sought to clarify the Sikh view on diet, stressing their preference only for simplicity of diet. Guru Nanak said that over-consumption of food (Lobh, Greed) involves a drain on the Earth's resources and thus on life. Passages from the Guru Granth Sahib (the holy book of Sikhs, also known as the Adi Granth) say that it is "foolish" to argue for the superiority of animal life, because though all life is related, only human life carries more importance.

"Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?"

The Sikh langar, or free temple meal, is largely vegetarian, though this is understood to be a result of efforts to present a meal that is respectful of the diets of any person who would wish to dine, rather than out of dogma.

Very Good, but I don't think meat like Halal, Kosher is just prayed over, is it not meat that has been sacrificed in the name of God? What do you think? Also take care to retain book references over the web/forum reference to ensure credibility is retained. Good effort. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the Kutha line, and added info regarding the langar. I hope you will give me feedback on the changes. I should also note that my main focus has been on the text of the article, and not as much on matching up the refs. If this version of the section is agreed upon, I think the connection to the refs needs to be checked.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff, but be warned, edit warriors may appear from nowhere and engage in an edit war. I have this problem on many Sikh based articles, especially contentious ones like Vegetarianism. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt emboldened by Sikh-history's approval to add this revised version of the section. Please discuss here if you disagree, that goes for you too, edit warriors. ;-) Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On Vaishnava converts, I read (see the Langar article), that meat was served in Langar by the 2nd Guru, but when Vaishnav's objected it was taken out, so as not hurt their feelings. Note also by vegetarian, in is lacto-vegetarian we mean. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I could squeeze those two bits of info into the article unobtrusively, if you provide me with the references. Deal?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

See this section here, it contains a couple of references. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Eating Disorders

"The American Dietetic Association indicates that vegetarian diets may be more common among adolescents with eating disorders but that the evidence suggests that the adoption of a vegetarian diet does not lead to eating disorders ..."

And what is the point of including this, exactly? This is trivial, given there is no correlation between vegetarianism and eating disorders. It's like someone just tossed some random research into the article hoping someone would misread it and conclude that there is, in fact, some direct correlation between the two. I suspect subtle POV-insertion here. 70.153.104.135 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There was considerable discussion about this edit when it was made.Initially, an attempt was made to indicate that vegetarian diets are a type of eating disorder, or could lead to one. This was a compromise since no ref could be found to support the connection betw. eating disorders and veg diet. Bob98133 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-vegetarianism section

I like Flyer22's intention in that one's recent edits, though I find the particulars a little unclear. Here is my proposal for the section (Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)):

===Semi-vegetarian diets===

Semi-vegetarian diets primarily consist of vegetarian foods, though occasional exceptions are made for some non-vegetarian foods, including fish, poultry and even red meat. These diets may be followed by those who choose to reduce the amount of animal flesh consumed as a way of transitioning to a vegetarian diet, or for health, environmental, or other reasons. The term "semi-vegetarian" is contested by most vegetarian groups, who believe that vegetarianism must exclude all animal flesh. Many individuals describe themselves as "vegetarian" while practicing a semi-vegetarian diet. Semi-vegetarian diets include:

• Flexitarianism: A diet that consists primarily of vegetarian food, but includes occasional exceptions such as red meat.
• Pescetarianism: A diet that is mainly vegetarian but also includes fish and sometimes other seafood.
• Pollotarianism: A diet that is mainly vegetarian but also includes poultry.

Either version is fine with me. The one above seems a bit tighter, but you guys can work that out. I like the idea of a separate section for this. Now shouldn't the emphasis on semi-vegetarian diets be removed from the lede? Since they are now classified as a type of vegetarian diet in the Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism section, it seems UNDO to also have this info so prominently in the lede. Bob98133 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of my opinion on that. I see three options: Leaving it in the lede, deleting it, and moving it to a footnote. You want to delete it? I still need a little time to reflect. Curious what everyone else thinks. As for the passage above, I'll insert it, and wait to see what changes are made to it. Hope that works for everyone.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would put scare quotes around "Semi-vegetarian" and tuck this content in at the end of the etymology section, with a bit of a tweak, something like: "Semi-vegetarian" is a term describing diets that primarily consist of vegetarian foods...

