Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 12

plants

I find the first sentences of this article very strange. I don't think vegetarians primarily eat plants or that it's synonymous with herbivore. Nuts, fruits, seeds, tubers, sprouts, beans, honey, and yogurt, are not plants. Even plant parts is a bit of a stretch. Is flour a plant? My understanding is that vegetarians do not eat meat. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an accurate description to me. Nuts, fruits, seeds, tubers, beans, and flour all come from plants - I don't think it's necessary to eat the whole plant to be considered to be eating plants. Plants aren't even mentioned in the first sentences of the article.--Michig (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that mention of plants has recently been removed. The word vegetarian obviously indicates a plant-based diet.--Michig (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A nut may come from a tree, but it is not a plant. See dictionary. Yogurt is not a plant. Honey is not a plant. Fruit is not a plant. You seem to be confusing the meaning of words, which is problematic for someone working on an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that trees are plants. Foods that come from plants are plant-based foods. It isn't rocket science.--Michig (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article seems have been clarified which is helpful. Clearly there is a difference between a herbivore (a moose or cow for example) and a vegetarian that eats plant based foods like nuts, fruit and sometimes non-plant based foods dairy. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed a newly-added sentence in the intro saying "Some vegetarians eat eggs and fish" because the very next sentence says exactly the same thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed "focusing on plant-based foods", since a diet of solely dairy products and eggs, while unhealthy, would technically be vegetarian. Simply put, not all vegetarian diets "focus" on plant-based foods. As per the citations, vegetarianism is really just defined by what it excludes, not what it includes. -kotra (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It would only be true of certain forms of vegetarianism, so the plant-based nature of the diet needs to be included.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What about fungi? They aren't plants are they? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Fungi are fungi, not plants. Sigh... vegetarians... C6541 (T↔C) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, they are not plants. Just in case anyone is still confused: nuts, fruits, seeds, tubers, sprouts, beans, and flour are all plant-based foods; they come from plants. Honey, yogurt, other dairy products, and eggs are animal-based foods; mushrooms and yeast are fungus-based foods; and algae (including edible seaweed like kelp) are none of the above. Also for the record, I'm vegetarian. -kotra (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(response to Michig) I don't understand your logic here. If some vegetarian diets do not focus on plant-based foods, then would it not be inaccurate to make the blanket statement "vegetarian diets focus on plant-based foods"? -kotra (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you seriously imagine a vegetarian diet without plant-based foods? The lede should summarize the article, and if you read the article it discusses plant-based foods all the way through it. The Vegetarian Society's definition: "We define a vegetarian as someone living on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits, with or without the use of dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or slaughter by-products." Doesn't that sound very plant-based to you? The plant-based foods are the fundamental part of the diet, with some types of vegetarians also adding dairy and eggs. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The (sourced) entence "The vegetarian diet is generally based on fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds" was removed, which would have helped to make it clearer. Given that we have two definitions from good sources that include a description of what vegetarians do eat, why not include this in the lede rather than simply listing what they don't eat? We really shouldn't be applying OR to come up with our own definitions here.--Michig (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the term "plant-based" is used extensively to describe vegetarian diets - see [1], [2], [3], [4]. This isn't the place to discuss theoretical questions such as "is someone who only eats eggs a vegetarian". We simply need to accurately reflect what has been presented in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, to answer your question, yes I have imagined a vegetarian diet without plant-based foods (the eggs/dairy one I mentioned above). But you're right, my opinion doesn't matter; the article should be based on reliable sources. Addressing the four sources you linked to, three them do not explicitly call vegetarianism a plant-based diet, but the Mayo Clinic one did (and I would say it's what we consider a reliable source). The Vegetarian Society definition you mentioned is, however, an even more reliable source on this topic, and it says that the diet is based on foods from plant sources with or without certain animal sources. That isn't the same as "a diet based on plant-based foods, full stop". This would be like saying "Raw foodism is a diet based on raw plant-based foods" when there's a minority of raw foodists who eat a lot of raw meat, or even only raw meat (e.g. the winter diet of the Inuit people). Like this "raw foodism = raw plant-based foods" example, the current lead sentence is defining a broad category of people by a quality only shared by a large majority of that people, a logical fallacy the Vegetarian Society fully understands, and intentionally avoids in its precise language. If we really want to use Vegetarian Society's definition, we have to include something similar to its "with or without the use of dairy products and eggs" in the first sentence. For example, "Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-derived foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs." From my perspective, that still wouldn't be ideal (since I can in fact imagine vegetarian diets without any plant-derived foods, and many admissible foods are omitted), but at least it would adhere to the most reliable source on the subject. -kotra (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the current version [Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including...] to be acceptable. The fact that it says "based" indicates that there may be non-plant based foods, but that the diet is primarily these foods. I think that this definition is referenced and sufficient for the lede. Non plant based foods that may be included in a vegetarian diet can be mentioned later, as they are.Bob98133 (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any sources in the lead that truly support the current version (although I haven't verified "Briggs, Asa (1989) The Longman Encyclopedia, Longman, p. 1109"). The closest is the Vegetarian Society source, which says "A vegetarian is someone living on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits with or without the use of dairy products and eggs." But this is different from "a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds." in one significant way: it doesn't mention dairy products or eggs. What the first sentence currently describes is veganism, not vegetarianism. It's easy to just say that dairy and eggs are mentioned later, but a lot of readers only read the first sentence to see what vegetarianism is. Those who do that now will come away thinking vegetarianism is veganism. That is why the first sentence needs to be an accurate definition, as per the manual of style. Just to be clear, all I am suggesting is the addition of "with or without dairy products and eggs" to the first sentence; I'm not seeing how that could harm anything. -kotra (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the addition you are suggesting.--Michig (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

