Jump to content

Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Etymology

May I quote the earliest know use of the word 'vegetarian' in this section although the original meaning may not strictly be etymology? Let me apologise in advance if the following reference has been discussed before. Edouard Albert (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No comments were made. After a few days I decided to move forward. Again, let me apologise if this contribution doesn't fit in this section or if it is written in poor English. Feel free to correct. Edouard Albert (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology or Varieties of vegetarianism?

"The original meaning of 'a vegetarian' at Alcott House was someone following an entirely plant food diet." is a quotation from the International Vegetarian Union's history section again. For a vegan like me, it sounds like a very interesting thing, but I may be too subjective. I'm also hesitating about the section this information should go to... Can anyone discuss this with me please? Edouard Albert (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I always refer to the Oxford English Dictionary in such cases. Here's the entry for "vegetarian":
                             Pronunciation:  Brit.	 /ˌvɛdʒᵻˈtɛːrɪən/ , U.S. /ˌvɛdʒəˈtɛriən/
                             Etymology:  Irregularly < veget- (vegetable n.) + -arian suffix. Compare German Vegetarianer, noun (1853), Vegetarier, noun (1852), French végétarien (1875 as noun, 1878 or earlier as adjective).
                             The general use of the word appears to have been largely due to the formation of the Vegetarian Society at Ramsgate in 1847.
Bob98133 (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bob. Doesn't the OED say that the 'vegetarian' word dates from 1839 anymore? changing subjects: I believe the OED may have made a mistake about the introduction of the word in the French language. Much earlier uses of 'végétarien' in print have been found such as 'Journal des connaissances médico-chirurgicales' in 1851. Do you think OED should be the only reference? Thank you again for your reply. Edouard Albert (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of vegetarianism

I saw many discussions are about what is vegetarianism.

The definitions are different. It is a fundamental nature of the topic. There were surveys of more than 4500 people from 12 nations about the definitions. Surveys are more neutral source of definition, compare to the agreements of a few people, organizations or 'experts' . If we take democracy seriously, public opinions are the most important. The definitions of a few 'experts', should not override the definitions of the public.

Some public opinion of the definition found by the surveys are

  • many think veganism is part of vegetarianism
  • some eat seafood,fish, egg, etc
  • In reality, some vegetarians(self-reported) even eat red meat from time to time

My reference is [1] 124.149.42.1 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Hatting due to personal attacks and incivility. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Flyer22 assumed, defamed my identify, and does not respect freedom of speech

124.149.42.1 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetarianism&diff=572827056&oldid=572826887 It's unfortunate that some people prefer war over science and academic debate. Flyer22 violates

Please see my paragraph below for more information. What I am trying to do is drawing attention to the diversity of the definitions. There isn't enough presentation of the diversity in the article. 124.149.42.1 (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2013‎ (UTC)

