Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 3

For a list of vegetarian Wikipedians, see Wikipedians/Vegetarians

If motivation for vegetarianism is not to kill...

It is very noble to avoid meat as a sign of respect for life. I have been seriously considering becoming a vegetarian for this reason, but my question is: don't vegetables also have life? Don't we kill them as well for food? Does the fact that they don't bleed or cry in pain make their lives inferior? Looks like we indeed need to take life to have life after all. I was going to edit the main article to include this, but I'm not sure what's the best way to do so. F15x28 01:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes plant matter does have life. People who avoid all produce that has been killed are called fruitarians, which is documented and linked in the article. In my experience most vegetarians make a decision (be it well-reasoned or arbitrary) as to where his/her limit is. For example some vegetarians (pescatarians) have are quite happy to eat fish provided they had a free life until their capture (ie not farmed fish), many others simply belive that animals are very different to plants, and to kill an animal far less desirable than to kill a plant. If you think that this makes vegetetarianism inconsistent then consider the variety of arbitrary dietary decisions meat eaters make regarding eating eg. veal, whale, cat, pig, maggot, chimpanzee, and homo sapien, all of whch are eaten by some human societies but not others.--Timdownie 00:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, unlike animals (any that I can think of), eating many types of plants and plant products is actually better for that plant species. When you go eat a fruit from a tree and spit/poop out the seeds, those fall to the ground and may grow into more plants of that species. The main reason most vegetarians I know don't really mind eating plants though is that they lack a central nervous system and thus cannot feel pain or "think" as we know it. -Justin, May 20 2006

I was about to say that fructarianism is like abortion, but Justin totally made a good point to the contrary. Good call. F15x28 04:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Vegetarianism

I separated academic study of longevity from "Vegetarian diet is not a healthy diet." The reason is that the former is a factual/scientific assesement of vegetarian diet and is not in itself is a critics of vegetarianism. I propose that this section should be moved up, in front of "Motivation" section which is currently used as pro vegetarian show pieces. It is always useful to put factual, categorical or scientific section first before moved on to ideological argument. If the section is moved up, I will then expand "Vegetarian diet and longevity" because this section deserve larger detailed treatment. Yoji Hajime

Physiology section

This section is dreadful. There is a lot of unsourced, speculative, pub-argument style stuff about intestine lengths, and it gets worse at the end when the ice age is dragged in. If respectble sources can be used to present this in encyclopedic style, well and good, but I'm tempted to delete most of it.

There should probably be some discussion of amino acid sources (ie 'complete foods', ones providing all necessary amino acids) and the scarcity of (eg) B12 in strictly plant-based diets. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that, as with the rest of yoji's edits it reads more like a POV defense than a summary of criticisms of vegetarianism, is completely unsourced and no effort has been made to wikify it. I haven't taken it yet, but the whole section needs to be removed and rewritten, with a challenge to some of the most illogical claims made. Mostlyharmless 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, the evolutionary aspect using parasitology seldom gets mentioned, even though the existence of Taenia solium and Taenia saginata prove that humans and their ancestors have eaten meat during important lengths of time in their evolution. Added to article.

-- Cú Faoil, 8 August 2006, 12.15 CEST

Environmental Criticisms

I just removed the section that yoji inserted with criticisms of the amount of rice used compared to that of other grains and vegetables. Since this is in no way a comparison of the use of water in animal based agriculture and that of plant based agriculture I really can't see how the section was relevant furthermore, international experts reccomend decreasing international meat intake to _save_ water; see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm . As it stood the section was nonsensical. Mostlyharmless 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been proven, through environmental and scientific research, that meat is the most harmful form of food production in regards to the environment. Meat production requires a tremendous amount of resources such as water and fossil fuels, while runoff from livestock operations may pollute rivers, lakes and even drinking water. Roughly one-fifth of the world's land is used for grazing. That’s twice the area used for growing crops. Much of this land once provided habitat for flora and fauna before being cleared for livestock. Meat production requires more water than raising crops. For example, 283 grams (10 oz) of beef requires 85 times more water to produce than the same amount of potatoes. The full research stats can be found [here]

Vegans achieve lowest expectency?

I have deleted these sentences...

"However, more worrying is the performance of vegans in mortality statistics. Once the life style factors are taken into account, they achieve the lowest life expectancy among the groups. It implies that vegan diet could be inherently unhealthy or that many vegans are failing to achive a required standard of healthy eating, probably due to the practical difficulty of the vegan diet."

... because the study compared vegetarians and non-vegetarians with similiar lifestyle, as the abstract of the study says.

Definition of pesco/pollo vegetarian.

The term "pesco/pollo vegetarian" is used a few times in the article but never defined.

• Good catch. In the 'Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism' section, there was a link to pesco/pollo, but the displayed text was 'semi-vegetarianism'. I've shuffled the link so that both terms now appear in the text. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The term Semi-vegetarianism makes no sense. It's like saying someone is a virgin because they only have sex doggy style. Otherwise everyone on the planet is semi-vegetarian between burgers. Can we remove that paragraph or otherwise edit it so that it is clear those who are on a "meat restrictive diet" are NOT vegetarian. - UrielApeiron.

Definition of a Vegan

I reverted changes made to keep the page correct and concordant with veganism. A vegan is one who abstains from (or attempts to) all animal products. Mostlyharmless 04:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Becoming a vegetarian

It would be really nice to do a section of "becoming a vegetarian" that has further information on what steps and cautions to take and links to places like "The vegetarians resource group" www.vrg.org. I'm new to the wikipedia editing process, I know there's a special sign for requesting an expansion to the article, but I don't know how to pu it. JunCTionS 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. However, in my experience people think that turning veggie is harder than it actually is. (At least, in my country, the Netherlands, where there are dozens of alternatives). --Looskuh 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

About section entitled criticism

It seems to me that there were possibly some inconsistent edits in this section: For example, there are three subsections, but it looks like the opening and summarizing sentence was written when there might have been four? Anyway, I'll let people who have had a hand in editing this figure out what to do about it... and if for some reason it was intentionally done this way, my apologies. --Deville 01:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OR contention of metaphor

As far as often cited, the metaphor is not really convincing, the kid has no "instinctive" means to kill the rabbit, whereas the cat does. The example should be something along the lines of: if a kid is given an apple and a dead rabbit he will probably eat the apple. But that's not neccesarily so.

Citation? --Mgreenbe 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

its also an inappropriate metaphor simply because even if it preferred to eat the chicken, it would be many times more difficult (impossible?) for a child to catch, kill, prepare, cook, and eat the chicken than take a bite of the apple. If its a cooked chicken fillet vs an apple, i'd say it's a toss-up.

Vegitarian spelling?

