Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 5

Feedlot Radio

I am trying to add a link to my little idea, FeedlotRadio.com, to raise animals better the same way you can plants, with music, and silence the vegan protest (ideally).

For some reason, this novel idea is being rejected outright every time I try to add the link. It was suggested I discuss it here, so I am. I guess I didn't think there'd be an issue, and I'm surprised it wouldn't be included when so many redundant pro-veganism sites are.

It was suggested that I try to post here, so I am. What's wrong with linking to this? Repeat2341 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps vegetarians would not like to be associated with raising animals in this way, because the gist of being a vegetarian is that we are trying to voice our choices by not consuming animal products at all- therefore there is no "better way" to raise animals who are only bred and kept for future sale as food. Your mind is sorta going that direction of thinking for the better - what would really help is to convince people that the land could be better used for organic farming. Or Eco tourism.

Hope that helps09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)RR Portland Oregon24.21.192.115 (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New picture for this article needed

Some idiot put a picture of meat in this article with a caption that read "meat, a vegetarian food". I've deleted the picture but i don't know how to go about putting a new one one up. I could probably learn how to do it but i'd need permission.

On other issues, yes i agree that it should be semi-protected (i assume that means that edits are moderated?. It will stop ignorant morons doing stuff like the one i mentioned above.

In answer to the cowardly person who posted before me without signing thier name, the health benifits are substantial but not a major factor in most vegetarian's choices to become one. The immorality is a much larger factor (forgive me if i'm wrong for some of you). We have a lesser risk of heart disease and bowel cancer, amongst other illnesses. Statisitically we have a higher lifespan than meat eaters. Yes, it is true that people who eat fish but no meat do live longer than us. But it also true that the inuits (the ones that eat a traditional diet)who eat only meat and fish have the shortest life span. As for proteins, i expect you to do some research as your knowledge of biological chemistry is laughable. All proteins are made out of 20 amino acids, an animal protien e.g. myosin and a plant protein could have a very similar primary structures, which is all that matters nutrition wise, it wouldn't matter if they had different structures and functions. There can be no arguments about protein quality as there isn't much difference in amino acids overall. As long as you eat pulses and grains you will have all the proteins your body will ever need. Just a thought, the best source of essential fatty acids are lino floor tiles as they are made up of a polymer, would you want to eat them?

Your statement that "All proteins are made out of 20 amino acids" is misleading. Not all proteins contain all 20+ types of amino acids. Some proteins are composed of only a few of the list of standard amino acids, so primary structure could vary significantly from one protein source to another. Some plant-types are inherently poor in certain essential amino acids - see essential amino acids, and Section 5.2 Nutrition of this very article.

Additionally - your statement about lino floor tiles implies that they are made of polymers of essential fatty acids. This is a seriously non-neutral point of view statement here, completely ridiculous, inappropriate in a serious discussion - and incorrect to boot. The key ingredient in linoleum floor tiles is oxidized linseed oil, not the essential fatty acid, linoleic acid. While linseed oil does contain linoleic acid, the manufacturing process of lino floor tiles renders this inedible and nutritionally unavailable. This kind of statement is simply antagonist and violates a key principle of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum for potentially heated debates. Biochemza 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The bit about herbivores at the start should stay. Some people refer to mistakedly herbivores as vegetarians. It's quite funny really because it would mean that a mouse doesn't eat meat becuase it chose not to. :)A vegetarian chooses not to eat meat and a herbivore eats no animal products by instinct. In answer to the question at the bottom, all humans are omnivores apart from vegans as veggies eat eggs and/or dairy products.

As for all 11 year old wannabe vegetarian, 11 isn't too young at all (i became one when i was 8 and have heard of younger children doing this as well). Do whatever you want, it doesn't matter what your parents think, at 11 they are only there to guide you. Tell them the pro's of vegetarianism, if that doesn't work refuse to eat anything with meat in it. Don't worry about starving or having malnutition, they'll probably give in after a week or two. Sci_fi_rocks 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reality Check

Fish such as cod or tuna contains only about 25mg of cholesterol (good idea). Small amounts of cholesterol from fish WILL reduce your total cholesterol intake instead of eating pig meat, KFC, or Mcd's. I personally like cod. A vegetarian diet can be or actually is a very risky behavior by having a severe protein deficiency.

Brown rice is a inherently poor source of protein. I consider brown rice a good source of complex carbs. Nice try though. Vegetarains point to red meat. I point to fish!!! Vegetarains eating behavior has nothing to do for a health benefit. Fish, egg whites, non-fat milk, and skinless turkey breast are healthy sources of high quality protein. Soy, on the other hand may cause cancer, allergies, and birth defects which most vegetarians say, "soy is the best?"