First, you were strict about what vegetarianism means (which was settled, and then settled again above without you). That is your IP range I mentioned in the linked discussion of this paragraph. Now you are all about diversity of the definitions? We already mention "the diversity of the definitions" in the lead and lower in the article, with WP:Due weight. However, that text/source about vegetarians in different nations, which has been in the lead long before you WP:Edit warred at this article, fits better in the demographics section (though the part about the consumption of animal products fits better in the part of the lead speaking of how vegetarians' opinions vary on the consumption of animal products). And, no, surveys are not a "more neutral source." And it's not a few people who exclude meat from the definition of vegetarianism. If it were only a few, there would be no such thing as vegetarianism, considering that vegetarianism is mainly about eating no meat at all. When you speak of eating meat in association with vegetarianism, that is more accurately referred to as semi-vegetarianism (and I'm sure you know it), which is already sufficiently covered in this article. Your bullet-point list above? Yes, veganism is a subset of vegetarianism; that is common sense. As for eggs, that is covered in the second paragraph; many or most vegetarians eat eggs. As for fish? Many people don't consider fish to be meat, which is why fish-eating is commonly considered vegetarianism (though authorities on vegetarianism and most WP:Reliable sources on the topic exclude fish, red meat and any other meat from the definition of vegetarianism); this (fish-eating and semi-vegetarianism in general) is mentioned in the final paragraph of the lead and lower in the article. Red meat is considered meat, plain and simple. This edit you made is WP:Undue weight, not to mention WP:Weasel wording. No one has been more about covering the different definitions of vegetarianism than me at this article, but WP:Due weight is important. See the "giving equal validity" part of WP:Neutrality, which is an aspect of WP:Due weight. Being neutral does not mean giving "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing.
As for your accusations toward me, wrong. You are the warrior here, who does not understand WP:Due weight (which is about giving proper weight to science and academic debate, among other topics). Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, I also moved your sections down, and took my name out of one of the headings.
Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your posts for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL, assumptions make people look unintelligent. Can you listen warrior? How many times I have to tell you that you assumed and defamed my identity? You said ' Now you are all about diversity', it's not now and then, because it's two different people who have different views. In regards of your comment about IP address and identities, I can tell you don't even understand how IP system works, your comment is very unscientific. Judging by how you respond to different views, you probably have made plenty of enemies on the page. But I can assure you, I am not one of them. STOP connect me with your past dramas, let's talk about science, if you understand what science is. 124.149.42.1 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22， I can tell you have limited experience with serious science, because you don't seem to understand that reference based on scientific approaches, such as numbers and math (see scientific method), carries more weight. The reference of my editing is like that. If this kind of discussions are beyond your ability, please refrain from stopping other editors. Let me make things simple for you, my edit is based on the opinions of 4500 random people from 12 nations. Which parts of the lead are based on the views of more people? Can you answer? 124.149.42.1 (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong on all accounts. And I still don't believe that I have mistaken you for the previous IP range (who nitpicked at the lead just like you and WP:Edit warred just like you, and happens to have the same first three digits as you). I don't know how the IP system works? Tell that to some of the people (registered Wikipedians or IPs) whose identities I easily connected to past identities that edited this site. As for science, what should or should not go in this article is not a matter of science...except for with regard to health information (per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), simply known as WP:MEDRS). But, and not that I need to validate myself to you, science and math are not subjects that I am lacking in (which is pretty much acknowledged on my user page). And I see that you violated WP:Undue weight again (which was reverted) and WP:TALK again. Okay, I think that I'm done talking with you, as you clearly have trouble communicating without violating WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civil, and because I'm convinced that you are a WP:Troll or someone who can't even begin to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And now that the article is WP:Semi-protected (as seen here), I can forget you all the easier (again). Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
What I wrote was factual descriptions of your conducts, if you don't like, don't do it. And thank you for remind me that you are also violating WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civil.124.149.42.1 (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22 wrote "As for science, what should or should not go in this article is not a matter of science." I like this sentence in particular, because it show how little Flyer22 knows about science. Flyer22, can you go to read this article first and actually try to understand it? Although I knew it may be difficult for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Mathematics_and_formal_sciences

After that, your comments will be more appreciated. 124.149.42.1 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ownership, censorship of the article and the internal inconsistency of the first paragraph

124.149.42.1 (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat – red meat, poultry, seafood and the flesh of any other animal; it may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter.[2][3][4][5]"

It should change to

"The results of a 2009 International survey found that the common definition of vegetarianism is different in different nations and that vegetarians in some nations consume more animal products than those in other nations.[9] Vegetarianism IS CONSIDERED BY SOME the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat – red meat, poultry, seafood and the flesh of any other animal; it may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter.[2][3][4][5]. "

Because citation [2][3][4][5], none of them are academic sources, and other academic sources in the article shows there are no universal agreements of the definitions. But right now only some views are presented, which is major undue

Flyer22, your response is no surprise. I predicted that you won't be able to respond to my academic question of the lead. That is enough to prove you are wrong. What showed up on the page is not important. I am writing for people who can actually think. Feel free to continue your ownership and censorship of this article. 124.149.42.1 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Biblical passage

Editor Rklawton added a biblical passage to the christianity section. I believe it shouldn't be there not only because it lacks context and biblical passages are known for being vague (and most of the times actually contradicting themselves with other passages), but also because that same passage is already present in the main article Christian_vegetarianism#New_Testament in much more detail and within a context. Because of this I believe it would be better to remove it from Vegetarianism. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It made no sense to me. Is it about welcoming new followers? Or dealing with 'weak' people? Is it saying that vegetarians are weak people? It completely baffles me. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that it was in the main article. Rklawton (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"vegetus"

I removed the "vegetus" bit, traced to some random pdf hosted by the Vegetarian Society. This was mentioned on QI, and apparentls Stephen Fry failed to note the tongue-in-cheek nature of the "claim" (Fry often messes up in matters of etymology (as he does in other matters, but that's beside the point)). The statement is that "vegetarian is derived from Latin vegetus, which means vigorous, lively". This is completely true, but it is not to be read as claiming that "vegetarian" is somehow not derived from "vegetable". It's just a tongue-in-cheek mention of the fact that the word vegetable itself is derived, undisputedly but indirectly and via semantic shifts in medieval Latin and Old French and Middle English, from this Latin adjective. "vegetarian" is still and has always been "vegetable + -arian", they just stumbled across the fact that "vegetable" itself has the etymology of "something that is vigorous". --dab (𒁳) 21:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on animal byproducts

By animal byproducts, I mean items besides meat, such as leathers, silk, wool, honey, drug hormones derived from animals and other such items. The article could be a little more clear on the general consensus of vegetarian attitudes toward these byproducts.

