Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 11

Longevity

Im confused.. I need to find out if vegetarians do live longer and if so how long. I know it already has a part on it but i dont really understand it.. Any decoders out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.8.10 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can make out, it's saying that pesca-vegetarians, vegetarians and low-meat eaters live a little bit longer and vegans are the same when compared to a diet high in meat. Of course, this article is glossing over the fact that the study presented concludes that vegetarians actually had a higher overall mortality rate, and were only significantly less likely to die from ischemic heart disease - hooray for POV issues! Actually, this is an issue that really needs to be addressed. Jgr2 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. People should study the long term effects of a vegetarian diets by looking at what is happening in India, as in here. Rises in Heart disease amongst vegetarians have been explained by "genetic mutation", yet less than 4% of India population is affected by this mutation. Lets be honest. A balanced diet is good for you. Not one that means you lack B12, vitamin D and Iron. Some further studies here. Let's be honest. It is a balanced diet that helps, not a vegetarian diet.I haven't eaten flesh, or eggs in years, but under medical advice I may start to eat eggs.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Source(s)

Source 106, Diet by Design by Tyler Stanley, seems pretty crackpot, honestly. The tone of the book is fanatical, and it's self-published. He may be citing credible sources, but I can't see them in the book previews on Google Books. Because of these indicators I've gone ahead and removed most references to it from the article per WP:RS. Actually, several of these sources seem to be in the same vein, and could use cleaning up. Jgr2 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss about if that book is or not reliable, but the fact is that you had deleted a lot of information well referenced, so I have restored it. If you had seen some "copyright infringement", please say where. Akhran (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it by well-referenced information you refer to the lengthy (not to mention copied word-for-word from the sources in question, thus the copyright infringement) discussion of H5N1, a matter completely irrelevant to the article at hand, as well as repeated references to a cancer virus (which, while they do exist, are in this case species specific and thus not relevant)? If you notice, my edits kept the same general information while removing the unnecessary abundance of "facts" from a non-reliable source, as well as a little repetition. Keep in mind that this article is already overly long, and I was merely attempting to make it more readable, as well as a bit less biased. The book, however, is clearly not a reliable source per the guidelines of WP:RS. Jgr2 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The part about "the Animal-to-human disease transmissions" is really relevant because explain some of the reasons that makes a people go vegetarian. Anyway, you are right about the copyright infringement, so I had rewrited and summarized the part about H5N1, without (I think) any missing of important information. Akhran (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That bit is better now, agreed, but I still say that the Stanley source is unreliable and information that has it as its source should be removed, especially as I can't find anything providing corroborating evidence for his claims. Also, I'm going to go back and re-change the stuff that I did that was purely grammatical editing. Jgr2 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After my most recent edit, I noticed several references were from Answers.com (i.e. the bits on Neopaganism and factory farming), which for the most part just mirrors wikipedia articles. These are also not acceptable sources, and new ones should be found. Jgr2 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

vitamin b12

Taken from Talk:veganism

i read on the internet that Dr. james halsted was working with persian iranian vegans who did not get b12 deficiency and discovered they were using humanure to grow there food.Username 1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some info about this - it's called Indirect coprophagy - [1]. Not sure if it's worth a mention, though. One would think that the human manure used would have to come from non-vegans, too. Bob98133 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not worth a mention; this is a very edge case source of B12, and has not been shown to provide adequately for vegan nutritional needs. Kellen^T 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a bit bizarre, but if there are good refs for it (not the one I cited above), I don't think that a mention would be out of place. As you say, Kellen, it would require good research to prove that this method does provide adequate B12, but if that proof exists, a mention would be OK with me. If Username is interested in documenting this, maybe he/she can post the refs to talk and we can discuss this again. Bob98133 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i'm looking for more than a mention. note that the b12 is not left over from the food remains of non-vegans, but from the bacteria in the large intestines in vegans before it is excreted. Vitamin B12 cannot be made by plants or animals as only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. Also on the internet i found a study in which scientist cured vitamin b12 def. in vegans by giving them concentrated doses of b12 from there own fecal matter, which proves there is enough b12 in the feces but that perhaps only barely enough b12 survives the second time through. I found this as well:

