Jump to content

Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 19

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

Fish

Veganvegan, I reverted you here because the fish aspect has been extensively discussed before. Yes, fish is not always considered meat. This is made clear by the fact that, as the articles addresses, vegetarianism is not always defined consistently to exclude fish, and pescetarians are commonly called vegetarians. The Pescetarianism article addresses this as well. That fish is not always considered meat is why the Terminology section of the Meat article is clear that the term meat sometimes excludes fish. But the lead sentence of the Vegetarianism article already states "the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, and the flesh of any other animal)," and the WP:Hidden note for it states, "Specifying what is meant by 'meat' is necessary because some people don't consider poultry or seafood to be 'real meat', and may think of eating either as still being vegetarian, as has been extensively discussed on the talk page. The specifics regarding this are mentioned lower in the lead and body of the article." You adding "fish" in the lead's image caption, so that that it reads as "meat and fish" is unnecessarily taking the view that fish is not meat. Even if you meant it to clarify, the lead sentence already does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know whether this issue was discussed earlier. Vegetarianism has strong roots from India where fish is naturally considered non-vegetarian food. I would kindly like to revive the discussion as it don't find it appropriate to exclude fish from non vegetarianism.Veganvegan (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
You can check the archives (listed at the top of the talk page) for previous discussions. But revive the discussion in what way? Your edit was not stating that fish may be considered vegetarian. Your edit was focused on excluding fish as vegetarian. And the Varieties section already notes that vegetarianism may be considered to include fish. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
And, again, the lead sentence of the article addresses what your edit was addressing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ember Days

The section on Christianity and vegetarianism mentions that some Roman Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays. Could the article also point out that they may also abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays at certain times of year when these days are Ember Days?Vorbee (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If supported by WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Why was the Lead section removed?

WP:CIR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Vegetables are not static and have domestication before animals. Vegetarianism is eating plants and the article was improved opening with it.

Vegetarianism /vɛdʒɪˈtɛəriənɪzəm/ is the art or science which teaches to cull, dispose, and modify for food productions of the vegetable kingdom, and thus the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter.[1]

  1. ^ Horsell, William (1859). The Vegetarians Armed At All Points. London. p. 4.

Also its improper to open with what something is by what it isn't.

which teaches to cull, dispose, and modify for food productions of the vegetable kingdom, and thus the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat is a non-sequitur. People can know how to eat vegetables and also still eat meat. The act of excluding certain foods from one's diet can only be described by what it is not. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"the practice of abstaining"

  • Abstention: To hold oneself back.
  • Practice: Repetition of an activity to improve a skill.

Is there a more neutral description of not eating meat? I doubt vegetarians have to hold themselves back from eating meat nor are they improving their skill of not eating meat.

You're looking at the wrong definition. "Practice" in this sense is "A customary action, habit, or behaviour; a manner or routine." See wikt:practice. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Eating meat is the routine, if it were the first diet there would be no life on the planet. Please address the my first comment.-72.79.34.240 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Your entire question is based on misunderstandings.
Vegetarians abstain from meat. Abstain can also mean "Refrain from (something or doing something); keep from doing." See wikt:abstain.
For vegetarians, eating things besides meat is their routine. For omnivores, eating both meat and vegetables is the routine.
Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep as in take something from? Holding oneself back reads difficult. Also it is improper to open with a negation. - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It is not improper to open with a negation in English. I'm saying this as a native speaker, who had a university reading level before finishing primary school, who has a degree in English, and whose career is teaching English.
The problem is not the sentence, the problem is your comprehension of English. You may have an easier time with the Simple English Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. The tone is reads difficult. With herbivory being the first source of food for life on earth it does not require repetition, nor is it customary or habitual. Again if life was carnivorous first there would be no speciation (in technical terms there would only be one living creature). Eating meat is the habit since the nutrients attained are found in plants at a higher cost of digestion since carnivores must sift through their shared common ancestor. - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It read "The problem is the sentence" before, No practice nor abstention are involved in vegetarianism. Also it requires study of plants to grow plants that we like. It is more than rejection which is how it reads at the time of this comment: "is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat" Also why is meat split into subcategories? - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Propagating difficulty is dissuasive.
Example of explaining what is "A semi-vegetarian or flexitarian diet is one that is plant-based with the occasional inclusion of meat. - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Vegetarianism is a practice, you just don't know all the different uses of that word.
Vegetarians abstain from meat, you just don't understand what the word "abstain" means.
It's entirely possible for a vegetarian to know nothing about farming. All one has to do to be a vegetarian is to stop eating meat.
Ian.thomson (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A Vegetarian may also know nothing about abstaining meat. Vegetarianism is foremost the consumption of vegetation. The philosophy that goes into eating meat precedes anything vegetarianism has come up with. - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
You remain way too confident in continually mistaken assumptions.
No, lots of people eat both meat and vegetables and they're not vegetarian. Eating meat and eating vegetables are not mutually exclusive. Being a vegetarian and eating meat are mutually exclusive.
The majority of people who eat meat have no philosophy behind it, they just do it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Herbivorism predates eating meat. There is philosophy for eating our ancestors. There's barely any, if any at all, for eating plants. The article lead is very confusing. My udnerstanding of abstinence is difficulty, self discipline. This is not what Vegetarianism is; again we were herbivorous first. It is our tendency. - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Philosophers have rarely commented on eating animals, except to delineate which ones to not eat.
The problem is not the article, it is your comprehension. Go read simple:Vegetarianism instead, as that is probably more on your level. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The opening sentence reads difficulty, specialty, effort. Practice and abstinence are sided. Vegetarianism is eating plants. While maintaining this diet, there are cultures that have observed behaviors of carnivore societies that led to them extending philosophy, like equality and fairness in treatment, instead of "I don't care what that monkey is up to." For a child researching vegetarianism, it does not supportive to read this authoritative article like it takes effort, practice, discipline, nor that they should adhere to the extremities of its philosophy - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It reads difficultly to you. It does not read difficultly to native speakers, nor to second language speakers who are willing to learn the different meanings of words. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
What is meant by "you." What does that "you" mean to you?
from US National Library of Medicine "A vegetarian diet focuses on plants for food." - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Vegetarianism /vɛdʒɪˈtɛəriənɪzəm/ is the science or art of raising and consuming advantageous culinary and medicinal plants for humans,[1] with philosophies extending into the abstinence of the the consumption of animal flesh (red meat, poultry, seafood, and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter.[2][3][4][5]