My understanding is that vegetarians would generally avoid any items that involve animal slaughter — e.g. leathers — but they wouldn't necessarily be opposed to honey, wool or any other such byproducts that arguably don't result in harm to the animal(s) under ideal conditions. Vegans on the other hand seem to be much more strict, avoiding animal byproducts altogether, regardless of whether or not those byproducts are derived from slaughter. In fact, it seems vegans also try to avoid brands that have a reputation for animal labor or testing.

That said, I'm not sure the statement about vegans in the opening section is very accurate:

  • "Some vegans also avoid animal products such as leather for clothing and goose-fat for shoe polish."

Only some vegans? I thought this was supposed to be one of the distinctive differences between vegetarians and vegans. The only exception I've personally encountered was a vegan woman who would occasionally buy leather shoes or clothing from thrift stores because she felt it was a more economical approach, and she wouldn't actually be increasing the demand for animal slaughter since the items were purchased from second-hand vendors. 98.86.117.67 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 17#By-products of slaughter, specifically gelatin, which documents the most recent discussion, before this one, about animal by-products and vegetarianism. Basically, the thing is: "As many vegetarians are unaware of certain animal-derived products hidden in their foods or do not care if they consume them [as long as they don't think of the animal products as meat], and others are vegetarians not for ethical reasons, it was decided that [... we] should not definitively state that vegetarianism excludes by-products of animal slaughter. We based this on WP:Reliable sources noting that many vegetarians aren't aware of or don't care what type of cheese they eat and on WP:Reliable sources mentioning that some vegetarians (whether one simply wants to call these people self-identified vegetarians or not) do consume by-products of animals slaughter. For example, many vegetarians chew gum, which may have a by-product of animal slaughter in it. And, of course, many vegetarians eat eggs, which may or may not be a result of animal slaughter (though eggs often are not classified as a by-product of animal slaughter). So, no, not all (and perhaps not most) vegetarians generally avoid (or always avoid) any items that involve animal slaughter. As the lead notes, there are different reasons for being vegetarian, even health reasons; in other words, not all vegetarians are vegetarians because of animal ethics (animal rights). As for vegans specifically, see the lead of the Veganism article, which notes that distinctions are sometimes made between types of vegans. A dietary vegan, for example, only avoid animal products when it comes to consumption, but may wear a leather coat. By contrast, an ethical vegan avoids the use of animal products for any purpose. That is why the wording "Some vegans also avoid animal products such as leather for clothing and goose-fat for shoe polish." is more accurate than "Vegans also avoid animal products such as leather for clothing and goose-fat for shoe polish." Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
As for distinguishing vegetarianism and veganism, I think it's always best to keep in mind that veganism is an aspect of vegetarianism, like the Vegetarianism article notes. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Murky definition

Vegetarian means you just eat plants/don't eat animal products. Vegan is a newer word that means you try to avoid anything to do with animal (ab)use, not just when it comes to food, like wearing leather.
You have to prefix vegetarian if you're going to use it and still eat animal products, otherwise you're misusing the word or just being dishonest.
The prefixes I know of are lacto/milk, ovo/eggs, meli/honey, porcine/pig, ovis/sheep, bovine/cow, pollo/chicken, and pesco/fish (pescetarian for short).
A bit of history on the word: http://iheartar.com/2012/06/07/the-shifting-definition-of-veganism/
Damian Pound (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Chinoto1 (Damian Pound). Why did you create this section? As for you stating "Vegetarian means you just eat plants/don't eat animal products.", see the #Clarification on animal byproducts section above. Vegetarianism does include animal products (not all animal products, of course). For example, your "lacto/milk" prefix relates to animal products that vegetarians may consume. And as for veganism, like the Veganism article notes, some people (dietary vegans) follow the vegan diet only; this means that they don't follow the vegan philosophy of avoiding all animal products, such as leather. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Vegetarian glues?

