Talk:Vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Vegetarianism is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Peer review Vegetarianism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.


Contents

[edit] Reality Check

Fish such as cod or tuna contains only about 25mg of cholesterol (good idea). Small amounts of cholesterol from fish WILL reduce your total cholesterol intake instead of eating pig meat, KFC, or Mcd's. I personally like cod. A vegetarian diet can be or actually is a very risky behavior by having a severe protein deficiency.

Brown rice is a inherently poor source of protein. I consider brown rice a good source of complex carbs. Nice try though. Vegetarains point to red meat. I point to fish!!! Vegetarains eating behavior has nothing to do for a health benefit. Fish, egg whites, non-fat milk, and skinless turkey breast are healthy sources of high quality protein. Soy, on the other hand may cause cancer, allergies, and birth defects which most vegetarians say, "soy is the best?"

The unsourced opinions claim a "Vegetarian Diet" has a significant advantage? Wikipedia is not a promo ad for people to become Vegetarians.

Adding original research to Wikipedia is not acceptable. If you want to avoid an "edit war" read Wikipedia's policies. --Just an onlooker 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

it is a proven fact that if you want to be perfectly fit and healthy you need to eat meat and other animal products domestic farm animals are here to serve humans that is why they exist Bouse23 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you seriously need a reality check. Sentences like "Another misconception is by some vegetarians who think vegetable protein is equal to animal protein. In fact, protein obtained from animal is inherently a higher quality than protein obtained from vegetable" are just plain propaganda. There are many kinds of plant protein and many kinds of animal protein. To say that animal protein is inherently a higher quality than plant protein is just nonsense. Some kinds of of animal protein, such as gelatin, are severely deficient in several essential amino acids (see the USDA database, for instance). Some kinds of plant protein too. So what? Some kinds of plant protein are very adequate. It is very easy to live with just plant protein, I have been doing that myself for over 15 years and have no signs at all of protein deficiency (let alone "severe protein deficiency"!).
Please stop your propaganda. It is perfectly possible (and quite easy) for humans to live healthily without preying on other animals. That is fact. Why do you want to obscure that fact?
David Olivier 23:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


"These sentences above written by "David Olivier" are unsourced, opinions, and pure speculation."

Notice how David FAILS at every level to explain what plant sources equal animal sources of proteins.

Soy is the highest quality plant protein and it is very risky to eat. All other plant sources of protein are lower than soy. So what is left to eat for a true vegetarian? Notice how I have been asking this same question for about a week now and eveybody FAILS to give me a VALID ANSWER! David is a perfect example that vegetarians falsely believe in their mind that plant sources of protein are equal to animal sources of protein. David merely makes my info even more valid now than ever! Just an onlooker 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I provided a simple list of Vegetarian protein sources a few days ago, but to be honest you don't seem very open to suggestions. What is there that we could provide which is much clearer than the table in this link? I am not suffering from Protein problems and have followed a lacto-vegetarian diet for over ten years. See Protein from Vegetarian sources. GourangaUK 09:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Just an onlooker: some of your responses, this one in particular, appear to be contravening Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Please think about what you are saying and word your responses more carefully - comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Davidjk (msg+edits) 10:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


The reference you provided clearer points to protein content. The quality of protein is about protein value not protein content. The table is unscientific. It only explains about protein content. It has nothing at all to do with protein content. Go to the vegetarian article and click on the links that explain about protein value. Please provide links about protein quality. Protein from vegetable sources such as peanut butter (listed in the unscientific table about protein content) is actually lower than fish animal protein.

Here is some info about protein quality. It is about protein value not protein content.

Some or maybe even most vegetarians have an "extreme false belief" that protein content is the same as protein quality.

Some or most vegetarians do not draw the line between the different grades of protein quality and protein content. Just an onlooker 18:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that your reference states that the "best" sources of protein are:
Egg 9.25, Whey 8.20, Casein 7.80, Milk 7.80
All of those could be found in an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet, which is the most common type (in the western world, at least). I also question your reasoning in stating that
most vegetarians have an "extreme false belief" that protein content is the same as protein quality
- A (non-scientific, but nonetheless reasonable) quick survey amongst 10 people here suggests that as the only vegetarian present, I'm the only one who knows what the difference is. :) Davidjk (msg+edits) 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


I said some or most. If you prefer I should clarifiy and say just some have a "false belief"... Happy now? A quick glance by most who disagree with me on this talk page continue to point to a false belief about protein content in their references that they continue to tout as proof showing the vegetable protein is equal to animal. When I talk about vegetarian diet I am pointing to a strict vegetarain diet that eats egg and dairy occasionally. People who consider themselves true vegetarians do not eat any meat, dairy, or eggs, period! Just an onlooker 19:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, people who eat no dairy or eggs are not vegetarians, they're vegans. The majority of self-described vegetarians in the US do eat eggs and dairy products.
Additionally, please watch yourself when making comments such as "most people who disagree with me on this page continue to point to a false belief..." and remember to comment on content, not the contributor.
Furthermore, I have shown, in your own reference, that the average vegetarian diet can provide perfectly adequate protein, and fully incorporates the "best" sources of protein. I think this point has been debated enough. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and please stop creating additional headings for each reply you make. It obfuscates the page's contents list and breaks any links to a specific section of this talk page. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An average vegetarian diet is not referenced in the link I provided. Your statement obfuscates the facts. According to some vegetarians who I have spoken to, they believe plant protein is equal to animal. Some (which I am not going to say who) point to protein content rather than protein quality. When some (not most) point to protein content they can develop a protein deficiency by following their false belief in their mind. Just an onlooker 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, an encyclopedic article cannot be written based on your own personal experiences, and while the reference provided does not explain what an "average" vegetarian diet is, the standard by which products are labelled as "vegetarian" includes products containing milk and eggs, so it can be assumed that the most common definition of a vegetarian is one who does not eat meat, but does consume eggs and dairy products. My previous statement simply said that a "vegetarian" diet contains dairy and eggs, which are among the "best" protein sources in your previous reference, so I hold my statement to be correct and not "obfuscating the facts" in any way.
Anyway, this discussion is proving to be extremely unproductive, so I think it's best left alone from here. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Some assume (which I am not going to name who) vegetarians always eat egg and dairy. Nothing could be further from the truth! Some vegetarians do not eat egg and some vegetarians do not eat dairy products. This type of eating behavior can sometimes cause a protein deficiency. Also, a quick glance at references about protein content on pro vegetarian websites do not mention anything about protein quality. This further misinforms the public and many many vegetarians. They always point to protein content. I hold other statements (which I am not going to point to who) to be falsehoods. Thanks, Just an onlooker 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to the way you are continuing to make (thinly disguised) comments about other editors, I respectfully request that you take this discussion to my talk page or stop. Otherwise, I may request intervention.
I will not discuss the main point further here, because I feel that I have made my position perfectly clear - that most self-declared vegetarians in the US do eat products containing protein of the best quality. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 21:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, guys, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" or reality. There is zero point debating on talk page trying to convice other side that vegetarian diet is deficient/sufficient. Just add content with proper source and it doesn't matter. This article contain too many unverifiable statements. And citing POV or facts from advocacy group is not acceptable for encyrcropedia. Therefore, I will add [citation needed] and leave it for while. Secondly, this apply to just on looker. If you want to contribute, explaing what it mean by "quality" in term of protein would clear thing up. Then adding list of type of protein as well as list of food (vegetables, milk, egg, meat and so on) which can provide these different protein type help. You don't have to convince anyone. All you have to do is to demonstrate that your source are verifiable as defined by wikipedia. Vapour

