This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Appeal to nature" fallacy
The "Psychology" subsection begins with a warning about the Appeal to Nature logical fallacy. I don't necessarily have a problem with this being mentioned, but it seems out of place. There is no clarification, and no link to the other contents of the section. Perhaps it could be rephrased to note that while some people view vegetarianism as "natural", and thus as "good", that this reasoning could be considered fallacious. Or the sentence could be removed altogether, since it has no direct relation to the article. --N-k (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Compromise wording trying to put an end to an edit war, IIRC. I believe the logical falacy and the attached warning can probably simply be dropped. Again.- Sinneed 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't mean to restart an old dispute. The entire sentence seems fairly irrelevant. Readers can make up their own minds when it comes to arguments for and against vegetarianism. --N-k (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The entire section seems completely irrelevant. :) I don't think the original adding editor/edit warrior edits WP any longer.- Sinneed 15:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Cultural subsection
In the subsection "Cultural", the second paragraph seems irrelevant. What is "limited vegetarianism", and what is the relevance of this "meme" experiment mentioned? It seems so marginal that it should be removed. --N-k (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Since no one has responded, I am removing the paragraph. --N-k (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Mushrooms and fungi aren't plants
The article keeps referring to vegetarian and vegan diets as plant based. Few vegetarians and vegans avoid mushrooms and other fungi, which belong to an entirely different kingdom than plants. Fungi may not be the core of their diets, but they still are part of them. Jds10 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think by plant based, the article means primarily a diet of vegetables (but excluding meat), just as a meat based diet is not exclusively meat. For the purpose of defining vegetarian or vegan, the exclusion of animal-based products seems far more important than whether fungi are considered vegetables by the general population. It could be noted in the article, but it's a very minor point. Bob98133 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Vegetarian Diet Affects Genes of Oxidative Metabolism and Collagen Synthesis [1]
Reduced synthesis of collagen, which plays a fundamental role in preventing skin aging... That is a serious thing, maybe it should be mentioned in this article? 187.107.0.87 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
"These novel findings provide further insight into the association of a changed fat metabolism and reduced collagen synthesis in vegetarians, which could also play a role in the aging process." From this, we can extract that one study found an association between a vegetarian diet and changed fat metabolism and a reduction in synthesis of collagen. If we included the novel findings of isolated studies and their "associations" and what they "could play a role in", we'd have a really long, meaningless article. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
In seeing the recent edits about this, it got me to thinking: Do all vegetarians avoid these two things? Or is it more something vegans avoid? I happen to check what type of cheese I buy, for example, but I know vegetarians who really do not care what type of cheese they eat (as long as it is typical cheese). I'm thinking vegetarian cheese is not something most vegetarians buy, at least in the case of lacto and ovo-lacto vegetarians. Thus, should we alter the lead in a way that reflects this (where it does not state with a certainty that vegetarians do not eat these two things)? I mean, for the vegetarians who do, are they not considered vegetarians? What would they be called instead? Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think if it's something a person is eating that they aren't aware is a product of animal slaughter then they would still be considered vegetarian. If they are aware of what they are eating then they would not. Intention is the key really, perhaps 'does not eat' would be be better as 'avoids'? As for what they would be called, nothing, there doesn't have to be a title for every diet. If one had to be specified then flexitarian/sem-vegetarian. Muleattack (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Muleattack, your point about animal slaughter does not hold up in regards to some vegetarians, though. Eggs can be through animal slaughter, but there are some vegetarians who do not care how they come by their eggs. For veganism, it is different, yes. But not all vegetarians become vegetarians because they find eating meat unethical; some do it simply because they feel it is a better diet. There are even some strict vegetarians who believe that eating eggs is not vegetarian, since it comes from sources within the animal body, but we still list that as vegetarian in this article. My point is that there are vegetarians who simply consume cheese without worrying about whether or not it has rennet in it. And, really, rennet is in plenty of/most cheeses. I know that these vegetarians do not have to have a name. But would we really say they are not vegetarians simply because they consume cheese with rennet in it? Most definitions of vegetarianism include dairy products such as cheese, and do not say "cheese without rennet." Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is problematic, but do we have any sources that use "avoid"? The Vegetarian Society definition uses "does not eat"... I'd be hesitant to change it without adding another source that uses "avoid". -kotra (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I see it as problematic as well, for the reasons I just stated to Muleattack above. "Avoids" should not be used either, because a lot of vegetarians do not even know about rennet being in their cheese. There needs to be some type of wording that better gets across the consumption of gelatin and rennet in respect to vegetarianism. Perhaps we could add a line about gelatin and rennet somewhere after the line about what vegetarians do not eat. There has to be some other reliable sources speaking of these two things in regards to vegetarians. We could also say something like, "Additionally, animal-derived gelatin and rennet are regarded as "non-vegetarian." That way it gets across our point, but also does not say vegetarians never eat these two things. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If we were to use the word "avoid," though, I see the following wording as okay:
...and may avoid products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet.
The Vegetarian Society is an authoritative source on vegetarianism, but we must also think of accuracy. We know that some vegetarians (typically the ones who became vegetarians for health, environmental, aesthetic, or economical reasons) do not care if their eggs were gained through animal slaughter, and we also know what I just stated about the rennet stuff. The wording "may avoid" respects the Vegetarian Society's information...but also reports all of this more accurately. Besides... The lead image also uses the word "avoidance" when describing vegetarian diets. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Chickens killed for eggs? That's a new one on me, care to enlighten me? Unless you mean the male chicks killed at birth because they aren't needed, in which case vegetarianism is only avoiding the product of direct animal slaughter.Muleattack (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Goveg.com sums up what I was trying to say. I was not really saying "killed for eggs," LOL. Killing a chicken after it lays an egg would not be very beneficial. I was more so speaking of what the Chicken article states: "After 12 months, the hen's egg-laying ability starts to decline, and commercial laying hens are then slaughtered and used in processed foods, or sold as 'soup hens.'" But your point about the males is good too. Notice this article does not say "direct animal slaughter." My point about the eggs bit was more so: "Why do you think so many vegetarians (especially vegans) avoid free-range eggs?"