In any case it does not belong in the lead, which should be a summary of the article's content. RomaC (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Abie the Fish Peddler, your tweaks to this section are fine.

As for not mentioning semi-vegetarianism in the lead, semi-vegetarianism was already covered in the Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism section, but we also mention it in the lead for very important reasons that I will again touch on. First off, scare quotes around "Semi-vegetarian" are not needed, since that is what it is actually called and we already point out the controversy about this topic. The importance of mentioning semi-vegetarianism in the lead of this article has been discussed several times, including at Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 10#fish: meat, not meat, or "meat" and in the #Semi-vegetarianism and #Sometimes considered vegetarian sections above. Consensus has been for including it in the lead each time, for the reasons stated in all those past discussions. As I have stated before, the idea that pescetarianism is vegetarianism is so strong that the Vegetarian Society spoke out about it; this is why we mention it in the lead. I have also stated more than once that this is no different than pointing out the misuses of the term pedophilia in the lead of the Pedophilia article. The different, prominent ways these terms are applied should be noted in the lead. This is not WP:UNDUE. These are significant viewpoints of these two terms, though they are misuses. The fact that they are misuses is something we should note; we do that. That is quite clear from the leads of these two articles. Mentioning semi-vegetarianism in the lead is summarizing this article's content. It is not some trivial note that should only be regulated further down within the article. These are things that need to be addressed to readers right off the bat. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know my answer came out as if I were oblivious to some of those discussions which I've been a party to. I just wasn't sure after all the changes since then, if the article now reads differently, and if there was no longer any need. I guess it was my own biased wishful thinking taking over. Thanks for keeping it in line, Flyer22.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The changes to the section about semi-vegetarianism have not been too significant. They have more so been tweaks. But even if they had been very significant, this topic should still be noted in the lead; even more if by "significant" in this case, we mean "expansion." Because then, that section would be more prominent in this article than what it currently is. Significantly expanding that section is what would be WP:UNDUE, though. As for you having bias on this topic, if anything, I felt that you were now biased for keeping the semi-vegetarianism/pescetarianism mention in the lead...due to having become aware of just how often people do not consider fish to be meat and pescetarianism to therefore be vegetarianism. But, yeah, I did not feel that you were acting oblivious to what we have discussed in the past. Flyer22 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent lede edit

User:Plandr recently added the words "but does sometimes eat" to the second sentence of the lede,so that it reads "A vegetarian does not eat meat, game, poultry, but does sometimes eat fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet." Although I appreciate the sentiment and it makes logical sense with the rest of the article, still I think the wording is a tad off. I'd prefer something like this: "Vegetarians do not eat meat, game, or poultry, though some may eat fish, crustacea, shellfish or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet." Is this leaning too much towards semi-vegetarianism now?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Although I disagree with Flyer and believe we should focus on "vegetarianism" in the lead, which is supposed to be "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." per WP:LEAD, I'll review the previous discussions. Mind you, "semi-vegetarian" is a relatively new qualification label and really, not the focus of this article -- as the semi-vegetarian article notes, "Semi-vegetarian diets are not vegetarian diets" -- so would rather support a brief reference to semi-vegetarian and vegan in the lead, and a bit of discussion then links to the other (semi and vegan) articles lower in the body of this article. RomaC (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Roma. We've just been through this. Bob98133 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Seems fair enough. I agree that the lede should stay as it is.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the lead as it currently is, for obvious reasons. Plandr's edit was "off," because fish/other seafood-eating is not supposed to be considered vegetarian (at least according to the Vegetarian Society and most other, what we would call, "true vegetarians"). As for what RomaC stated about semi-vegetarianism, as you all know, I already made my thoughts about that matter clear in past discussions and above. Quickly put again, semi-vegetarianism is not only related to this topic but is a much debated "aspect" of it. And Plandr's edit further shows why the current semi-vegetarianism paragraph in the lead should remain. Summarizing? We already briefly mention veganism and semi-vegetarianism in the lead. The veganism mention is very brief. And I see no good reason why the semi-vegetarianism mention should shortened further, especially given Plandr's edit. I believe that the way the lead is now is one of its better/best versions. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede image