Oh, and this is to Mig77. As of "there is right level of fat and/or cholesterol", you can google or just look at wikipedia articles on fat and cholesterol. As of optimal diet, read the section of criticism, where I quoted from peer reviewed articles from academic journal. Note that Adventist studies are already incoroporated into two meta studies I quoted. These sutides clearly support my "sensible rule of thumb" This "insight" is pretty much "duh" for anyone with common sense. As of lot of fat vegetarian Hindu in Sri Lanka, I'm sorry I can't pay you to go there. But did you know that human body weight is determined by the calories input/output so one can easily become fat if one overeat on rice or nun bread? Vapour

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth or reality."

In this case, the point we disagree on is that a vegetarian diet does not contain "good" sources of protein. The citation given directly contradicts the "poor quality protein" point in its own conclusion, which in my opinion makes any inclusion of this "information" misleading at best - it is not verifiable if it's contradicted by its own source! The policy page on verifiability itself states that "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", so the "inferior protein quality" point is most definitely not suitable for inclusion in the article. However, I think that it may be worth inserting into the article on Veganism, since the claim that the "good" sources of protein are missing from the diet is relevant in that article. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 08:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
For clarification's sake: we have sorted out this little disagreement. The page, as-is, is something that we agree on, and I'm happy to get all this out of the way and leave the article better off :) Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Each see what they want to see. You seems to ignore the first info in criticism section which show that vegetarian are only equal in longvity to occasional meat eater but lose out to those who eat fish. So, it's not (yet) accurate to say that vegetarianism is equally optimal or equally best. Moreover, your meat-cholesterol-bad is a factually incorrect argument. Plus, if you read carefully you might notice that protein is not the end all factor in deciding optimal diet. In fact, eggs, for example are high in cholesterol so using egg as defence kind of contradict your first cholesterol-bad argument. Vapour
In fact, eggs is one of the best sources of protein. No cholesterol, no fat, and very high quality protein.
When talking about egg we mean egg whites. So a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet can have egg whites non-fat milk and still get enough protein but miss out on the healthy benefits if fish though.
I propose a new type of vegetarian who eats egg (egg whites), milk (always low or non-fat), and ocean fish but no land animal meat. "Lacto-ovo-eco vegetarian." I eat no red meat. But eat fish, eggs, and dairy. I do not know -- does anyone consider my diet a vegetarian diet.
Start a new stub maybe: A "lacto-ovo-eco vegetarian" does not eat land meat but eat ocean seafood, egg, and dairy. --Just an onlooker 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a vegetarian who eats fish, unless you found some way to grow fish on a plant. And Vapour, please refrain from making personal attacks and stop putting words in my mouth: I'm not debating the article in any way, which I have specifically said. Saying "your argument is factually incorrect" is nonsense if I'm not arguing. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 09:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a correction Davidjk, vegetarians in Orissa and Bengal, in India who despite eating fish consider themselves vegetarians. They call fish as "Jalpushp" (water flower). Interestingly they include brahmins who are normally considered strict vegetarians. Idleguy 15:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
vegetarianˌvejiˈte(ə)rēən - noun - a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, esp. for moral, religious, or health reasons.
- from the Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine). It doesn't matter what some people consider themselves to be - Wikipedia works by consensus, and the most common definition is that vegetarians consume no meat whatsoever. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't debating the definition. It would be nice if people can open up their minds, close the dictionaries and look at what some people think and eat in the real world. I found this [1] stating that some seem to mistake fish as a vegetarian food. Idleguy 17:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Fish as a vegetarian dish might have come from the Catholics. They are not allowed to eat meat on Good Friday, but they may eat fish, which they do not consider to be meat. Jecowa 05:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ummm...would please refain from stating untrue things on WP?!--70.165.71.229 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Fish is not vegetarian food. The whole moral point of being vegetarian is to not harm living creatures. Fish are living creatures. Thus they are not part of a vegetarian diet.

[edit] Vegetarianism in Buddhism

Articles are forked for a reason. The Vegetarianism article is very long, and the Vegetarianism in Buddhism article is very detailed, so it is correct to maintain it as a fork and link to it in the article. In fact, ideally, the vegetarianism article should be forked more, since it's currently 49KB with over 30 sections. Please keep additions on the topic of Buddhism in the appropriate article. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 09:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV tag on the "Criticism / Health concerns" section

It seems that due to the relentless efforts of one or two people, that section has become filled with unacceptable statements, such as the following.