Vegetarianism is a derivative of herbivory. It is food raised by humans agriculturally, where philosophy grew out of a response to human carnivore practice. Humans abstained from their herbivorous tendency. The science of raising foods that are preferential for humans is vegetarianism, or else vegetarians would know to walk outside and eat leaves off a tree or sticks on the ground. Above I've written the lead again which should explain what vegetarianism is before a facet of what it is not. - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Horsell, William (1859). The Vegetarians Armed At All Points. London. p. 4.
  2. ^ "What is a vegetarian?". Vegetarian Society. Archived from the original on March 18, 2018. Retrieved March 18, 2018.
    A vegetarian is someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, legumes, nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, fungi, algae, yeast and/or some other non-animal-based foods (e.g. salt) with, or without, dairy products, honey and/or eggs. A vegetarian does not eat foods that consist of, or have been produced with the aid of products consisting of or created from, any part of the body of a living or dead animal. This includes meat, poultry, fish, shellfish*, insects, by-products of slaughter** or any food made with processing aids created from these.     {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "FAQ: Gelatin". IVU World Vegfest. International Vegetarian Union. March 8, 2013. Archived from the original on April 3, 2014. Retrieved March 18, 2018.
     'Kosher Gelatin Marshmallows: Glatt Kosher and "OU-Pareve",' an article that appeared in Kashrus Magazine, explains the distinctions. A quote from the article is as follows: '...since the gelatin product is from hides or bones—not real flesh—and has undergone such significant changes, it is no longer considered 'fleishig' (meat) but 'pareve', and can be eaten with dairy products.' [...] Rennet is like gelatin in the sense that it's a common food additive but the foods containing it are often considered vegetarian.     {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "Why Avoid Hidden Animal Ingredients?". North American Vegetarian Society. Archived from the original on March 18, 2018. Retrieved March 18, 2018.
    Surprisingly, some people who consider themselves vegetarian continue to consume products that contain remains of slaughtered animals such as gelatin (made from ground-up skin and bones, found in Jell-O, supplement capsules, and photographic film) and rennet (made from the lining of calves' stomachs, used to coagulate hard cheese). Some of these people may be unaware that these hidden animal ingredients even exist. Others know about them but feel that they are just minor components of a product, and that their presence is therefore not important. [...] Many people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons do use animal by-products that are obtained while the animals are still alive. Dairy is a good example, as many vegetarians who consume it rationalize their behavior by pointing out that cows are not killed in order to provide humans with this particular by-product.     {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Forrest, Jamie (December 18, 2007). "Is Cheese Vegetarian?". Serious Cheese. Serious Eats. Archived from the original on March 18, 2018. Retrieved March 18, 2018. Some vegetarians are OK eating cheeses made with animal rennet, but many will seek out ones made with vegetarian rennet, especially since the latter are quite prevalent nowadays. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Request for Comment

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.
This is going nowhere, and is an inappropriate use of the WP:RFC process. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does the lead sentence for the article Vegetarianism begin non-neutrally? Why does it lack information on what it is in totality, instead addressing its philosophy? 72.79.34.240 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Herbivory is the first diet. Multicellular life evolved plants first and they are the first that made land fall. Locomotive life ate herbivorously first as evidenced by studying fossils.

2.If carnivorism existed first there would be no animal speciation.

3. The article reads "abstain from..." which implies conscious action against tendency, akin to the biological imperative of reproduction that monks or nuns practice, fighting against the tendency to reproduce. Herbivory is tendency and thus carnivores abstain from eating vegetation.

4. Vegetarianism is art and science, meeting the preference of humans who harness plants via agriculture for medicinal and culinary preference. Philosophies grew out of witnessing carnivore and cannibal culture. Vegetarianism diet is a derivative of herbivory. Otherwise vegetarians would eat leaves and sticks from trees.

5. Vegetarianism /vɛdʒɪˈtɛəriənɪzəm/ is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter. To open with the article with implicity difficulty is offputting and we know what meat and it should not split up by our own definition of carnivorism is. A shark is carnivorous because we've seen it eat meat. - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What is your brief and neutral statement? Also, see WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Added after the lead. - 72.79.34.240 (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The lead does not begin non-neutrally. And seeing your arguments in the section above and seeing how this RfC is formatted, I will refrain from debating you unless necessary. I suggest you read the archives about the lead and why it is the way it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Abstinence in non-neutral, similarly with practice. Both are implicit of discipline and learning. Vegetarians are not taking Karate lessons or Chastity oaths. Additionally Vegetarianism is preferential because it is an integration of herbivory. It is the preparation of desirable vegetation and is therefore scientific and an art form. This precludes any philosophy stemming from observance of carnivore cultures that vegetarian societies have extended from their own wellnesss, the opening sentence and subsequent paragraphs focus on the philosophy of vegetarianism which should be a section of it and not the primary focus. Certainly the vegetables have to be made and supplied in order for these opinions and observations to exist and be functional in mental facets lest vegetarians simply walk outside and eat fallen leaves and roughage. It is non neutral and forces readers to consider philosophy before simplicity.

Vegetarianism integrates behavior of herbivory and requires human preparation of crops deemed advantageous for cultural, culinary and medicinal purposes.