Some vegetarians object to the content of traditional animal-based glues, and have used plant-based glues, such as sticky rice. Should this be covered here, or elsewhere? I am not an expert on this subject, but I notice that there seems to be no coverage of this in Wikipedia. Reify-tech (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Vegetable diet

I think it would be good and appropriate to mention a diet of vegetebles, fruits and nuts, at the beginning. I'm going through the archives. However the discussion about excluding this diet should be left, mentioned here instead of archived. --Jondel (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jondel. For the lead of the Vegetarianism article, including what vegetarians eat and what vegetarians don't eat have been a problem for editors in the past. For the most relevant discussions on these matters, so that you don't have to search much through the archives, see Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 16#Introduction is wrong (which is the latest discussion before this one about including in the lead what vegetarians eat -- vegetables, fruits, etc.) and Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 17#The definition of vegetarianism in the lead yet again, with by-products of animal slaughter again being an issue and Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 17#By-products of slaughter, specifically gelatin (which are the latest discussions that are more about what vegetarians don't eat). As you know, days ago, I reverted you here, with a followup note here, stating, "Keep simple, per past discussions; when we get into adding what vegetarians eat, people want to add nuts, etc., etc. It is mainly about abstaining from meat, similar to how veganism is about abstaining from animal products in general." and "WP:Dummy edit: Furthermore, varieties are addressed in the second paragraph. So if there is a need to mention vegetables, fruits, nuts, and all that other stuff, we can summarize it there."
As you can see, for some time, editors of the article have been going with a "what vegetarians don't eat" approach for the first paragraph of the lead, which is also what the Veganism article does regarding veganism (strict or very strict vegetarianism). I think that's better than the "what vegetarians eat and don't eat" approach; for example, you added, "consuming mainly or only fruits and vegetables." But there are people who are vegetarians who don't eat fruits and/or vegetables, or who don't actively eat them anyway. For instance, they might get fruit or vegetable intake via other means. I don't see a need to mention the "plant-based diet" aspect for the first paragraph, especially since it's already clarified in the infobox with the picture of vegetables, fruits and dairy; that infobox sentence states: "A vegetarian diet is derived from plants, with or without eggs or dairy." I'm not wholly opposed to including the plant-based diet aspect in the lead, but I don't think we should go into significant detail about it for the lead, and I think that, if we do include it, it should go in the second paragraph that addresses the varieties of vegetarianism. So changing the "There are varieties of the diet as well:" line to "There are varieties of the diet as well, which may or may not be plant-based:" works for me. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Long story short: a diet of "vegetables, fruits and nuts" leaves out several foods some vegetarians eat: eggs, milk and dairy products, honey, mushrooms, seaweeds, bacteria, yeast, salt, edible soils and clays, etc. Reliable sources define vegetarianism as a diet of exclusion. As a result, so do we. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I guess it's like AAAAAAHH, here we go again. (Some vegies drink milk, some don't, yada yada.)--Jondel (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and Gender (particularly pregnancy and birth gender)

I looked up the citation and original documents and found that the theory that vegetarian women give birth to more girls than boys has no reliable empirical support. The journal referred to in the cited BBC article has no academically rigorous peer review process, and the study's author does not hold a doctorate. I feel this section should be reworded to better reflect the spuriousness of the cited evidence, given the sources. In favour? --User:Ramapyjama (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:RS (reliable sourcing), specifically WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which journals count as "reliable"). I agree that this material should be removed, because it comes from a primary source and is not uncontroversial. However, I don't think it's appropriate to reject the journal entirely. Its editorial board consists primarily of credentialed academics at accredited universities, and if you follow the "cited by #" links at this Google Scholar search, you'll find that some of its articles have been cited by papers published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the CMAJ, and other widely-respected journals; this establishes that the Practising Midwife is at least not wholly disregarded my the mainstream academic medical community. So, get rid of the reference to this study but don't necessarily reject the journal in general.
We on Wikipedia like to be able to follow conversations. To that end, we sign our talk page posts; this can be done automatically by typing four tildes after your comment, like this: ~~~~ Thanks for your help, and for considerately bringing this up on the talk page instead of altering the article! If you want more of an introductory tour of WP, see the information I'll add to your talk page. FourViolas (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Health effects.