What do you make of my text proposal above? Flyer22 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't say direct animal slaughter because it doesn't need to, animals being killed in the industry do not make milk/eggs products of animal slaughter. I think your text proposal rather than clarifying the issue is actually altering the definition of vegetarianism. To add a line like that you'd need to find references that state that people who eat rennet/gelatin are vegetarian since the definition we have says they are not ("A vegetarian does not eat meat, including: red meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, and products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet.").Muleattack (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
From what I stated above, with the agreement that the current wording is problematic, it is clear that it should say "direct" and that the lead should be altered in some way similar to my proposal. It seems you have never come across a vegetarian who considers access to eggs in the way I described above to be "eggs through animal slaughter," but I have (various individuals). And how is my proposal of "may avoid" any different than your proposal of "avoids"? If anything, my proposal is more accurate. I do not see it as changing the definition. But even if it were, there are different definitions of vegetarianism, even with the Vegetarian Society being seen as the main go-to source. Also, there is another proposal, the second one I pitched. ("Additionally, animal-derived gelatin and rennet are regarded as "non-vegetarian.") The reality is...a lot of vegetarians eat cheese, cheese usually has rennet in it, and plenty of vegetarians consume this rennet (knowingly or not). I doubt that most people would say these people are not vegetarians because of that. There are not many "not a vegetarian if you consume rennet" debates. But there are plenty of "not a vegetarian if you consume eggs or fish" debates.
I sense frustration on your part towards me, but I really am trying to improve the accuracy of this article...just as I have done in the past. I only want to work with you to make it better. But your request for sources is also understandable. Flyer22 (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet." - your question does not seem related to the article. I have not commented as I simply haven't been able to see what you are driving at.- Sinneed 12:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
How is it not related to the article? How do you not see what I'm "driving at," when two other editors have understood my statements about this in some form? There is nothing more I can say to make myself clear on this matter. "...products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet" does not apply to all vegetarians. Flyer22 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the "vegetable rennet or microbial rennet" question, I get what you mean. I threw that out there, having forgotten about the fact that the lead says "animal derived." Flyer22 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"Eggs can be through animal slaughter..." - no. There are no hen's eggs harvested through animal slaughter. It seems doubtful that this causes confusion... roe and other "eggs" harvested from dead animals are not what most English readers think of when they read "eggs"... they think of eggs laid. The avoidance or refusal to eat products of animal labor is not similar to the avoidance of eating parts of animals that were slaughtered, and is covered in the article.- Sinneed 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"Direct"-No need to say "direct" that I can understand... products are either products of animal slaughter or they are not, and if there is some notable dispute it can be covered in the body, and if it notable enough that could be added to the lead... I am very dubious. If we pursue indirection... animals are killed by predators (including humans), their remains rot, plants grow from the soil produced by the dead animals... thus we indirectly consume products of animal slaughter. Someone argued once against indirection: as every bit of water in the world contained water that had passed through a dinosaur... surely we should stop drinking water to avoid the dino whiz.- Sinneed 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Nevertheless, some vegetarians have confused what can and cannot be food through animal slaughter. Maybe hearing it over and over again has confused me.
I know that "direct" is not needed, Sinneed. And thanks for the laugh (dinosaurs and stuff). I really needed that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Me too...I can't even remember who I stole it from: we had an entire informal category of argument in a series of classes at university that we called "DW (or DP) arguments". (expanding) Indeed, some of my fellow students were disturbed to think of the dino whiz. And many people are very concerned about where to draw their personal line... fruitarians... Jains... lacto and ovo vegetarians. The egg might have become a bird... was it killed? The milk should have gone to a calf, what happened to it? I think this is covered relatively well, though certainly improvement is good. ;) - Sinneed 14:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. And you're right. I have encountered similar with the egg aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The cited source is clear, as is the current text in the article. Simply because someone who self-identifies as a vegetarian eats these products does not change the definition of vegetarian. The motivations and level of education about animal products among vegetarians doesn't change the referenced definition. Claiming that self-identified vegetarians who eat animal-derived rennet are not vegetarians is OR. Simply stating that these products are animal-derived is sufficient. Bob98133 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The definition of vegetarian includes the consumption of cheese; not all or even most definitions of vegetarianism say "cheese without animal-derived rennet." The current text is simply not as accurate as it could be. I did not propose claiming that self-identified vegetarians who eat animal-derived rennet are vegetarians. The "avoids" or "may avoid" proposals may be seen as not good enough, but I see no problem at all with changing the text to Additionally, animal-derived gelatin and rennet are regarded as "non-vegetarian."
I know that I must have consensus. And if consensus is against any change, I will not fight it. It is just that I come across so many different types of vegetarians, especially when out of my home state (for example, some vegetarians will basically eat the same vegetable diet everyday), and I want the article to reflect stuff like that. But like I said, I understand consensus, and will not try to go against it in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and we have already had the carmine discussion on this talk page before, LOL. Remember? Flyer22 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't remember the carmine discussion, but no problem. My problem with fiddling with the existing text is that the cited reference is very clear. If you want the text to reflect something else, you'd need a reliable reference. Bob98133 (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The alternative proposal is staying completely true to the source, but I will drop it for now, Bob (unless someone is for the alternative proposal). Flyer22 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Section break: Any clarity for the lead?
Okay, I know this issue seems solved. But there really is an issue of some sort here. As Vrg.org says, "Many vegetarians don't consider that some of the cheeses they are eating could actually contain unfamiliar animal ingredients. That's right cheese, a common staple in many vegetarian diets, is often made with rennet or rennin, which is used to coagulate the dairy product."