Kotra recently deleted a profile image with explanation and, I think, with good reason. The reason being that raw fruits and vegetables shows a limited easy to misunderstand view of vegetarianism. So, I ask, how about this image? To me, it shows variety. And frankly it is making me hungry. I've gotta go. See you later...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

An added thought, I think if it is decided upon to use this image, another more "Western" style image should be also be used, either in the lede or later in the article. I'm thinking of an image of a veggie burger or something...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a good variety of Korean vegetarian foods. I am unsure, however, if it's a good idea to lead the article for an international diet like Vegetarianism with an illustration of a particular culture's food. Your suggestion of an additional, more "Western" image would help alleviate that, but it strikes me as an inadequate solution for a couple of reasons: Which image goes first? Why stop at just two cultures (Korean and American/Western)? The only solution I can think of is a collage-style single photo like the nationality collages (Arab people, Spanish people, etc)... how that could be done and still be able to have the pictures large enough to comprehend, though, may be a hurdle. -kotra (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You two got me to thinking about how this article has no images, such as of veggie burgers, etc. But I had already been thinking about the lack of mention of veggie burgers and such. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarian cuisine has this, but it's not very prominently linked from Vegetarianism (relegated as it is to just the See also section). Perhaps a summary style section on "Vegetarian cuisine" would be good, or is this article too long already? -kotra (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I think we need a vegetarian cuisine section in article summary form. (I like this teamwork!) As for whether the article will be too long, I think we certainly need to spend some time going over the entire article and trimming here and there, but "vegetarian cuisine" seems central enough to the topic to include regardless of the article's current length. Thoughts?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is already too long, but, like Abie the Fish Peddler suggested, it can probably be trimmed in some places. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The image of fruits and vegetables which Abie has been removing is fine with me. I think it's a good representation of the types of foods eaten by a vegetarian. It could be supplemented with more images later in the article. Bob98133 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I do not really see the problem with the image. It used to be the long-standing main image for this article before. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the old picture should be put back ASAP! It was good, it may not be the best picture possible but it was still good. No picture is much worse than just a good picture. Untill you find your wanted perfect picture please put the old one back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.197.115 (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed section: Animal-to-human disease transmissions

This section should probably redacted, combining it with the "Food Safety" section above.

Statements in the section should address factually the general motivation of choosing vegetarianism to avoid consuming animal pathogens.

Some of the statements made in the section could be expressed more neutrally. For example, "leukemia (cancer) virus" might better be written "avian leukosis, a virus that can cause malignancies in poultry".

A distinction should perhaps be made between animal pathogens known to be pathogenic to humans (H5N1, anthrax) and animal pathogens not known to be pathogenic to humans (avian leukosis, BLV, BIV).

Some of the statements are hypothetical rather than factual in nature: "It is supposed that BIV may have a role in the development of a number of malignant or slow viruses in humans.", "According to the 'Hunter Theory', the 'simplest and most plausible explanation for the cross-species transmission' the AIDS virus [sic] was transmitted from a chimpanzee to a human when a bushmeat hunter was bitten or cut while hunting or butchering an animal." The factuality of the section would be improved by removing the hypothetical statements.

I think theories as to the cause(s) of the Black Death belong in a separate article. I'm guessing they're already there.