Vegitarian is currently a redirect to this article. Since that does not seem to be the correct spelling, and nothing links there, I wonder whether we should have the link removed. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 21:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

People that misspelt Vegetarian in the Wikipedia search box would not be redirected to the correct article. However, since this is only one of several potential misspellings of the word, I see no real use for the redirection. Andkaha^(talk) 22:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Andkaha is right as to its purpose, and it really doesn't hurt to have the redirect. moink 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Biology Reference

A vegitarian refers to any animal that is capable of consuming of meat, yet however, chooses not to on it's own accord. Vegetarianism only relates to mammals that are omnivores. However, in history, it has been shown that certain species of omnivore animals have been forced into (so to speak) vegetarianism, due to either a famine of meat abundant prey, or disease. If an animal becomes ill, it has been known that they may particularly abstain from eating meat. However, these trends of vegetarianism in omnivore animals are often short lived.

Accredited Reference

From the Journal of the AMA, "Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets", Volume 103, Issue 6, Pages 748-765 (June 2003)

US Definition Vegetarian

Twice now, I have tried to include the following information: "60% of American vegetarians eat meat [1]", and twice, my edit has been reverted. It is an important issue that such a large proportion of residents of such a populous English-speaking nation have such a skewed notion of vegetarianism to think that a vegetarian diet includes meat. Why can this information not be presented here?

My last edit was reverted with the comment "The article states that subjects were possibly not sure of the definition of "vegetarian"." - but that is the entire point. How can you come up with poll figures for the number of vegetarians in a country, as presented above, if you can't trust the pollees to answer the question accurately? You might as well go around the country asking people if they are "quirkafleegs".

How do my detractors propose that we proceed on this issue? I wish to record, within the appropriate section on this article, the widespread confusion over the definition of "vegetarian" in the USA. The article reports that out of a group who self-identify as vegetarians, 23% seem to be pollo-pesco vegetarians, and 37% carno vegetarians (aka idiots). PRB 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi PRB. The only conclusion that I can see in that paragraph of the article is that there is considerable confusion amongst some Americans what the term "vegetarian" means. Nothing more, nothing less. So, I would not reject a statement saying In a survey carried out in the US, 6600 people out of 11000 who consider themselves vegetarians answered 'yes' to the question whether they had eaten meat, poultry, or seafood recently. This shows that the definition of "vegetarian" is not clear with many Americans. You can not say that 60% of US vegetarians eat meat, because that would be making the same mistake (not knowing what "vegetarian" means). That's my humble opinion. --- Andkaha^(talk) 22:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is, that this entry states that Vegetarianism in America is "usually synonymous with" lacto-ovo vegetarianism, but if 60%(== a majority) of Americans who self-identify as vegetarians are at least pesco-pollo, and that over half of that 60% are carno-vegetarians, how can vegetarian refer to lacto-ovo in the US? Note that this statistic just includes self-identifying vegetarians, what about those who do not call themselves vegetarian, how widespread is the confusion there? This section gives useful information to vegetarian travellers, such as getting tuna as part of a vegetarian meal in spain. If I go to America, I want to know that vegetarian food is at risk of having meat in it, so that I can take measures to avoid it. Also, the meaning of words is in the hands of the users, not lexicographers, and the meanings of words differ in different varieties of English. I know that in my English-speaking country, vegetarian normally means lacto-ovo. It is important to know that that is not the case in all varieties, and that in the US, vegetarianism is synonymous with quirkafleeg. PRB 11:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to call 6600 people "the majority of US vegetarians". I also wonder how many of these people work with food, because it's only by looking at US restaurants and their menus and ingredients that you can answer the travel-related question your're posing. Since you're pointing out that there might be different interpretations of the word "vegetarian" in different english-speaking countries, you should not say "60% of US vegetarians eat meat". Why? Well, let's say it's perfectly ok for a American vegetarian to eat meat, so what's the fuss about? You're in the wrong frame of reference so to speak. On the other hand, if this is because of ignorance, then they aren't really vegetarians at all, and so what's the fuss about again? This is why I said that the only thing you really can say is that there is some confusion amongst the general US population on this subject. --- Andkaha^(talk) 13:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is perfectly normal for an American man to go to work wearing a vest between his shirt and his jacket, suspenders, and a derby on his head. If an Englishman did it, people would think him rather odd (in fact, the last item would be impossible). The important part is that if I declare myself a vegetarian to an Englishman, he will assume lacto-ovo. From the article cited, it would appear that my declaration would be most likey interpreted as pesco-pollo (or maybe even carno) by an American.PRB 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fish

Vegetarianism is the practice of not eating meat, including beef, poultry, fish, or their by-products, ...

Please bear in mind that culinarily speaking, meat does not, technically, include fish (please note the lack of fish in the meat article). Of course, biologically, fish are members of the kingdom Animalia. Also, I am not saying that vegetarianism includes eating fish (except for pesco-), but rather that, from the culinary point of view, this sentence (or a variation) might be better:

Vegetarianism is the practice of not eating meat or fish, including beef, poultry, or their by-products, ...

or perhaps

Vegetarianism is the practice of not eating the flesh of animals, including beef, poultry, fish or their by-products, ...

Or is "flesh" considered a loaded term?

Also, I guess the question comes down to a biologically oriented wording versus a culinarily oriented one.

Just some thoughts...

-- tilthouse 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

According to OED, the primary meaning of meat is "the flesh of an animal as food", and the primary meaning of animal is "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, has specialized sense organs and nervous system, and is able to move about and to respond rapidly to stimuli" so, meat is "the flesh of a living organism which feeds on organic matter, has specialized sense organs and nervous system, and is able to move about and to respond rapidly to stimuli". I don't really see how this definition "technically" excludes fish. I have seen fish "feeding on organic matter", "respond rapidly ro stimuli", and seen diagrams of the "specialized sense organs and nervous system" of some fish (although I haven't seen them in real life). PRB 11:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As a vegetarian, I see meat as being that which sticks to the bones of living beings, not as food. Therefore, I'm quite happy with the current wording. --- Andkaha^(talk) 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

== RE: Really == <quote>I know it says citation needed, but where are these studies? If there are no citations, then it has no place in the article </quote> I agree. A better way to phrase this would be "in general studies have found those eating less meat live longer". Or else just drop this. Because I think saying that groups that eat "minimal" amounts of meat living longer, is misleading, beacuse define "minimal". Some people might think a big mac and two eggs a day is "minimal" meat. It's too open to interpretation. In general I think it's safe to say groups that get more calories from non-animal sources live longer

Yes, "flesh" is somewhat loaded, but not necessarily inapporpriate.Emmett5 03:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So what are we going to do then? It is the question I, as a vegetarian, get asked most commonly. I think we should include in the first sentence that the definition includes refraining from consuming fish/seafood. --Looskuh 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section- my thoughts

I think the criticism section is a little off-base, it needs more balance or could be removed altogether and simply replaced with the statement that vegetarians do not eat meat because they believe it is better for their health or the environment, etc. (just like saying "little kids go to bed early on Christmas because they believe Santa will come", doesn't require debating wheather or not Santa is real, necessarily. In particular, it cites one study, one study out of many, that shows vegetarians don't live as long as "seldom meat eaters" (whatever that means- two eggs and bacon, a ham salad sandwich and a big mac a day could be "seldom meat eater" for some (US government's RDA for meat is actually the amount you could fit in two decks of cards- not very much really, certainly less than what you'll get in your average Chinese takeout). One study vs. dozens of others that show otherwise. And while smoking is perhaps lower among vegetarians, it's not unknown, especially in Europe. And exercise likewise is not a pre-requisite of being vegetarian, nor is a high socio-economic status.