Hello. I recently added information about mental health problems and vegetarianism, but Flyer22 deleted it saying "poor sourcing". Since all the sources are from pubmed I don't quite understand the reasoning. In general the entire health section is incredibly biased towards vegetarianism, when you look at the pros and cons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Madsen (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Martin Madsen (talk · contribs), I reverted you and the WP-rtrafford (talk · contribs) account, and I cited why. I stated, "Revert per WP:MEDRS. Poor sourcing."
It does not seem that you have read WP:MEDRS, such as what it states about WP:Primary sources. Read it. If you or the WP-rtrafford account re-add your material, I will revert again and query WP:Med to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Some other health content in the article should be cut as well. Looking again at your additions, it's not very poor sourcing; I've seen worse. For example, this source offers background information on previous studies and acts as a WP:Secondary source in that regard. But your sourcing should generally be better. Pinging medical editor Alexbrn, who has been working on the Veganism article, for his take on your and the WP-rtrafford account's sourcing on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking around I also see we have Vegetarian nutrition and Vegan nutrition articles, both with their share of problems too ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(Add) I've started pecking at this. The whole "Health effects" section seems rather bloated, often with not-great sourcing. The "Longevity" subsection for example is hardly a crisp digest ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. Flyer22 (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Veganism and vegetarianism

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Veganism and vegetarianism#Semi-vegetarianism. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictures at the top of the article

I object to using pictures of fruit, vegetables and diary near the title of the article. It suggests vegetarianism is about eating a certain thing, whereas it is actually about NOT eating a certain thing. An equivalent of this would be to use an illustration of the big bang with the article on Atheism. 94.212.62.82 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Subodai

The main lead image is fine. A lead image usually is not going to represent everything about a topic, since there is usually so many aspects of a topic. Its representative enough, there is a second lead image beneath it, and (via the use of its text) the article is clear on what vegetarianism encompasses. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, your analogy does not make sense to me. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Vegetarianism - Class assignment

I am currently taking LIBR 2100, and as part of a course assignment, I will be finding the citation needed from the following passage:

Proteins are composed of amino acids, and a common concern with protein acquired from vegetable sources is an adequate intake of the essential amino acids, which cannot be synthesised by the human body. While dairy and egg products provide complete sources for ovo-lacto vegetarian, several vegetable sources have significant amounts of all eight types of essential amino acids, including lupin beans, soy,[51] hempseed, chia seed,[52] amaranth,[53] buckwheat,[54] pumpkin seeds[55] spirulina,[56] pistachios,[57] and quinoa.[58] However, the essential amino acids can also be obtained by eating a variety of complementary plant sources that, in combination, provide all eight essential amino acids (e.g. brown rice and beans, or hummus and whole wheat pita, though protein combining in the same meal is not necessary[citation needed]).

I will also be adding a short passage of new information with appropriate citations.

Char916 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Insects in the lead.

Insects are a bigger source of confusion than "poultry" so it makes far more sense to mention insects than poultry which btw is not mentioned in the sources either. I mean quien carajos thinks that you can be vegetarian while eating chicken? If anything poultry should be removed from the definition or, just to make the introduction shorter say that its just soone who doesnt eat meat.

Melissa fire brasileirinhas681 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Melissa fire brasileirinhas681, I reverted you here and here because whether or not we should mention insects in the lead was discussed before and it was decided that mention of that aspect was not needed in the lead. This is because vegetarianism is not usually described as a diet that excludes insects, and the "flesh of any other animal" part covers insects and any other animal not named in the lead. You assert that the insect issue is the bigger issue. But sources show that the "Can a person eat white meat (as in fish or chicken) and still be a vegetarian?" aspect is the bigger issue, which is why we have the Vegetarian Society's statement on that in the lead and cover the matter well enough lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, people usually do not eat insects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
As you just said: the definition from that organization is biased because it is aimed at parts of the world where people dont eat insects. Therefore we cant say that insects doesnt belong there just because of the biased views of the workers of the Vegetarian Society and its source of donations. Melissa fire brasileirinhas681 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not my argument; it is your argument. My arguments for not including "insects" in the lead are that "vegetarianism is not usually described as a diet that excludes insects, and the 'flesh of any other animal' part covers insects and any other animal not named in the lead," and "people usually do not eat insects." The insect aspect is not made into as big of an issue as the white meat aspect is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Lower Overall Mortality Rate?