I've been good and not made these changes unilaterally! I'll be back to see what others think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byronshock (talk • contribs) 06:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Psychological Section

The whole psychological section needs to be rewritten or taken out completely. It has nothing to do with psychology; it just lists a couple of metaphors and a logical fallacy. Also the reference to chimpanzees lacking a predator instinct, "This same non-predatory inter-species interaction can be seen in adult chimpanzees" is in direct contrast to the source sited, which says, “They prey on duikers, young bushbuck, baboons and other monkeys” and, "Chimpanzees become intensely excited during hunts...". The whole section reads like a personal opinion, not like a fact based encyclopaedia. GuruJones (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)GuruJones

Good call, Guru. I hadn't noticed, but I think you're right that the Psychology section says little and is disorganized and random. I do think that there may be some content that would fit in a section like this. For example, this ref [3] discusses social psychology and vegetarian beliefs, and seems to say that some people become vegetarian because of the belief that it is good for the environment. When decisions are made on beliefs, and not facts, that could fit in a psychology section, even if there may be facts to support it. Environment may not be the best example, but something like a belief that animals will thank you for not eating them, could certainly fit. Don't know about refs for all this, but it would be interesting. Bob98133 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I may consider editing it myself, but I am hesitant since I am new to editing on Wikipedia and have not familiarized myself with all of it's rules and regulations. However if it is not changed I will give it a try.GuruJones (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)GuruJones

Minor Change to Intro Wording Section

" A pescetarian diet, for example, includes "fish but no meat".[5] "

This is cited under Mirriam Webster, but "Fish but no meat", implies that fish is NOT meat, when fish is in fact, meat. it should say "fish but no OTHER meat". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.25.10 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, IP. Sorry for the late reply. This has been discussed a few times before. For example, check the fish: meat, not meat, or "meat" (21) in Archive 10 (above). It is also explained well enough in the lead. See where we state "With these diets, the word 'meat' is often defined as only mammalian flesh"? Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and veganism

I have marked this new article, Vegetarianism and veganism with a PROD flag and a couple of article tags. Interested editors might take a look and improve the article or simply comment on the PROD or tags. This was placed here at the article top. I dropped it, and the other article-top SA.- Sinneed 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You were good to prod it. I can't understand why it was even made when there are already Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, separately. Was it made by a new user? Wait, I'll check. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see why it was created (to tackle politics), but it should have a different title (in addition to major cleanup, such as references). Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Main article picture

Please put a picture at the top of the page. Thank you. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.26.95 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 26 April 2010

What might be appropriate? Ideas? - Sinneed 14:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IP, we have discussed the main image often, but nobody can agree on which image to use. Sometimes, there are objections to a simple picture of vegetables, which was the main image for this article for a long time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is everybody okay with this change by the IP (known as 124.176.53.227 under that edit)? I just wanted to say that I am okay with this being the main image instead of where it was previously placed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ok with this image. As you might recall, that particular image was used before and we removed it from the top because it is misleading to illustrate vegetarianism with it. Vegetarianism is not about whole fruits and vegetables. The majority of vegetarians in the world consume dairy, and many more also consume eggs. Even vegans do not typically subsist on whole raw foods, but prepared food (and not rarely including junk food, just like everyone else). -kotra (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What defines vegetarians is what they don't eat, not what they eat. Thus what would be appropriate to illustrate the concept would be an image of... meat, or of living animals. Or perhaps something along that line. David Olivier (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotra, the lead makes clear what vegetarians eat and do not eat. I do not believe that a simple picture of vegetables and fruits is going to lead people to believe that's all vegetarians eat. I consume dairy products as well (cheese, milk when needed to make certain foods, and icecream). Occasionally...I even eat eggs, when I need a quick source of protein (though I am trying to give up eggs completely), and I am not offended by that image. Would most vegetarians really object to that image? Of course, we are not going to find an image to completely represent vegetarianism. For a lot of articles on Wikipedia, the main image does not completely represent the topic.