I dont think enough has been done with the criticism section, people need to know that vegetarianism isnt the health blessing that it has been made out to be.

Cite needed for ADA study claim

Does anyone have a cite for the following claim from the Motivation (Nutritional) section?

"Some suggest that vegetarians have higher rates of deficiencies in those nutrients which are found in high concentrations in meat. Surprisingly, studies endorsed by the ADA found that this was not the case for iron or calcium."

Dave3141592 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See Accredited reference above, its the ADA position paper on vegiterianism --Mig77 16:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very fishy to me, all the vegetarians I know need to take a tonne of iron supplements.

It may sound "fishy" but the iron in meat, whether it is fish or cricket or other fauna, does not digest as well as iron in flora: the iron in meat is typically in the hemoglobin, and the body does not absorb this. See any nutritional textbook, or Autointoxication by Dr. Kellogg. If a vegetarian needs to take iron suppliments, they are not eating a balanced diet: you can be vegetarian and eat french fries all day, and then you would need more than just iron suppliments. You could be carnivorous and not eat a balanced diet (i.e. not eating organs and bones) and then need to eat suppliments.--Coastalfields

Regarding the Ethics of eating meat article (request for peer review)

I have recently done a major rewrite of the Ethics of eating meat article. I have tried to balance it's POV as well as perform a major reformatting. Since there are few editors on that article I have not gotten any feedback. I was wondering if people here could look at what I have done and comment on it. I have opened a Request for peer review for this article, please post comments there as I will not be watching this talk page. HighInBC 14:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

India

I haven't read the whole article but it appears to me the article fails to make an important point about India's lacto-vegetarians who are predominantly Hindu. AFAIK, most Indian lacto-vegetarians don't consume cow's milk (as the cow is generally regarded as a sacred animal) and instead consumer goat's milk and associated dairy products. Nil Einne 13:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As an Indian and a Hindu, let me correct your assetion in re consumption of cow's milk. Yes, cow is a sacred animal in hinduism, hence hinduism considers eating beef a taboo and both vegetarians and non-vegetarians would avoid beef. However cow's milk is not taboo at all and all hindus (vegetarian or not) can consume cow's milk. -59.93.211.131

See Sacred Cow for more info.. --Pranathi 00:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A cow as a sacred animal? lol. How laughable is that? I hope these people don't claim to be intelligent whilst they praise their cows. I mean, to mock someone's belief in God is one thing cause you can't prove it either way. But worshiping a bloody cow? Why not at least worship a smart animal like a dolphin or a monkey, lol. Wow, imagine debating a cow worshiper. I'd love to hear from a cow worshiper. Also, not drinking milk is rye-diculous. I can understand not killing animals, but why not drink milk? Does a cow not have to be milked anyway? Drinking milk doesn't hurt anyone. I think abstaining from milk is absurd. --DJBryson 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The topic of cow being a sacred animal doesnot belong to this talk, no matter how rediculous you find it. As already been made clear Indian-vegetarian do drink cow milk.Jankit 22:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the cow is generally respected within Hinduism as much as one's own mother. People who know little of Hindu culture often misinterpret the meaning of the 'sacred cow' as some kind of naive worship. Either way, however it is largely irrelevant to this article. GourangaUK 08:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Omnivores

I feel the current section dealing with whether humans are omnivores is scientifically rather poorly written. IMHO, the scientific consensus is that humans ARE omnivores. The human article for example state empirically that humans are omnivores and doesn't suggest anywhere that humans are herbivores. There are few biologists IMHO who would suggest humans are herbivores even if they believe we should adopt a herbivorous diet. This article fails to mention this, only quoting Albert Eistein, who although a great scientist was NOT a biologist. It mentions very little about the scientific viewpoint that humans are omnivores and only references straight dope, a useful source but hardly a scientific one.

Indeed, the later section completely fails to mention omnivores at all instead talking only about canivores and herbivores which is a common flaw I see in many vegetarian advocacy sites but should NOT be present in wikipedia. It also makes the flaw of comparing humans to clear herbivores such as cows and goats and clear carnivores such as cats and lions, ignoring completely any omnivores including many primates who are surely the BEST species to compare us to.

The article also talks about humans lacking sharp teeth and claws ignoring completely the fact we have evolved hands and an opposable thumb allowing us use weapons and hunt without sharp claws. With the comparison with how we drink water it again completely ignores the many omnivorous primates who drink water similar to us.

It ignores our eyes which are located in the front giving use good 3D vision essential for predators but bad for herbivorous prey who usually have eyes on their sides giving them nearly 360 vision to look out for predators. The fact that we have evolved to primarily move about on the ground open to prey and walk yet lack good defenses against predators (such as claws and sharp teeth) should suggest to anyone that clearly we have evolved so we don't need to claws and sharp teeth for any reason.

Let me make it clear I don't have any problem with pointing out that some people claim that we are herbivores but I think we need to make it clear that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that we are not. The issue of whether a herbivorous or omnivorous diet would lead to the longest lifespan with modern humans is an interesting one but even if a herbivorous diet would in fact lead to the longest lifespan this doesn't make us herbivores.

On a personal viewpoint, I admire vegetarians although I am not one. However I have never understood why some vegetarians insist on trying to prove something which is against the scientific consensus using clearly flawed analogies (such as ignoring omnivores and primates) when surely the best thing is to use ethical and/or health reasons to promote their viewpoint. Nil Einne 14:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I came across this link. While I wouldn't call it a good source since it's clearly a POV site and would hesistate to link to it directly, it looks to me like a good starting point for someone who has more time then me to improve the article http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml Nil Einne 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, the whole section reads like a couple of editors having a debate about the various merits of vegetarianism. I think we need to start insisting on sources (WP:Verifiability) and report views rather than insert our own. As it stands a lot of it is in poor style for an encyclopedia. Ashmoo 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean, to state that humans "are" omnivores (or herbivores or carnivores)? If it is supposed to be purely descriptive, it is false to say that "humans are omnivores": many humans eat both plant food and animal flesh; many others only eat plant food (and a few only eat animal flesh). So in a descriptive sense, all we can say is that many humans are omnivores, and many others are herbivores (and a few are carnivores). I don't think there is any dispute as to those facts.