The unsourced opinions claim a "Vegetarian Diet" has a significant advantage? Wikipedia is not a promo ad for people to become Vegetarians.

Adding original research to Wikipedia is not acceptable. If you want to avoid an "edit war" read Wikipedia's policies. --Just an onlooker 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

it is a proven fact that if you want to be perfectly fit and healthy you need to eat meat and other animal products domestic farm animals are here to serve humans that is why they exist Bouse23 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you seriously need a reality check. Sentences like "Another misconception is by some vegetarians who think vegetable protein is equal to animal protein. In fact, protein obtained from animal is inherently a higher quality than protein obtained from vegetable" are just plain propaganda. There are many kinds of plant protein and many kinds of animal protein. To say that animal protein is inherently a higher quality than plant protein is just nonsense. Some kinds of of animal protein, such as gelatin, are severely deficient in several essential amino acids (see the USDA database, for instance). Some kinds of plant protein too. So what? Some kinds of plant protein are very adequate. It is very easy to live with just plant protein, I have been doing that myself for over 15 years and have no signs at all of protein deficiency (let alone "severe protein deficiency"!).

Please stop your propaganda. It is perfectly possible (and quite easy) for humans to live healthily without preying on other animals. That is fact. Why do you want to obscure that fact?

David Olivier 23:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"These sentences above written by "David Olivier" are unsourced, opinions, and pure speculation."

Notice how David FAILS at every level to explain what plant sources equal animal sources of proteins.

Soy is the highest quality plant protein and it is very risky to eat. All other plant sources of protein are lower than soy. So what is left to eat for a true vegetarian? Notice how I have been asking this same question for about a week now and eveybody FAILS to give me a VALID ANSWER! David is a perfect example that vegetarians falsely believe in their mind that plant sources of protein are equal to animal sources of protein. David merely makes my info even more valid now than ever! Just an onlooker 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I provided a simple list of Vegetarian protein sources a few days ago, but to be honest you don't seem very open to suggestions. What is there that we could provide which is much clearer than the table in this link? I am not suffering from Protein problems and have followed a lacto-vegetarian diet for over ten years. See Protein from Vegetarian sources. GourangaUK 09:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an onlooker: some of your responses, this one in particular, appear to be contravening Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Please think about what you are saying and word your responses more carefully - comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 10:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference you provided clearer points to protein content. The quality of protein is about protein value not protein content. The table is unscientific. It only explains about protein content. It has nothing at all to do with protein content. Go to the vegetarian article and click on the links that explain about protein value. Please provide links about protein quality. Protein from vegetable sources such as peanut butter (listed in the unscientific table about protein content) is actually lower than fish animal protein.

Here is some info about protein quality. It is about protein value not protein content.

Some or maybe even most vegetarians have an "extreme false belief" that protein content is the same as protein quality.

Some or most vegetarians do not draw the line between the different grades of protein quality and protein content. Just an onlooker 18:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that your reference states that the "best" sources of protein are:

Egg 9.25, Whey 8.20, Casein 7.80, Milk 7.80

All of those could be found in an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet, which is the most common type (in the western world, at least). I also question your reasoning in stating that

most vegetarians have an "extreme false belief" that protein content is the same as protein quality

- A (non-scientific, but nonetheless reasonable) quick survey amongst 10 people here suggests that as the only vegetarian present, I'm the only one who knows what the difference is. :) Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I said some or most. If you prefer I should clarifiy and say just some have a "false belief"... Happy now? A quick glance by most who disagree with me on this talk page continue to point to a false belief about protein content in their references that they continue to tout as proof showing the vegetable protein is equal to animal. When I talk about vegetarian diet I am pointing to a strict vegetarain diet that eats egg and dairy occasionally. People who consider themselves true vegetarians do not eat any meat, dairy, or eggs, period! Just an onlooker 19:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, people who eat no dairy or eggs are not vegetarians, they're vegans. The majority of self-described vegetarians in the US do eat eggs and dairy products.

Additionally, please watch yourself when making comments such as "most people who disagree with me on this page continue to point to a false belief..." and remember to comment on content, not the contributor.