The first sentence in the "Health Effects" section needs to be modified. As is, it implies that fewer vegetarians die than omnivores. In fact the "overall mortality rate" for any group is always 100% (i.e.: everyone dies). The statement needs to be qualified as to the cause of the mortality as related to vegetarianism. This is specified further down in the paragraph, but the initial sentence should be clarified. Garyvp71 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Garyvp71, what wording do you propose? We should stick to what the sources state. And, really, that section should be using good medical sources, per WP:MEDRS. Any poor sources should be removed, along with the content sourced to them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Highlight the definition please

The section of definition maybe needed as some of the fruits are not eatable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "poorly planned"?

In the second paragraph under Health Effects, please elaborate on the idea of "poorly planned". There are so many interpretations and concepts for the idea of something being planned poorly, and each person's idea of "poorly planned" is different. In terms of vegetarianism, poorly planned could be described in the concept of food amount, food quality, when the food is consumed, etc. Therefore, a further explanation of the term should be provided. Thank you. Andrewkcli (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm bringing this matter to the talk page because it is clear that NightShadow23 will keep reverting instead of creating a discussion section to make his case. He is clearly aware of the WP:Edit warring policy, like I am.

I twice reverted NightShadow23 on a lead matter, seen here and here, because it makes more sense and flows better to note what an ovo-vegetarian diet includes, what a lacto-vegetarian diet includes, and then what an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet includes. I also reverted because of the following sentence: "One of the main differences between a vegan and a lacto-vegetarian diet is the avoidance of dairy products." Not only is that sentence unsourced, it is completely unneeded. There is no need to differentiate a vegan diet from a lacto-vegetarian diet in the lead. Furthermore, the lead already makes clear what a vegan diet entails; it states, " A vegan diet excludes all animal products, including eggs and dairy."

I also reverted NightShadow23 on this table because it is redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted myself on the table since it gives a quick breakdown of the categories. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed the difference, but leave the correct order (see Semi-vegetarianism). Please do not touch the table. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
NightShadow23, what are you even talking about? This order is not any more correct than the order that was there. I gave my reason for liking the previous order. You've given no reason for why the order you reverted to is better. All you have done is pointed to the Semi-vegetarianism article, which lists lacto vegetarianism first, ovo vegetarianism next, and ovo-lacto vegetarianism third; it places the ovo-lacto vegetarianism mention last, just like the lead did before you came along and tinkered with it. I don't like that your change starts out talking about ovo-lacto vegetarianism without first separately noting what the combinations are. As for telling me not to mess with the table, I can if I want to. That stated, I do not have the patience to debate you further on these minor issues. If I see you making other unnecessary or silly edits, I will challenge you on those, and the fact that you are an edit warrior will be to your disadvantage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to. I essentially have those pages and a number of other Wikipedia pages memorized. But I suggest you read up on what a valid argument is. And thoroughly read WP:Edit warring. And read the WP:BRD essay after that. You were reverted on changes to longstanding material; it was your job to make a valid case for the changes. You did not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Did you read WP:WAR? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Primary studies

There has been some edit warring over inclusion of “Vegetarian diet and mental disorders: results from a representative community survey” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466124/ . As this is a human health related study, WP:MEDRS applies. This study is based on analysis of a single German Health Interview and Examination Survey and its Mental Health Supplement (GHS-MHS). The study size was: Completely vegetarian (N = 54) and predominantly vegetarian (N = 190) participants were compared with non-vegetarian participants (N = 3872) and with a non-vegetarian socio-demographically matched subsample (N = 242). MEDRS strongly favors avoiding primary sources in favor of reviews, though it does describe the possible inclusion of conclusions from 'large RCTs with surprising results'. I don't think this study meets the threshold of weight for inclusion. I would like to see what others think. Dialectric (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget the primary source on IQ. If one stays, so does the other. These sources of are equal quality and equal importance. If one goes, so does the other.Petergstrom (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dialectric: Yup - not reliable source: removed. @Petergstrom: the other source relates IQ and vegetarianism and it's debatable whether this is WP:Biomedical information and so whether WP:MEDRS applies. Per WP:SCIRS we probably should not use it; it also seems undue and its use smacks of WP:ADVOCACY. Your edit-warring has seemed rather WP:POINTy and that is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So removal?Petergstrom (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the IQ info as I agree that we should be consistent and per WP:SCIRS we shouldn't be citing primary research, especially in such a broad article as this. SmartSE (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
One might also want to keep an eye on Petergstrom's edits to the Veganism article. JackNocturne (talk · contribs) tweaked one of his additions, which misrepresented data. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The current wording for that edit should also be tweaked since the source is not about veganism in the general population. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing was misrepresented, veganism in Hong Kong and India is a pretty good sample, and makes up a considerable percentage of the vegan population.Petergstrom (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed a misrepresentation to state "Vitamin B-12 deficiency occurs in roughly 80% of the vegan population.", when the source is specifically talking about one or two parts of the world. If the source is specifically about the United States, for example, we are not supposed to state "Vitamin B-12 deficiency occurs in roughly 80% of the vegan population." We are supposed to state, "In the United States, Vitamin B-12 deficiency occurs in roughly 80% of the vegan population." Bottom line is that you repeatedly give me reasons not to trust your editing and, if I continue to see this type of poor editing from you, I will be taking the matter to WP:AN or WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a debatable guideline, not a policy as you are pushing it to be. You might want to check out WP:ESDOS if you have time. Also, this is the vegetarian article talk page, the talk page of the vegan article to which this discussion is relevant is herePetergstrom (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Trying to turn around what I stated to you does not work. My objecting to you misrepresenting a source is not based on WP:MEDRS. And there is no WP:Civility violation in my above post. I stand by what I stated above. I will only warn an editor so many times before I report that editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, not a misrepresentation. The statement was not misleading, and was corroborated as within the range of values cited in the study below it. Petergstrom (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You can keep repeating that it was not a misrepresentation or misleading all you want, but I'm certain that the vast majority of editors would disagree. And that you do not understand that the edit was problematic is all the more reason to scrutinize your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a problem here[1] too: supporting "one study found" with a citation to a review is distinctly NNPOV. (And the markup is mucked-up too.) Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)"