"both vegetarian and vegan advocacy groups invariably promote their diet as healthy while claiming that the diet which includes meat and/or fish is inherently unhealthy"

There are certainly many AR groups (such as the Veggie Pride, for instance) that are vegetarian/vegan advocates but who do not claim that meat or fish is inhernently unhealthy. That foregoing animal flesh (and byproducts) is equivalently healthy is enough for many to make an ethical argument in favour of refusing to participate in the slaughter of animals.

"Critics argue that these groups are engaging in scientific misrepresentation in direct opposition to public interest"

What critics? How can such a blatantly POV statement be included without qualification in a WP article?

"A common misconception is that vegetable protein is equal to animal protein. In fact, protein obtained from animal sources such as fish, eggs and dairy is inherently a higher biological value protein according to the Biological Value method of testing protein quality than protein obtained from vegetable sources such as soy."

Weasel words, unsupported statements, unreliable references, absurd statements (about the "inherently higher biological values", see above.

David Olivier 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to source some of this material and add some valid refences, however any attempts to do this are being reverted by that one particular user and his/her sockpuppets. Yankees76 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
To the sockpuppets carrying out multiple reversions: please stop. You aren't helping the quality of the article, and I'm sure it's frustrating for all involved. You've already broken 3RR and I (and other editors, I'm sure) will treat further reversions/edits as being not in good faith. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a request for semi-protection in the meantime. Would you be able to revert the last edit made by "Vegetables76" - it purposely removes any inputs I've put into this article, rather than discuss the edits. I won't revert because I've already done three reverts today. Thanks. Yankees76 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Reverted. However due to the large number of reversions and edits I've had to make to this article recently I won't make any more, so hopefully the petty POV pushing will stop here. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The user has issues with the material - and I can't see why not - other than he/she's annoyed about being found out as a sockpuppet today. There have been extensive debates over this same material on the soy protein article and other articles talk pages, by this same user, his/her socks, myself and other users/admins. I will gladly discuss and provide further verifiable sources to corroborate what I've inserted. Yankees76 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an electronic reference right now, but my biology textbook states that vegetable protein is classified as 'incomplete' and meat protein is 'complete'. This refers to the different types of amino acids in the proteins. Vegetable proteins have less varieties of amino acids in the proteins than meat. This is what 'protein quality' is refering to. --Xfcanadian 22:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to jump in and accuse, this article has had enough trouble that any user with no edits other than to this article and its talk page should, in my opinion, be treated with suspicion. If you aren't yet another sockpuppet, then fair enough, but this topic has been debated to death, so please don't start it all off again. The article has been generally agreed to be okay in its current state. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on Hinduism

It says "However, the Bhagavad Gita also states that killing an animal as an offering to Brahman gives this animal's soul a chance to gain a human body;"- No it doesnt. Can you give me the reference? Bhagvad Gita doesnt say anything about animal sacrifice anywhere. The reference given in next line is about Human bodies.

Seems to me this part was written by someone trying to find loopholes in Gita that allow meat eating. Unless proper reference, with the line that quotes that the Gita allows animal sacrifice is given, I might have to raise NPOV.

You are quite right - I believe someone inserted these misquotes recently without anyone noticing due to the revert battle going on. I have removed them. Ys, GourangaUK 15:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The user by the name of Xfcanadian inaccurately stated that vegetable protein is incomplete; however, soy protein is an excellent example of a complete protein. Reading this article and the arguments going on throughout the talk page, I noticed numerous inaccuracies. Vegetarianism has long been shown to be healthier and more beneficial, so it is sad that people still choose to ignore that.

[edit] Question?

This is probably a stupid question and is probably already answered somewhere on here, but do vegetarians count fish as meat not to eat or not? I know on another part of this discussion page, people are talking about eating fish, so does that mean vegetarians will?

  • Is it just certain types of vegetarians that will or all types that will?

Like I said, this is probably already answered somewhere else, but if you could answer this here, I'd really appreciate it. Future...Destination 00:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, vegetarians don't eat fish... because fish aren't vegetables :) Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This is actually a theoretically simple one. seafood isn't vegetables. Having said that, for practical purposes, people in Japan and some other parts of asia, including India, consider fish as vegetarian. Remember just because they think it's vegetable, doesn't change facts. Idleguy 05:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some vegetarians eat fish. And still do consider themselves "vegetarians". Others have a different opinion. "Vegetable" is just a word. In English. Cultures define words. A culture has the power the define the word they use for "vegetables" to include fish. This is not a matter of "facts" about vegetables and fish -- but rather a question about word usages. Dictionaries just record the way people use words. The only "fact" here that we can be pretty sure of is the most westerners don't think a fish is a vegetable. But they may also not think a fish is entirely "meat", either. And what do various other cultures actually think? They might have an even stronger concept of fish not being "meat", even though they don't really think it is a "vegetable" either -- and so reasonably include it in a "non-meat" diet pattern (which others might choose to label "vegetarian"). The most correct, broad definition of Vegetarian would be: people who tend avoid at least some meat at least some of the time... But then, what would that leave people to argue about? 69.87.193.120 15:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but the word "vegetarian" was popularized (if not created) by the Vegetarian Society. They are the "gatekeepers" of the word, and are quite adamant that vegetarians do not eat fish. Furthermore, any reputable dictionary will define "vegetarian" along the lines of "People who leave meat, poultry, fish and other animal-derived foods out of their diets." The move by some people to call themselves "Pesco Vegetarians" does not, in fact, make them vegetarian, which is why most vegetarians prefer they use the term "pescetarian". Furthermore, WRT to the "vegetarian" and "vegetable" link, the Vegetarian Society claims that the "veget" in "vegetarian" comes from the the Latin "vegetus", which means "lively", not in fact, from "vegetable". Cpoupart 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and OR

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." WP:Verifiability

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." WP:Verifiability

"the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." WP:OR

Any material in an article MUST come from a reliable source that directly relates that material to the topic (Vegetarianism).