"Studies have shown that those eating an omnivorous diet require more vitamin B-12 than vegans. This is because the typical diet leads to digestive atrophy. Because vitamin B-12 is peptide bound in animal products and must be enzymatically cleaved from the peptide bonds to be absorbed, a weakening of all gastric acid and gastric enzyme secretions (due to a cooked food diet) causes an inability to efficiently extract vitamin B-12 from external food." Username 1 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also seen studies showing that eating food contaminated with shit may contain B12. However, I have not seen a reliable source indicating that fruitarians specifically may meet their B12 requirements in this way. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it civil. Username, if you have a reliable source for that which you can show the rest of us, rather than quoting from something that sounds like a tertiary source, I see no real reason why it shouldn't be at least mentioned. It is a little gross, though. Jgr2 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rajendra K Pachauri A Vegetarian and UN Report Bias?

Hi my comment on RK Pachauri, cited below was removed:

It should be noted that Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has been accused of bias, due to the fact he himself is a vegetarian, through his Hindu religion and also the fact he is an Economist and not a Climatolagist.

In the same way everybody being a meat eater would also be biased and would not have opportunity to explain its views in the article. There is a clear bias here of meat eaters against vegetarianism when using the bare fact of being a vegetarian as a point of bias. This fact alone should be mentioned in the article also. Atmapuri (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that seems to be a lot of reliance on the UN article, when we must consider that the author maybe inherently biased. The issue as I see it is not about meat, but about more "Greener" method of farming accross the board for meat and vegetables.

The Guardian article asserts that Pachauri is a vegetarian, but never says he's been accused of bias because of that. The other two sources are blogs - and pretty biased ones at that - which cannot be considered reliable sources. +Angr 13:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed those sources are unreliable, but as blogs are used commonly by journalists, acursory search will tell you that there are a lot of critics out there. My main contention is however, the real issue is about "Greener" farming methods.

• http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2008-10-23-sustainable-farms_N.htm
• http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/can-british-farming-go-green-1303980.html

--Sikh-history (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And neither of those articles mentions either Pachauri or vegetarianism. This article is about vegetarianism, not "green" farming methods, so any additions have to be directly concerned with vegetarianism. +Angr 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case this section should be deleted.

--Sikh-history (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But that section is about vegetarianism. I didn't mean green farming methods couldn't be mentioned at all, only that any discussion of them has to relate to their significance to vegetarianism (or vice versa), and the USA Today and Indepdent articles you linked don't even mention vegetarianism as far as I could tell. +Angr 07:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point I am trying to make is I feel uncomfortable about the entire environmental argument Behind vegetarianism. Compounded by RK Pachauri's report, it is like a Muslim or a Jew arguing hyy pig farming is bad for the environment. I think we have to be careful how we present our arguments, and not become the focus of ridicule. I am happy for this section to stay, but I think we have to make it more encyclopedic, and not allow potentially biased or "fringe" theories into the article. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What we need to find then is reliable sources directly arguing against the environmental argument for vegetarianism. If no one reputable has said in print "Pachauri is a vegetarian, so he's biased", then we can't say that either. +Angr 10:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I want to see a for or against, but just a balanced article. I think along these lines probably because of my Sikh faith which tells me "Fools Wrangle over Meat ans Vegetable". For me as a Sikh I see it as a personal decision to be a vegetarian. The article in some areas seems to preach to convert people to vegetarianism. Again I see this tactic as flawed. Amongst Sikhs we refer to choosing a certain path as a "Game of love". I thought the following article was pretty good:

• http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/can-you-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-with-a-vegan-diet-763208.html

--Sikh-history (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The global temperatures rise only for your friends who are meat eaters or for you also? :) It is not easy to say that global warming and destruction of environment do not affect us all. Our wishes and habits are influenced primarily by education and marketing. And that is driven by the flows of money, if unregulated. That is why marketing has been cut short for the smoking industry in the EU and education about health risks associated with smoking was increased. I wonder when the same will happen for the meat industry. Atmapuri (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution POV (May 2009)

Sorry for returning with the POV problems, but the previous discussions never ended the dispute. Until now this article continues to have a strong vegetarian POV. The article only mentions advantages and/or positive reactions to vegetarianism and none disadvantages and/or negative reactions.