This is not an appropriate place for this conversation. This also isn't an appropriate use of an RfC. NickCT (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Not on Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 3 December 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

Hi there, I am new to Wikipedia and was hoping to make a minor, non-controversial edit to the Further Reading section of this article. I was wondering whether an established user would consider adding this free to read article, a study on elevated plasma total homocysteine (tHcy) levels in Vegetarians. According to the study, Vegetarians nearly all have higher levels than omnivores, due to lower B12. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000711451200520x Here are a few lines from the abstract: "There is strong evidence indicating that elevated plasma total homocysteine (tHcy) levels are a major independent biomarker and/or a contributor to chronic conditions, such as CVD. A deficiency of vitamin B12 can elevate homocysteine. Vegetarians are a group of the population who are potentially at greater risk of vitamin B12 deficiency than omnivores." Thank you in advance for your assistance! Camille Regnarok (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. The article needed to highlight the potential for vitamin B12 deficiency. I made this revision to include your source which is dated to 2013, so is somewhat outdated per WP:MEDDATE. I checked the PubMed review literature and found no better or more recent substitutes other than the 2015 Oregon State University review on B12. While editing, I encountered an edit conflict with a bot that repaired my use of a dash shown here. --Zefr (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse working conditions

Flyer22 Reborn, you reverted my edit, referring to the content dispute in Veganism. However, vegetarianism refers to a much broader dietary and ethical scope, though it also includes dietary vegans. I didn't realize that the poor working conditions slaughterhouse workers face and their support from vegetarians would be disputed on Vegetarianism. Why do you feel this content is not relevant on this page? RockingGeo (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Since a consensus was reached on the vegan talk page about this material, I figured it would be ok to do something similar to this article as well. RockingGeo (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
What consensus are you talking about? Also, you should not be engaging in WP:Citation overkill.
I don't have time for this right now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about the compromise that Walkersam suggested, which was not shot down by anyone. I'll remove excess links. RockingGeo (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus here among 3+ editors for adding this content. The intent is clearly promotional to slander meat consumption via slaughterhouse practices, however unethical they may be. The content added is off topic for vegetarianism and is not supported by systematic reviews in high-quality journals or government or health organization position statements concerning slaughterhouses. This is POV-pushing and disruptive (again by this user) to the article. Warning about WP:DE and WP:WAR. --Zefr (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You're the only one reverting my edits regarding this, so I think you're the only one not agreeing with this content.
I don't think you understand what promotional content is. WP:Ads refers to "advertisements masquerading as articles," and none of this is an advertisement.
I don’t understand how this is not on topic. It's literally only about the opinions of vegetarians. I’ve referenced multiple news articles, organisations, advocacy groups, and blogs to back this up. I don't need a systematic review, since this isn't a medical statement. I've realized that going into detail about the physcial and psychological damage incurred by slaughter workers was off topic, so I haven't included it.
These opinions may or may not be slanderous, but that's not our place to say without further references. You don't have to agree with the opinions for them to be encyclopedic. The only POV I'm "pushing" is that some vegetarians think the treatment of slaughterhouse workers is unethical and a reason to give up meat, which is notable, verifiable, and very on topic for vegetarianism.
This isn't disruptive editing etiher. This is WP:BRD
Thank you RockingGeo (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Zefr: If you make reverts and refuse to participate in the discussion, you are guilty of disruptive editing. RockingGeo (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Zefr, and Zefr is not the only one who has been reverting you. I reverted you both at the Veganism article and at this one, and Zefr, Doc James and I reverted you at the Veganism article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Economics and diet

@Zefr:, you reverted my edit on the Economics and diet section, claiming it was "disruptive editing; off topic, weak sources, and promotional." How exactly was my edit any of this? All I did was reference a study about the economics of vegetarianism on the Economics and diet section. RockingGeo (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The source is WP:PRIMARY and unencyclopedic, data apparently not duplicated or confirmed in a systematic review.--Zefr (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll add a secondary source. I don't need a systematic review though. That only applies to WP:MEDRS. RockingGeo (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A review is needed for an encyclopedic topic as broad as this one, reflecting scientific consensus (i.e., a review). Don't put content back into the article without editor consensus here on the talk page, WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
From WP:PRIMARY, "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
This is exactly what I did. I made no further interpretations of the study. I simply made straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. RockingGeo (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Zefr. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Products of animal slaughter

The article should give some examples of products that are avoided by vegetarians that don't contain meat. Also the term "byproducts" should not be used, because the slaughter of the animal gives rise to multiple products, the primary one being meat. 71.198.89.109 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Red meat

Red meat is a problematic term and should not be in the 1st sentence. It can include or not include pork, and it can include some poultry. The categories are really (mammal, fowl, fish, and bugs) but the language lacks good terms for mammalian flesh and bugmeat. 71.198.89.109 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Addition of false information

I removed an edit by Zefr because it is apparently false. It states, "In the 21st century, rennet and chymosin used in cheese-making do not involve recovery from animals" but the source used in the edit states, "More than 90% of the rennet used today is fermentation-produced chymosin".[1] Also, the source doesn't indicate that rennet does not involve recovery from animals. Smartse took issue of my revert because I decided just to remove it, and the editor, without caring if the information I removed was false, reinstated it. Thinker78 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC) edited 22:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not false, but misunderstood. "90% of the rennet used today is fermentation-produced chymosin" means to me that fermentation-produced chymosin (FPC) - an enzyme extractable from rennet, but is now produced by industrial fermentation as FPC, accounting for 80-90% of cheeses. --Zefr (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Not false? Ummmm. You stated that it does not involve recovery from animals. To me that is saying it does not involve recovery from animals, not 90% does not involve recovery from animals. How is it misunderstood? Thinker78 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Chymosin has been artificially produced as a recombinant enzyme since the late 80s. --Zefr (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Smartse I did examine it more carefully. What was I to find? Thinker78 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
That I edited it to match the source. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, didn't notice that you edited because the edit summary made me think you just undid it. Misunderstanding. Sorry about that. Thinker78 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC) edited 22:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(17)31054-8/fulltext

Overly reliant on a single source

I realize this may be a sticky subject but it appears that this article is overly reliant on "the Vegetarian Society" as a source of information. It is bordering on an organizational point of view. Authoritative sources may be difficult but the society may only be attributed for their beliefs, history, and organizational structure & demographics. They do not have recognized authority to speak on behalf of the global population.

A few other nits, "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." has no place in the opening section of the article as it is revisited in an appropriate manner and location later as "Semi-vegetarianism is contested by (some) vegetarian groups, such as the Vegetarian Society, which states that vegetarianism excludes all animal flesh." The opening section should introduce the topic and organization/factional POV and critiques discussions should be further down in the article.

There is still some assumptions and opinions in here as well such as "These diets may be followed by those who reduce animal flesh consumed as a way of transitioning to a complete vegetarian diet…" There is no verifiable source that states those following these diets are transitioning to anything.