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources

(see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability)

"Self-published sources Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources

So geocities pages, for example, are not good sources.

Mdbrownmsw 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rec.food.veg FAQ

[rec.food.veg FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS]. Out of date, but interesting to see their approach to the subject. Covers a lot of area covered in WP better than here, so I think we may learn something. (Yes it is probably biased, thats why it is on the talk page and not the main page)--Mig77(t) 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The religion section is HUGE

The religion section of this article is HUGE, in an article that's already extremely long. Are there any objections to starting another article about "Vegetarianism (religious aspects)" and just summarizing the content for this article -MichaelBluejay 10:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article Vegetarianism and religion (and even articles Jain vegetarianism, Vegetarianism in Buddhism, Christian vegetarianism and Islam and vegetarianism). I think it would be a good idea to move the content to those articles. --Danogo 13:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The information could me summarized more, but to move all the content, I feel, would be taking an important perspective away from this article. There does seem to be an imbalance at the moment, as the main article Vegetarianism and religion has less information on some of the sections. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism-IQ link?

Should this be included? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm savidan(talk) (e@) 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, since there is now a scientific proof :) Teardrop onthefire 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I was coming here to add the very same link. Talking of links, why is there no external links section for this article? There are some excellent sites that could be listed for people wanting to know more about vegetarianism, as long as they're not commercial sites. Psychonaut3000 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
...it appears the External Links section is missing because no one's got around to creating it yet, so I've done it and added a couple of respected non-profit organizations. Psychonaut3000 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia's External links guidelines specify that "A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Both of the sites that you added engage in direct retail, which is pretty much the kiss of death for external links on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with the BBC link mentioned above. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Viriditas (→Demographics - rm IQ study. No indication this is reliable sample size; study may show smarter people choose vegetarian diets. Add back in with attention to accuracy)
  • Cribananda (rv - Don't judge a publication made by the BBC. The previous statement was well sourced,)
  • Cribananda (→Demographics - rephrasing)
  • Viriditas (Rv. No, the study doesn't say that. Please stop relying on the BBC/your interpretation, and cite the study directly.)
  • Viriditas (Resore demographics section minus IQ)

Viriditas, I'm not sure I understand your problwem with the sentence and ref. Did you read the linked abstract and the ref's quote? Do you have a source to refute the ref? Also, see WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-20t19:51z

As I originally said, let's add it back in with attention to accuracy. I don't think the study was cited accurately, nor does the abstract discuss the negative aspects, such as the lowering of IQ in vegan test subjects. As usual, the media distorted the results. —Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we just quote the abstract: "Higher IQ at age 10 years was associated with an increased likelihood of being vegetarian at age 30 [...] IQ remained a statistically significant predictor of being vegetarian as an adult after adjustment for social class (both in childhood and currently), academic or vocational qualifications, and sex"? -- Jeandré, 2006-12-27t18:52z
That's fine for now, but I would also like to include more information about the study itself from a medical professional, such as a secondary medical source. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As a vegetarian speaking here, does the matter of IQ affecting vegetarianism in later life really matter? Shouldn't the study investigate whether a vegetarian diet affects your IQ? - Mitchell Strahan 05:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does NOT say vegetariansim leads to higher IQ, but that some people with a higher IQ than average become vegetarians. The article is useless if you ask me. I wouldn't be surprised if the author is a vegetarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hitler

The section Vegetarianism#famous vegetarians lists Adolf Hitler as vegetarian. However, the article vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler says: "After the war Rudolf Diels (who headed the early Gestapo for a year before narrowly avoiding execution) wrote that Hitler sometimes ate Bavarian Leberknödel (liver dumplings) but only when they were prepared by his photographer friend Heinrich Hoffmann." I've always thought being vegetarian means never eating meat. Have I misunderstood the concept of vegetarianism or should Hitler be removed from that list? --Danogo 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I helped write that article and thought long and hard about it. Reality isn't black or white, even though our brains tend to see it that way. As far as I can tell, Hitler may have been a vegetarian, or somewhere along that spectrum, at some points during his life. For that reason, he should be included. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically, any time you are intentionally avoiding "meat", however you define it, you are engaging in "vegetarianism" at that time (unless you are avoiding all food, in which case "fasting" would make more sense). 69.87.193.120 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some lines need to be rewritten after some thought.

"While a high-protein diet of vegetables produces a similar effect, the flesh-eating bacteria are discouraged on vegetable matter because of the higher amount of sugar--meat has very little sugar"

The statement states that meat has very little sugar and high protein vegetable foods contain sugar. If that is the case, then such vegetarian diet shouldn't/wouldn't be recommended for diabetics because of its sugar content. So I think either the health aspect of this should be carefully reworded or removed entirely before it leads to misleading decisions. --Idleguy 07:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming meat" <<NOT

Vegetarianism is "the direction" not "the distance" being a vegetarian or a vegan are measures of distance.

nouns with the suffix "ism" are "the act, state, or theory of".

If this is just about the practice of not eating meat, then all the references to "semi" vegetarian have no place here as they have nothing to do with "not consuming meat"

This article is exploring the philosophies, reasons and theories not just the practices to start it with such an off topic statement seems strange.