Now if "humans are omnivores" is instead intended in a prescriptive sense, then the arguments should revolve around issues such as the moral status of animals, their rights or interests (or absence of such) in not being harmed and our rights or interests (or absence of such) in eating them. You can't just say that "biology shows that humans are omnivores". Biology does no such thing, eigher in a descriptive sense nor in a prescriptive sense.

There is a particular confusion around the Darwinian idea that we may be adapted to eat meat (i.e. our ancestors eat meat, and those who survived most had teeth, digestive tract, etc. that were best at coping with meat). Others may say that no, our ancestors were plant-eaters. That is very often what is implicitly meant by debates over whether we "are" omnivores or vegetarians: the idea that if we are adapted to eating a certain diet, it is that we were "made to" eat that diet, and so might have some kind of ethical obligation to stick to that diet. That is a case of the naturalistic fallacy, and a gross misinterpretation of Darwinism, for which we were precisely not made "for" anything.

The only relevant fact biology has to say is that humans can live, comfortably, both on a plant-based diet (a vegan diet) and on a plant and animal flesh based diet. If someone still wants to mention that humans are omnivores, it should be clear in what sense that is supposed to be relevant. David Olivier 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The only relevancy is if life expectancy can be proved to be longer on a vegan or vegetarian diet. Perhaps over the coming years proof will be forthcoming, but at the moment I am not sure much scientific research is being done in that direction (certainly the beef industry won't be funding any research!). --86.133.21.82 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthy or not can in effect be seen as relevant (though more relevant in my mind is the fact that eating meat is decidedly unhealthy for the animals who are eaten). But I don't think there can be much substantive point here. There is not one vegetarian or vegan diet to compare to one meat-eating diets, but a large span of vegetarian/vegan/meat-eating diets, and a large overlap, in health terms, between the merits of each of these three "kinds" of diets.

The only thing I feel is relevant is that we have the choice not to eat animals without seriously compromising our health. That implies clearly, I believe, that we have the ethical obligation to be vegetarians. David Olivier 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Straight Dope

Is this actually a reliable source for aurgument? The article is compeling, but also sourceless. The author himself is not an expert. --Mark 2000 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Section on Christianity & Gospel of the Ebionites

It is an interesting that the Gospel of the Ebionites is referenced, though I think it would be wise to mention it is not canonical. It was viewed as heretical in its day (see Epiphanius) and is still regarded as such by the majority of modern theologians. As far as I know, it wasn't even a contender for canonization. To be fair, something about this should be added. As it is, a fairly obscure, widely dismissed text is referenced without a proper context.

Also, perhaps we should add a blurb of the strong Quaker tradition of vegetarianism.

Sound good or not?

Sounds great. I know there is a tradition of Xtian vegetarianism starting in the 19th Century but don't know any more details. You should definitely include anything you know, especially about the Quakers, as they are much more notable than the Gospel of the Ebionites. Ashmoo 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I don't know a lot about the Quaker vegetarianism, but know some friends who are Friends online who probably do. I'll give them the URL. You are correct that there was a movement in the 19th century of Christian vegetarians. Many were Seventh Day Adventists (briefly referenced in the Wiki article) but I believe there were some from the mainline Protestant denominations too.

As to the noncanonical text, I can add something there shortly. I think it's not a bad idea to leave it there for historical purposes, but adding a qualifying sentence or two wouldn't hurt. Thanks.

While you are changing the text please keep in mind that we don't want to add too much detail into the section. Details that are minor to the scope of this article can go in Vegetarianism and religion. I think the Gospel of Ebionites part can go in that page since you are saying it is weak support anyway. I am ignorant in this area, so I will leave it to you to judge the strength of these statements. --Pranathi 23:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree Pranathi. My (limited) understanding is the GofE belonged to a small sect that went extinct over a thousand years ago, so isn't really very notable. The only reason I haven't deleted it is because the Christian/Vegetarian section is quite small. Once we get some good general info of modern or significant historical Xtian vegetarianism I'd support deleting the GofE mention. Ashmoo 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good & I wasn't aware of the Vegetarianism and religion section. I agree, once there is more content about Christian beliefs, we should get rid of the GofE reference.

Fruitarianism/malnutrition

I removed this sentence from the Fruitarianism section, as no source was forthcoming. Namely, who makes the 'malnutrition' charge. Pls provide a source before re-including.

It is disputed whether it is possible to avoid malnutrition with a fruitarian diet, which is rarer than other types of vegetarian or vegan diet.

Ashmoo 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Extremely restrictive diets such as fruitarian and raw foods diets have been associated with impaired growth and therefore cannot be recommended for infants and children." [2] Am looking for something re adults. --Mig77 15:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Grains, the base of the food pyramid, are a fruit, as are other nutritious foods. Eating fruit is a nutritious and delicious, balanced diet. Coastalfields

Another label?

Lately, I have been avoiding the consumption of pigs and cephalopods, since they seem to be as smart as dogs and cats. Also, I do not eat lobster, since they are usually 30 years old by the time they are ready for the plate. Is there a term for people that do not eat animals that they (admitedly arbitrarily) consider to be intelligent or that have lived too long of a life to be killed for one person's meal? youngamerican (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any label for your diet choice, but I'm glad to hear you don't eat cephalopods. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there is, as I doubt a term could clearly tell what you do or do not eat, since as you said your reasons not to eat certain beings is somewhat arbitrary. Your diet is a bit too specific I think, but then again we have a term for someone who eats chickens or fish but no other meat. --A Sunshade Lust 23:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure of the term for one who doesn't eat lobsters, but I don't eat bittergourds and call myself a picky eater. :D -- Dodo bird 16:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I might be a stupido-youthivegetarian, as I only eat young and/or dumb animals. youngamerican (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lacto-ovo-pesco vegetarianism

Some anonymous IP seems determined to place this under the mainstream veg section although all other sorts of pseudo-vegetarianism such as pollo etc. are listed under the section I moved it to. If you disagree with that assessment please discuss. --Mig77 15:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

I find the statistics on the percentage of vegetarians in the US very sketchy (surveying 1000 people). I will try to rewrite it a bit. -Cribananda 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actualy assuming a randomised sampling method this survey is fairly convincing. Perhaps you should learn a little bit about statistics before deciding what is "sketchy". In particulat you should investigate what the probability of a certain size of randomized sample for a particular population would reflect the distibution of a certain characteristic in the population. (Hint: If you don't understand what I am talking about, kindly refrain from "rewriting it a bit".) --Mig77 08:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at your changes, and I like them. A LOT. Makes me feel a little embarrased about the vitriol above, however the statistics are fairly convincing, the error rate is estimated at about 3.3% so the numbers could swing either way, but condisering the survey has been done a couple of times and the results are quite similar, they do look good. --Mig77 08:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am highly sceptical of the comparson that 5% of Britons are vegetarian but 7.3-9% Germans are vegetarian. In my (wide) experience vegetarianism is less prevalent in Germany than in the UK, and also less well understood by meat-eaters.--Timdownie 01:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A mintel report from 2000 says 'There are now over 3 million vegetarians in the UK - over 5% of the total population.' [3]. This 2003 Telegraph article says that the number has gone down recently as the BSE/CJD scare recedes, [4] and gives the number as 2.24 million, based on a Gallup poll. The UK Vegetarian Soc says 'There are currently about four million vegetarians in the UK, representing some seven per cent of the population' in an undated article here [5]. The BBC says 4 million in a current article [6].