Furthermore, I have shown, in your own reference, that the average vegetarian diet can provide perfectly adequate protein, and fully incorporates the "best" sources of protein. I think this point has been debated enough. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop creating additional headings for each reply you make. It obfuscates the page's contents list and breaks any links to a specific section of this talk page. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An average vegetarian diet is not referenced in the link I provided. Your statement obfuscates the facts. According to some vegetarians who I have spoken to, they believe plant protein is equal to animal. Some (which I am not going to say who) point to protein content rather than protein quality. When some (not most) point to protein content they can develop a protein deficiency by following their false belief in their mind. Just an onlooker 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, an encyclopedic article cannot be written based on your own personal experiences, and while the reference provided does not explain what an "average" vegetarian diet is, the standard by which products are labelled as "vegetarian" includes products containing milk and eggs, so it can be assumed that the most common definition of a vegetarian is one who does not eat meat, but does consume eggs and dairy products. My previous statement simply said that a "vegetarian" diet contains dairy and eggs, which are among the "best" protein sources in your previous reference, so I hold my statement to be correct and not "obfuscating the facts" in any way.

Anyway, this discussion is proving to be extremely unproductive, so I think it's best left alone from here. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Some assume (which I am not going to name who) vegetarians always eat egg and dairy. Nothing could be further from the truth! Some vegetarians do not eat egg and some vegetarians do not eat dairy products. This type of eating behavior can sometimes cause a protein deficiency. Also, a quick glance at references about protein content on pro vegetarian websites do not mention anything about protein quality. This further misinforms the public and many many vegetarians. They always point to protein content. I hold other statements (which I am not going to point to who) to be falsehoods. Thanks, Just an onlooker 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to the way you are continuing to make (thinly disguised) comments about other editors, I respectfully request that you take this discussion to my talk page or stop. Otherwise, I may request intervention.

I will not discuss the main point further here, because I feel that I have made my position perfectly clear - that most self-declared vegetarians in the US do eat products containing protein of the best quality. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 21:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, guys, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" or reality. There is zero point debating on talk page trying to convice other side that vegetarian diet is deficient/sufficient. Just add content with proper source and it doesn't matter. This article contain too many unverifiable statements. And citing POV or facts from advocacy group is not acceptable for encyrcropedia. Therefore, I will add and leave it for while. Secondly, this apply to just on looker. If you want to contribute, explaing what it mean by "quality" in term of protein would clear thing up. Then adding list of type of protein as well as list of food (vegetables, milk, egg, meat and so on) which can provide these different protein type help. You don't have to convince anyone. All you have to do is to demonstrate that your source are verifiable as defined by wikipedia. Vapour

Oh, and this is to Mig77. As of "there is right level of fat and/or cholesterol", you can google or just look at wikipedia articles on fat and cholesterol. As of optimal diet, read the section of criticism, where I quoted from peer reviewed articles from academic journal. Note that Adventist studies are already incoroporated into two meta studies I quoted. These sutides clearly support my "sensible rule of thumb" This "insight" is pretty much "duh" for anyone with common sense. As of lot of fat vegetarian Hindu in Sri Lanka, I'm sorry I can't pay you to go there. But did you know that human body weight is determined by the calories input/output so one can easily become fat if one overeat on rice or nun bread? Vapour

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth or reality."

In this case, the point we disagree on is that a vegetarian diet does not contain "good" sources of protein. The citation given directly contradicts the "poor quality protein" point in its own conclusion, which in my opinion makes any inclusion of this "information" misleading at best - it is not verifiable if it's contradicted by its own source! The policy page on verifiability itself states that "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", so the "inferior protein quality" point is most definitely not suitable for inclusion in the article. However, I think that it may be worth inserting into the article on Veganism, since the claim that the "good" sources of protein are missing from the diet is relevant in that article. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 08:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For clarification's sake: we have sorted out this little disagreement. The page, as-is, is something that we agree on, and I'm happy to get all this out of the way and leave the article better off :) Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Each see what they want to see. You seems to ignore the first info in criticism section which show that vegetarian are only equal in longvity to occasional meat eater but lose out to those who eat fish. So, it's not (yet) accurate to say that vegetarianism is equally optimal or equally best. Moreover, your meat-cholesterol-bad is a factually incorrect argument. Plus, if you read carefully you might notice that protein is not the end all factor in deciding optimal diet. In fact, eggs, for example are high in cholesterol so using egg as defence kind of contradict your first cholesterol-bad argument. Vapour

In fact, eggs is one of the best sources of protein. No cholesterol, no fat, and very high quality protein.

When talking about egg we mean egg whites. So a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet can have egg whites non-fat milk and still get enough protein but miss out on the healthy benefits if fish though.