Olivierd, I am not sure that a picture of meat would be the best way to go for this article. What would we put in the caption, "Vegetarians do not eat meat"? I mean, that seems pretty obvious. But I do not feel very strongly about whatever is decided for the main image, if anything. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I would object to a picture of meat. That would be in bad taste for an article on vegetarianism. A better idea would be to find a picture of foods that vegetarians really do eat. This could well include dairy products and eggs, since those are vegetarian foods. A few years ago a book was published called Hungry Planet: What the World Eats. (Some pictures are available here [4].) I think several vegetarian websites and forums picked up on the idea and published pictures of the foods eaten by vegetarians around the world. If you think that kind of picture would be a good idea, I can ask around and see if someone is willing to publish their pictures under a compatible licence. I'm not opposed to reinstating the vegetables image you're talking about here either. TheLastNinja (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, I agree that none of the photos of a display of food we have currently available to us completely represent vegetarianism... but I would go farther and argue that this particular one doesn't accurately represent vegetarianism at all. This one in question might be appropriate for Raw veganism (though probably not, even there). But just as there is not one photo available to us that accurately represents food, there is not one (that I know of) for such a broad category for vegetarianism. That is not to say one is impossible, just we don't have it yet. I think TheLastNinja is on to something good in this regard. Not that we need constrain ourselves to photos: a vegetarian symbol could be a good lead image, if there is one that's fairly recognizable. I would even be happy with the Indian vegetarian labeling symbol (the left of ), as India has the majority of the world's vegetarians. This is all assuming we need a lead image, which of course is not the case.

And just to clarify, I'm not saying vegetarians will be offended by that photo (I'm not), it's just misleading. We shouldn't worry about being offensive on Wikipedia, but we should be worried about being misleading. -kotra (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see it as misleading, Kotra, but I agree that TheLastNinja is on to something good regarding the lead image. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've looked around to see if I could find vegetarian versions of the "What the world eats" series (mentioned above). The one I like the best so far is from Flickr: [5]. TheLastNinja (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about people being such prominent elements of the picture, but this could be adequate, maybe with a caption like "A week's food for an American vegetarian family of five.". Assuming the photographer is willing to change the copyright status to a Wikipedia-compatible license. -kotra (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the people are part of the concept in the "What the world eats" series. Personally I think having people in the picture makes it a lot more interesting (psychologically). (I would prefer no celebrities though, just ordinary people.) How do others feel about people vs. no people? I've hunted around for more pictures like this, but not had much luck unfortunately. Another idea I have is to find a picture of a set table or buffet table filled with different vegetarian dishes, and maybe some people sitting around the table as well. Do you think this idea would work? Some examples: [6], [7]. TheLastNinja (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The new lead image is great. Not sure how I feel about images of celebrities being in the article. Images of "regular people" should be fine to all, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The new lead image is better (because it includes dairy). Not ideal or perfect of course, for a number of reasons, but I think it's better than nothing until something more representative can be found. Thanks for your efforts, TLN! -kotra (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation clutter