I don't have info for Germany, but I agree that it seemed to me to be less well understood when I was in Berlin in 2003. If there were 7-9% vegetarians, I'd have expected to see 'V' or some such marking of menus etc, which there wasn't. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats why we rely on statistics and not (extensive) "personal experience" nor do we rely on seeing a "V" on things. Here is South Africa we have "V"'s the indian dot system and the only place you can't get a veggi-burger is Micky-D's, yet my gut (a great reference) tells me that less than 3% of the population here are Veg. Germany actualy has a long history of vegetarianism, dating back to the 19th centuary. My german is VERY rusty, but I am looking for a decent citation. --Mig77 10:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything recent or reliable in English about the number of German veggies, and I don't speak German. One bit of the section which stands out as unsourced POV is the line saying that French chefs are more willing to make veggie food than Spanish ones - I'll remove that if no-one objects. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The german wikipedia throws out 9% I assume it is from the book cited, but I cannot verify it. IVU shos 2% to 3% but that is "way" out of date. [[7]]. EVU rates 8% [[8]] but the reference is obscure, I will email for full cite, looks like those numbers may be good. --Mig77 11:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Response from EVU email: "In a survey carried out for FOCUS magazine in 2001, 15% of respondents stated that they do not eat meat or fish, and 9% said they do not eat fish (FOCUS, nr. 10, 5.3.2001). The FORSA Institute put the figure of vegetarians at 8% in a survey for the television company RTL on 25.01.2001, which in absolute figures is over 6 million people. This figure was supported by a survey carried out for the magazine STERN in November 2000, according to which 7.7% of respondents were vegetarian (STERN, nr. 48, 23.11.2000). A current survey confirms the proportion of vegetarians at 7.6% (Apothekenumschau 1/06). The Vegetarier-Bund Deutschlands e.V. (VEBU) calculates that every week 4000 people in Germany become vegetarian.

In a survey carried out by the Centrale Marketing-Gesellschaft der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft, 18% of respondents answered "yes" to the question "Have you reduced your meat consumption due to the current meat scandals?". 19% stated that they had eaten less or no meat over Christmas 2005 (CMA, 12/05)." - it looks like the same source as below and more. I dont have time to wikify this, somebody please update the article. --Mig77 07:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've traced the EVU to "German Vegetarian Union"[[9]] and they cite the german magazine: Focus, Nr. 10, 5.3.2001 - These are the results of a survey they conducted, I'm trying to get hold of the original article. --Mig77 15:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article currently says

It is also possible to order a vegetarian meal and be served meat. Polls find that 2.8% of Americans are vegetarian as of 2004 [10].

However, the article on Veganism claims

A Time/CNN poll published in Time Magazine on July 7, 2002, found that 4% of American adults consider themselves vegetarians, and 5% of self-described vegetarians consider themselves vegans.

– b_jonas 09:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont count on the time magazine article, better research (although not as recent) has shown that most of those "American vegetarians" when asked more in depth questions actualy eat meat. Check the see Recent Trends section of article [[11]] --Mig77 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The 5% UK statistic may suffer the same flaw; in one part of the article where it's mentioned (but not the other place further on) we note that half of those 5%, when asked, ate fish. That would cut it down to 2.5% who are vegetarian by the definition used here. --Delirium 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The US survey figures do NOT show a "trend", general or otherwise. From 2.5% to 2.8% with a margin of error of 3% is a statistically meaningless "change". To say, with 95% confidence, that there had been "growth" or a "trend", the results would have to go from 2.5% to 8.6% or more. This would give us a 95% chance that the actual figures were 5.5% or below in the first survey of the two and between 5.6% and 11.6% in the second. As it stands, we can say, with 95% certainty that the vegetarian population was 5.5% or less the first time and 5.8% or less the second time.

The 1994 and 1997 surveys were conducted by a different organization using a different question and protocall. Comparing these results with the 2000 and 2003 figures does not indicate "growth", modest or otherwise. These figures tell us, with 95% confidence, that vegetarians were 4% or less of the population in 1994 and 1997.

There is room for error in the definitions of vegetarian being used as well. In 1994 and 1997, "vegetarian" meant "report that they never eat red meat, poultry and fish." In 2000 and 2003 it meant "report that they never eat red meat, poultry and fish/seafood." My cousin does not eat red meat, poultry or fish, but does eat pork and lobster (bonus: she's Jewish). Honest. I swear.(She considers pork to be a white meat, doesn't like poultry and thinks red meat is "too fatty".) In the 90s surveys, her answers might have said she was a vegetarian.

Also, 2000 to 2003 is three years, not four.

Recently removed content

I thought I should explain myself, as I recently removed some content.

Buddhism was and is based on vegetarianism and originated from that very concept - a quick search of the Buddhism article reveals 0 mention of the word "vegetarian" or any iteration thereof. If indeed this claim is true (the Buddha did abstain from eating meat after his enlightenment, I believe), then it should be sourced. From what I know of Buddhism, I am fairly sure this claim is false; it would be more accurate to say that Buddhism sprang forth from, let's say, Siddhartha's transition into enlightenment.

On to the less controversial (perhaps) revert: (It's like saying I had some vegetables today with my beef, hence I am half vegetarian. Vegetarianism is the EXCLUSION OF MEAT, not the consumption of vegetables) - a cogent point to be sure, but it has been made adequately in other parts of the article, and would need to be written in a more encyclopedic manner in order to meet the standards of the article, at any rate. I hope that this explanation is sufficient, and that all parties involved can at least glean my reasoning for the reversions I made. Burndownthedisco ^talk 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

edits by 65.45.217.86 to first paragraph of article

I reverted the edits by 65.45.217.86 because I think they were worded confusingly. However, it does raise an important point of terminology: are vegans vegetarian? Essentially, the edits by 65.45.217.86 defined the word "vegetarian" as someone who eats dairy products but does not eat meat. I think that is incorrect; the article as I reverted it defines "vegetarian" as someone who does not eat meat, period (regardless of whether they eat dairy products). Thus according to this definition, a "vegan" is also a "vegetarian". --Mathew5000 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think very positively that vegans are also vegetarians. As you say, vegetarianism is defined by what is excluded. A vegetarian may or may not eat milk or eggs, just as he or she may or may not eat spinach or kumquats. It would be strange indeed for a food preperation to be labeled non-vegetarian, just because it is, in fact, vegan! (With a label such as: "Non-vegetarian (contains no milk nor eggs)")

It is true that in daily life a vegetarian who is vegan is called a vegan, and not a vegetarian. This seems to me just the result of some general rule of pragmatics that we should use the more precise term when it is relevant (when we see a car we call it a car, and not a vehicle, though cars are also vehicles).