This is what I have been talking about. Most lacto and ovo-lacto vegetarians I have come across really do not check for whether rennet is in their cheese or not. Because of this, should we not specify something in the lead about this? I know what the Vegetarian Society says, but I also know that a large number of vegetarians do eat rennet. We can call them "self-identified vegetarians" all we want, but the truth is that they are considered vegetarians, not semi-vegetarians, by reliable sources and "true vegetarians" as well. I eat cheese, and watch what cheeses I eat (as I stated above), but I also consider my vegetarians friends who do not check for rennet to still be vegetarians. I really cannot consider them "non-vegetarian" simply because they are not aware of rennet or do not care if their cheese contains it. This rennet issue, it seems, is not an issue for a large number of vegetarians. The same goes for gelatin (in the use of marshmallows and some gummy candies). Saying "vegetarians do not eat these two things" is not exactly accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I suggest either the "Additionally, animal-derived gelatin and rennet are considered non-vegetarian." line or something like the following:
A vegetarian does not eat meat, including red meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet. Animal-derived gelatin and rennet, however, may unknowingly be consumed by vegetarians, as most cheeses and gelatin-derived products contain unfamiliar animal ingredients.
I also suggest we add something about this in the lower body of the article, but in more detail. Considering the large number of vegetarians who do not watch out for these two things, it is at least bringing awareness to the subject. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I went ahead and added my latest suggestion. I applied WP:BRD, because I do not feel this should be ignored. If everyone is okay with the edit, then WP:BRD does not apply. If you want a better source, I can do that too.
For the four days I received no comments regarding my latest suggestion, I did further research on this topic (forum chats, reading through articles on vegetarianism, making calls to fellow vegetarians) and, as I already knew, most lacto and ovo-lacto vegetarians are not aware of these two ingredients being in their food. As was originally thought of when I brought this up here on this talk page, this is problematic...and I cannot see a good reason why it should not be addressed in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, here is the deal. I am vegetarian and I eat cheese with rennet in it. That is to say, I don't bother to check in most cases whether something has rennet in it. Is it better to not eat those things, from an animal-rights perspective? Yes. However, not everyone is vegetarian for animal-rights reasons. People who eat rennet are certainly vegetarian because although an animal was killed in order to acquire the product, it is not "necessarily the case that" rennet is acquired in a way that "directly contributes" to animal death. The veal industry might profit by selling to the dairy industry, but vegetarians are vegetarians because they don't eat meat. I'm sorry, but once you get into "because X contributes to the death of," you're stepping into something different entirely. Even veganism is based on animal-products. People aren't thinking things through here. You buying the wrong item at the grocery store can indirectly cause an animal to die. You shouldn't do business with anyone who eats meat or hire them if you're an employer. The list goes on and on. I could care less how many sources you get. Vegetarian is a definition subject to multiple interpretations. The dictionary does not favor the "no-rennet" view. I favor animal rights, but I certainly didn't elect a bunch of vegetarian organizations to have the authority to decide the meaning of words and how I refer to myself. You may not like that someone who does something you disapprove of also gets to be called "vegetarian," but that's tough. You can't rationally distinguish between making the exception for rennet and not for "anything that contributes to the death of animals." And that's a long list. It's nearly impossible to have clean hands in modern society. Gelatin is not meat either. Technically, I could work at a slaughterhouse and call myself a vegetarian so-long as I don't eat meat. It's probably a bit of a hypocritical thing to do if I call myself a moral crusader, but I would nonetheless still be technically a vegetarian. Added another edit. Vegsoc definition has further problems. It presumes vegetarians eat a certain diet. You could be vegetarian and not eat fruits. Probably not healthy or convenient, but some people are fussy eaters. Vegetarianism is about not eating meat, not about eating other things.Dooga16
I think it's important to distinguish between vegetarian foods on one hand and what someone identifying as a vegetarian might eat on the other hand. While animal-derived rennet is clearly not a vegetarian food, it's clear that many who identifies as vegetarians will still eat it. So personally I think the lead should talk about vegetarian foods / the vegetarian diet (possibly including a brief mention of animal-derived rennet as a non-vegetarian food), and not try to define who is or is not a vegetarian. And then the rennet issue can be discussed in greater detail later in the article. TheLastNinja (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Why should the way some people self-identify change the definition of vegetarianism? What does working at a slaughterhouse have to do with whether one is vegetarian or not, since vegetarianism for whatever reason is a diet, not an occupation? Whether you are willing to accept a vegetarian society, or the dictionary, definition of vegetarianism is of no relevance to this article. The definition exists apart from your or other's behavior. If you want to include inadvertent consumption of animal-derived products as a heading or subheading, no problem; but this is not part of the definition and does not belong in the lead. Bob98133 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Bob, I believe what Dooga16 is saying is that...vegetarianism is more accurately described as someone who does not eat meat. A person who eats animal-derived gelatin or rennet is still a vegetarian, seeing as animal-derived gelatin and rennet are not meat. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, not everyone who becomes a vegetarian becomes one for ethical reasons; these are the vegetarians who clearly do not care if they eat animal-derived gelatin or rennet. If a vegetarian eats a marshmallow, knowing it likely has gelatin in it, are they not a vegetarian? That is the point. Mentioning what I did in the lead is important, for all the reasons I have stated above, and it has not changed the lead's current definition of vegetarianism. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
That was exactly my point. It's the way people self-identify that is causing the definition to be "as stated." The Vegetarian Society has no relevance in determining the definition of terms in the English language. It is not given governance over the meaning of terms. Vegetarianism is not a religious belief or a political party position. It does not get its definitions chosen by organizations on Vegetarianism. It goes by the definition in the dictionary, which does not specify that someone need to refrain from eating eating rennet or gelatin. This includes Oxford and Merriam Webster, arguably the most authoritative dictionaries, as well as dictionary.com, a common online source. Whether vegetarians like it or not, rennet does not fall under a classification that requires vegetarians not to eat it. My point about the slaughter-house is that people are arguing rennet falls under vegetarianism because it "contributes to animal death." That is simply wrong. Work can do that. As can other dietary changes, such as the practice of buying vegetables from a company that destroys animal habitats. My point is that the addition of rennet and gelatin as required for vegetarian diets should be removed completely. The Vegetarian Society is not