I propose a new type of vegetarian who eats egg (egg whites), milk (always low or non-fat), and ocean fish but no land animal meat. "Lacto-ovo-eco vegetarian." I eat no red meat. But eat fish, eggs, and dairy. I do not know -- does anyone consider my diet a vegetarian diet.

Start a new stub maybe: A "lacto-ovo-eco vegetarian" does not eat land meat but eat ocean seafood, egg, and dairy. --Just an onlooker 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a vegetarian who eats fish, unless you found some way to grow fish on a plant. And Vapour, please refrain from making personal attacks and stop putting words in my mouth: I'm not debating the article in any way, which I have specifically said. Saying "your argument is factually incorrect" is nonsense if I'm not arguing. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 09:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a correction Davidjk, vegetarians in Orissa and Bengal, in India who despite eating fish consider themselves vegetarians. They call fish as "Jalpushp" (water flower). Interestingly they include brahmins who are normally considered strict vegetarians. Idleguy 15:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

vegetarianˌvejiˈte(ə)rēən - noun - a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, esp. for moral, religious, or health reasons.

- from the Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine). It doesn't matter what some people consider themselves to be - Wikipedia works by consensus, and the most common definition is that vegetarians consume no meat whatsoever. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't debating the definition. It would be nice if people can open up their minds, close the dictionaries and look at what some people think and eat in the real world. I found this [1] stating that some seem to mistake fish as a vegetarian food. Idleguy 17:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fish as a vegetarian dish might have come from the Catholics. They are not allowed to eat meat on Good Friday, but they may eat fish, which they do not consider to be meat. Jecowa 05:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...would please refain from stating untrue things on WP?!--70.165.71.229 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fish is not vegetarian food. The whole moral point of being vegetarian is to not harm living creatures. Fish are living creatures. Thus they are not part of a vegetarian diet.

Poor source of protein my foot! Look at my Triceps, and try to say that again!!! FISH IS NOT A VEGGIE!!! Your so lucky that you are protected by a no personal attack rule. Then again you are crossing the the line yourself! I am tired of these lies! I been a vegetarian for 3 years, and feel better than ever. I even gained muscle contrary to what some liars will think. East beans, breads, soy, and other non-meat products I can't think of! The whole soy is dangrous is bull as well! Some need watch what they say on this article!

I agree that protein is a non-issue. See the Protein combining article for a reference that shows that even a diet of brown rice will not lead to insufficient protein (and hence that combining is a fallacy). The Soy protein#Biological value of soy protein article also shows that plants have high value proteins. As for Soy being dangerous, the Soy article shows there are many benefits, except of course to the few people who are allergic (and there is a risk of allergy with any food). -- Q Chris 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Buddhism

Articles are forked for a reason. The Vegetarianism article is very long, and the Vegetarianism in Buddhism article is very detailed, so it is correct to maintain it as a fork and link to it in the article. In fact, ideally, the vegetarianism article should be forked more, since it's currently 49KB with over 30 sections. Please keep additions on the topic of Buddhism in the appropriate article. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 09:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

under this small section, the article says, "There are numerous Pali Tri Pitaka text showing Buddha ate food." should it read "meat" instead of "food?" larz (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag on the "Criticism / Health concerns" section

It seems that due to the relentless efforts of one or two people, that section has become filled with unacceptable statements, such as the following.

"both vegetarian and vegan advocacy groups invariably promote their diet as healthy while claiming that the diet which includes meat and/or fish is inherently unhealthy"

There are certainly many AR groups (such as the Veggie Pride, for instance) that are vegetarian/vegan advocates but who do not claim that meat or fish is inhernently unhealthy. That foregoing animal flesh (and byproducts) is equivalently healthy is enough for many to make an ethical argument in favour of refusing to participate in the slaughter of animals.

"Critics argue that these groups are engaging in scientific misrepresentation in direct opposition to public interest"

What critics? How can such a blatantly POV statement be included without qualification in a WP article?

"A common misconception is that vegetable protein is equal to animal protein. In fact, protein obtained from animal sources such as fish, eggs and dairy is inherently a higher biological value protein according to the Biological Value method of testing protein quality than protein obtained from vegetable sources such as soy."

Weasel words, unsupported statements, unreliable references, absurd statements (about the "inherently higher biological values", see above.