David Olivier 00:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Listing of non-vegetarian diets

I had deleted (28 May 2006) references to "alkalarianism", and then also the macrobiotic and raw food diets, which had been listed under the heading "Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism". The have been put back by Doovinator, who says "(→Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism - Legitimate varieties of vegetarian diets, should not have been deleted.)"

I think they should be removed. Neither of those three diets are vegetarian. They may be "mostly" vegetarian, but are neither vegetarian in intention nor in fact.

I see no reason vegetarianism should be systematically associated with a collection of diets which are not vegetarian and which imply that vegetarianism has to do with trends such as hygienism, naturalism and so on which are not vegetarian and have little to do with vegetarianism generally.

If they really must be listed, it may be relevant to do so among the diets further down, clearly labeled as "not fully vegetarian". Though I feel it would be more correct to leave them out altogether.

The same goes for the "natural hygene" entry. That term means just about anything, and doesn't imply vegetarianism.

If there is no objection, I will delete these entries again within a few days.

David Olivier 21:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have strong feelings about any but the raw food diet, which is definitely veggie--I've never seen an example not vegetarian (it's not the raw meat diet!). There are macrobiotic diets which are strictly veggie, but leaving macrobiotics out isn't a great loss to the article. As for "natural hygiene", agreed. Doovinator 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to look up raw food diet. The primary idea, that of cooking destroying ezymes and the like does not confine itself to vegetarian sources. It describes food preperation, not the nature of the food to be consumed. Agreed that although people may practice macrobiotics there is nothing inherent in that practice which requires vegetarianism. Note that many natural hygenisists (is that a word?) believe that a vegetarian diet is the logical one to follow based upon their central theory of toxemia. Perhaps they could be consolidated into a single paragraph saying something like:

Some other dietary practices that have been associated with vegetarianism include raw food diet, macrobiotic diet, and natural hygiene.

--Mig77 07:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Freeganism and Flexitarianism should also go with these --Mig77 08:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see a definite divide at "freegan" and "flexitarian", which aren't associated with vegetarianism in any way, and the others which are. Doovinator 11:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Physiological

I have a problem with this sentence "For example, Inuits whose completely non-vegetable based diet consists of only seal meat and fish have one of the lowest life expectancies on Earth" from the above section.

First of all the traditional diet consisted of seal, fish, caribou and birds (in season) plus depending on where they lived may have included bear, moose, walrus, muskox, plants and berries.

However, the main problem is the assumptions made by both the Atkins people and the EnergyGrid people in the reference given here. They both use the Inuit diet to put forward their claims without taking into account any other factors. Take a look at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami backgrounder and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami specific. In the second one scroll down to the "Health" section and notice that tuberculosis is 17 times higher than southern Canada. In the first one note the suicide rate, the smoking rate and the overcrowded housing. All these will contribute to the lower life expectancy among Inuit, something that both Atkins and EnergyGrid overlook.

Also both of the groups are talking about the traditional diet and not the current Inuit diet which consists of vast amounts of pop, chocolate and all the junk food that you could imagine. There are very few Inuit (if any) that live totaly on a traditional diet. A fact also pointed out in the backgrounder link near the bottom in the sction called "Prevention and Promotion".

Please don't take this as an attack on Vegetarianism but just on the one sentence, which is why I didn't add a disputed tag. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the quote regarding the diets of Japanese people from "semi-vegetarian, raw-fished based diet" to simply "primarily fish-based diet." The article cited here says nothing about semi-vegetarianism, nor massive consumption of raw fish. I live in Japan and can tell you first hand that neither aspects are true of the Japanese people as a whole.

looser_sugar 14:06, 6 June 2006

Fruitarian mention

I think the mention of fruitarianism in the opening sentence is a bad idea because it makes it sound like fruitarianism follows on logically from vegetarianism or is strongly associated with it, which isn't really the case. Additionally, fruitarianism is very rare compared to vegetarianism. ----

Agreed that fruititarianism gets more than its fair share of coverage in the body, the intro is not the place for this. --Mig77 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

hm

"Some who follow the diet also choose to refrain from wearing clothing that involves the death of animals, such as leather, silk, fur and many down feathers" <- is that irony? hardly qualifies as information that should be on the first 2-3 lines of the article. In the same sense I could say in the.. say, "Computer mice" article, "some who use computer mice also use keyboards because mice are connected to the need of inputing information to the computer so a keyboard would be useful too".

Critism section isn't critizing

Under 'Vegetarians and longetivity' it seems that the article says that there si no correlation between those two factors. Because, studies have proven that vegetarians need to work very hard to maintain healthy, I don't think the article shoudld only cite sources taht say vegetarians are healthier. Mishy dishy 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Feel free to insert your sources. Ashmoo 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The rebuttal of the criticism should include a link to the resources of medical research, not only through the AMA but also through independent researchers. May I have permission to link to an etext of Autointoxication? Coastalfields

The AMA is the American Medical Association, and the article cites independent researchers, feel free to deep link to those specific references. No you may not add a link to your spam site selling books on autointoxication (as you have attempted before), however there is are articles on Toxemia and Natural Hygiene which may interest you. --Mig77^(t) 06:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No Criticism!

I agree. The criticism section is completely and totally bias towards vegetarians. It shows only rebuttals to criticism points, and no points for the other side. It's pathetic.

Islam

The Islam section while interesting is just a collection of quotes from a non-notable sources and doesn't represent the vast majority of Muslim thought. I think it should either be removed entirely or pared right down to a summary. Ashmoo 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Just add a line stating that it is not a majority view. This article is about vegetarianism, not Islam. Thus arguments that may be used by a Muslim vegetarian deserve space. --Mig77 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this Islam section should be moved into Vegetarianism_and_religion and just a summary paragraph added to the Relegion section? --Mig77 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't state beliefs as facts

Mdbrownmsw 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)My edits today reverted "Food shapes... Meat does promote ...a vegetarian diet promotes.... It's known that... and killing animals have karmic repercussions..." etc. because the change converted factual statements of religious belief (e.g., "They believe that animals have souls...") into statements that the beliefs are facts (e.g., "It's known that animals have souls...").

Statistics

Mdbrownmsw 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I have attempted to clarify some of the statistics toward the end of the "Recent trends" section. Previously, it read as follows:

"In a survey in the U.S. in 2000, 2.5% of the 968 people surveyed identified themselves as lacto-ovo-vegetarians [4]. In 2003 the same source recorded 2.8%[5], indicating a modest growth of 4% per year over the 4 years.