It's in the nature of these heavily controversial articles that entropy will overtake them from time to time and I don't necessarily disagree with anything said, I'm just trying to help maintain an encyclopedic tone. It has been a long time and the article little resembles the version in 2005, perhaps it's time for another peer review? Thanks and keep on keeping it on. Miglewis (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Overly reliant on the Vegetarian Society in what way? As for the "the common-use association between such diets and vegetarianism has led vegetarian groups" piece, it belongs in the lead because, per WP:Lead, the lead summarizes the article and should address any notable controversial matters as well. And, of course, the article doesn't resemble the 2005 version. Only barely edited Wikipedia articles or those that actually don't need changing are going to resemble their 2005 version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Essential amino acids in protein section

I have a suggestion to add the content of essential amino acids (EAAs) in plant food to show that all EEAs are also provided by plants. Some references: EAAs content in food FoodData Central.[1] Soybeans meal and others EAAs content also sample foods required to provide a total amount of EAAs.[2]

[3]

Regards Guniarz (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26074. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00726-018-2640-5. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Boys and girls

I have just removed a claim from a dietician this article that the father's genetics determines the percentage of male infants that survive to birth. This is not quite true: the father's genetic contribution determine the percentage of males that are conceived, which is not what this study measured. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Health effects needs updating

This section is very outdated citing medical sources from 1999, 2009 or 2011 etc. It's needs to be updated with more recent sources 2015-2020. I will attempt to do this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDDATE, updating material is not so much about the sources being newer as it is about making sure that the content is up-to-date. A source can be from 2011 and still be up-to-date.
Alexbrn, any thoughts on Psychologist Guy's edits to the article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I agree about 2011 but 1999 or 2001 single studies should be removed because we have modern systematic reviews. I propose removing the following material because it is undue weight.
The Adventist Health Studies is ongoing research that documents the life expectancy in Seventh-day Adventists. This is the only study among others with similar methodology which had favourable indication for vegetarianism. The researchers found that a combination of different lifestyle choices could influence life expectancy by as much as 10 years. Among the lifestyle choices investigated, a vegetarian diet was estimated to confer an extra 1–1/2 to 2 years of life. The researchers concluded that "the life expectancies of California Adventist men and women are higher than those of any other well-described natural population" at 78.5 years for men and 82.3 years for women. The life expectancy of California Adventists surviving to age 30 was 83.3 years for men and 85.7 years for women.[1] The Adventist health study is again incorporated into a metastudy titled "Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?" published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which concluded that low meat eating (less than once per week) and other lifestyle choices significantly increase life expectancy, relative to a group with high meat intake. The study concluded that "The findings from one cohort of healthy adults raises the possibility that long-term (≥ 2 decades) adherence to a vegetarian diet can further produce a significant 3.6-y increase in life expectancy." However, the study also concluded that "Some of the variation in the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to marked differences between studies in adjustment for confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians." It further states that "This raises the possibility that a low-meat, high plant-food dietary pattern may be the true causal protective factor rather than simply elimination of meat from the diet." In a recent review of studies relating low-meat diet patterns to all-cause mortality, Singh noted that "5 out of 5 studies indicated that adults who followed a low meat, high plant-food diet pattern experienced significant or marginally significant decreases in mortality risk relative to other patterns of intake."[2]

The above two sources, the first is from 2001 and the second is a primary study from 2003. I suggest instead this source is used [1] which is a systematic review from 2013. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

_____

References

  1. ^ Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center, New Adventist Health Study research noted in Archives of Internal Medicine, Loma Linda University, July 26, 2001. Retrieved January 9, 2010.
  2. ^ Singh PN, Sabaté J, Fraser GE (2003). "Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans". Am J Clin Nutr. 78 (3): 526S–532S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/78.3.526S. PMID 12936945.