David Olivier 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to source some of this material and add some valid refences, however any attempts to do this are being reverted by that one particular user and his/her sockpuppets. Yankees76 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To the sockpuppets carrying out multiple reversions: please stop. You aren't helping the quality of the article, and I'm sure it's frustrating for all involved. You've already broken 3RR and I (and other editors, I'm sure) will treat further reversions/edits as being not in good faith. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a request for semi-protection in the meantime. Would you be able to revert the last edit made by "Vegetables76" - it purposely removes any inputs I've put into this article, rather than discuss the edits. I won't revert because I've already done three reverts today. Thanks. Yankees76 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. However due to the large number of reversions and edits I've had to make to this article recently I won't make any more, so hopefully the petty POV pushing will stop here. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The user has issues with the material - and I can't see why not - other than he/she's annoyed about being found out as a sockpuppet today. There have been extensive debates over this same material on the soy protein article and other articles talk pages, by this same user, his/her socks, myself and other users/admins. I will gladly discuss and provide further verifiable sources to corroborate what I've inserted. Yankees76 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an electronic reference right now, but my biology textbook states that vegetable protein is classified as 'incomplete' and meat protein is 'complete'. This refers to the different types of amino acids in the proteins. Vegetable proteins have less varieties of amino acids in the proteins than meat. This is what 'protein quality' is refering to. --Xfcanadian 22:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, complete refers to any protein source containing all 9 essential amino acids, while incomplete protein sources contain some but not all essential amino acids. Biochemza 14:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to jump in and accuse, this article has had enough trouble that any user with no edits other than to this article and its talk page should, in my opinion, be treated with suspicion. If you aren't yet another sockpuppet, then fair enough, but this topic has been debated to death, so please don't start it all off again. The article has been generally agreed to be okay in its current state. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV on Hinduism

It says "However, the Bhagavad Gita also states that killing an animal as an offering to Brahman gives this animal's soul a chance to gain a human body;"- No it doesnt. Can you give me the reference? Bhagvad Gita doesnt say anything about animal sacrifice anywhere. The reference given in next line is about Human bodies.

Seems to me this part was written by someone trying to find loopholes in Gita that allow meat eating. Unless proper reference, with the line that quotes that the Gita allows animal sacrifice is given, I might have to raise NPOV.

You are quite right - I believe someone inserted these misquotes recently without anyone noticing due to the revert battle going on. I have removed them. Ys, GourangaUK 15:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The user by the name of Xfcanadian inaccurately stated that vegetable protein is incomplete; however, soy protein is an excellent example of a complete protein. Reading this article and the arguments going on throughout the talk page, I noticed numerous inaccuracies. Vegetarianism has long been shown to be healthier and more beneficial, so it is sad that people still choose to ignore that.

Question?

This is probably a stupid question and is probably already answered somewhere on here, but do vegetarians count fish as meat not to eat or not? I know on another part of this discussion page, people are talking about eating fish, so does that mean vegetarians will?

• Is it just certain types of vegetarians that will or all types that will?

Like I said, this is probably already answered somewhere else, but if you could answer this here, I'd really appreciate it. Future...Destination 00:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, vegetarians don't eat fish... because fish aren't vegetables :) Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

in quoting 'Furthermore, WRT to the "vegetarian" and "vegetable" link, the Vegetarian Society claims that the "veget" in "vegetarian" comes from the the Latin "vegetus", which means "lively", not in fact, from "vegetable"', your statement is a little silly don't you think? Vegetarians don't limit thier diet to vegetables, egg's are not vegetables but as you have stated before, they eat them. It would probably have been better to say 'Fish is meat, vegetarians don't eat meat, so vegetarians don't eat fish'. - Magwitch 09:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a theoretically simple one. seafood isn't vegetables. Having said that, for practical purposes, people in Japan and some other parts of asia, including India, consider fish as vegetarian. Remember just because they think it's vegetable, doesn't change facts. Idleguy 05:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some vegetarians eat fish. And still do consider themselves "vegetarians". Others have a different opinion. "Vegetable" is just a word. In English. Cultures define words. A culture has the power the define the word they use for "vegetables" to include fish. This is not a matter of "facts" about vegetables and fish -- but rather a question about word usages. Dictionaries just record the way people use words. The only "fact" here that we can be pretty sure of is the most westerners don't think a fish is a vegetable. But they may also not think a fish is entirely "meat", either. And what do various other cultures actually think? They might have an even stronger concept of fish not being "meat", even though they don't really think it is a "vegetable" either -- and so reasonably include it in a "non-meat" diet pattern (which others might choose to label "vegetarian"). The most correct, broad definition of Vegetarian would be: people who tend avoid at least some meat at least some of the time... But then, what would that leave people to argue about? 69.87.193.120 15:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but the word "vegetarian" was popularized (if not created) by the Vegetarian Society. They are the "gatekeepers" of the word, and are quite adamant that vegetarians do not eat fish. Furthermore, any reputable dictionary will define "vegetarian" along the lines of "People who leave meat, poultry, fish and other animal-derived foods out of their diets." The move by some people to call themselves "Pesco Vegetarians" does not, in fact, make them vegetarian, which is why most vegetarians prefer they use the term "pescetarian". Furthermore, WRT to the "vegetarian" and "vegetable" link, the Vegetarian Society claims that the "veget" in "vegetarian" comes from the the Latin "vegetus", which means "lively", not in fact, from "vegetable". Cpoupart 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the reputable dictionary claim about animal derived foods this means a Vegie should not eat milk, butter Cheese. Lets face it westerners predominatly Americans try and hijack a subject and argue on almost every page for the AMERICANISATION of the article. Vegis in India China and Japan eat Fish and Eggs. They are more populous yet quieter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.36.75.21 (talk) 11:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Sources and OR