an appropriate source for a definition because vegetarianism is overseen by a body or organization. Definitions are rooted in history and the dictionary. You can purposefully eat as much rennet as possible and still be vegetarian. I can't see what reasons there would be for that, but you could do so nonetheless. A large percentage of vegetarians will say you can't be vegetarian and eat rennet. That doesn't change the real, historical and academic definition. As you said, the way people self-identify (including with a term) does not change the meaning of it. Dooga16—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooga16 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, so it's up to you to find a reliable reference to support what you're suggesting, per WP:RS. As far as I'm concerned a long-standing vegetarian society is a reliable source for defining vegetarianism. Bob98133 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Dooga16, I understand what you are saying, and have commented a little above (to Bob about it). Bob is right about you needing to provide reliable sources. The thing about using the dictionary definitions in this case, though, is that they sometimes include fish (as shown with a reference included in the lead). Though some people do not consider fish to be meat, it still fits the definition of meat. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, though, Dooga16, I do wonder why animal-derived gelatin and rennet would not be considered vegetarian when...eggs are. I eat eggs (and have been trying to give them up), but eggs are the least vegetarian thing in my view. It is also much debated among the vegetarian community. Not eating animal-derived gelatin and rennet is more of a vegan thing, from what I have experienced. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the relevant Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) and Oxford (oed.com) definitions are actually in keeping with the exclusion of rennet and gelatin. They are "consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy product" and "1. a. One who lives wholly or principally upon vegetable foods; a person who on principle abstains from any form of animal food, or at least such as is obtained by the direct destruction of life." Others have said that the way that people self-identify doesn't change the definition of vegetarianism, but this doesn't seem to be an argument in favor of removing the text about gelatin and rennet -- rather, it supports to inclusion of it since the definitions from reliable sources seem to exclude these items. I'd say that egg and milk are considered vegetarian because an animal can produce these things and continue living. Gelatin and rennet, however, require the slaughter of an animal or, as others have put it, "the direct destruction of life". These products come from the animal's body, rather than being produced by it. e.g., if there was a little organ called "milk" and one called "egg" inside an animal, these products wouldn't be vegetarian... Klubbit (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
That said, I still think that the vegetarian society would have a better definition of vegetarianism than a random dictionary which has no particular interest in vegetarianism. Klubbit (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Klubbit, those dictionaries also have different definitions of vegetarianism, as dictionaries usually have more than one definition of a word. For example, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2007), included in the lead, defines "vegetarian" (noun) as "A person who on principle abstains from animal food; esp. one who avoids meat but will consume dairy produce and eggs and sometimes also fish (cf. VEGAN noun)." The "or at least such as is obtained by the direct destruction of life" definition does not suit vegetarians who did not become vegetarians for ethical reasons. As the lead says, "Vegetarianism may be adopted for ethical, health, environmental, religious, political, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or other reasons." Thus, why should the lead favor the ethical definition of vegetarianism? Dooga16 has a point there. It is also the point I originally made about not definitively saying vegetarians do not eat animal-derived gelatin and rennet. And let me specify that there is "vegetarian rennet," so that is why we say "animal-derived" in the lead. I did not become a vegetarian for ethical reasons; I became one (at age 12) because I figured it was a healthier diet (I had heard that vegetarians live longer). At first, I did not watch what type of cheese I ate, but to say I was not a vegetarian then because of that is silly. The lead currently makes it seem as though the ethical reasons for vegetarianism is the most valid and "accurate" definition. From what I have seen, that is not true. It is always assumed by people that I became a vegetarian because I hate that people kill animals for food. While I do not like that, and sometimes get angry by it (since I know that people could still enjoy eating while being a vegetarian, such as through eating great veggie burgers), that is not why I became a vegetarian. Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, where you say, "these products come from the animal's body," the same exact thing is said about milk and eggs, especially by vegans. Eggs are very much argued as not being vegetarian, because of its origin, and have caused many debates among vegetarians. Yet, we do not mention this anywhere in the lead or act as though eggs are non-vegetarian. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, "from the animal's body" probably wasn't the best wording -- I meant that they're part of the animal's body. I'm not sure why Oxford would publish conflicting definitions, but I can say that there's not currently any definition like that on oed.com. Actually, that definition was for "vegetarian". There is a single definition for "vegetarianism" which is "The doctrine or practice of vegetarians; abstention from eating meat, fish, or other animal products." I realize that there are different reasons for not eating certain animal products, but that doesn't mean that these reasons determine what's vegetarian and what isn't. For example, if someone abstained only from red meat for health reasons, they shouldn't call themselves a vegetarian. If one consumes only sustainably produced meat, they shouldn't call themselves a vegetarian either. You bring up an interesting point -- that there is vegetarian rennet. There's also vegetarian cheese (made with vegetarian rennet) and vegetarian capsules (in place of gelatin capsules). Obviously it would be dishonest (and illegal?) to market a cheese using animal-derived rennet as vegetarian or a gelatin capsule as vegetarian, which suggests that gelatin and animal-derived rennet are not vegetarian. Klubbit (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I get your point, but someone abstaining from red meat for health reasons or someone consuming only sustainably produced meat and calling themselves vegetarians is not the same thing as someone eating animal-derived gelatin and rennet and calling themselves vegetarian. The point is that vegetarianism is generally defined as someone who does not eat meat; the no "animal products" or "products of animal slaughter" thing is generally vegan territory. After all, dairy products are animal products. I brought this up before, but what about a person who does not eat meat but often knowingly eats marshmallows (or gummy candies) which have gelatin in it? Are we going to say that person is not a vegetarian simply because of that? I view that as silly. Most vegetarians (the non-vegan kind) do not even know about animal-derived gelatin and rennet; that has been my main point. And that right there shows how restrictive the current definition is. That, and the fact that it is non-neutral to vegetarians who are not vegetarians for ethical reasons.
I have decided to start an Rfc discussion about this, to get outside input and to finally resolve this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Rfc: Is including animal-derived rennet and gelatin as definitively non-vegetarian non-neutral?