Not a diet

Missing from this article is a fully accurate definition of vegetarianism. A fully accurate definition also must have mention of vegetarianism's actually long history as social movement that has variously been tied to philosophy and various religious practices and dominations. Vegetarianism when calling it diet or dietary practice is false because that seemingly is the same as Weight Watchers. Researchers long have written much about the social movement. This means even as one person may eat vegetarian cuisine to induce weight loss that is however not relevant to vegetarianism being a wider social movement. That is similar to a person who may join a religion for social connection, while the religion is still a religion even thought said member is not joining for religious-minded reasons. Therefore vegetarianism remains always a social movement not withstanding each person in their reasons for eating vegetarian cuisine. BrikDuk (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BrikDuk, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom. So I moved this section you started down.
Vegetarianism is just a diet for many or most people, which is why the article is clear about the different reasons for being a vegetarian. It is not as narrow as veganism (an aspect of vegetarianism), which has a philosophy aspect significantly attached to it. But even with veganism, we present the Veganism article in a way that doesn't make it seem that all or most vegans adhere to the veganism philosophy. See "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" at the top of Talk:Veganism. Also see Talk:Veganism/Archive 16#Recent edits to the lead vs. recent WP:RfC discussion, Talk:Veganism/Archive 16#New suggestion for definition of veganism, and Talk:Veganism/Archive 16#Defenition of Veganism (and the misconception of "dietary veganism"). It's fine to add on to the social movement stuff in the article...if reliably sourced (preferably to academic sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It is not fine to make it seem that being vegetarian necessarily comes with a philosophy. Yes, in September, I moved your "Scholars consider vegetarianism an ideology and a social movement." text to the "Ethics of eating meat" section. And, just now, I gave it context by stating "with regard the ethics of eating meat."
Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation and for your rearrangement of the section order on this page. The issue here in terms of a definition not being fully accurate is that in history vegetarianism has always been based upon ethical foundations and philosophical foundations that are directly and fundamentally against mainstream slaughter of animals. The issue is not whether or not "vegetarianism is just a diet for many or most people" because the "diet" itself is as such an expression of identification with an historical social movement, which therefore having been led by individuals and organizations who have defined vegetarianism as philosophical in nature and have given it its name, and have also therefore defined the food that is eaten. The definition needs to reference the fundamental nature of vegetarianism instead of something to add on to the page as an example or footnote as the philosophical and likewise attendant social movement aspects are fundamental to vegetarianism. This would be similar to "add the religion stuff" to only a section on the Protestantism page. There are Protestants who do not know beyond the Lord's Prayer however in being Protestant they are therefore identified as within a religion. The vegetarian who is vegetarian for losing weight is therefore not concerned with philosophy but are nonetheless identified with the movement if they are calling themselves vegetarian. I have academic sourcing of that which investigates vegetarianism as a wider movement through history, as one example given here investigating the movement within the country of the UK in the 1990s [1]. BrikDuk (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
BrikDuk I think you are conflating the definition of vegetarianism with the historical (and current for some) reason for adopting that dietary practice. The article while not perfect presents a concise definition with the various reasons for adopting the diet in the lede. There is also a history section and an expanded separate 'History of vegetarianism' article. Your comparison to a Weightwatchers diet is not a good one. One may define a Weightwatchers as diet where one counts calories to lose weight as one that has the ultimate purpose of aiming to improve ones health. Similarly vegetarianism can be defined as a diet whose adherents abstain from meat etc for health reasons. But this reason for adopting a vegetarian diet is just one among many reasons with, I would contend, many or even most adherents of a vegetarian diet adopting it for ethical reasons. The article states this in the lede and later in the article. Yes there are vegetarians who do not ascribe to the historical ethical philosophy (of some) but that does not undermine being able to call them vegetarian. Of course if you have reliable sources that challenge whether non ethical vegetarians can even be called vegetarian there may be a place for this information but the definition in the lede is a pretty good one as it is. Having scan read the 'History of vegetarianism' article I would suggest you focus you work of improving vegetarian history representation in that article - it clearly needs some work. Robynthehode (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The issue is not why any individual person or persons may not be eating meat but rather what is Vegetarianism. Please do look at the suffix -ism from the ancient Greek where it says the suffix "is often used to describe philosophies, theories, religions, social movements, artistic movements and behaviors.[2] The suffix "-ism" is neutral and therefore bears no connotations associated with any of the many ideologies it identifies; such determinations can only be informed by public opinion regarding specific ideologies." The issue here is therefore that the definition is inaccurate and too narrow as currently written because it does fail to note the ideological and philosophical basis of the word itself. The word Vegetarian was created by those who formed to promote this ideology and create therefore a social movement known as Vegetarianism.BrikDuk (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have modified the first sentence to match the definitions from online dictionaries and academic work to make this article contain the full meaning of this word with the Greek suffix "-ism" a suffix "used to describe philosophies, theories, religions, social movements, artistic movements and behaviors" and included with it the citations. BrikDuk (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

BrikDuk, and I reverted per what Robynthehode and I argued above. You have no WP:Consensus for that. So please do not re-add it by WP:Edit warring. The lead sentence absolutely should not be biased in that way. Furthermore, the definition you added is not the common definition of vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is first and foremost about the diet. The lead already states, "Vegetarianism may be adopted for various reasons. Many people object to eating meat out of respect for sentient life. Such ethical motivations have been codified under various religious beliefs, as well as animal rights advocacy. Other motivations for vegetarianism are health-related, political, environmental, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or personal preference." And that is enough on the matter of beliefs and theories. And exactly what is meant by "theories" anyway? You can keep arguing for changing the lead sentence, but I will not be agreeing to the change. That lead sentence has already been thoroughly discussed and has been stable for years. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
And regarding this? I think you should remove that from WP:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism. No one here ever stated that vegetarianism is only about the diet. Robynthehode and I stated just the opposite. But, again, it is first and foremost about the diet. When someone asks what vegetarianism is or looks it up, sources usually first and foremost tell us that it is the practice of adhering to a plant-based diet that excludes meat. Sources state different variations of that. Even Britannica.com calls it a "human dietary practice" and defines it as the "the theory or practice of living solely upon vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes, and nuts—with or without the addition of milk products and eggs—generally for ethical, ascetic, environmental, or nutritional reasons." So even though its lead sentence uses "theory or practice" while ours uses "practice", it still focuses on the diet first and then notes the reasons one may be a vegetarian. We, however, don't have to pack all of that into the first sentence. We address it in the second paragraph. Academic sources, like this 2018 "Nutritional Considerations for the Vegetarian and Vegan Dancer" review article, tell us that "Vegetarianism provides a catchall term for a variety of diets that exclude the consumption of some or all animal products." This 2018 "Impact of Nutrition on the Gut Microbiota" source, published by Academic Press, has a "Vegetarian Diet Pattern" section. And it tells us that "Vegetarianism is a dietary pattern that is based on the consumption of plants rather than meats. It includes different types of diets that vary on whether they include animal-derived foods such as milk and eggs (do Rosario et al., 2016)." And yet you had the lead begin with a focus on beliefs. It's also the case that the term vegetarian redirects here. And when noting what a vegetarian is? It's simple. It's someone who has a diet that excludes meat. The Vegetarian Society tells us in simple terms that "Vegetarians don’t eat fish, meat or chicken."
SlimVirgin, Zefr, and BD2412, as editors who are also involved with vegetarian/vegan/plant-based diet topics, can I get your thoughts on this? To others, SlimVirgin wrote most of the Veganism article, Zefr watches and occasionally edits the Vegetarianism and Plant-based diet article, and BD2412 watches and edits the Plant-based diet article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, Alexbrn, as someone else who watches this article, do you mind offering your opinion? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22 Frozen. Vegetarianism is primarily a diet. To the extent that other philosophies incorporate vegetarianism, we have articles on those. BD2412 T 00:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Flyer22 Frozen. The version by BrikDuk introduces vague, broad concepts ("beliefs, theories, and practices") which diverge from WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RSCONTEXT. Zefr (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Then this article needs to be renamed Vegetarian or Vegetarian Diet because VegetarianISM is a word that means a philosophy or social movement. I must please ask once again that you consult the meaning of the Greek suffix -ism to understand why this article is too limited in wording and definition. Because others (such as medical sources which are not word experts) use the word inaccurately does not change its fundamental etymology. The issue is about word meaning and as written this article is very much inaccurately defined as it provides no definition for VegetarianISM but instead defines Vegetarian. BrikDuk (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
For further understanding of the etymology of this word see the examples of nationalism, republicanism, racism, feminism, socialism and numerous other examples of words with the Greek suffix -ism at the end. In the first sentence of every such definition the article states that it is a belief, ideology, or social movement therefore fully defining the word. The definitions then continues with the practices of those members of said group or movement. BrikDuk (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
BrikDuk, this article is not about the word. It's about the topic. See WP:Not a dictionary. We have the Etymology section, which is obviously about the word. Regarding the topic and how it is typically defined first and foremost, I stand by what I stated above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Flyer 22. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is instructive to read the article at the link WP:Not a dictionary. I would suggest to BrkiDuk to do this before commenting further. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235272036_Adrift_in_the_mainstream_Challenges_facing_the_UK_vegetarian_movement