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." WP:Verifiability

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." WP:Verifiability

"the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." WP:OR

Any material in an article MUST come from a reliable source that directly relates that material to the topic (Vegetarianism).

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources

(see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability)

"Self-published sources Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources

So geocities pages, for example, are not good sources.

Mdbrownmsw 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

rec.food.veg FAQ

[rec.food.veg FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS]. Out of date, but interesting to see their approach to the subject. Covers a lot of area covered in WP better than here, so I think we may learn something. (Yes it is probably biased, thats why it is on the talk page and not the main page)--Mig77^(t) 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The religion section is HUGE

The religion section of this article is HUGE, in an article that's already extremely long. Are there any objections to starting another article about "Vegetarianism (religious aspects)" and just summarizing the content for this article -MichaelBluejay 10:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article Vegetarianism and religion (and even articles Jain vegetarianism, Vegetarianism in Buddhism, Christian vegetarianism and Islam and vegetarianism). I think it would be a good idea to move the content to those articles. --Danogo 13:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The information could me summarized more, but to move all the content, I feel, would be taking an important perspective away from this article. There does seem to be an imbalance at the moment, as the main article Vegetarianism and religion has less information on some of the sections. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism-IQ link?

Should this be included? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, since there is now a scientific proof :) Teardrop onthefire 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was coming here to add the very same link. Talking of links, why is there no external links section for this article? There are some excellent sites that could be listed for people wanting to know more about vegetarianism, as long as they're not commercial sites. Psychonaut3000 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

...it appears the External Links section is missing because no one's got around to creating it yet, so I've done it and added a couple of respected non-profit organizations. Psychonaut3000 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia's External links guidelines specify that "A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Both of the sites that you added engage in direct retail, which is pretty much the kiss of death for external links on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with the BBC link mentioned above. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Viriditas (→Demographics - rm IQ study. No indication this is reliable sample size; study may show smarter people choose vegetarian diets. Add back in with attention to accuracy)
• Cribananda (rv - Don't judge a publication made by the BBC. The previous statement was well sourced,)
• Cribananda (→Demographics - rephrasing)
• Viriditas (Rv. No, the study doesn't say that. Please stop relying on the BBC/your interpretation, and cite the study directly.)
• Viriditas (Resore demographics section minus IQ)

Viriditas, I'm not sure I understand your problwem with the sentence and ref. Did you read the linked abstract and the ref's quote? Do you have a source to refute the ref? Also, see WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-20t19:51z

As I originally said, let's add it back in with attention to accuracy. I don't think the study was cited accurately, nor does the abstract discuss the negative aspects, such as the lowering of IQ in vegan test subjects. As usual, the media distorted the results. —Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we just quote the abstract: "Higher IQ at age 10 years was associated with an increased likelihood of being vegetarian at age 30 [...] IQ remained a statistically significant predictor of being vegetarian as an adult after adjustment for social class (both in childhood and currently), academic or vocational qualifications, and sex"? -- Jeandré, 2006-12-27t18:52z

That's fine for now, but I would also like to include more information about the study itself from a medical professional, such as a secondary medical source. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As a vegetarian speaking here, does the matter of IQ affecting vegetarianism in later life really matter? Shouldn't the study investigate whether a vegetarian diet affects your IQ? - Mitchell Strahan 05:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does NOT say vegetariansim leads to higher IQ, but that some people with a higher IQ than average become vegetarians. The article is useless if you ask me. I wouldn't be surprised if the author is a vegetarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Hitler