Resolved
The current lead of the article leans towards the ethical definition of vegetarianism; it currently says that vegetarians do not eat products of animal slaughter, such as animal-derived rennet or gelatin. While this is the case for some vegetarians, especially for all vegans, it is not the case for other or even most vegetarians. Plenty of vegetarians eat animal-derived rennet (usually included in cheese) and gelatin (marshmallows or gummy candies), knowingly or unknowingly (but especially without knowing). Not all people become vegetarians for ethical reasons, and not eating products of animal slaughter is an ethical reason. This has been extensively discussed on the talk page, as can still be seen. Outside thoughts on this matter would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Aren't RFC requests meant to be neutral? Muleattack (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
How is it non-neutral? I simply stated the concern. That is the concern. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that the current lead leans towards ethical vegetarianism. It simply defines the topic. Not eating products of animal slaughter is not an ethical definition - simply a statement of an unacceptable source of food for vegetarians. I think here that expression is used to exclude eggs and milk since animals aren't directly slaughtered to obtain those and they are generally acceptable to vegetarians. If you can think of some other way to say it that seems more neutral to you, suggest it on this page. Bob98133 (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
How can you say "not eating products of animal slaughter is not an ethical definition"? Yes, it is. What else is it if not an ethical part of vegetarianism? Vegetarianism is not always defined that way and there are vegetarians who do not care if their food source was obtained through animal slaughter. There is only one source stating it as an unacceptable source of food for vegetarians, whether the most authoritative source or not. Furthermore, the lead is not simply stating it as "an unacceptable source of food for vegetarians." If it were, I would not have much problem with that. Instead, it is saying vegetarians do not eat it. As for suggesting another way of wording all that stuff (the animal-derived rennet and gelatin part), I did. But I was also ignored for days after that. I tried to make the lead better by bringing up the fact that many vegetarians unknowingly eat animal-derived rennet and gelatin, but it still does not cover the ones who knowingly eat it or know that there is a good chance that they are eating it but do not care. These people are not simply "self-identified vegetarians" (as though they are actually semi-vegetarians of some sort); they are simply vegetarians who eat cheese with rennet in it and marshmallows or candy with gelatin in it. I know both of you guys' thoughts on this matter. I made this Rfc to get outside thoughts about it. It is needed, in my view. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If we're to say that intentional consumers of animal rennet/gelatin are vegetarian then surely we would have to add that those that consume clams/oysters etc. are vegetarian too as these are not "meat" or fish either. I realise that wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source but if you look at the page for meat you'll find the line "but it may also describe other edible tissues such as organs, livers, skin, brains, bone marrow, kidneys, or lungs." Rennet/gelatin falls in to this category making them meat if this definition is correct. Muleattack (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Rennet and gelatin are not meat. Rennet is "a natural complex of enzymes produced in any mammalian stomach to digest the mother's milk." If enzymes are meat, then I would say the people who argue eggs as not being vegetarian or as meat because it is essentially "a menstrual cycle" have a pretty good case as well. Gelatin is "a translucent, colorless, brittle (when dry), nearly tasteless solid substance, derived from the collagen inside animals' skin and bones." Still not meat, and not a tissue, as collagen "is a group of naturally occurring proteins." Again, what would make this meat...and eggs not meat? Clams/oysters fall under seafood. Seafood (which includes fish), while considered vegetarian to some (a lot of people these days), is still considered meat, because they are still considered to be a part of the animal kingdom (as at least shown with the infobox in the Clam article, and the lead of the Seafood article). I am not saying that the lead should say that intentional consumers of animal rennet/gelatin are vegetarian; I, and others on this talk page, are saying that vegetarians knowingly and unknowingly eat animal-derived rennet and gelatin products, and that the lead should not act otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I will say that I, too, however, did question "What is meat?" when clicking on the Meat article earlier. It has needed sources for the lead for some time now, and I will be tweaking that lead soon enough. I am busy with other things...such as sex-related and fictional character articles at the moment, though. We did have a "What is meat?" discussion on this talk page years ago, but that was in regards to fish (since it turns out that so many people do not consider it meat, which is the reason that is even now mentioned in the lead of this article). This enzymes and proteins talk is very different. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. Rennet and gelatin are meat. In the context of vegetarianism any food product derived through the slaughter of an animal is "meat" - meaning that it is not vegetarian. If the problem here is defining meat, then leave it out, and simply define vegetarianism as the practice of not eating any products derived from animal slaughter. Even though the common definition is not eating meat, it appears that this is confusing when it comes to hidden or lesser known ingredients like rennet, gelatin, etc. Bob98133 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Flyer22 - if you think that "not eating products of animal slaughter is an ethical definition" then change it to "not eating products derived from dead animals." Doesn't matter how the animals died - roadkill, slaughter, natural death... As well, I still see no reason for these minor ingredients to be discussed in the lead since they are better discussed within the article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Rennet and gelatin are not meat. So a person eating a marshmallow is eating meat? That's a tough sell. When are rennet and gelatin ever defined as meat? If you could find a reliable source stating that they are, I could find many more stating that they are not. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