Meat is red meat

This is clunky,

“Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (the flesh of red meat, poultry, seafood, or any other animal), “

but less clunky than the previous wording

I tried a minor change, but it was reverted. Maybe we should drop the first meat all together. Otherwise we end up with a double, i.e. meat is red meat.

Possibly “Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of the flesh of red meat, poultry, seafood, or any other animal”....... 2600:1700:1111:5940:FC95:8B57:5424:BFF8 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Red meat is one type of meat, just like poultry and seafood are types of meat. Animals have flesh. Meat is that flesh; it does not have flesh. "The flesh of (red) meat" does not make sense in English. Armadillopteryx 05:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
As someone who claims to understand English, you should see the circular reference in "Red meat is one type of meat" and understand that circular references should be avoided in an encyclopedia. (And the first sentence of the meat article is "Meat is animal flesh that is eaten as food") 2600:1700:1111:5940:71C4:6CD8:7BDB:BF40 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Seventh day adventists

The mention of Seventh day adventists seems inappropriate for the "health effects" section. - Sdkb (talk)

Hi, can you elaborate? Trimton (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What's "properly planned"?

In a number of places this article references "well-planned" and "properly planned" - but it never describes what that entails. Sure, the references may talk about them, but it would be useful if the article mentioned it directly. Heatxiddy (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back, Heatxiddy likely sock-puppet, see [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a good point and I just added a sentence to explain what ADA was referring to (based on Figure 1 in their position paper) Trimton (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bone Health Section

Hi all,

The bone health section contains the following claim, "A 2020 meta-analysis found that a vegetarian lifestyle may contribute to bone loss, low height and low weight and cites this study"

Firstly, the writers use vegan and vegetarian interchangeably (for example, the article states that the vegetarian diet contains no B12 though this is only true for vegans not lacto-ovo vegetarians). The summary that includes the data is focusing on "absolute vegetarians" who do not consume any animal products and therefore must supplement B12 and other nutrients. It appears that former talk page contributors support including veganism under this article, I believe that the height, bone density, etc. claim should include a qualifier stating it relates to veganism. It should also add a qualifier concerning the quality of the diet as is mentioned in the article. The paper also lists several benefits of the vegetarian diet that should be added to other sections if this source is to be used.

Additionally, I see the talk page has discussed bone density studies in the past so it may be worth discussing again and adding more information to this section.

Let me know your thoughts! Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joiedevivre123321 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS we do not cite individual studies for medical claims so I reverted those studies which are not reliable. You need a meta analysis or review. Your other comment was accurate so I restored it. This review [3] from 2019 says "Twenty studies including 37 134 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared with omnivores, vegetarians and vegans had lower BMD at the femoral neck and lumbar spine and vegans also had higher fracture rates." It contradicts what you were adding. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your comment that this review [4] also cites positive factors of the vegetarian diet, we can include this source for this information. If you want to use that source go ahead and have a go at it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I really appreciate your wiki-knowledge. I still feel it's a bit disingenuous to present the 2020 meta-analysis as a representation of bone health in vegetarians when the study was primarily focused on vegans and included raw-food vegetarians. Furthermore, a very large portion of the studies in that meta-analysis were Buddhist nuns making it, perhaps, a poor representation of the overall vegetarian population. Unfortunately, it seems that there are very few bone health studies of diverse populations.

A 2015 meta-analysis found that the effects of a vegan diet on bone mineral density but the effects of a vegetarian diet on bone mineral density were not statically significant. The 2015 meta-analysis also found that there was a significantly higher fracture risk was found in vegans in comparison with omnivores. However, this effect was, again, not statistically significant for vegetarians. Among the studies included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, only 1 study considered overall dietary quality. In this study, diet quality was superior for individuals adhering to a vegan diet as compared with the other diet groups, and there were no differences in BMD among vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores, which suggests that a high-quality vegan/vegetarian diets would look similar to that of an omnivore in relation to bone health.

This is backed up by a 2009 meta-analysis that showed much of the effect of vegetarian diets on bone density was mainly due to a vegan diet and that a lactoovovegetarian diet did not exert a markedly negative effect on bone density. This study concludes that there is a modest effect of vegetarian diets, particularly a vegan diet, on BMD, but the effect size is unlikely to result in a clinically important increase in fracture risk.

If you have any thoughts please let me know. Thank you for your help and knowledge! Joiedevivre123321 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