How so? A review is a study, but I guess that may be misleading language.Petergstrom (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know that calling a review "one study" is a problem, then Wikipedia has a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn, as you may know, Jytdog has tried to mentor Petergstrom. One reason that Petergstrom keeps running into trouble is because he will interpret an editor's words either too strictly or not strictly enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So, in the end, does "Vitamin B-12 deficiency occurs in roughly 80% of the vegan population"? And what article was that passage included in? El_C 23:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

New article: Banana island (diet)

Just letting you know in case anyone wants to edit it.

Banana island (diet)

Bk33725681 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning in the lead that some people who eat fish or poultry consider themselves vegetarians

I reverted SergioVillavicencio (talk · contribs) on the removal of the following sentence: "Those with diets containing fish or poultry may define meat only as mammalian flesh and may identify with vegetarianism." I reverted because, like I explained in the edit summary, this information is not solely supported by that one study, and, since this information is addressed in the Varieties section, it should be noted in the lead as well (see WP:Lead). That some people who eat fish or poultry consider themselves vegetarians is a significant aspect of the topic of vegetarianism. It's why the lead even mentions semi-vegetarianism and states, "The common use association between such diets and vegetarianism has led vegetarian groups such as the Vegetarian Society to state that diets containing these ingredients are not vegetarian, because fish and birds are also animals." Yes, the fact that some of these people don't consider fish or poultry, but especially fish, to be real meat is why they state that they are vegetarian. It's why other people consider them vegetarians, or confuse vegetarianism with pescetarianism. The Pescetarianism article briefly comments on the vegetarian vs. pescetarianism aspect as well.

This has been discussed times before and we have retained this information in this article because reliable sources cover it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

SergioVillavicencio (talk · contribs), was this some type of WP:POINTY edit by you? If so, stop it. Vegetarianism is not the same thing that as semi-vegetarianism. The fact that we acknowledge semi-vegetarianism in the article does not make it vegetarianism. There is still the WP:Due weight policy to consider. The vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on vegetarianism are clear that vegetarianism excludes meat (including fish and poultry). So, per the WP:Due weight policy, we give most of our weight to that viewpoint. We give a little weight to the alternative view (semi-vegetarianism). That is the way Wikipedia works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that your latest edit was stating "no" to those aspects you added to the table, but, per my "21:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)" commentary above, that is not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vegan

The word Vegan appears 65 times in this article....Vegetarianism is distinct from it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:51E8:DD02:B560:FC2E (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Veganism is an aspect of vegetarianism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

@Emir of Wikipedia: For your question here, you can read this: "For English words and names, pronunciation should normally be omitted for common words or when obvious from the spelling; use it only for foreign loanwords (coup d'etat), names with counterintuitive pronunciation (Leicester, Ralph Fiennes), or very unusual words (synecdoche)." You can also use common sense and skip over all that stuff and save everyone's time — I would prefer the latter. — ObZorDT 20:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Could someone add the following topic.....