RfC Comment. I do not normally edit or watch this page, but I do a lot of editing on pages related to animal rights, and I came here in response to the RfC notice. I've read the lead, and the talk above. What strikes me is the extent to which talk here takes the form of statements like I'm a vegetarian and this is what I do or do not eat or I know vegetarians who do or do not eat this. That's WP:OR. The lead sentence appears to me to be reliably sourced, but to what is essentially a primary source. I'd suggest looking more at secondary sources, preferably scholarly ones, and being guided by what they say. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
A vegetarian doesn't eat products containing dead animals or bits of them, and someone who is happy to eat rennet, gelatine, etc. isn't a vegetarian. The definition shouldn't be geared towards how people self-define. I've met people who like to call themselves vegetarians but who eat fish, and even one who was a 'vegetarian' except on Sunday, because they liked to have a roast once a week. Reliable sources are the key here, and the definitions that I've seen in worthwhile sources all seem pretty consistent. Basing the article on reliable sources is neutral, basing it on opinions is not.--Michig (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Saying someone who is happy to eat rennet and gelatine isn't a vegetarian is a personal opinion, in the same way that eggs are not considered vegetarian by many, since it comes from sources within the animal's body. Really, this is seen as different because the animal happens to be alive? Most definitions of vegetarianism do not exclude rennet or gelatin. Saying someone who never eats meat but eats gummi bears is not a vegetarian is one of the silliest things I have ever read. I never said that the definition should be geared towards how people self-define. I made good suggestions all throughout this talk page, which would still allow the current "no products of animal slaughter" definition to stay in. But I will go ahead and see what other sources I can gather and present them here on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the current lead, as has been stated many times now, is that most lacto and ovo-lacto vegetarians do not worry about whether or not their cheese has rennet in it. Some eat Jell-O for dessert. Most of them have no idea about animal-derived rennet and gelatin, and the lead acts as though this is something commonly watched out for by these vegetarians. This was made a little better by my edit to the lead, but it still acts as though most of these vegetarians care about this. Like I said, I will see what more I can find. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
most lacto and ovo-lacto vegetarians do not worry about whether or not their cheese has rennet in it - in my experience this is completely untrue.--Michig (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? Not from sources such as this, this, and various online discussions such as this. I am not just pulling this stuff out of thin air. I have been reading through articles and discussion boards about this rennet/gelatin issue for weeks now, and what is quite obvious to me from doing that is that most lacto and ovo-lacto vegetarians do not even know about animal-derived gelatin and rennet. And if they do, like me, they have a difficult time avoiding it. I learned about animal-derived rennet and gelatin at age 14, but everyone has not been as "lucky" as me. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I looked at the two reasonable sources (not the message boards) and would have to say that they don't support the idea that animal rennet and gelatin are vegetarian in any way. Rather they support the opposite, since they say that animal rennet is not vegetarian. They also don't argue that most (i.e., more than half) of vegetarians are unaware of rennet. The first says that "Many vegetarians don't consider that some of the cheeses they are eating could actually contain unfamiliar animal ingredients" -- even a very small percentage of the vegetarian population would be "many" people. At any rate, I don't see how the awareness of the ingredients or the difficulty in finding alternatives is relevant to whether they're vegetarian or not. You seem to feel that most vegetarians aren't aware of these ingredients but should still be considered vegetarians -- and they are, according to the article. It says "Animal-derived rennet and gelatin, however, may unknowingly be consumed by vegetarians", not "may unknowingly be consumed by people who claim to be vegetarians". If you're aware of these ingredients, then you're willingly consuming ingredients that aren't considered vegetarian. As has been suggested before, the lead could focus on listing non-vegetarian foods rather than saying "vegetarians don't consume x, y, or z". It could then say that those who identify may eat fish or poultry, occasionally other meat, and certain byproducts of animal slaughter. There's a source from the American Dietetics Association which discusses the behavior of self-identified vegetarians. Klubbit (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Klubbit, I did not say that they support the idea that animal rennet and gelatin are vegetarian. Yes, it says that "Many vegetarians don't consider that some of the cheeses they are eating could actually contain unfamiliar animal ingredients." That is my point. When I say "knowingly," I mean, vegetarians who know rennet could be in their cheese but still do not try to find out if their cheese contains rennet or not. Plenty of vegetarians are like this. The awareness level is relevant because it is such an obscure subject, and the lead is making it seem as though vegetarians generally look out for this stuff. Vegetarians who do not care if they are eating animal-derived rennet and gelatin are not considered self-identified vegetarians. They are considered vegetarians in most instances, since they are abstaining from eating meat (meat in the traditional sense, including fish).Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay. How do you feel about the edit I just made? Klubbit (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Where are any of you getting your references to support "most vegetarians..." this or that? As Tryptofish remarked, this is not a discussion about what you know as a vegetarian or what you think, but what can be reliably referenced. Pls show me a reference that most vegetarians don't worry about eating Jello, or whatever. This is all WP:OR If you have a suggestion about wording that you would find more NPOV, with references to support it, let's see it. Bob98133 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Bob, I have likewise pondered any of you stating that rennet and gelatin are meat. Like this source says, "Some vegetarians are OK eating cheeses made with animal rennet, but many will seek out ones made with vegetarian rennet, especially since the latter are quite prevalent nowadays." That, and the gelatin bit, is all I am saying. Though I have not known many to seek out vegetarian cheese. My point is that these people are still considered vegetarian, not semi-vegetarians.