veganism and honey

One of the citations about marking "No" for honey and veganism in the little "diet key" box is the FAQ from vegan action, which states:

Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products, because they do not believe insects are conscious of pain. Moreover, even if insects were conscious of pain, it's not clear that the production of honey involves any more pain for insects than the production of most vegetables, since the harvesting and transportation of all vegetables involves many 'collateral' insect deaths.

Notice that they characterize these people, who do eat honey and use other insect products as "vegan". There are obviously two other sources which characterize honey as being nonvegan. What does this tell us? It tells us that there is a real-world dispute which we should try to accurately represent. Just marking "No" and having a few citations doesn't make it true. I suggest changing the box to something like "varies" and perhaps linking to the Animal Products section of the veganism article. We're having a similar discussion on the veganism talk page. Kellen^T 08:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kellen - I can't believe you're moving this discussion to the vegetarianism article after the haggling on the veganism article! In the vegan article, I think it is more important for this to be clarified, as discussed. However, since veganism is merely mentioned as a type of vegetarianism in this article, a note like "varies" or "with some exceptions" and a link to the veganism article seems sufficient and sensible. Bob98133 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to move any discussion anywhere. I ended up here through some watchlist-link-chain, saw the 3 references on the "No" in the diets box which seemed to me to be someone trying to demonstrate a point through over-referencing, but saw that one of the references was the same one we were discussing on veganism talk page and noted that it was misused to support something it doesn't say. I've gone ahead and changed the text to "varies" and linked to the veganism article. Kellen^T 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I support your edit, Kellen--what you did is exactly right and you explain the reason very well above. Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

One should also consider that thousands of insects die on the windshield when you drive a car. If you walk, you can save many more insects than by avoiding honey. Then there are also the bacterias on the surfaces and within ones own intestine and so on. All living beings are indeed valued equally by God according to Vedas and there is a point to this all. Practice of Ahimsa is not an easy practice in terms of correct application. Trying to figure this out on your own without some spiritual teacher is also not a very productive way forward. Atmapuri (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A vegan will never eat or use an animal, if they do they are just a strict vegetarian. The honey section should remain as no for vegans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imatheocracy (talk • contribs) 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Appearance

Good article, but it has definately a wrong appearance. when you search on "Vegetarian", you get a picture with fruit and vegetebles thrown at your face. Many people already do not really know the difference between excluding fish and meat from your diet and eating raw fruits and vegetables exclusively being a vegetarian is not a lifestyle like naturism. Being a neutral source, wikipedia should definately not add to this view. - Timkingioo

So what you're saying is that there should be a more representative picture? There are a lot of pictures under Wikimedia Commons category, vegetarian food that we could use. Feel free to suggest one from there. TheLastNinja (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the general definition and the picture actually tell you two different things. i do not think it should have any picture showing the diet at all, because the only perfect representation would be a picture of all existing types of food, except meat. and that's a lot. besides, i do not think the simple definition of vegetarianism needs a picture to support it, because what's the point in showing a picture with food that is not meat? isn't that a bit obvious?