This page is getting hard to load because of the citation templates and the over-referencing (186 refs for 6,600 words). I'm going to start converting these back to manual refs, and moving or removing some of the repetitive ones, just in case anyone wonders what I'm doing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, SlimVirgin. Good job tweaking. But in the Varieties of vegetarianism section, you took away the Semi-vegetarianism diets subheading. I'm just wondering if everyone is okay with that, since there are vegetarians, including here, who object to semi-vegetarianism being considered vegetarian and would rather keep mention of it separate, like we do in the lead. As this article says, most strict vegetarians do not consider semi-vegetarianism to be vegetarianism at all. I will add a little info you took out about why people start semi-vegetarian diets and the parts specifying what each diet is, but will leave whether or not to add back the subheading to debate. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And as for referencing, I prefer citation templates; I feel that it is neater, and I know that most GA and FA articles are required to have their references "properly formatted" (citation templates). But if you and others feel that citation templates are not best for this article, I will go along with that. I added back a few references to the lead, though, due to those who might challenge such information (it has been a problem in the past). Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, I reverted your changes, but I intend to restore them, just without the templates. They are slowing the article down to the point where I can hardly get it to load; preview and diffs are particularly bad. It's not correct that GA or FA are required to have templates, and if you could show me what gave you that impression I'd appreciate it so that I can remove it. In addition WP:CITE says not to add them to properly formatted references, or to articles without consensus. The problem is that they clutter up the text, make it hard to edit (which leads to poor writing), and make it slow to load when there are lots of them, as there are here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I went back to restore, but all you did was add the templates back, so I'm unsure now of what you were wanting to change. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the semi-vegetarian heading, we already describe some semi-vegetarian diets in that section, so to add a new heading but without those categories in it might look a little odd. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, what gave me the impression that GA or FA articles are usually required to have reference templates is what I have seen during most GA and FA nominations. Most editors passing those articles feel that citation templates are neater and display more or more accurate information, such as who wrote the articles (which is something people often forget to do without citation templates). It also helps to not unnecessarily duplicate references; here is an example of that. I did that without adding the citation template back, but people often do not do that without citation templates. And, no, all I did was not add the templates back. I added back citations to the "With these diets, the word 'meat' is often defined as only mammalian flesh" bit, which, yes, needs citations (because whether or not fish is meat/vegetarian has been an issue in the past). I also tweaked the Varieties of vegetarianism section, as this revert shows.

As for not adding citation templates to "properly formatted" references, or to articles without consensus (I take the "articles without consensus" bit to mean well-watched articles), the opposite (do not add non-templated references without consensus) can be said for well-watched articles that do use them. I do not have a big problem with your removing the citation templates from this article, but it would have been better to see if most of us here agree with you first. I am okay with your changing the reference format style, as long as it is consistent, but try not to remove references from parts that need them. As stated, you undid all my edits. I ask that you try to better spot my changes in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed all that I changed earlier back (what you reverted), but without the citation templates.[8][9]

The Semi-vegetarianism subheading section? I explained that above, but I have not added it back...since no one has objected to its removal. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Soy and isoflavones

In the subsection "Gender" there is some discussion of health concerns potentially associated with soy. This has no relation to this article. While vegetarians in the U.S. do tend to eat more soy than omnivores, there is no direct relation between vegetarianism and soy products. There is no reason to believe that vegetarians are more likely to feed their infants soy formula. Omnivores can use soy formula, and vegetarians need not eat any soy at all. This should be removed. --N-k (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I am removing that paragraph. --N-k (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Veganarchism

I think the link to Veganarchism in the "See also" section should be removed, as it is almost completely irrelevant in this article. --N-k (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's OK to remove that link from this article as it deals with veganism, not vegetarianism. Bob98133 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Semi-vegetarianism#Merge Flexitarianism to Semi-vegetarianism?

More thoughts are needed on this matter. I see that it is long overdue, and felt that we should get the "final" decision made. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vitamin D

I believe the vitamin D section should be removed as there is no point of all it being there. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imatheocracy (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 May 2010

Most of it seems wp:offtopic, and I have cut it, leaving in the sources, leaving an OSP. This may be better presented in a different format.- Sinneed 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be combined with the Calcium section as "Calcium and Vitamin D"? Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is though, is that it the only thing it now is related to vegetarianism is that it says there is no deficincy in vegetarians compared to meat eaters. If we leave it we should really put up every single vitamin and mineral on this page. Imatheocracy (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, Ima... if there were some reason to talk about vitamin D, we certainly wouldn't have to talk about the others... we don't need to be fair to the vitamins, they aren't POVish. Also, please don't move this back to the top... new sections belong at the bottom. The vitamin D source could simply be placed in the section that mentions health benefits and concerns, to keep from throwing out the sourcing, while avoiding the relatively pointless one-sentence para.- Sinneed 13:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No criticism section?