I welcome a broad open article that explores the theory behind peoples choices and the standards they use. Brucedenney 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think most Catholics would tell you that fish isn't meat. So a pescatarian diet would be vegetarian to them. In reality even things like apples contain meat. Maybe the article should be changed to "Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming animal meat." It doesn't seem very practical to be 100% vegetarian. Even things that would normally be thought of as vegetarian possibly contain rat hair, insects, and who knows what else. Remember when those Strawberry pop tarts were recalled because they contained too much rat? Jecowa 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the history of the word. The word vegetarian came from the vegetarian society. They defined the term as the exclusion of all animal flesh and animal-slaughterhouse by-products. Have a look at their definition [2], the "original" definition of the word. --Cpoupart 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely it is the CURRENT meaning of the word that matters, not a historical meaning. Some people use the word vegetarian to mean someone who eats seafood but avoids other meat. Mralph72 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noteable Vegetarian Sections

The section on notable vegetarians is just a sentence or so plusa link to a category. Both are laughably incomplete and, IMHO, add very very little the text of the article. I think we should just ditch the section. --mako (talk•contribs) 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did so. It's not held to nearly the same amount of scholastic rigor as "list of atheists" is. This article as a whole needs more cited sources and less confirmation bias, but that list is by far the most blatant example of poor scholarship. 66.142.91.136 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amirim

Hello,

In Israel there is a whole village (moshav) of vegetarians. It is called Amirim. Are there similar places anywhere else in the world? --Amir E. Aharoni 07:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds interesting. I've never heard of something like this before, sorry. Jecowa 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Not quite the same, but there are large sections of Mumbai that are "vegetarian only". Grocery stores don't sell meat. Restaurants are only vegetarian. Apartments are given to vegetarians over omnivores. It is really crazy. [3], [4] --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significant Change Needed

Hello All, Sorry to see such strife on this topic, (or any), but I noted that in the first paragraph of the article someone has inserted the incorrect statement that the word "vegetarian" comes from "an ancient Native American indian word meaning bad hunter". Tried to edit it out of the article, but having never done so before, couldn't seem to find the way to do so. FYI, and may all be well and filled with compassion for one another. -William Belair

[edit] Issues - Meat from amputation. Blood. Natural death. Insects. Plants are alive too.

The article claims vegetarianism is about not killing. If that is so then meat from amputation and blood would be allowed. This article covers milk and vegetarianism. I'm sorry to see that it does not address blood and vegetarianism. Meat from animals not killed (died naturally or meat from amputation) is not covered also. Oh and sponges are animals. I knew a vegan who used a natural sponge. Insects are not covered. And vegetarianism is not against killing plants - they are alive too ya know. Anyway, the article is long on claims and counter claims and short on logic and exact use of words. 4.250.168.152 10:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.Yankees76 14:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue with meat/byproducts from amputation, natural death etc. is that it's difficult to accurately trace the source of things like this (besides, in most circumstances I'd assume meat from natural deaths wouldn't make it into the food chain anyway), so people couldn't be sure that what they were eating was genuinely sourced "without killing". As for insects, I'd guess most "strict" vegetarians wouldn't eat them, but they can appear in the strangest of places (food coloring) so it's up to the individual to decide how "careful" they're going to be to avoid such things.
Using a natural sponge just seems like the person was misinformed about what sponges are, which is excusable in a way. As for plants, I think the reasoning behind it being okay to eat them is that they have a considerably less advanced state of awareness (probably none at all), whereas most animals would be conscious of the fact that they're experiencing pain and are going to die as a result. - Davidjk (msg+edits) 09:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Vegetarianism: What is the relation vegetariansm?

I would argue that the only thing that so called "semi-vegetarian" diets have in relation to vegetarian diets are the name. Ashmoo suggests that they are related because they both "exclude" things. In that case, diabetic diets, allergy based diets, "low fat", "low carb" diets would all be related to vegetarianism. Just because they share some terminology doesn't mean that they are related. Just like a koala bear is not related to the polar bear, except on the most superficial levels. Am I wrong? --Cpoupart 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not using the word "related" at all. One could write something like "The following similarly named diets are not varieties of vegetarianism due to the inclusion of meat" instead.
I think the headline "Semi-vegetarian varieties" should also be changed since those diets are not varieties of vegetarianism. --Danogo 08:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
What would you change "semi-vegetarian" to? I was thinking "Pseudo-vegetarian", or even just simply "Alternative Diets". --Cpoupart 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what's best here. Both of your suggestions seem to be okay to me. However, I'm not sure about the exact meaning of "pseudo". "Pseudo-vegetarian" might imply, that almost all followers of those diets pretend to be vegetarians. Some do, but I don't think almost all of them. --Danogo 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. Pseudo has a bit of a negative connotation, which I am not sure is fair. I will change the section to "Alternative Diets", with the suggested text that you provided above. --Cpoupart 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The changes look good. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Vegetariansim: Are pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian misnomers?

The wiktionary defines "misnomer" as 1. A use of a term asserted to be misleading., 2. A term asserted to be widely used incorrectly. and 3. (Wiktionary jargon) A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense.