This section and the sources cited made some errors. Sources 4 and 5 came up with 2.5% and 2.8% in 2000 and 2003, respectively. However, the source cited gives these figures at the 95% confidence level +/-3%. The sources state the the 95% level means that conducting the same survey 100 times would give the same results 95 times. Actually, the measures say nothing of the kind: it means that 95% of the time the results would be within the margin of error (+/-3%). The "change" from 2.5% to 2.8% is statistically meaningless, with a confidence level of 95%. Though unlikely, it is possible that the 24 vegetarians they found in 2000 were the only vegetarians in the U.S. Statistically, there was a 5% chance that the true figure is more than 3% above or below the figure given. There is no meaningful indication of growth, modest or otherwise, in those studies.

Additionally, the source does not give this data as drawing from a random sample of "people" "in the U.S." Rather, it is said to be a random sample of over 18 year olds not living in institutional settings.

It is very important to mention this as children are more likely to be vegetarian (fussy eaters explaination, sorry no cite). --Mig77 11:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The section continues with:

"A 1994 and 1997 survey showed about 1% [6], again indicating that the general trend has been upwards."

Actually, no, it doesn't. The source says the survey conducted in 1994 and 1997 found "about 1%", with a 95% confidence level and margin of error of +/-3%. This was a different survey giving results that seemed to not change from 1994 to 1997, but is quoted as showing an upward "trend" when added to the 2000 and 2003 data.

The questions were worded quite differently and were conducted in very different ways (phone in 2000 and 2003, face to face in 1994 and 1997). Apples and oranges. If these four studies were identical, either of the following realities could be underlying the data and STILL fit in the 95% confidence level.

Scenario 1: In 1994, there were fewer than 25 vegetarians over 18 in the U.S. (about .00001% of the population), but they were more than willing to let strangers into their homes to ask questions. By 2003, there were nearly 16 million vegetarians in the U.S., but 4 million went to jail or joined the Reserves to avoid jail (and ended up in Iraq). The remaining 12 million had no problem hanging up on telephone surveys, didn't have phones or never answer calls when caller ID gives a name they don't recognize. Now we have 7.6% of all over 18 year olds as vegetarians, with the number doubling every 9 months!

Scenario 2: (within the 95% confidence and +/-3%) Over 12 million (5.8% of the population) 18+ vegetarians in 1994 and only 24 (.00001%) in 2003.

The simple fact of the matter is that vegetarians make up a fairly small slice of the U.S. population. A survey of 968 people out of 209 million cannot begin to measure something that small. If you were asking a bifurcating question, you might see meaningful results. With the question at hand, all we can say, with 95% confidence, is that vegetarians (as defined by the surveys) make up less than 6% of the over 18, non-institutionalized population in the 48 states, and it's been that way since at least the 1970s.

"Dewey defeats Truman!" Oops.

I like this. I'm afraid I was not brave enough to go all that way. Unfortunately we are dealing with very small numbers, and very big variances. It would be great if sombody did a big study with a high n to get the figures more accurate, or the study was replicated more frequently. I agree with you 100% on the stats. However I do believe in this domain (social sciences) the extrapolation of a trend is not as far-fetched as you put forward. These are 4 seperate randomised observations so each one helps to reduce the likelyhood that we are seeing outlier. Unforunately the comparison is across two different data-collection methods and question sets. This could mean that the two methods have wildly different accuracies, or they statistical anomolies, or that the trend could be up (or any combination). Your theoretical roots are excellent, and refreshing. However realise the interpretation of statistics, is still subjective. Can we at least agree that the repeat values across each study add credibility to the reliability of each method, and make your "doomsday" scenarios less likely? And the two pairs do indicate stablility over both periods, although they also indicate possible problems with the measurement tool. Ok, I give up, the two methods are probably too different to be comparable, thus trying to trend the two proxies is probably pointless. People are interested in knowing about the trends, so perhaps we should have a little sentence in there saying that the data is not good enough for this, and a "simple" explanation why you cant just look at the raw numbers. (P.S. "Truman" = bad analogy - counting votes is a tally of a population, it is NOT a sampling.) --Mig77 11:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The "Dewey Defeats Truman" was meant to refer to the incorrect newspaper headline run based on a survey that predicted Dewey would win in a landslide. Unfortunatly, it was done by phone, so the results heavily over-represented wealthier voters and predicted an outcome quite contrary to the election. You would think the photo of the victorious Truman holding the morning paper saying he lost would give pause to media reports that make their surveys seem airtight... Mdbrownmsw 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable offerings

The text referenced says "a leaf, a flower, fruit or water,". Saying this includes "vegetarian food" or "certain vegetarian foods", while correct, is misleading. We might just as well say "certain non-carbonated beverages" or "portions of deciduous trees".

The second half is the kicker: it excludes non-vegetarian foods. Sure. It also excludes soda and pine needles. Is this torturing the text to make it say what we want?

Is it meaningful that Christians use bread and wine -- vegetarian foods as well? Is this then against raw veganism?

It may "read better" to keep it simple, but it is also rather biased. It would read just as well to say that it includes some foods and excludes others, but that wouldn't support the idea it is put here to support... Mdbrownmsw 06:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In context of the culture of Vaishnava Hinduism I don't think it's misleading at all. Leaves, flowers, fruits and water are basic food groups, and they are all vegetarian. Both pine needles and soda which you gave as examples are specific items, both of which could be argued to fall into the groups of 'leaves' and 'water' should you wish to do so. This verse in Bhagavad Gita is often quoted in reference to vegetarianism, especially within India. It is quite different to the example of bread and wine in Christianity - it is a specific instruction concerning which types of food can be offered and which cannot for a practicing devotee of the Bhagavad Gita. GourangaUK 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean when you say flowers and leaves are basic food groups. The text cited does not specify edible foods items, only that the offering be made with love and devotion. As cited, inedible leaves, fruits and flowers are acceptable. If we assume (not a good idea here) that the text refers to edible flowers, etc. it supports veganism (or a definition of fruitarianism that includes leaves).

If you are saying that some/many/all Hindus interpret the text given as supporting vegetarianism, it seems a citation is needed for the interpretation. I could (but would not) mine various religious texts for sections that COULD be interpreted to oppose vegetarianism. The appropriate safeguard against me (or anyone else) doing that is a citation showing that some/many/all Hindus follow that interpretation.

My edit covers my understanding of your (GourangaUK) statment above and requests a source based on same.

Mdbrownmsw 17:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mdbrownmsw - I have amended the paragraph to take account of your suggestions. The referenced exernal link to the quotation works as a citation for both the quote and the statement on the verse promoting vegetarianism. Let me know what you think - it's pretty much similar to your last edit but in another order. GourangaUK 18:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's closer. Unfortunately, the cite does not show that any Hindus use that interpretation. It shows that the International Society for Krishna Consciousness -- the Hare Krishnas -- use that interpretation. For the moment, I'm going back to my earlier fairly conservative edit. If I have a chance before you do, I'll try to find a source that backs your claim. (Also, your current edit takes for granted that "flowers, etc." refers to food, THEN states that the interpretation is based on that as a fact. Part of the interpretation is that flowers, etc. referrs to food...