Please help me create a section to solve the problems in the POV of this article. The section can be started here: User:Ularevalo98/Vegetarianism_criticism

While now I will tag the article for POV, as it has a clear vegetarian POV. The Criticism section in creation is strongly necessary to solve the POV problem, as there is lots of criticism but none is in this article.

--Ularevalo98 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this talk page the place to solve any problems the article might have? David Olivier (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The previous discussion was very clear. If there are arguments or criticisms of vegetarianism they should be included with reliable, unbiased references. Adding a POV tag, and repeating that the article is POV doesn't get us any closer to knowing why or what should be done to balance this. To end this alleged dispute, clearly state what is POV or biased and what should be done to counteract this. Until you do that, it is impossible to figure out what you're talking about. If you believe there are valid criticisms, let alone enough to fill an entire section, please supply us with a list. Please, be specific. Bob98133 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a vegetarian myself, and I agree, that this article has a heavy POV. It is biased. For example health benefits?. In India we have masses of heart disease, despite people having a vegetarian diet. It need to be emphasised that vegetarian diet in itself is not beneficial, but how it is prepared, what type. There is no mention of lack of iron in vegetarians (something I suffer from), or the detrimental efefct of taking supplements such as B12 from tablets, rather than in a natural form. I really do not feel comfortable with some of the assertions here. In Sikhism, we speak of a "Game of Love", and we have no compulsion to be vegatarian, and teherefore if one becomes a vegetarian it is out of love, and not out of FEAR! This article seems to be fear based. --Sikh-history (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in India the health problems could come more from bad quality water or conditions of cooking, not necessarily from vegetarianism (and all people in India isn't too vegetarian). Some studies talk about "health benefits". And the B12, is only a problem for vegans, not to a lot of vegetarians that eat food that contains it (well, really is a problem from all people: some organizations say all people from some age and all pregnants would take B12 supplements). If you make a badly balanced diet (vegetarian or not) or have previously some health problems, is normal that you have lack of iron, B12, or other things. Our personal problems aren't reliable data to be included in an article. If some criticism is needed, could only be added in the conditions said before by Bob98133. Akhran (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sikh-history, for coming up with some concrete suggestions of possible problems with a vegetarian diet. From what you wrote, we could look at and find references for:

1. A large national vegetarian population does not decrease heart attacks in the general population.
2. Some vegetarian diets are not healthy (usually, Wiki says "well-balanced"), but certainly any diet that does not provide enough calories, or only provides calories from vegetable fat, would be unhealthy.
3. How vegetarian food is prepared may affect its healthiness. This is addressed in some meat articles, where smoking and use of nitrites affect the healthiness of the food, so it could be addressed in this article.
4. Taking B12 tablets is less effective, or harmful, compared to natural forms of this vitamin.

If an editor finds reliable references for these, they should be added to the article. These don't seem to be sufficient for a separate section, but there may be more. Bob98133 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Akhra you obviously have not been or lived in rural India.I am not a vegan and iron and B12 are a problem for me and I eat well. I have been advised due to lack of B12 I am at a higher risk of heart disease.

• https://www.zawya.com/printstory.cfm?storyid=ZAWYA20070111040501&l=040500070111

What I suggest is, if you live in the UK, go along to a Gujerati vegetarian restaurant and see how fat and ill the patrons look. You don't need a study for that. In anycase there are a number of deficiencies amongst India people. I am not advocating the following article but it makes me think.