In order: 1) Both pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian are misleading terms because they create a link to vegetarianism. This in itself is an oxymoron. Vegetarians do not eat fish or chicken, and by doing so, a person is no longer vegetarian. 2) The 'vegetarian' part of both of these terms is misapplied. People often argue that the 'vegetarian' part refers to the consumption of vegetables. That doesn't work with the etymological origins of 'vegetarian' which come from the Latin 'vegetus' (meaning 'lively') not from the English "vegetable". Further, part of any omnivorous diet are vegetables, making the "vegetable" reference redundant. 3) The technical and dictionary definition of "vegetarian" is someone who does not eat the flesh of animals. Saying that someone is a "vegetarian who eats fish" automatically violates the technical definition of 'vegetarian'. --Cpoupart 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, as a vegetarian is defined in the dictionary as "someone who eats no meat or fish" it is contradictory to call someone who does eat meat or fish a vegetarian. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we change the reference from "Pesco/Pollo vegetarianism to Pescatarian and Pollotarian respectively, with a note that these terms are preferred to pesco-vegetarian or pollo-vegetarian. --Cpoupart 02:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This sounds right to me. —mako (talk•contribs) 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think they are called pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian because they are vegetarian with and exception for fish and bird. Pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian are both much more commonly used than Pescatarian and Pollotarian. Changing the name contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Jecowa 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That is wrong though. Everyone is "vegetarian" with some exception. Vegetarian means "someone who doesn't eat meat". As soon as you eat meat, you are no longer vegetarian. Further, pescatarian is far more commonly used ( 22,800 results on google) than pesco-vegetarian (15,000 results on google). Changing the name would be in line with the naming conventions. --Cpoupart 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Vegetarian means someone that doesn't eat meat, but pollo-vegetarian means someone that doesn't eat any meat except for chicken. Maybe we can use pescatarian and pollo-vegetarian. "pollo-vegetarian -wikipedia" gets 385 Google hits and "Pollotarian -wikipedia" gets 57 Google hits. Jecowa 18:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. By that logic, my wife, an omnivore, is a "bovo-pollo-vegetarian". Though, as you point out, pollo-vegetarian is more common than pollotarian (even though neither is particularly popular). What about changing that back to "pollo-vegetarian" with a comment on the contention surrounding the term, something like "many vegetarians dislike the term 'pollo-vegetarian' because it can be confusing about what constitutes a regular vegetarian diet'? --Cpoupart 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the chicken one doesn't seem very common compared to the fish one. It's fine with me to call them pollotarian and pescatarian for consistency. Jecowa 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am reminded of Alice's discussion with Humpty Dumpty, in which Humpty Dumpty says that when he uses a word, it means whatever he wants it to mean. An alternative view is that a word means what most of the people who use it thinks that it means. When I tell people that I don't eat meat, they often say "how long have you been a vegetarian" or words to that effect. To a lot of people, if you don't eat meat, you're a vegetarian...even if you do eat dairy and eggs, and even if you do eat fish. It's one thing to claim that people who eat fish, say, should not be called "vegetarians"---I agree, and what's more, I think pesco-vegetarian is a bad name for them. But are we supposed to try to change the definitions of words? I don't think pesco-vegetarianism _should_ be called that, but THAT IS WHAT IT IS CALLED. And, what's more, in common terminology it IS a form of vegetarianism. I think the efforts by many people to narrow the definition of vegetarian are misguided, because we don't get to determine what "vegetarian" or "vegetarianism" mean---society has already done that, and the wikipedia entry should reflect it. In the real world, "vegetarian" is someone who doesn't eat meat. "Strict vegetarian" is someone who doesn't eat dairy or eggs either. "Pesco-vegetarian", "ovo-vegetarian", etc., are people who don't eat "meat" but do eat fish or eggs, respectively. There is no such thing as a "bovo-vegetarian" because society has not needed to create this oxy-moronic category...and it really would be an oxymoron, because cows are meat. Most people do not think fish are meat, although everyone agrees that they are not plants. However, I will say it one more time: in actual use in the real world, "vegetarian" is defined by whether or not you eat "meat", not whether or not you eat anything other than plants. Someday, perhaps more terms will arise to describe the various sub-categories of dietary restrictions, but for now, we should try to capture the current state of affairs with respect to what "vegetarian" means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.3.15.46 (talk • contribs) 23:04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
No, "pesco-vegetarian" is what it is sometimes called, but not as frequently as it is called "pescatarian". I have posted the numbers here already, but pescatarian returns something like 25000 more hits than "pesco-vegetarian". Therefor, "pescatarian" is in fact "what it is called". As to people thinking that fish is not meat, I think that is a regional thing. But even if some people define "meat" as "beef" and not as "the flesh of animals" which is the more common definition, the definition of vegetarian isn't just "someone who doesn't eat beef". Around here, people are generally well aware that "vegetarian" excludes fish/"meat"/poultry/slaughterhouse by-products. Furthermore, just because some people are ignorant about a term does not mean that we should reflect (and encourage) that ignorance here by perpetrating the same mistakes. I would almost recommend that we follow the UK Food Standard Agency's new (well, April 2006) guidelines on what constitutes "vegetarian" and "vegan". [5]
Vegetarian: The term ‘vegetarian’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from, or with, the aid of products derived from animals that have died, have been slaughtered, or animals that die as a result of being eaten.
'Animals' means farmed, wild or domestic animals, including for example, livestock poultry, game, fish, shellfish, crustacea, amphibians, tunicates, echinoderms, molluscs and insects.
Vegan:The term 'vegan' should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from, or with, the aid of animals or animal products (including products from living animals).
--Cpoupart 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
(1) Google gives me 16,800 hits for "pescetarian" and 18,200 for "pesco-vegetarian." But of course the exact numbers don't matter, the point is that (a) many people use the term "pesco-vegetarian" to mean "someone who eats fish but not 'meat'", and (b) many people consider this to be a form of "vegetarianism." (Ask just about anyone in Texas what they call someone who doesn't eat beef, pork, or chicken but does eat fish. They won't even say "pesco-vegetarian", they'll just say "vegetarian" or maybe "a vegetarian who eats fish"). (2) I think this terminology is bad and I hope it will change. (3) It is not our place to try to change it.Pnprice 07:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1) Your search is flawed. The search is not for "pescetarian" but for "pescatarian". Make sure you spell it correctly. Google results are 23,200 results for "pescatarian" [6] and 19,700 results for "pesco-vegetarian" [7]. a) "many people" is a weasel word. When you have a reference to back it up, we can consider it. b) see "a)". 2) That terminology is bad, but it will not change if it is used inappropriately on sites like this. 3) No, but it is our place to accurately use the terms. Vegetarians do not eat meat, by the official technical definition (set by the inventors of the word), by the government definitions, by every print publication dealing with vegetarians that I have ever seen (if you find one that calls "pescetarians" vegetarains, I would love to know about it). To say otherwise is a unreferenced non NPOV -- essentially just opinion. If you want to change the this section, then provide some resources to indicate that people are confused about what "meat" means or as to the relation of "pesco-vegetarian" with "vegetarian". "Ask anyone in Texas" doesn't cut it. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1) My search is flawed but my point is valid, the fact that over 20,000 pages use pesco-vegetarian or pescovegetarian indicates that "many people" use these terms. I think you agree that you're finding about twenty thousand of these pages as well. 2) You request some citations about usage, so here are a few. (a) Oxford Dictionaries [8] says "The word demi-vegetarian appears in our file with the sense 'a person who eats fish but not meat', but this is not obvious as the meaning of the term, and some self-styled 'demi-vegetarians' may eat poultry and avoid only red meat." For what it's worth, the Oxford Dictionary [9] says a "vegetarian" is "a person who does not eat meat for moral, religious, or health reasons" and defines "meat" as the flesh of an animal, and has a multi-part definition of "animal" in which the first two parts are "1. a living organism which feeds on organic matter, has specialized sense organs and nervous system, and is able to move about and to respond rapidly to stimuli. 2 a mammal, as opposed to a bird, reptile, fish, or insect. " (b) the Oxford American Dictionary that came with my computer defines Vegetarian as "a person who does not eat meat" and defines Meat as "the flesh of an animal (esp. a mammal) as food."(c) About.com [10] lists the "top 6 types of vegetarians"; the first one listed is "pescetarian", second is "flexitarian/semi-vegetarian" and third is "vegetarian/lacto-ovo-vegetarian." (d) Epicurious.com [11] has a really badly written definition of vegetarian that includes the sentence "Then there are those vegetarians who will eat fish and/or poultry, but not other animal meat." 3) Let's at least fix the grammatical errors in the entries for pescetarian etc. Pnprice 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1) Yes, pesco-vegetarian is used, but not as frequently as "pescetarian". As such, pescetarian should be used instead of pesco-vegetarian. 2) The AskOxford links are excellent. I have to question the "about.com" one because the same author has other articles on the site describing vegetarian as the same way AskOxford and the OED do: The exclusion of all animal flesh (if you prefer that terminology to "meat") [12]. The epicurious one is also not so hot, as you point out. Two other, better sources, that include references of "partial vegetarian" or "semi-vegetarian" as the exclusion of red meat are Medline Plus [13] and American Heart Association [14]. Though, these non-traditional interpretations seem to be in the minority, and seem to really only be from the USA. Many other reputable sites (Dietitions of Canada [15], Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation [16], Health Canada [17], Mayo Clinic [18]) are clear that "vegetarian" is the exclusion of all animal flesh. 3) It seems that you have made the necessary changes to the grammar, and the organization. Maybe some of the sources cited to here should perhaps be included? --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
(I'm de-indenting this discussion because it was starting to get hard to read. This is a follow-up to the immediately preceding comment.) (1) I'm fine with adding references, of course, but I'm not sure which are the most authoritiative. The ones that I mentioned above were just the quickies that I found through a brief web search. (2) If the "I'm a fish-eating vegetarian" concept really is found almost exclusively in the U.S., that would be worth mentioning, with a citation. (3) Yes, I prefer "animals" to "meat" in the "vegetarians don't eat -blank-" phrases because I really do think "meat" is ambiguous. In banquet situations I have been asked "do you want meat or fish?", for example. Perhaps this, too, is U.S.-only. I note that the wikipedia entry for "meat" [19] says that in the (U.S.?) meatpacking industry the term refers only to mammals. (4) Yes, as you noted I folded the "alternative diets" section into the "associated with vegetarianism" section; seems to be clearly true, and if macrobiotic diets (which sometimes include eating fish) go in that section, it seems like pescetarians etc. belong there too. (5) I'm still not entirely happy with the grammar: technically, "pescetarianism" is not a diet, it's a philosophy or ideology that leads one to adopt a vegetarian diet. But I'm not keen to keep tinkering with it. Thanks for your contributions. Pnprice 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1) I think that the references that I provided (both for and against the argument) are more authoritative. They are from government health organizations, established health organizations, established nutritional organizations and established medical research organizations. 2) I have only seen such an idea on US websites, and on "authoritative" sites, only on US ones. Now, I have not searched a lot of other countries, but the UK and Canada both follow the "technical" and "traditional" definitions, as do the American Association of Dietitians and the Dietitians of Canada. 3) This seems to be largely American, though, I have been asked the same question in French in Quebec. That could be the catholic influence. "Animals" is good enough for these definitions. As to the meat page, the first line does say "in the broadest sense" it includes the flesh of all animals. This is how most Vegetarians use the term. Just like someone removed "Raw food" from the list because it can include meat, perhaps "macrobiotic" should be moved, or removed? 5) I have to disagree with that statement. I know more than a few "pescetarians" who do not eat any other types of animals, except for fish. They don't have any illusions about being or becoming vegetarian. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 06:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic diet bias