I know this has been pointed out many times, but I'm just very fascinated over the lack of arguments against vegetarianism in this article. And before you tell me "Well, find a claim from a reliable source", I would just like to ask why, while creating this extremely-well researched article, no user has found such a source? Each and every article I've come to Wikipedia to research on has had both sides of the pond featured in the article. Just for fun I did some quick research and found that Vegetarians lack Omega-3 fatty acids, Iron and Vitamin B12, while some lack calcium if following a non-dairy diet [10][11][12]. These are very common criticisms, and I'm shocked to see something so basically found not placed yet because of a "lack of reliable source". It doesn't have to be a huge section, but at least make it existent.

Done my rant now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericleb01 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article, one might find each of those problems identified and addressed. wp:criticism explains why a separate section is not generally best. Since there are hundreds of millions of vegetarians, living long and healthy lives, I suspect arguments against come down to: I like my meat and I am eating it... which is an excellent argument, but has nothing to do with WP.- Sinneed 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See espcially Vegetarianism#Health benefits and concerns... the concerns part would indicate that it covers the concerns.- Sinneed 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Western vegetarian diets are typically high in carotenoids, but relatively low in long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B12. Vegans can have particularly low intake of vitamin B and calcium if they do not eat enough items such as collard greens, leafy greens, tempeh and tofu (soy)." - 2 sentences, hits every point you mentioned.- Sinneed 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fatty acids? Iron? Not to mention the B12 in plants are almost impossible for us to absorb. I don't see how those two sentences "hit" that.

And whether or not they do "hit that", the concerns section is still non-neutral. Each concern is immediately refuted in the article:

"Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality [...] although the sample of vegetarians was small and included ex-smokers who had switched their diet within the last five years."

"Protein intake in vegetarian diets is only slightly lower than in meat diets." (not very bad, but just has that little nudge)

"Vegetarian diets typically contain similar levels of iron to non-vegetarian diets, but this has lower bioavailability than iron from meat sources" (this has a NPOV, but the source is from a, get this, unreliable source--or at least, it's a pro-veg site with no sources or scientific credibility, contradicting the retorts you gave everyone in the archives)

"Vitamin D levels do not appear to be lower in vegetarians (although studies have shown that much of the general population is deficient)"

Overall, the entire article tone sounds awfully like a pro-vegetarian article. In my opinion, that's a neutral point-of-view problem. Ericleb01 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

wp:sofixit - the article is a mess... a compendium of debris from edit wars. - Sinneed 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ADA quote

The fuller quote is that an adequately planned vegetarian diet ""healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases" This has been deleted before, and has been deleted again and replaced with just the term "adequate". If someone doesn't like ADA's findings, that is not a legitimate reason to remove what are only a handful of extra words, but which give a much more accurate version of ADA's position statement (directly from the summary in the PDF in the link). I may be mistaken in that it may have been deleted (same person?) from the veganism rather than vegetarianism WP entry, though I think this one previously as well. Again, the three terms ADA uses are "adequate", "healthful" and "provides health benefits in the prevention and traetment of certain diseases", not just "adequate"Harel (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And that is all covered in the article. wp:QUOTE, wp:UNDUE. It will probably be cut again, over time.- Sinneed 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Sinneed here. Sometimes, with this being such a big article, Harel, things can be overlooked. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Health benefits and concerns

I noticed in the "health benefits and concerns" section, that there are only benefits and no concerns listed. Is that because there really are no health concerns, or because someone has come along and deleted them, for whatever reason? It would be nice to know if there really were no known health problems with a balanced meatless diet, but there's no point deleting information about health concerns if there are any. 220.244.163.200 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial

It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Vegetarianism, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:

You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.

at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)