• http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

Also there are links to some useful articles on vitamin D. Also note these problems have been highlighted amongst Indians in the UK:

• http://www.tripanswers.org/answer.aspx?criteria=&tagtrail=%2F&qid=6053&src=0

In fact some quarters are advocating a non-vegetarian diet in India to combat hypertension:

• http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=387104

--Sikh-history (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To insist that an article on vegetarianism should explain that some vegetarian diets are not healthy seems a bit like wanting us to specify that vegetarianism doesn't protect you from falling off walls or loosing at the lottery. Yes, vegetarians can be overweight; I myself am vegan and could do with 10 kilograms less. I eat too much. Do we really have to include that in the article? David Olivier (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Olivier, you analogy is incorrect. The article reads to me as if Vegetarianism is the panacea to all the worlds ill's This clearly is not true. The article points out how vegetarians are healthy, but does not show how vegetarians are also unhealthy. The article points to how meat is bad, but does not point out it is OVER-consumption that is bad (be it meat or vegetable), not meat itself. I keep saying it, Vegetarianism (or for that matter any path we choose) should be a "Game of Love", not based on "Fear" as this article is. This article does nothing to promote vegetarians, but makes us look like Fear mongering fascists.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sikh-history - please see the meat article and red meat articles. It is not overconsumption of meat that causes negative health effects, it is continued or usual use, with as little as 4 oz/day having a negative health effect. This is neither a game of love nor fear but an encyclopedic article about vegetarianism. It is not intended to promote vegetarianism but to explain it. If the statistics say that vegetarians are 70% less likely to get colon cancer, it still means that many vegetarians get colon cancer, just fewer statistically than with meat eaters. It doesn't say that vegetarians are 70% healthier or that none of them get these diseases, just that the likelihood is less. The info included has to be well-sourced. For example, just because some Indian vegetarians have low Vit D levels does not mean that vegetarianism leads to this condition. Also, are low Vitamin D levels indicative of illness or disease or decreased life-span? Who knows? That's why everything has to be referenced. Looking at fat people in a restaurant of any sort may be interesting, but proves nothing at all.Bob98133 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL @ "Looking at fat people in a restaurant of any sort may be interesting". For chubby chasers it is, at any rate! +Angr 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Either way let's balance the article.--Sikh-history (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Answering your previously message, that now you have deleted, (Sorry Bob, it is that sort of mumbo jumbo that gives vegetarians a bad name. It is over consumption. Stop trying to be smart. I give up. You will never convince anyone to be a vegetarian with that sort of rhetoric[2]), I don't know what exactly means "jumbo mumbo", but it seems to me that anybody is making the article to convince anyone. We only want to make a good article that includes reliable information, no an article that promote or prejudice vegetarianism itself. And include not reliable information only with the purpose of give a bad name to something or data from your personal experience seems to me that maybe that is too a "jumbo mumbo" about what you talk. Akhran (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason why I deleted the previous statement is because I misread what Bob wrote. I do not need articles to tell me this article is biased. I have 4 children. My daughter and me are vegetarians (no eggs). My other kids eat meat. Me and my daughter suffer from B12 deficiency, as well as lack of iron. I supplement, but that has adverse reactions. I can live with this because my conscience does not allow me to eat meat. This article makes vegetarian diets to be sweetness and light. This is clearly not the case. The article needs to reflect this. My other kids have no such problems--Sikh-history (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sikh-history: we are no longer discussing the article or how to improve it. You were asked for references to support your claim that this article is biased - you have not provided any. Personal anecdotes are not references. Perhaps you or your daughter have a genetic disorder affecting your B12 or iron metabolism that has nothing whatsoever to do with your diet. The proof you present would be better suited to a personal blog than an encyclopedia article. As you say, some vegetarians are overweight, but some cigarette smokers live to be 95 years old, however this does not prove that vegetarianism is unhealthy or that cigarette smoking leads to long life. Unless you want to discuss referenced changes to this article, I'm done with this discussion. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob there is no need to get personal or insult me and my daughter. We have no genetic abnormalities. I was merely illustrating a point. A point you failed to understand. I was not saying this could be referenced material, but studies carried out in India are useful because India has the largest and longest standing vegetarian population in the world. I really do not want to get embroiled in an argument. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it that Sikh History is a male, if I am right then he and his daughter are XY and XX respectively, which would make it a strange event that they share a genetic disorder but the other children, that have at least 50% of SH's genes, are not... Of course this whole counterargument is blown away by SH being female but I'm taking my bet SH is a man... Anyway back on point... Yeah [be bold] and write criticism for oneself... Well, tell me,