This section lacks sources for every single statement made except one. And the wording is very biased, even in the statement that does have a source. It simply does not feel neutral at all. Weasel words like "generally" and "problematic" don't help either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.127.209 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

84.72.116.141, in this that 75.84.127.209 is referring to, "generally" is a weasel word because it isn't very specific. You would want to find a source and change "People don't generally care what has to die to fill their stomachs" to "Nintey-three per cent of Americans surveyed don't care what has to die to fill their stomachs./" "Problematic" is a weasel word because it doesn't say how it is a problem. You would want to find a source and change "Vegetarians are problematic" to "Vegetarians burned down seventeen slaughter houses in 2005.[20]" Jecowa 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This section has a bunch of stuff under the Paleolithic diet that doesn't belong there, such as information about isoflavones in Tofu. It should be reorganized into a section of opposing opinions or something.

I can't see how the Paleolithic diet is related to vegetarianism, as it includes 1/3 meat in it. I deleted the section. 86.133.186.101 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like the correct course of action. I took the liberties of moving the removed text into the article on the paleolithic diet. If it's on topic anywhere, it will be there and the editors of that article are free to include if they want. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Weasel Words" Tag Above Section "Physiological"

Could whoever put this tag in please explain which parts of this section they consider to be "weasel words"? Personally, I think there is a fair equilibrium between pro and con views. --84.72.116.141 13:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so good at explaining. Weasel words are statements that are missing important information. On Wikipedia, many times weasel word statements will be something like, "Many people think eating meat is bad because of the pain inflicted on animals." This would be a weasel word statement because "many people" is relative and readers would not have any idea how many it is. To make it not a weasel word we would have to find a reference to back up this statement. We would want to quantify "many people" to the amount given in the reference. For example, "Fifty-four per cent of vegetarians think eating meat is bad because of the pain inflicted on animals," or perhaps "Eighty and one half per cent of the people of India think eating meat is bad because of the pain inflicted on animals." You can read more about Weasel words. Jecowa 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what the person who added the weasel tag said, "this section has too many of "some feel" without citing soures." This seems to be the statement Idleguy is refering to:

Humans occupy a middle ground between the two; they have no claws and mostly blunt teeth (molars) but also a pair of sharp canine teeth designed for tearing, which some feel is proof of a naturally omnivorous diet (gorillas are herbivorous and have very large canines, though these are at least partly for defensive purposes, while other primates with sharp canines are not strictly herbivorous and will occasionally kill and eat other animals).