I will try to come with a good suggestion for the lead, which I hope will please everyone. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just looked at your references and the VRG one does not support your claims. It states that many vegetarians are unaware of sources, it doesn't say they care, it doesn't say most. 2nd ref supplied above simply states that not all cheeses are vegetarian. No one cares what people say on forum web sites and they are not reliable references, nor is your impression of what they are saying. I'm very pleased that you learned about animal derived rennet at 14. Now's time to learn about reliable sources. Bob98133 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Please don't waste your time and ours on this unless you have reliable sources that justify a change. Wikipedia doesn't work by voting on what we think is the truth. --Michig (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Bob, I know about reliable sources. My many contributions to Wikipedia show that. If I did not, I would have added a whole bunch of unsourced mess to the lead by now. There is no reason at all for you to become snipey and uncivil. Should I redirect to you to WP:CIVIL? The sources may not support "most," but they certainly support "many." And notice the VRG source still considers these people vegetarian? The forum discussions were to further prove my point about this topic in general, not to serve as reliable references (obviously). There is no impression of what they are saying; what they are saying is clear. I see you did not even address the final source, which says, "Some vegetarians are OK eating cheeses made with animal rennet..." Funny it it also says, "So, in a sense, cheese can never be vegetarian because it leads to the indirect slaughter of animals for their meat." I have not wasted anyone's time. My addition to the lead about vegetarians not knowing of animal-derived rennet and gelatin has certainly not been a waste of time. And you two tag-teaming me will not make these facts go away. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
As I stated to Klubbit above, yes, the VRG source says, "Many vegetarians don't consider that some of the cheeses they are eating could actually contain unfamiliar animal ingredients." That is my point. When I say "knowingly," I mean, vegetarians who know rennet could be in their cheese but still do not try to find out if their cheese contains rennet or not. Plenty of vegetarians are like this... Vegetarians who do not consider if they are eating animal-derived rennet and gelatin are not considered self-identified vegetarians. They are considered vegetarians in most instances, since they are abstaining from eating meat (meat in the traditional sense, including fish). Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
And, Klubbit, I thank you for being so helpful. I will take a look at your version of the lead now, and see if I have any objections or further suggestions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the change gives too much emphasis to self-described vegetarians and the addition is out of place with respect to the section on variations on the diet. I would suggest removing "However, self-identified vegetarians may consume seafood or poultry and knowingly or unknowingly consume byproducts of animal slaughter", and if we have to have anything in the lede (which I doubt) adding at the end something like "People who self-identify as vegetarians sometimes vary in the degree to which they adhere to a vegetarian diet", citing the same sources.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I attempted another edit before seeing you comment, but I think it addresses your concern. Here are the two options: one and two. Klubbit (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I also did not like Klubbit's first change. We should keep the fish and poultry stuff in the semi-vegetarianism part of the lead. Though I liked that Klubbit used the Serious Eats source (the final one) I provided above. Klubbit's second change, however, is what I basically suggested originally -- some type of qualifer which does not suggest that vegetarians never consume animal-derived rennet or gelatin. As can be seen above, words such as "avoids" and "may avoid" were thrown around first. I definitely say that "may" is needed in regards to the animal-derived rennet or gelatin part. And the follow-up about vegetarians unknowingly consuming it makes it clearer. Is everyone okay with this? Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's hardly different from the original at all :p I also added the source that says some vegetarians are OK with eating animal-derived rennet to justify the "may", though I can certainly see people arguing that it's not a reliable source. Oh well, I tried, I'll probably just leave it at that. Klubbit (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I just want to apologize to anyone I have annoyed or angered with these discussions. I know how passionately people can become over vegetarianism; I am the same way at times. I just get so caught up sometimes on what I perceive to be neutrality or accuracy. I mostly attribute that to my obsessive–compulsive personality disorder and sometimes to my general OCD. Bob, I know that I have annoyed you at times with this article (first with the fish issue years ago, and now with this), but I really do appreciate all the hard work you have put into watching and editing this article. It would not be the same without you around, in the same way that it is not the same without Sinneed. To everyone else, at least thank you for hearing me out. And, again, I apologize for any annoyance I have caused. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Oooo I have an idea, if we're tossing up between the terms "meat", "products of animal slaughter" or "products of dead animals" and whatnot ... basically what you are wanting to say is "animal bits, except milk and eggs" in a way that is neutral: does not necessarily imply an ethical reason. What about saying a vegetarian is someone who does not eat animal products, with the exception of animal secretions? That pretty much covers it. Do we like this? Does anyone ever read the talk page? should I trial this arrangement of words? (You know, on a side note, "meat" used to just mean "food". Nowadays, in the food industry, "meat" is actually often used just to mean cows, sheep and pigs, (and the handful other mammals like deer), so that meat, poultry, and fish, are three different categories of food. So weird. Sort of like when you read an old book that talks about "many animals, birds, and fish" as though birds and fish are not animals. I guess they didn't use the word mammal, but used the word animal instead. In just the same way, we currently don't have a separate word for "the meat of mammals", so some people use the word meat instead. Words are funny things. They can only be used to articulate and communicate ideas, and cannot ever in and of themselves prove a point.) 220.244.163.200 (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL about the meaning of words these days, IP. Good points there. This is part of the reason we tackled the meat issue in the semi-vegetarianism part of the lead. As for everything else you stated, Bob and Klubbit pretty much addressed that below...so I do not have anything to state about that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Eggs, gelatin, etc. are not animal secretions, so I don't think your idea is a very good one. It would probably be better to say something like "a vegetarian is someone who does not eat products derived from the death of an animal." Bob98133 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Can't it just be left as is? Meat is already mentioned specifically, so we merely need to distinguish by-products of animal slaughter from eggs and milk, which the current wording does. I doubt people who find and use dead animals bother to extract gelatin or rennet from them. I suppose it's possible. I think "derived from the death of an animal" is poor wording though. "Derived from the body of a dead animal" might be more precise, but still doesn't sound good, plus as long as we're accommodating ridiculous scenarios, I'm sure it's possible to get some non-vegetarian products from a living animal. Klubbit (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with the current version. If there are changes that do not change the context and are more acceptable to other editors, I'm OK with those, too. Bob98133 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment from an uninvolved editor. WP is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and this argument is primarily about nomenclature not facts. There are people who do not eat meat for various reasons, there are people who will not eat products of animal slaughter for other reasons, and there are people who will not eat any animal derived products, plus many other intermediate groups. Nobody disputes this. It is not our job to decide who are the 'real' vegetarians. The article should state the facts, based on reliable sources and probably using qualifying terms like most/many/some/a few when referring to specific practices. The current lead, which says things like 'may also abstain from by-products of animal slaughter' is therefore fine.