1.Can't any of you who claim this article aint biased find criticism on vegetarianism on the web? Please, go on and make checks... Google it...

2.Those that admit there is such criticims but want the sources to be reliable, tell us; What reliable means? Are the sources in favour of vegetarianism reliable? The thing is this...

Vegetarianism is a polemic; On one extreme it is a fashion among ditzy women that take it to be thin, to be in, or to avoid the killing of "cute li'l furry animals". In that sense there is a vegetarianism fad very much like the scientologist fad, yoga fad, wicca/spiritualist fad and the "nude for peta" fad of many ditzy hollywood actresses... But then on another extreme there are people with real religious conviction that adhere to it and there even are those who take it in favour of healthiness. I shall probably bet this "truly conscious vegetarianism" is more the exception than the rule but then, a similiar scheme could be made of the opposite situation. Just like ditzy bulimic women go pro-vegeterianism many brutes grab the nearest club-like object, kill a deer, take their hide for clothes and yell "me like red meat, red meat good, vegetarianst evil!". However on the other side there are people that are willing to admit that meat shall not be the center of their diets but find the usual reasons given to supress it completly as not being good enough to take such step, people that come with arguments like "the nutritional intake is affected in this and this way" and so on or "killing animals, specially after raising them, is not in itself unacceptable, it is the way it is done and the way they are treated as they live what matters" and are then ready to expand such a phrase with man more arguments on ethics and morality and ecology and ethical treatment of animals without endorsing a PETA-type view yet being pro-animals. I mayh vae made it obvious what I think of each type of pro-vegetarianist and anti-vegetarianist but... Who is the authority that must say "these have solid arguments, but these others do not have solid arguments"... As far as I have seen "criticism" sections are not about well-thought undeniable criticism, nope, they are merely about existing criticism by significant people... So if the pope had to go on and say quantic physics is the devil's work his words shall be quoted on a criticism section on quantic physics, even if these words confused many elements of that field and generated nonsense. This said, when asking for acknowledgement of the criticism the urging is not for anything of an excellent nature, even the sources used in favour of vegetarianism could be defeated with proper scrutiny, just of an existing, meaningful and popular nature.Undead Herle King (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob98133's point about a genetic mutation Undead Herle King and the fact I am male and my daughter female has been blown out of the water by you Undead Herle King. Saying that Bob98133's point that finding references around the following points:

1. A large national vegetarian population does not decrease heart attacks in the general population.
2. Some vegetarian diets are not healthy (usually, Wiki says "well-balanced"), but certainly any diet that does not provide enough calories, or only provides calories from vegetable fat, would be unhealthy.
3. How vegetarian food is prepared may affect its healthiness. This is addressed in some meat articles, where smoking and use of nitrites affect the healthiness of the food, so it could be addressed in this article.
4. Taking B12 tablets is less effective, or harmful, compared to natural forms of this vitamin.

If an editor finds reliable references for these, they should be added to the article. These don't seem to be sufficient for a separate section, but there may be more.