Mdbrownmsw 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

ISKCON is a Gaudiya Vaishnava 'Hindu' movement, so their viewpoint would still be valid in this connection. Obviously vegetarian diet is common among the many forms of Hinduism - I have included a further quote and changed the word 'foodstuffs' as per your comments above. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 08:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive vegetarian food stores

I'm considering adding a section on food stores that sell exclusively vegetarian items. What does everybody think? --KajuPista 08:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a link to an article list in the appropriate section (such as cuisine or see also); something like List of vegetarian companies. You want to peruse lists of companies to see similar lists. —Viriditas | Talk 08:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tourist guide for restaurants

the 'countries' section looks incomplete and currently in a large part looks uneven and generally half-written. It also includes funny parts like "In Germany raw sources for vegeterian food is easy to be bought" like it's hard in any developed and semi-developed country in the world for that to happen and also the French and Spain sections read like "it's evil there, don't go, elsewhere you can at least buy raw sources from local retailers".

Anyway:p I'm currently translating the whole thing for another wikipedia and thought of saying something. --fs 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarian/Vegan Logo

Hello, my name is Shawn and I'm from Wikipedia's Project Beer. Currently our project group is discussing adding some type of identification to beers that are Vegetarian/Vegan friendly (see our discussion page). Turns out quite a few brews use an ingredient called "Isinglass," but fail to put any kind of notice/warning on the beer since FDA rules differ for beer than they do for normal food. We're really looking for a logo or something simple, but any suggestions would be welcomed. --Brownings 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy cow - spam or not

Someone believes this is not spam, can we gather some consensus.

• A global, searchable directory, including nutrition & health tips, vegetarian recipes, and other vegetarian issues

Sure it is topical, sure it has an IVU endorsement, however it is of a commercial nature, and what value does it add to the article? I don't believe it is of value. Lets get some opinions before we have an edit-war. --Mig77 07:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mig. Here are some points to consider:

• It is NOT of a commercial nature
• It's created by vegans who volunteer their time and are NOT Profiting from the site.
• Any money generated by ads go directly back into maintaining and improving the site.
• The site is the foremost updated and current of all vegetarian restaurant / health food store directories.
• It's an informative website which provides information and education about a broad range of vegetarian issues.
• It provides carefully selected link resources for a variety of vegetarian and vegan topics.
• Of the other sites listed, all also contain Google ads or have something for sale (with the exception of 3: brook.com/veg/,vegparadise.com/protein.html, veggiepride.org)

Mig, curious do you have some beef with HappyCow or something? There is no reason this excellent resource should not be listed. -Peace. TrueVeg

I have no beef with HappyCow. And it may be an excellent resource. In fact I have it bookmarked. I do not believe though it is in place en encyclopedic entry. Thanks for brining those ad sites to my attention. Often they are added, the locals have a look, but don't have time to mine them, and judge them harmless. They later add the ads. Happy cow can be found through the IVU website, which is featured. Wikipedia is not a clearing house for topical links. Perhaps spam has strong commercial connotations, but if the salvation army started sending me unsolicited mails asking for donations I would quite rightly class it with the viagra advertisments. I understand that you felt hc was unfairly singled out, and so I have applied the standard to all the external links. --Mig77 09:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mig, it seems that you had already made up your mind about this and are not really open to debating this. I realize you are active in Wikipedia and have staked out your claim to the Vegetarianism section as your "turf". I'd like to point out that throughout Wikipedia there are links to external sites which sale something, contain Google Ads, or have advertisements of some sort. Non-profit & not-for-profit sites alike must be funded in some way. Even the IVU has Google Ads to support it: http://www.ivu.org/recipes/index.html and is hosted by VegSource (whose website is fully supported by ads). You can not throw out these valuable sites due to the ad factor. In a perfect world all great projects would have funding and be ad-free, - but it's not reality. I feel by leaving sites like HappyCow out of Wikipedia, new vegetarians who are seeking information and support are lost. HappyCow's goal is to make it easier for the transition to a vegetarian diet by providing a directory of businesses which support the vegetarian lifestyle and provide additional information in support of vegetarianism. The site has been around 7+ years and is not going anywhere.

Happy cow is available in the Vegetarian cuisine article. It fits well there. --Mig77 11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Curious why you decided to keep that page on "Vegetarianism and Spirituality" on tonysamara.org? Affiliation? HappyCow and similar sites are equally as valuable as that site and others like IVU, PETA, Vegetarian Society, etc.. It's true that "Wikipedia is not a clearing house for topical links ", and sites which contain little useful information should not be listed here. However, valuable resources outside of the scope of Wikipedia need to be allowed here regardless if they serve ads, or have government or corporate funding.

There is no seperate Vegetarianism and Spirituality article, thus this link survived. I have no problem per-se with sites that serve ads, or have government, or corporate funding, however those sites should provide accurate reliable references. --Mig77 11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Last December we received an unsolicited request from the Salvation Army wanting donations for a Christmas dinner yet I could hardly lump that together with Viagra ads... a little extreme don't you think? Is it really so difficult to toss out the junk and keep what's useful? Trueveg 22:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is unfortunately a lot of junk, and I'm not saying hc is not usefull, but as some point a call has to be made, what is the best that can be done. Often perfectly useful sites simply don't add enough usefullness to be taking up the space. As you can see from above, I am more than happy to have it hang out in the Vegetarian cuisine main article, where it fits much better, and adds direct value. Please expound upon the virtues of hc in the description of the External links, that particular link and description are weak. --Mig77 11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the link and description. If necessary, please feel free to improve it. Thanks Mig. Trueveg 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychological Reasons section

This section is utterly atrocious. Badly written and largely uncited, weak arguments based on conjecture and inappropriate analogies (ie you clearly can't compare a human with carnivores/scavengers as we are undeniably neither)... and who cares what Douglas Dunn thinks? He's a poet for pity's sake! What authority does his opinion carry? And as for the counter-arguments - they're just as flimsy and lacking in sources, when not being outright flippant. This whole section needs a) a rewrite, or if no suitable sources are available b) removing, until such time someone can come up with the goods. Beeromatic 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Removed the following until sources are cited:

“

• 5% of the UK are estimated to be vegetarians.
• Where eggs are used, they must be free range, and the product should not have involved animal testing.
• Most recent studies consistently show that vegetarian sample populations have longer life expectancies than the general populations. However, it has been pointed out that people who are vegetarian tend to have a higher socio-economic status, which is associated with a healthier life style with respect to smoking, alcohol, exercise and "better diet" (such as increased intake of fruits and green vegetables which does not relate to the decision not to eat meat). The question is whether being vegetarian alone could account for any increase in life expectancy when these factors have been taken out.
  • This entire pararaph needs citing.

”

Iolakana|^T 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)