This is not a place for any particular group to push its view as 'the right one'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment from another uninvolved editor. I agree with Martin Hogbin above; this is an article about a diet, or rather, a range of diets, that are identified as vegetarianism. It is not an article about a political ideology, nor is it a forum to push such an ideology. There are numerous "types" of vegetarians, practicing vegetarianism for numerous reasons. While all these reasons can be discussed in depth in the article, the lead, which introduces the topic, should not advocate any particular reason for being a vegetarian over another one, and the current form satisfies this. siafu (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
RFC Comment The Oxford English Dictionary seems a fine source for the definition of 'vegetarian': "a person who does not eat meat or fish, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons." The discussion of detailed nuances of vegetarianism can wait until later in the article. Example: The traffic signal article says in the lead section: Red Means Stop (I'm paraphrasing). Later in the article, it talks about being able to turn on a red light. Similarly, it seems you can give the general definition in the lead section, and get to the exceptions to the rule later in the article. --RSLxii 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are at least a few OED definitions, which seem to conflict with one another (see discussion in previous section). The current wording fits with the definition you quoted however, and it seems everyone is okay with the current wording. We could probably remove the RFC tag, though I'll leave that up to Flyer22. Klubbit (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say that this discussion is over, and everyone seems pleased with the current wording; it clearly has consensus (counting the outside editors' comments as well). The only tweak I would make is "found in most cheeses," instead of "found in some cheeses," since I do believe that animal-derived rennet could be found in most cheeses. It is certainly often difficult to know whether cheese has rennet in it or not, as most cheese packages simply say "enzymes" for that. But I will not change that without a source. After all, it was changed to "some" because of one of the sources. As for exceptions to the rule -- semi-vegetarianism -- being in the lead, that also has consensus through various past discussions; it's included simply to address misconceptions about vegetarianism, and to give an overall even summary of the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
In England the vast majority of cheeses are marked as suitable for vegetarians and the English eat a lot of varieties of cheese so I wouldn't say it was most cheeses.Muleattack (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The Vegetarian Society has a useful page on this issue here.--Michig (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Muleattack, I see your point. I was only thinking about America, and things I have been through with some of my vegetarian friends and acquaintances in trying to select cheeses without animal-derived rennet (in addition to the stuff I have recently read online). And, yeah, Michig, I had already read that. It seems better to leave it at "some." Either way, thank you guys for weighing in throughout this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
New take
See, as an outside editor not privvy to this huge discussion, it seems fairly clear that if you're going to link to a source the text before it should reflect that. Case in point, the first reference to the Vegetarian society (which is, essentially, the de facto source of information on vegetarians) says, quite clearly:
"A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or slaughter by-products."
So, if anyone wants to revert my (correct) edit, note that you should also remove that first source because it disagrees with the notion that Vegetarians "may" abstain from slaughter by-products. The point here is that meat is a slaughter by-product just as much as rennet and gelatin are, so you are not a vegetarian if you eat such ingredients, knowingly or not.80.42.247.21 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The RfC closed a long time ago (though without a tag), and reached WP:Consensus. Stop reverting the consensus version that is clear from that discussion. And "intent" most certainly counts as far as vegetarianism is concerned. If a vegetarian accidently eats meat, that does not make them no longer a vegetarian. The point is that animal-derived gelatin and rennet are not meat (not in the traditional sense anyway), and are consumed by some vegetarians; they are not simply people who call themselves vegetarian. They are vegetarian. Most definitions of the term do not say vegetarians exclude animal-derived gelatin and rennet from their diet; that is the point. Plenty of vegetarians do not look out for such things and only look out for whether or not they are eating meat. That first source is there to back up the "meat, including poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea" part, as well as unknowingly digesting animal-derived gelatin and rennet; it need not be removed. The second source backs up the "some vegetarians don't care what type of cheese they eat, as long as it's not meat" part. It also goes into how no cheese can truly be vegetarian.
I have properly closed the RfC. But if you want to continue the discussion, you are welcome to do so in this section. Just know that most of us really do not want to revisit this all over again. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Purerianism
Hi Nanoshiva. Thanks for contributing, but Wikipedia content is governed by policies, including WP:NOR, which says all contributions must reflect work previously published in reliable sources. Anthony (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Varieties of vegetarianism
Since veganism isn't a diet (the first words of the veganism article are "Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle") should it be listed as a variety of vegetarianism? As I understand it, the diet that vegans follow is known as strict vegetarianism.Muleattack (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I would say veganism should be listed. Veganism is referred to as a diet in plenty of reliable sources. And either way, they are vegetarians -- just very strict ones. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
As a vegetarian myself who doesn't eat meat or wear leather, I feel like you are fine to say that veganism can be included under vegetarianism 158.104.200.226 (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that it not be listed, just that perhaps it should be listed as strict-vegetarianism since this is an article about diets and that is the diet that vegans follow. Veganism in itself is not a diet. Maybe I'm just being a pedant. Muleattack (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
why is it called vegetarianism
when they eat fruit too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.134.134 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your question. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Country specific information
Country-specific information
Labeling is mandatory in India[1] to distinguish vegetarian products (green) from non-vegetarian products (brown).
Vegetarianism is viewed in different ways around the world. In some areas[which?] there is cultural and even legal support, but in others[which?] the diet is poorly understood or even frowned upon.[citation needed] In many countries, mandatory food labeling is in place that makes it easier for vegetarians to identify foods compatible with their diets.
In India, which has more vegetarians than the rest of the world combined (399 million as of 2006),[2] not only is there mandatory food labelling, but many restaurants are marketed and signed as being either "Vegetarian" or "Non-Vegetarian". People who are vegetarian in India are usually lacto-vegetarians, as no animal is killed in the production of milk.
[3]
To cater for this market, the majority of vegetarian restaurants in India do serve dairy products while eschewing egg products. Most Western vegetarian restaurants, in comparison, do serve eggs and egg-based products.
This is very poor. The first paragraph already has unresolved criticisms which need fixing or removing. The second paragraph is mostly original research and the statement "as no animal is killed in the production of milk." may be correct in certain places in India but is not the case universally. I considered removing some text but it's hard to without making the remaining text look redundant. Perhaps there should be no country specific information and just a "see also: Vegetarianism in specific countries" under demographics. Muleattack (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree it needs work. I'm not sure about removing the section altogether, though. But then again, I think about how this article is at 100 kilobytes. Eliminating it would free a little room. Still, maybe there are good sources found in Vegetarianism in specific countries to be used here? Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Having thought about it a bit further I'm of the opinion that it should go and be replaced with just a link. I see no reason why India should be singled out for mention in this article and it would help reduce the size of the article. Muleattack (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll back you on it. I, too, was thinking about the fact that it focuses more on India. Though, with India having more vegetarians in the world, I can see why it does. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It might also be best to keep the line "Vegetarianism is viewed in different ways around the world." somewhere there in the Demographics section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Changed it while you were writing this, it does look a bit bare with just the link so might be good to add a brief sentence with that in.Muleattack (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Resolved