Jecowa 22:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

Gnocchi 2 by salsachica.jpg has been nominated for deletion. I think it is a great image. Your input is appreciated. Jecowa 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I really like this picture, but the "license" is insufficient. If the author could clarify it and put it under a proper Libre license then it would most certainly be worth keeping. Until then, maybe we should look for another "lead" image? --Cpoupart 00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kellogg Reliability

The section "Health Concerns" cites two books by John Harvey Kellogg several times. I'm not sure they are reliable sources, given their age, and…well just take a look at the article on him. --69.19.14.39 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Americentric

This article is very Americentric, it's written from an American POV and most of the sources cite are American. Also, the quality of the writing is fairly poor 86.147.169.125 10:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's written by mostly Americans, cant blame them for being Americentric. As to the poor writing, feel free to improve it. --Calibas 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pig Meat an Muslim vegetarians

I removed "pig meat" as it seems to give bias to the article, in the section about muslims. Also, the article claims that there are "not many muslim vegetarians" which I don't think is true as there are millions of vegetarian muslims in Northern India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.169.125 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Should the page be Semi-protected?

Almost all of the edits over the past couple of days have been vandalism by non-account holders or new accounts. Should we request for the page to be semi-protected? I don't have time to put in the request right now, and I wanted some consensus first. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think we ought to see some kind of "semi-protection". Maynard S. Clark 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)vegetarian

[edit] Weston A. Price foundation!?!

I removed the following text, cited from http://www.patrickholford.com/content.asp?id_Content=1415:

"An increasing cause for concern is the oestrogen-like phytoestrogens. They are found to occur naturally (in relatively large quantities) in soya products - soya milk especially. These chemicals were originally supposed to have been preventatives for hormone related cancers but have increasingly been found to have the opposite effect. The hormonal imbalance contributes to a disproportional amount of female to male births among vegetarians."

I don't think the Weston A. Price Foundation's website is an encyclopedia-worthy source of information. It's full of claims that go totally against the mainstream, e.g. skim milk, unlike whole milk, causes obesity; "There is no greater risk of heart disease at cholesterol levels of 300 than at 180", etc. Many claims on the WAPF's website aren't even cited. I personally think the WAPF is a joke and shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia. --PsychoCola 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the Weston A. Price citations have already been removed from Veganism. Original sources, as cited by WAP were included if they were verifiable. But uncited information from that site is not reliable. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does the "herbivore" first sentence have to do with vegetarianism ?

Here's the current first sentence in the article : "For plant-eating, non-human animals, see Herbivore."

Given the importance of the first words of the wikipedia article, what's that misleading term doing there ?

The term "Herbivore" has to do with veganism at most. I suggest its removal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.244.150.223 (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

That's a disambigutation link and not really the first words or sentence of the article itself. That's why it's indented and in italics. You did point to me the interesting example that the disambiguation link in question was not on the article for Veganism so I went ahead and added it.
If you think there is little room for confusion (and I can understand this argument), than perhaps we don't need to disambiguate the term at all and can remove the link. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Although the 'Herbivore' term may have some interest in the article, I can indeed hardly think of a real ambiguity; it looks to me like "ridicule", linking vegetarians/vegans with ruminants (In Google, these first words become the main description of the 'vegetarianism' search result). Having little experience in Wikipedia, i'd prefer to leave it to an active user to remove that disambiguation. (I posted the original 'herbivore' remark) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.244.150.223 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
It is not mockery at all. Strict vegetarians are technically "herbivores", we just like to give ourselves a fancy name instead. There is at least one vegetarian magazine that I know that uses the word in the title ("Herbivore Magazine" [21]). While I doubt that people are really going to get confused on the issue, the fact that it is used by the vegetarian community, on occasion, to refer to ourselves indicates to me at least that would should have the disambiguation link up there. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's not likely to be considered mockery. There's a vegan restaurant in San Francisco called Herbivore, the magazine, a vegan clothing line (perhaps linked to the magazine) and more use of the term by vegans in the vegan community. In fact, I have a sticker that says "herbivore" on my laptop right now. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Used as a source

I stumbled upon an article that references this (see page 2). Should we tag it with a {{onlinesource}}? -kotra 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health

It seems to me that the pro-vegetarians are continually arguing that a well-balanced vegetarian diet is healthier than a poorly balanced non-vegetarian diet. Conversely the anti-vegetarians are continually arguing that a well-balanced non-vegetarian diet is healthier than a poorly balanced vegetarian diet. So we're really just establishing that the important thing is eating a well-balanced diet. Can't we all just get along? --Calibas 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here Here! Gouranga(UK) 10:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should reflect and represent the debate. Even if we, as editors, agree that we should all get along, it's not our mission to pretend that this is already the case so that other follows our lead. At least not in the text of the article. —mako (talk•contribs) 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My main point is that the debate is largely superficial and the research (on both sides) is biased and flawed. I think the areas of agreement should be more of a focus than the debate, though that should be mentioned. --Calibas 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Great. You should edit this article to add information on what you feel are the less controversial aspects of vegetarianism. I can't imagine that anyone will disagree with that. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!!!!

Okay, Im 11 and I want to be a ovo lacto vegetarian.I really want to stick to this but my parents say I should try it when Im older,What do I do???????!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.108.187.136 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place for this type of discussion. A social network such as livejournal might have some good communities about vegetarianism that could help you. Sorry! --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/g/Talk%7EVegetarianism_4e3d.html"