By the way, a good exemple of the confusion surrounding vegetarianism is when i was in an airplane on my way to africa. after we had our meals, desserts were handed out. everybody got a cupcake with candy. i got a raw carrot. - Timkingioo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timkingioo (talk • contribs) 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

At least they erred in the direction of more strict vegetarianism (the cupcake doubtless had milk and eggs in it, and they wanted to accommodate vegans). When I ask the man who brings the sandwiches to my workplace (in Germany) whether he has anything vegetarian, he offers me fish. As for the picture, maybe commons:Category:Vegetarian food has more representative images. +Angr 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Veggie_burger_flickr_user_moe_creative_commons.jpg - Timkingioo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timkingioo (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that image does show that vegetarian food doesn't have to be twigs and bark all the time; on the other hand, you can't even see the veggie burger itself. (PS Please sign your posts to talk pages with ~~~~) +Angr 06:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the lead image for now, as per the comments above. It's appropriate at Veganism, but somewhat misleading here. This is somewhat of a WP:BRD edit, so if you object, please revert and discuss. -kotra (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worse to not have a picture at all! I liked the other picture. Can we at least have the old pictue on the page untill some one can find a better picture? Could some one please put the old photo back on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imatheocracy (talk • contribs) 07:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the old picture is that it is misleading. It makes it look like all vegetarians can eat are raw fruits and vegetables, which is far from true. Since it's misleading, I think it's better left empty at the top until a more representative picture can be found (the article doesn't really need a picture at the top in any case). -kotra (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

All Hindu's Are Vegetarian?

I think not. See here, here, here, and I have hundreds of other sources. My expertise is not in Hinduism, but I know enough about Hinduism, that there is a lot of Vashnavite WP:POV. Thanks--Sikh-History 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say all Hindus are vegetarian. It says "All major paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal." An ideal is not the same as actual practice. If there are, however, major paths of Hinduism that don't hold vegetarianism as an ideal, then the text should be changed. -kotra (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide any refs to major paths of Hinduism which do not hold vegetarianism as an ideal? That is their spiritual leaders promote consumption of meat as the best diet and have more than 50M followers?Atmapuri (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you must provide references that "All" major paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal. If you cannot the statement is POV and will be changed. Also are you saying "Vaishnavs" are the same as "Saktas"? Thanks --Sikh-History 06:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not found a reference but I think it is correct that all major paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal. I think in practice many paths make very little of it though -- Q Chris (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well "Saktas" are a major path of Hinduism, are they vegetarian or not? Do they hold it as an ideal? Are these WP weasal words?