Maybe useful. Shall we list ALL points of contention and find articles to balance them? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also here the question of a "minority view". The issues raised as negative in the light of actual problems shown, simply dissolve in the thin air. EU for example uses subventions to finance the meat industry. The money used to allow EU citizens to enjoy low cost meat, could abolish world hunger 20 years ago. Atmapuri (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

EU also finances, the dairy, fruit, and other industries. Not only meat.http://www.primarytimes.net/parent_times_health_ie_schools_mil-eu_scheme.php Regards--Sikh-History 09:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But nobody has to die for it :) Meat consumption is not necessary to survive when there are alternatives available. Why would you want to kill that many animals and starve millions of people world wide to satisfy a food preference (taste) of a minority, when taste can be trained and is only a form of habit?? Ahimsa does allow consumption of meat, if no other food is available to survive. However, we are not in that form of a necessity. (except for Eskimos <g>) Atmapuri (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article Vegetarianism, not for arguing for or against vegetarianism. +Angr 13:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Lets be constructive:

• Food scares. Normal level of hormones in animals and eggs already have influence on humans and special treatment of animals is not needed for the meat consumption to result in a form of hormone therapy. Raised level of hormones due to fear and pain before death also have influence. This gives rise to restlessness, anger, aggressiveness, prematurely awakened sexual drive and is the biggest problem for kids. 10% of USA children today are on sedatives so that they can attend the school.

• Environmental. No source is specified to indicate that the primary reason for rain forest destruction in Argentine and Brasil is cattle raising. It is easier to burn down forest rather than buy fertilizers and pesticides.

• There is no source indicating that 75% of the price of meat in EU stores is directly subsidized by all tax payers. Indirect subsidies could be many times higher when one compares that 1kg of beef costs less than 1kg of salad (4 heads, non-organic). We know that one needs estimated 7kg of food to produce 1kg of meat, but this is not reflected in the cost of it.

• There is no mention of the estimated increased health costs due to meat consumption related diseases. Some insurance companies give lower health insurance rates to vegetarians. Also, not mentioned anywhere.

• Disease transmission. The common influenza virus was proven to come from pigs in 1918. AIDS is believed to come from Africans eating ape brains. Tuberculosis is traced to Cows. Black plague to sheep's, etc… There is hardly any contagious disease which does not have animal origin, when one looks far back enough, not 20 but 2000 years. This part of the story is seriously under referenced in the article. There should be a casualty counter setup that would count number of people who died because of meat eating related diseases. The number would easily be higher than the sum of all casualties in all wars.

• Dental health issues. The uric acid contained in meat is said to affect the dental health. I found references for the fact that uric acid melts the teeth, and that there is uric acid in meat, but could not find a dental source connecting both together. The problem is the huge reference count to gout on Google. One should also not confuse uric acid produced during digestion of food and uric acid contained in the food itself, which is the only form in which it can affect the teeth.

I have to say that the the current POV is too much meat eaters friendly and tries to maintain the level of shock below a certain limit so that people could at least read through it. I believe that the complaint about POV is a reflection of disbelieve and shock about facts stated in the article and consequential impression that this simply can't be true and that the article must in some way be biased. Atmapuri (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no offence Atmapuri, I think you need a wikibreak from this article. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Relationship among IQ, neurological/mental health, and the topic....