The section Vegetarianism#famous vegetarians lists Adolf Hitler as vegetarian. However, the article vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler says: "After the war Rudolf Diels (who headed the early Gestapo for a year before narrowly avoiding execution) wrote that Hitler sometimes ate Bavarian Leberknödel (liver dumplings) but only when they were prepared by his photographer friend Heinrich Hoffmann." I've always thought being vegetarian means never eating meat. Have I misunderstood the concept of vegetarianism or should Hitler be removed from that list? --Danogo 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I helped write that article and thought long and hard about it. Reality isn't black or white, even though our brains tend to see it that way. As far as I can tell, Hitler may have been a vegetarian, or somewhere along that spectrum, at some points during his life. For that reason, he should be included. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, any time you are intentionally avoiding "meat", however you define it, you are engaging in "vegetarianism" at that time (unless you are avoiding all food, in which case "fasting" would make more sense). 69.87.193.120 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Some lines need to be rewritten after some thought.

"While a high-protein diet of vegetables produces a similar effect, the flesh-eating bacteria are discouraged on vegetable matter because of the higher amount of sugar--meat has very little sugar"

The statement states that meat has very little sugar and high protein vegetable foods contain sugar. If that is the case, then such vegetarian diet shouldn't/wouldn't be recommended for diabetics because of its sugar content. So I think either the health aspect of this should be carefully reworded or removed entirely before it leads to misleading decisions. --Idleguy 07:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming meat" <<NOT

Vegetarianism is "the direction" not "the distance" being a vegetarian or a vegan are measures of distance.

nouns with the suffix "ism" are "the act, state, or theory of".

If this is just about the practice of not eating meat, then all the references to "semi" vegetarian have no place here as they have nothing to do with "not consuming meat"

This article is exploring the philosophies, reasons and theories not just the practices to start it with such an off topic statement seems strange.

I welcome a broad open article that explores the theory behind peoples choices and the standards they use. Brucedenney 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think most Catholics would tell you that fish isn't meat. So a pescatarian diet would be vegetarian to them. In reality even things like apples contain meat. Maybe the article should be changed to "Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming animal meat." It doesn't seem very practical to be 100% vegetarian. Even things that would normally be thought of as vegetarian possibly contain rat hair, insects, and who knows what else. Remember when those Strawberry pop tarts were recalled because they contained too much rat? Jecowa 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen to this: "even things like apples contain meat". Completely and blatantly untrue. Apples contain a fibrous mesocarp material seen only in plants. Meat is the locomotive muscular tissue of an animal. The term "meat" when speaking of plants is a culinary term and has no basis in vegetarianism. And I'm saying this as a happy, satisfied meat-eater. If you're going to argue, argue from fact and data, not from semantics or hyperbole. 98.203.251.157 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the history of the word. The word vegetarian came from the vegetarian society. They defined the term as the exclusion of all animal flesh and animal-slaughterhouse by-products. Have a look at their definition [2], the "original" definition of the word. --Cpoupart 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is the CURRENT meaning of the word that matters, not a historical meaning. Some people use the word vegetarian to mean someone who eats seafood but avoids other meat. Mralph72 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone actually describe themselves as vegetarian if they eat fish. I have often heard people say "I have a friend who is vegetarian and eats fish", but when I ask them who I always get "oh I don't remember" or "I think taht's what they said". This appears to be some sort of urban myth among non-vegetarians rather than a term used by anyone to self identify. -- Q Chris 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have on many occasions. In fact, I probably even did it myself before I gave up seafood. —mako๛ 12:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I also have heard it. Usually something like "I'm vegetarian... well, except for fish/chicken/etc". It always struck me as somewhat disingenuous. But I think semi-vegetarian or "mostly vegetarian" (there's a difference between mostly dead, and all dead) are acceptable terms to use, because the meaning is immediately clear. What else would we call them? Pseudo-vegetarians? -kotra 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is in the category of "I am teetotal, except for the odd glass of wine, sherry and a beer or two". -- Q Chris 07:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's definitely not vegetarianism but it is common enough that we need to address it in the text of the article. —mako๛ 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vegetarian" is not a one-size-fits-all term. I am a pescavegetarian -- someone who is a vegetarian apart from eating fish. But almost no one I encounter knows what is meant by "pescavegetarian," so I simply use "vegetarian." Of course, I could also say I don't eat anything that can cuddle...but that's pretty offensive to carnivores, so "vegetarian" is what I and others like me--and, contrary to other posters' opinions, there are many of us out here--are left with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.141.221 (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