Thanks--Sikh-History 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See comment below -- Q Chris (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that states that "Saktas" are a major path of Hinduism and that they promote meat consumption?Atmapuri (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No . That is irrelevant. I have however, found this link that the 6 major paths Saiva, Vaishnava, Sakta, Saura, Ganapatya and Kaumara, of which Saiva, Sakta and Vaishnava are most numerous. Vaishnavism, is not the only path in Hinduism. It is clear from comment there is WP:POV from Vaishnavite sources in this article. I have provided many links that state that Hindu's are not vegetarian, ideal or not. Even if Saktas are a minor sect which they are not it can be included, and you must mention that not all Hindu's and sect hold vegetarianism as an ideal. Like I said you must add WP:Balance, if you do not people will come in (from experience) and add and change what you have written. This may end up in edit wars, so it is best to balance it up now. Thanks --Sikh-History 22:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take into account that Shaiva and Vishnava together cover 95% of all Hindus [5] and these paths do hold vegetarianism as an ideal. From web searches it appears that even some Shaktas are vegetarians, but there are some tantric shakti groups that encourage meat eating. These are not major paths of Hinduism, so I am happy with the statement as it stands. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Shaiva and Vaish ALL? Is 2% of 1,400,000,000 insignificant? or even of 775,251,968? That's bigger that the UK population. Thanks --Sikh-History 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience all Shaiva and Vishna schools hold vegetarianism as an ideal, as do Smarta. Now I am certainly not saying that I am 100% certain that there is not some small group somewhere which is an exception. As for whether the number of tantric Shaktas is significant, I believe not. They are a small part of Shakti. Absolute numbers may be high comapared to populations of other countries - but I expect you would find large absolute numbers of Hindus (or Christians come to that) who believe in flying saucers. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect I have found sources that cite Saktas are one of the 3 major sects of Hinduism. If that is the case, then the statement ALL is not true. Why it was changed from some is beyond me. With all due respects we are not discussing flying sources or flying monkeys either. Regards--Sikh-History 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you could show that most shaktis did not see vegetarianism as an ideal then there would be some argument, though I would still dispute that a group that only has a few percent could be called major. From the link I gave before (my emphasis):

"Besides the major Hindu sects of Vishnu and Shiva, there are many minor ones. The strongest, in numbers and influence, is... of Shakti whose followers worship 'God in the aspect of mother.'... divided into two main groups, the Dakshinamargis, or followers of the right-hand way, and Vamamargis, or left-handed worshipers. The first take the usual path of renunciation of the world, the second the unusual path toward enjoyment of life. The Dakshinamargis do openly what they profess, the Vamamargis keep their rituals secret. "

The only paths that don't support vegetarianism as an ideal are the very minor Vamachara sects, which can in no way be considered mainstream or major. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This site cites Sakta as a major Path and this reference states Saktas are not vegetarian. Thanks --Sikh-History 06:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But not even all Shaktas are vegetarian [6]. I think you are trying to make a very small number of Hindus, who have practices that are the opposite of the majority, seem significant. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So many Saivites eat meat?Kshatriya's by Dharma are permited to eat meat? What is your point? The word to be used should be "Some" not "All". All implies every single Hindu Path. This is not the case. That is WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. My faith tells me I do not have to be vegetarian, but I chose to be vegetarian. If a Sakta choses to be vegetarian that is his/her choice. Regards--Sikh-History 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing that many Shaivas and Vishnavas eat meat. Their paths hold vegetarianism as an ideal though. I am not saying every Hindu path, just every major path. Just because some of the sub-paths of a Shakta, which in itself accounts for only 2% or so of Hindus encourage meat eating does not make the ststement untrue. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the statement in question ["All major paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal."] is pointless to include since it is a sweeping generalization that says nothing about the subject. Trying to determine if a sect/path is major or minor is equally pointless. This article is not about ideals, but vegetarianism. If a certain percentage of a particular religious group or following is vegetarian, then that may be of interest, if it can be referenced. Ideals are nice, but since they are so rarely upheld, their main point seems to be in the exceptions to them. Why not stick with facts that can be referenced and leave the ideals to philosophers? Bob98133 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sakta is a Major Hindu path and clearly it does not. So some Saktas are vegetarian? Maybe you need to read this? Thanks--Sikh-History 14:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob98133 you have hit the nail on the head. I extensively travel to India, and I know how controversial the topic of meat is in Hinduism and Sikhism. Philosophers debate the intricacies of what the "ideal" of vegetarianism is in Hinduism and cannot agree. Some say you should abstain from onion and garlic (the are seen as bad as meat). The debates are endless. Best Wishes --Sikh-History 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly true about onions and garlic. I once met someone who was a vegetarian for "Ayurvedic reasons" and he thought that chilli, onion and garlic was worse than light coloured meats but better than dark coloured! It seems that we are not going to reach an agreement on "All major paths" vs "some major paths". Would a compromise of "Most major paths" be acceptable? I still think it is a stretch but perhaps it is the pragmatic solution. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Most is acceptable. Thanks--Sikh-History 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article changed to agreed text starting "Most major paths...". --Q Chris (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

.