New bone section proposal

Good day! I'm proposing the following for the bone health section.
A 2019 meta-analysis found that, compared with omnivores, vegetarians and vegans had lower BMD at the femoral neck and lumbar spine and vegans also had higher fracture rates. Among the studies included in this meta-analysis, only one study considered overall dietary quality. In that study, there were no differences in BMD among vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores, which suggests that a high-quality vegan/vegetarian diets would look similar to that of an omnivore in relation to bone health. (Study link)
A 2009 meta-analysis found that vegetarian diets, particularly vegan diets, are associated with lower bone mineral density, but the magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant.(study link)
A 2020 meta-analysis found that a vegetarian lifestyle may contribute to bone loss, low height and low weight. However, the same meta-analysis found that infants with a precise vegetarian diet containing milk and dairy products exhibit normal growth and development. (the same as it is now)
Studies have shown that a vegetarian diet may increase the risk of vitamin B 12 deficiency, calcium deficiency and low bone mineral density. Remove this reference. This is not a result of the meta-analysis. The authors cite it as an individual source used for discussion within the paper.
I still think that the 2020 meta-anlysis should note that it was primarly about vegans but no worries if anyone disagrees.
Please let me know what you think! Cheers, Joiedevivre123321 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
In the 2020 meta-analysis it says in the discussion section "Disadvantages of a vegetarian diet", "People who eat a vegetarian diet tend to be deficient in calcium, iron, vitamin D, and vitamin B12, and have low levels of protein and total fat, which can reduce bone density and increase the risk of fractures". The paper notes that the vegetarian model can be divided into vegan, vegetarian and semi-vegetarian types, depending on the food that is eaten. Why do you say it is primarily about vegans? If you look at the 14 studies in table 1 used in the meta-analysis hardly any looked at vegans. Buddhist nuns are vegan but Buddhist followers are not they are vegetarian. All of the other studies involved vegetarians i.e. those who consume dairy products or eggs. So 12 out of 14 of the studies involved comparing vegetarians to non-vegetarians. The meta-analysis was very much about vegetarians, not vegans. The total data looked at 799 vegetarians and 964 non-vegetarians. However, I agree they should have left the few vegan studies out the data pool. The meta-analysis would have been better to just look at vegetarians and non-vegetarians. It gets confusing by lumping in a few vegan studies.
The meta-analysis also notes "From the perspective of nutrition, there are also deficiencies in a vegetarian diet. Firstly, the quality of protein in plant food is poor (except soy protein), and the composition of essential amino acids is incomplete or the quantity of essential amino acids is insufficient. Secondly, a vegetarian diet does not contain vitamin B12 and most essential elements, such as iron and calcium, and zinc is very limited. Oxalic acid, phytic acid, dietary fiber, and the interference by other minerals prevent the absorption of calcium, zinc, and iron, thus causing iron, calcium, zinc, and fat-soluble vitamins (especially vitamin D) deficiencies."
This is not controversial. Vegetarian diets if not properly planned can be deficient in calcium because of the excess phytic acid and dietary fiber consumed (from grains and legumes) which prevent the absorption of calcium. Omnivorous and semi-vegetarian diets do not have this problem. The meta-analysis does not list any deficiencies from a semi-vegetarian diet, only vegetarian that is because the meta-analysis studied vegetarians. I understand there is also an "Advantages of vegetarian diet" section in the discussion of the meta-analysis. There are both positive and negative factors of vegetarian dieting. We should not just cite the positives. We need to cite both to be neutral. Like I said if you want to add that content to the article to balance it out then go ahead. You seem educated and in good faith so I don't think you would be reverted if you added those other reviews either. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Joiedevivre123321 are you able to get full access to this umbrella review? [5] This is a top quality reference that needs to go onto the article but I cannot get full access unfortunately right now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Good day! Here's a link to the full text of the article you reference.
I'm truly not trying to be a nuisance! It just feels like someone dropped that source in the bone health section without providing much context or qualifiers. What I want to get across is that, yes, it appears there is a correlation between lower bone density and vegetarianism but these studies didn't measure diet quality and it is unclear if the reduced BMD is clinically/statistically significant. And yes, B12 and folate are areas of concern but primarily a concern for vegans and a properly planned diet will include enough of those nutrients.
Also, my issue with saying that the 2020 meta-analysis is about vegetarians as a whole is that much of their nutritional discussion seems to be about vegan nutrition. For example, “a vegetarian diet does not contain vitamin B12” is not true. While a vegan diet does not contain naturally occurring vitamin B12, vegetarians can get B12 without supplements through milk and eggs. So I’m really unclear with what they are discussing.
I think nutrition is a bit too far outside my area of expertise so I will drop trying to edit this article. I’m just not a fan of the broad generalization and lack of context in the bone section. Also, If we could remove “Compared to omnivores, vegetarians were more open to new experiences but were also more neurotic and depressed.[207]” from the demographics section I think that would be a marked improvement haha.
Thank you for your patience! I’m sorry to have been a pain I’m just really bothered by that section. I'll drop it until I can get a bit more editing experience. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joiedevivre123321 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Honey

Hello. My edit reversing another user was reversed.[6].

Rasnaboy, there is disagreement about honey.[7]. I can also provide refs for it. So why should the page definitively say that vegans avoid honey? Zefr and Psychologist Guy, should this page contradict the veganism page? ApproximateLand (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The Vegetarian Society includes honey, while veganism excludes it. Zefr (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Zefr. You say that, but previous honey discussions tell a different story (with users Kellen, Betty Logan, and Vorbee all starting discussions about it; and in the discussion with Vorbee, you said a source was needed to say vegans don't eat honey):
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive_12#veganism_and_honey
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Veganism/Archive_8#Honey_edits
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Veganism/Archive_18#Honey
Refs talking about the debate:[8][9][10][11]
Just for a summary, the second ref I listed says, "The question of whether or not vegans should consume honey continues to be debated in the vegan community. ... Vegan Action ... states it depends on one's definition of vegan. Insects are animals, and so insect products, such as honey and silk, are not traditionally considered vegan. Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products, because they do not believe insects are conscious of pain." Similarly, some vegans wear silk because they're dietary vegans only. I won't fight over this, so don't worry. I'll just leave this info here for other people to consider. I wanted to show that I didn't reverse that user for nothing and that there's been fighting over this at these pages before. ApproximateLand (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The vegetarianism page also says "not always".[12] 21:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is an ongoing debate within the vegan community as to whether it is acceptable for vegans to consume honey. There was a comprehensive discussion relating to this issue several years ago at Talk:Veganism/Archive_8#Honey_edits. Since there isn't a universal vegan position on honey I believe it would not be prudent to present it as such in this article. As some vegans have pointed out, a honey ban is an artificial red line given the essential role of bees in pollinating crops i.e. the vegan diet is partially dependent on the exploitation of bees. Betty Logan (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Deficiencies