POV issue with the "Ethics of killing for food" section

As seen with this edit, I added a Template:POV because the 2605:e000:c7cd IP range has expanded the section solely from a "killing animals for meat is bad" perspective. I also fixed WP:Said violations. I might at some point add some balance to this section if no one beats me to it, but I do not yet have time to focus much on this and do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22. Not only is this section POV, it had a source added to it by a SPA over an edit war. The source is a book from the author it is quoting, the publisher is either very small or is the author's own publishing company. --VVikingTalkEdits 13:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

For consistency, someone should either add in that McMahan is a philosophy professor at Oxford, or take out that Singer is a professor at Princeton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:C7CD:4900:4DFE:4120:7F6D:7006 (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is no explanation for why "Opponents of ethical vegetarianism argue that animals are not moral equals to humans". To expand the "killing animals for meat is good" perspective, someone should explain why opponents take this stance. Most importantly, the "killing animals for meat is good" portion would address 1) why proponents of this view do not consider people and animals of equal cognitive ability to have any moral equivalence, 2) why proponents of this view believe it is permissible to kill a non-human animal, outside of a survival situation, for the sake of pleasure (eg taste), while (presumably) also believing it is impermissible to kill a human of equal or lesser cognitive ability (eg a mentally disabled homeless person with no friends or family) for the same reasons, and 3) why proponents of this view support killing some animals for the sake of palette pleasure, such as pigs, while condemning the breeding and killing of various other animals, such as dogs, cats, horses, etc., for the same reasons, despite pigs being smarter than these animals.

You may also want to link to the Wiki page on "carnism" or the Wiki series on discrimination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:C7CD:4900:4DFE:4120:7F6D:7006 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Lietzmann

In the health effects section, directly under a paragraph of multiple meta analyses showing conflicting results, there is a sentence which is almost word for word taken from the abstract of Vegetarian diets: what are the advantages?. The abstract states "In most cases, vegetarian diets are beneficial in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, renal disease and dementia, as well as diverticular disease, gallstones and rheumatoid arthritis" versus "Vegetarian diets have been shown to prevent and treat gallstones, cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, dementia, diverticular disease, renal disease, hypertension, osteoporosis, cancer, and diabetes." This statement is contradictory to the paragraph above it, and uses strong language to make big claims relative to the weak sourcing. The actual article is written like a personal opinion essay, contains a whopping 17 citations, and conflates research about vegetarianism with veganism The article is also somewhat more conservative than its abstract, saying, for example, " However, the data with vegetarians are not consistent"(pg. 154). I would be for removing that sentence entirely, seeing as it doesn't really add a whole lot, even with rewording it.Petergstrom (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Geoffreyrabbit, I reverted the gallery section. Per WP:Gallery, we usually do not include galleries. I also do not see why a gallery is needed or is an improvement for this article. I'll also go ahead and note that we do not have a gallery at the Veganism article either. I ask you to take the time to discuss this here on the talk page instead of revert and re-add the gallery. On a side note: Per MOS:HEAD, the section should not have been titled "Vegetarian Gallery"; it should have simply been "Gallery." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think to collecting the vegetarian picture in gallery , I just want to said that collect all pictures in there , I don't know why you removed it from the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreyrabbit (talk • contribs)

Geoffreyrabbit, you have not justified including the gallery. I also sense a language barrier, but you seemingly included the gallery simply because you like it. I've started an RfC on the matter below. We will see what others have to state about it. You can vote below. Remember to sign your username using four tildes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There seems to be a snowball consensus to not include a gallery, so I'll boldly close the RfC. Of course, given the discussion above the RfC, it might be prudent to re-open if Geoffreyrabbit returns. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The dispute concerns Vegetarianism#Gallery. One view is that we usually do not include galleries, per WP:Gallery, which is also why there is no gallery at the Veganism article, and the gallery does not appear needed. The other view is that a collection of vegetarian diet pictures in a gallery is an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

Yes, I think Vegetarianism is have gallery to collect the all vegetarian food or about the vegetarianism picture is set in gallery , So I think vegetarian is other Wikipedia article is have gallery to collecting the same photographs in gallery . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.197 (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

We need an image for this. -The Gnome (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks, I dream of horses. I don't see that re-opening it would be necessary. The WP:Consensus on this matter is clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Meng, Jenia (2009). Origins of attitudes towards animals Ultravisum (PhD thesis). Brisbane: University of Queensland. pp. 249, 266. ISBN 978-0-9808425-1-7.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive_18&oldid=1051984448"