Percentage of Hindus that are vegetarians

Just to briefly address Bob98133's suggestion of adding info on the actual practice of vegetarianism among Hindus: this would be good to have, but it's not easy to find statistics on. After researching for a while, I only found one source, but it's for Hindus in India: The Hindu, 2006-08-14. It says 43% of "Religious Hindus" and 28% of "Non-religious Hindus" in India are vegetarian. I'm still looking for worldwide figures, but I'm not hopeful of finding anything. Perhaps this source would be useful to add anyway, to shed some perspective on actual practice, at least in India. -kotra (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the overall figures would not be that different, simply because the vast majority of Hindus do live in India. I will try to find some references. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to look at how many KFC's and Mcdonalds have opened in India. Every person I met certainly ate meat. It was difficult to find places that only served vegetarian in India. Cheers --Sikh-History 16:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead (intro) change

I am not hugely against the new lead, but why was it changed from this version, which had gained WP:consensus, to the new one? The whole point of a lead in any Wikipedia article is to summarize the topic. Not mentioning semi-vegetarianism, particularly pescetarianism, in the lead seems off. As I stated before, even though the term "pedophilia" is misused, we still note this colloquial use in the lead of that article. Pescetarianism has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish; and given that so many people consider pescetarianism to be vegetarianism, I am not seeing why it should not be mentioned in the lead. As the Pescetarianism article states, definitions of "vegetarian" in mainstream dictionaries vary. We had a long discussion about this before, which is why the previous lead was designed. Contrary to the main editor who was previously against my wanting the lead to be neutral having accused me of having an agenda as though I am a pescetarian, though we (as in all editors editing this article) later decided on a slightly neutral way of presenting the information, I am a full-fledged vegetarian (as in the "true" sense of the term; no animal flesh)...but I am often for what I feel is the best version of whatever part of any Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a link to the dif of the last step in the old consensus-reaching discussion? That is a LOT of archive to dig through.- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was going to link to it, but then I decided not to because I was thinking of the editors who participated in that discussion and how they were likely to remember such a long and heated debate which took place just last year. Then, just coming back here, I was thinking I should have liked it anyway. Here is the link to the first part of that discussion: The lead needs to be changed, not everyone defines fish as meat; it starts with that section and then continues with the other sections right after it except for the last two sections. However, the first part of that discussion can be skipped without any significant consequence. The "real discussion" starts after that, somewhat of an extension from the first part but more about whether to include the colloquial use of vegetarian (pescetarianism being referred to as vegetarianism) in the lead and how to do it while remaining clear as to what is perceived as the correct use: RfC: Do Vegetarians eat fish? Or is it correct to call people who eat fish vegetarian?

I am not saying that the exact lead we reached consensus on should be reinstated; I am basically saying that significant definitions and uses of a word should be in the lead. Besides the example I gave above (the Pedophilia article), there are the Sexual intercourse and Gender articles and many other articles here as examples. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to get an idea of if consensus has changed on this matter or not, does anyone here mind if semi-vegetarianism and pescetarianism are mentioned in the lead of this article for the reasons I stated above? If anything, I feel that it helps. I, of course, still come in contact with many people who define fish-eating with various other foods but not other types of animal flesh as vegetarian. I still get plenty of people asking me if I eat fish. Yes, this article, right off the bat, states that vegetarians do not eat fish...but I still feel that the colloquial use (fish-eating) should be noted in the lead. If not noted in the lead, then expanded on a little more in the Semi-vegetarian diets section...with references. The bit there now does not elaborate on the widespread use of pescetarianism being defined as vegetarianism. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as anyone watching this article knows, I added back the consensus part about semi-vegetarianism and pescetarianism...but with a few changes; that other stuff is not needed to get the point across. I just now saw how big this article has gotten, and realize that the lead may have been cut not only to make it clearer but to remove unnecessary things making this article bigger than needed. This is the other reason I cut down on the re-added part. Do I feel that the semi-vegetarianism and pescetarianism mentions are necessary? Yes, for the reasons I noted above in this section. Tweak...if needed of course. If anyone decides to revert it, I ask that you explain your reasons for the revert here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -kotra (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I noted that the grammar was a bit off... consider "Vegetarians do not eat meat or fish" in contrast to "Vegetarians do not eat meat and fish" in contrast to "Vegetarians do not eat meat and potatoes". All true but only the 1st says they won't eat either, I think. :) - sinneed (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, of course I had nothing to do with that grammar (my re-addition did not go that high), but good tweaks to it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A later proposal