An editor is insisting that having a vegetarian diet leads to people having "deficiencies" and putting it in the lead paragraph. This isn't true, it CAN lead to deficiencies, like any diet you can think of. The person also seems to think that vegetarianism includes veganism for this statement. The two are totally different. He also refuses to provide a citation for his claim stating one isn't needed as it's a "summary". Please note this if he starts of edit war and warn him of his behaviour accordingly. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What do the WP:BESTSOURCES say on the topic of Vegetarianism and deficiency? Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The British Dietetic Association and National Health Service say that vegetarian diets are fine if properly planned. World Health Organisation was recently withdrawn it's full support of a vegan diet but doesn't mention anything about vegetarianism, which is different. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they say a decent vegetarian diet can contain all essential nutrients, but a vegan diet needs supplementation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
So we two agree in principle then that a statement that a vegetarian diet leads to deficiencies should not be in the lead of the article? Sirhissofloxley (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It apparently can't be WP:Verified, so that's right. Also, WP:LEDEBOMB. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The article says that veganism is a variety of vegetarianism. That‘s correct as vegans have historically often been called strict vegetarians. I have now rephrased the paragraph in the intro to reflect this. Tischbeinahe (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Halepenyo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Religion - Hinduism

According to Hindu-Buddhist philosophy, using pesticides in field crops cause many animals to be killed, probably more so than all meat eaters combined. Clearing large areas for crops also causes hardship to many animals who are displaced as a result of this. Being vegetarian does not mean that no animals have been killed in cultivating crops and any ethical arguments to support this perception does not hold up.[1]

Vegetarianism has also led to possible displacement of the Indus Valley civilization to the east (Bihar) and/or may have merged with an older settlement there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.10.54 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "To Cherish All Life [buddhanet.net;". buddhanet.net. 1982. Retrieved October 1, 2014.

Definition

Hello, I propose changing the definition from "Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter." to "Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include the exclusion of by-products of animal slaughter." Reasoning:

  • We have two good refs for the definition, but neither defines vegetarianism as "abstaining" or "abstention".
  • My definition is also shorter. See WP:MOS: "Since using plain English makes the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to read, editors should avoid (...) unnecessarily complex wording"

Any objections? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 14:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

More Accurate Definition
noun
a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vegetarianPeerreviewededitor (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

More accurate definition: No fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dae kae (talk • contribs) 07:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"May also include the exclusion" sounds a bit funny because of "include" and then "exclusion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dae kae (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Aesthetic motivation?

Listed in the lede among the "other motivations" is "aesthetic". What is the aesthetic motivation for vegetarianism? Anonymous526 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


Non-vegetarian, Requesting inputs @ WP:DUE

An input request about 'Indian Non-vegetarian food culture' @ WP:DUE

Bookku (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Religion-Christianity

Hello, I'd like to pitch changing the article about Christianity. Mostly about some titles being the Eastern Orthodox Church. Splitting it into different articles would help some controversy between the two different religions. Being said that Christianity is a religion itself; very different than other religions as a whole. Saying that, in order to make this more helpful to people, you should take out the groups part of Christianity since the religion has no branches at all and is just one religion. Also, thank you for splitting Christianity and Seventh-day Adventist up already very helpful. Thank you! 2600:1700:6749:8490:A8F9:9730:E560:99DC (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Deficiency concerns

I think this part is completely useless "Maintenance of a vegetarian diet can be challenging. While avoidance of animal products may support health and ethical concerns, dietary supplements may be needed to prevent nutritional deficiency if all such products are shunned, particularly for vitamin B12. "
The article is about vegetarianism right? Which is different from veganism. Eggs and milk contain plenty of those things (including high-quality protein and vitamin B12) that a vegan might be lacking.
Actually, I don't know why veganism is even mentioned under the umbrella of vegetarianism in the way it is. I would reword the part about veganism to say "Vegetarianism is less extreme than veganism, which avoids all animal products, including those that don't involve any killing, because of ethical considerations over the treatment of farm animals"
And, when talking about the deficiencies, clearly state that "in the case of more restrictive forms, as veganism, deficiencies may occur [etc etc]" So that it is crystal-clear that the average vegetarian, who eats everything except killed animals, is at no such risk. The way it is written now, it gives a very distorted view which will unnecessarily instill fear. Shantimar (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no suggestion that Vitamin B12 deficiency is likely to occur on a vegetarian (as opposed to vegan) diet. Sbishop (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
In theory you are correct because many dairy products have a good amount of B12 and the B12 in these products is more bioavailable than in other animal-source foods such as red meat. However, the B12 from animal-source foods is protein-bound. Supplements that contain B12 are in its free form, so they are often more easily absorbed. If you read the medical literature, Vitamin B12 deficiency is often reported amongst vegetarians. For example, a 2014 review found that "with few exceptions, the reviewed studies documented relatively high deficiency prevalence among vegetarians" [13].
Another review "the main finding of this review is that vegetarians develop B12 depletion or deficiency regardless of demographic characteristics, place of residency, age, or type of vegetarian diet" [14]. The same review notes that "Although B12 deficiency was once thought to be extremely rare except among strict vegetarians, it is now known that B12 deficiency is relatively common among people adhering to all types of vegetarian diets, including lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and other population subgroups, such as the elderly." [15]. Nobody knows the exact figure but around 40% of vegetarians are reported to be deficient in B12 [16]. The advice to be on the safe side is to take a b12 supplement. I would say the text on the article is largely accurate although the wording could be improved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shantimar I strongly disagree with your proposed wording re. veganism. It's quite OR to use the term "extreme" for the vegetarian or vegan diets. Also, veganism is not necessarily driven by ethics, and where it is, it's not always because of animal farming.
Re. vitamin B, I would certainly get rid of dietary supplements may be needed, primarily because of WP:NOTGUIDE. However, the study linked by @Psychologist Guy cannot be dismissed in its entirety (even though it had its limitations, including a lack of comparable data for omnivors and a lack of a discussion on the scientific basis of the definition of B12 deficiency). — kashmīrī TALK 22:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This is what the NHS has to say [17]:

Vitamin B12 is needed for growth, repair and general health. It's only found naturally in animal products. If you regularly eat eggs or dairy products, you probably get enough. But if you only eat a small amount or avoid all animal products, it's important to have a reliable source of vitamin B12 in your diet.

which seems in line with what the article says. I would stress the "if" and get rid of the "dietary supplement" part, with similar reasons to what kashmiri said. Ffaffff (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive_19&oldid=1229278279"