News and unconfirmed researches are listed as follows

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/334/7587/245

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/334/7587/216 --222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm --222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, read my comment before read the above info.--222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/2/228 --222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/48/3/712 --222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=565752 --222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/313/7060/775 --222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20003847 --222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Positive and negative aspects about them with regards to neurological health http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=neurological+vegetarian&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en --222.67.205.251 (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+neurological+vegan&btnG=Search --222.67.205.251 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://jnnp.bmj.com/cgi/pdf_extract/60/3/354 --222.67.205.251 (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WN2-456JR6M-30&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=979186866&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3fbd709c1ead5eefea0e181e037800ff --222.67.205.251 (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nutritionucanlivewith.com/vegetarian.htm --222.67.205.251 (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Although some say that the diet help to reduce PD, at least two vegetarian/vegan people that I know have had PD. One was my ex-neibour and another a prominent monk. BTW, was John Paul II a vegetarian...??? My gut feeling has been that vegetarian people are very environmentally sensitive. They are supposed to live in a more clean place which is able to reduce this risk. Possibly, these people who suffered PD is more related to dirt than any other causes--222.67.205.251 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, 222 - I reverted your new section headers and link to environmental whatever. Great list of links above, but why should I visit them? If you wish to add content to this article, please add referenced text to the article; or if you believe it to be controversial, discuss your intentions. It's hard to know from the above and your recent edits what you are saying, and it is not reasonable for other editors to do or review your research for you prior to you making whatever point you intend to make. Bob98133 (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The links are great. Don't delete them. I will see if I can work through them and integrate the content. Too bad there is no link saying that people which were vegetarian from birth are more intelligent in general, where vegetarianism is the reason for it. This is a known thing steaming also from the fact that, by not eating meat, the mind is less saturated with negative emotions leaving more energy for development and quality thinking. The conclusion was reverted saying that those which were smarter before are now vegetarian, because vegetarianism in childhood is not assumed or non-existent in some countries. Atmapuri (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"This is a known thing steaming also from the fact that" - Why no, it isn't. Not that either of our opinions matter, but starting with that as your wp:point of view may make other editors dubious of your commitment to presenting information with a wp:neutral point of view.- sinneed (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article states: those who are vegetarians are smarter. Then it makes the conclusion, that being smarter is what makes a vegetarian, but does not make a conclusion that vegetarian is what makes smart. If you think about it in terms of discrete systems (math logic) this is wrong conclusion, because the statement should have read, either or, using an exclusive or operator. Either smarter people are vegetarians or vegetarianism is what makes people smart. So the articles conclusion is already POV. About "known fact". Well, it all comes down to "notable" references. There are simply not that many vegetarian children in the West to make such an analysis possible at all to decide either in one or the other way of the "or". But there are sources where this relation between IQ and vegetarianism for children is analyzed. Atmapuri (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This reference claims that red meat makes you smart - [3] - as do many other references. Are you going to include those in the new section about vegetarianism and IQ? Perhaps it is simply eating that makes one smart, since those who never eat die young and don't accomplish much. Bob98133 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't suggest a notable source. It makes a vague claim without reference to actual research performed that showed that a controlled group of people which ate more red meat during lives had higher IQ. You really have to come up with a firm notable reference to make a reasonable counter claim. I do plan to add information about 5 points higher IQ to the article so its best to discuss it here. So, if you have any references on that topic, there are most welcome. I think that even if a topic is disputed, it should be included regardless. If the references are notable, we should not be the judges of research. Atmapuri (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"You don't suggest a notable source" - Yes, the editor did. Other editors might disagree. Reaching a consensus would be needed.- sinneed (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Atmapuri - your comment that you plan to add this information while in the middle of discussing it's value undermines the usefullness of discussion. I have looked at a few of the references above and a couple have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. The one you seem to be citing makes no difinitive claim that higher intelligence is caused by vegetarianism. Clearly, if you believe "the mind is less saturated with negative emotions leaving more energy for development and quality thinking" you are not going to be swayed by facts. The reference I believe we are discussing also said that diet details were self-reported which is far from reliable as a research tool. But, as you say, you're going to add it anyhow, so why even bother to read this discussion? If you are serious about other editors' input, please post your proposed changes with references to this talk page, so that they can be discussed. Otherwise you are setting up the article for an edit war. Bob98133 (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The addition I plan to make is: "Vegetarians have been found to be by 5 IQ points smarter than non-vegetarians." You can then add other information, for example that Man's Health editors think otherwise. Atmapuri (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to include a reference, or is that it? Please show us exactly what you intend to add to the article. If you simply add the sentence above without a reference, it will certainly be reverted as unreferenced. That sentence appears to state that all vegetarians are 5 IQ points higher than non-vegetarians, which is clearly nonsense, since there are both idiot vegetarians and genius meat-eaters. Is that what you intend to say? Bob98133 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

References are already stated. We have unnecessary arguments because the material laid on the table is not read. For the above statement I would add this reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm Here is the excerpt:

"Men who were vegetarian had an IQ score of 106, compared with 101 for non-vegetarians; while female vegetarians averaged 104, compared with 99 for non-vegetarians. "

If you agree we can use these exact words. Atmapuri (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? The relationship is offered, though very weakly... accuracy on IQ tests is not as tight as 5 points, 10 different tests will give answers that vary hugely... and the direction of the relationship is not shown at all, as was addressed earlier. "It has been proven that IQ test scores can vary by as much as 15 points based on certain factors which include:", etc. (no I am not proposing a wp:RS that is illustrative discussion content only).- sinneed (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have references that support your claims?Atmapuri (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What claims?- sinneed (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

new section on IQ and Intelligence

I see that you have decided to wp:Be Bold. I have added a bit more information from the source you added, and would have suggested actual new content, rather than using such a long quote.- sinneed (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I also added the study itself.- sinneed (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm. Woops? "On average, vegetarians had a higher childhood IQ score than non-vegetarians.According to sex, the mean (SD) childhood IQ score of vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians was 106.1 (14.7) and 100.6 (15.2) for men and 104.0 (14.1) and 99.0 (14.7) for women, differences of 5.5 and 5.0 points (P < 0.001)." These were scores when they were children. This article is about whether smart children become vegetarian more of than less intelligent children.- sinneed (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a good job explaining the context of the new section. About IQ in childhood. Typically IQ does not change much within ones active life. I don't have a reference for that (you can search for it), but the IQ differences noted in childhood will persist in the adulthood. Using IQ of children is an acceptable and non disputed approximation for differences in adulthood. Atmapuri (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't. I tried to figure out how to do it, and it would require removing your quote and putting in the information from the report, and if I were going to take out your work I would just... take it out. Once we have wp:consensus, then it will be time to remove the flag.
• I also restored the fact that there was no difference among those who at only vegetation-based food and those who also ate chicken and fish. I won't revert the change again, but it is profoundly misleading.- sinneed (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies, but I did indeed restore the deleted content: it was removed without explanation. Please explain the removal. If what they actually eat isn't relative, why do we need the section in an article about what people eat? Was the "synthesis" directed at that? Quote from source is: "When strict vegetarians (no fish or meat) were compared with those who said they were vegetarian but consumed fish or chicken, no differences were found between them in any of these characteristics (data not shown)." So clearly this is not wp:Synthesis.

I, too, have been bold, and only included information presented in the BMJ. Including the BBC material is pointless since they are a secondary source and all the same info is included in the original report, without the BBC media slant. Including the various mean IQs is misleading since it implies that all vegetarians (including fish & chicken eating vegetarians) are smarter than all non-vegetarians. What the study said is that smarter kids are more likely to be vegetarians as adults, although no causality was implied. While I believe that vegetarianism is a smart diet choice, I think that claiming that vegetarians are smarter because of the diet is unsupported by this report and recalls earlier implied prejudices such as women or people of color are incapable of voting wisely or that people with blond hair and blue eyes are superior, or that those with big heads are smart. Bob98133 (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC) PS to editor sinneed - sorry for stepping on your justified dubious tag, but I think new version eliminates the need for the tag.

Thanks for your edits on this sinneed. The result is a far different story from Atmapuri's proposed version above which simply stated "Vegetarians have been found to be by 5 IQ points smarter than non-vegetarians." Bob98133 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening lines.

"A vegetarian diet is also known as an herbivore diet." - Please provide a source before re-adding. Yes, herbivores are vegetarians, very generally. Cattle are herbivores. Humans are omnivores, regardless of their food-eating choices, just as cattle are herbivores, regardless of the fact that they will eat small quantities of meat and manure quite successfully if it is presented in their normal food.- sinneed (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

a source - aimed at young readers- sinneed (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

more adult definition of vegetarianism- sinneed (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1902 book about the challenges of getting the public at large to adopt vegetarianism- sinneed (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)