I have been struggling with the lead sentences, and I think I have an idea ready to share.(edit to add) Today we have:

Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs.[1][2] Vegetarians do not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter.[1][3][4] Variants of the diet exclude eggs and/or products produced from animal labour such as dairy products and honey.

• How about:

Vegetarianism is the practice of following a primarily plant-based diet including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds; with some variants including one or more of eggs, dairy products, honey, or other products of animal labour.[1][2] Vegetarians do not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter.[1][3][4]

Thouhts? I do note that both versions exclude fruitarians.

No rush. I would like this contentious article's editors to have a while to see this and make it "more betterer" or for that matter riddle it with verbal bullet-holes.- Sinneed 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC) - edited due to confusion (my bad, sorry) to add "today we have" - Sinneed 00:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The new version is fine w/me - more concise. Of course, they both leave out fungi, but no big deal. Bob98133 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, also omits yeast- and bacteria-based foods. - Sinneed 00:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a known issue (see the above discussion), but the sources don't mention fungus, bacteria, etc, so... -kotra (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The new version is better, more concise. However, "products of animal labour" is awkward. What specifically are you referring to there? If it's just obscure non-foods like pharmaceutical glaze, I would just skip it. Neither of the sources cited mention anything like "products of animal slaughter", so inventing a term on it, while probably accurate, is not really within our purview and just makes the definition unnecessarily complicated. I would also change "products of animal slaughter" to "slaughter by-products", because it's more concise and matches the citation. -kotra (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• "slaughter by-products" I don't even know what is (please leave me ignorant). I do know though, from the definitions, what "products of animal slaughter" are. But it is in the lead now, that is not a change.
• "products of animal labour" again not a change, this is as now. We know what it means, from the definitions.
• I make no claims about sourcing... my intent was to change only wording and structure, I can take no credit/blame for reliable sourcing.- Sinneed 00:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is a subtle but significant difference between "products produced from animal labour such as dairy products and honey" and "dairy products, honey, or other products of animal labour". The difference is, the original version leaves ambiguous whether there are other products of animal labor besides dairy and honey; your version, however, makes it clear there's more than just dairy and honey. And that introduced certainty leads people to ask "like what?", to which there appears to be no answer. I think the original author added the bit about "products produced from animal labour" to cover all bases, but if there's nothing significant other than dairy products and honey, it should probably go, especially since it's an invented wording not supported by the citations. As for "products of animal slaughter", your suggested wording ("or products of animal slaughter") implies the preceding are separate from products of animal slaughter. I would suggest either "or other products of animal slaughter" or go with "slaughter by-products". I feel the latter is better since it matches the source (it refers to things like rennet and gelatin, by the way), but no real accuracy is lost with just adding in "other" to your version, so I'd support that too. -kotra (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This new proposal for the start of the lead is fine, for the most part. By "most part," I mean that I concur with Kotra's concerns. I also take it that the "of" part in "one or more of eggs" is a typo? Other than that, I say go ahead and implement this new part of the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

This talk page is becoming difficult to navigate. Would it be ok if I set up automatic archiving on this page, using User:MiszaBot I? Archiving threads older than 2 months, for example (this appears to be the time limit User:Angr has been using). -kotra (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have not already, I say go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. Bob98133 (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Done (though we won't know for sure until tomorrow when the bot updates). -kotra (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I reset it to 30 days, as 60 seems awfully long. If I was doing that manually, it wasn't intentional. +Angr 12:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -kotra (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

low intake of vitamin B12

According to this article, Vegetarians have a particulary low intake of vitamin B12, while the article of vitamin b12 states the deficiency should inevitably cause negative symptoms. The article also says that vegetarians have a low intake of b12, but later (Since the human body preserves B12 and reuses it without destroying the substance, clinical evidence of B12 deficiency is uncommon.[58][59] The body can preserve stores of the vitamin for up to 30 years without needing its supplies to be replenished") so actually it says it is an issue, but actually not an issue at all? That can be pretty confusing to a reader.

Me myself have been a vegetarian (NOT vegan) my whole life, having never eaten meat before, and i never had any of these symtpons, diseases or disabilities before. Explain, or change the article please.

-Timkingioo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timkingioo (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hallelujah!username 1 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That is probably because you eat eggs. Unlike many Indian Vege's and vegans. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also milk and dairy products contain B12, as do vitamin-fortified foods. -kotra (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

After some research I did on this topic years ago, B12 is produced from brown rice and wholesome wheat. Too sterile and refined food can possibly be a problem here. Meat is said to be B12 friendly because it is rotting in the body for more than a week. (B12 is produced in the process of rotting) Similar effect, although not as strong, can be achieved with non-refined food. I agree that B12 nonsense should be removed. There are millions of vegetarians, who do not have this problem and the view presented is that of very strict minority. Atmapuri (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify something: B12 is not present in brown rice or wheat. It is available in animal-based foods, but the scientific consensus and vegan organizations agree it is not at human-sustainable levels in any plant-based foods (see Vitamin B12#Sources for references). Vegans must get their B12 from supplements and/or B12-fortified foods. -kotra (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't agree here. B12 which comes from supplements can also lower the actual B12 available to the body. Again, I dont have the references at hand, but B-12 as such is not consumed with the food. It is made by the body from the food, but how exactly this happens is highly disputed in the scientific community. The best description of current state of science on this would be: "We simply dont know, but have some ideas." One weak ref you can find here: B-12 Atmapuri (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there are non-animal sources of B-12 since there are vegan versions that are sold. While I agree that B-12 deficiencies are rare and the mechanism is not well known, it seems prudent to include the most current, verifiable research about B12 needs and supplies available to vegetarians since B12 deficiency does occasionally occur and can be debilitating. Bob98133 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The non-animal sources are synthetic fermentation from bacteria; the animal sources also, originally, get the B12 from bacteria (see Vitamin B12#Synthesis). I agree, however, that our section on B12 needs more current verifiable sources on B12 needs and supplies available to vegetarians, since the current sources are not straightforward or as current as could be hoped. -kotra (talk)

I partially agree with you, Atmapuri. Cyanocobalamin (the kind of B12 that is used in supplements and vitamin-fortified foods) is not as easily accessible to the body as natural B12 (as is found in animal products). However, all reliable sources I've seen have said it, if taken in sufficient quantities, is beneficial, and if no animal products are consumed, it is essential. As for your next statement, you are correct that bacteria in the human gut do create B12, but this B12 is not accessible to the human body, since B12 is produced below the ileum, where B12 is absorbed (though some have suggested, and there is even an old study that suggests, that re-ingestion of human feces is a valid source of B12). However, you are incorrect that B12 is not present in foods. It is well-established that it is present in animal products. As for the source you cite: the writer is mostly correct except for thinking B12 comes from "rotting" (it comes from gut bacteria, and from there, feces, which is found in soil; this is what the doctor's article, that the writer is commenting on, is referring to when it says "contaminated"), and they, as a vegan talking about veganism on a vegan website, are not talking about foods that are from animal sources. They are basically saying that, if we didn't wash off vegetables as much as we do, we would get some B12 from them. This is correct, but medical professionals and scientists (including the vegan doctor from that article they are commenting on) do not consider such B12 reliable or sufficient for humans. I apologize for not citing my sources, but if you disbelieve any of these statements I have made, simply go to Vitamin B12 and check the references cited there. -kotra (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you presented things well, and the current version of the content of the section is very much on target. Maybe the vegan / B12 relation should get more space to explain the things in question more. Atmapuri (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a sentence about vegans taken from Vitamin B12. On a related note, I am also concerned about the sentence about absorption interference from supplemental B12. I discuss this in the section below. -kotra (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)