---

TYME wrote: Vegetariansim is the practice of eating NO animals. Vegetarianism is _not_ the practice of eating SOME vegetables. Last time I knew, fish and poultry described _animals_. Moreover, to write "Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming the flesh of any animal (including sea animals in some cases)..." is contradictory. "Not...any" means without exception; "in some cases" is an exception. Through your current description, you have described a far too broad a group of people as vegetarians, which is patently false and offensive to those of us who practice true vegetarianism. And "semivegetarian"?? You have got to be kidding. So, if someone does not have sex on day, on that day are they a "semivirgin"? My mother will be so proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.244.199 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2007

Noteable Vegetarian Sections

The section on notable vegetarians is just a sentence or so plusa link to a category. Both are laughably incomplete and, IMHO, add very very little the text of the article. I think we should just ditch the section. --mako ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did so. It's not held to nearly the same amount of scholastic rigor as "list of atheists" is. This article as a whole needs more cited sources and less confirmation bias, but that list is by far the most blatant example of poor scholarship. 66.142.91.136 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Amirim

Hello,

In Israel there is a whole village (moshav) of vegetarians. It is called Amirim. Are there similar places anywhere else in the world? --Amir E. Aharoni 07:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds interesting. I've never heard of something like this before, sorry. Jecowa 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but there are large sections of Mumbai that are "vegetarian only". Grocery stores don't sell meat. Restaurants are only vegetarian. Apartments are given to vegetarians over omnivores. It is really crazy. [3], [4] --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the town of Pushkar, India, is strictly vegetarian. It was when I was there in 1996. There was milk and yoghurt, but no meat or eggs (or alcohol). 76.174.204.234 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)anonymous

Significant Change Needed

Hello All, Sorry to see such strife on this topic, (or any), but I noted that in the first paragraph of the article someone has inserted the incorrect statement that the word "vegetarian" comes from "an ancient Native American indian word meaning bad hunter". Tried to edit it out of the article, but having never done so before, couldn't seem to find the way to do so. FYI, and may all be well and filled with compassion for one another. -William Belair

Issues - Meat from amputation. Blood. Natural death. Insects. Plants are alive too.

The article claims vegetarianism is about not killing. If that is so then meat from amputation and blood would be allowed. This article covers milk and vegetarianism. I'm sorry to see that it does not address blood and vegetarianism. Meat from animals not killed (died naturally or meat from amputation) is not covered also. Oh and sponges are animals. I knew a vegan who used a natural sponge. Insects are not covered. And vegetarianism is not against killing plants - they are alive too ya know. Anyway, the article is long on claims and counter claims and short on logic and exact use of words. 4.250.168.152 10:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.Yankees76 14:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue with meat/byproducts from amputation, natural death etc. is that it's difficult to accurately trace the source of things like this (besides, in most circumstances I'd assume meat from natural deaths wouldn't make it into the food chain anyway), so people couldn't be sure that what they were eating was genuinely sourced "without killing". As for insects, I'd guess most "strict" vegetarians wouldn't eat them, but they can appear in the strangest of places (food coloring) so it's up to the individual to decide how "careful" they're going to be to avoid such things.

Using a natural sponge just seems like the person was misinformed about what sponges are, which is excusable in a way. As for plants, I think the reasoning behind it being okay to eat them is that they have a considerably less advanced state of awareness (probably none at all), whereas most animals would be conscious of the fact that they're experiencing pain and are going to die as a result. - Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 09:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to get too off topic but plants are in fact aware of their environment and do in fact sense things including what you could call pain. They also know when they may be going to die (how else do you think they know how to respond to stresses?). (They obviously don't have a central nervous system.) Indeed nearly all lifeforms can sense the environment so some degree including bacteria and they can all sense 'pain' to a degree and can also sense when they may be going to die Nil Einne 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Vegetarianism: What is the relation vegetariansm?

I would argue that the only thing that so called "semi-vegetarian" diets have in relation to vegetarian diets are the name. Ashmoo suggests that they are related because they both "exclude" things. In that case, diabetic diets, allergy based diets, "low fat", "low carb" diets would all be related to vegetarianism. Just because they share some terminology doesn't mean that they are related. Just like a koala bear is not related to the polar bear, except on the most superficial levels. Am I wrong? --Cpoupart 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not using the word "related" at all. One could write something like "The following similarly named diets are not varieties of vegetarianism due to the inclusion of meat" instead.

I think the headline "Semi-vegetarian varieties" should also be changed since those diets are not varieties of vegetarianism. --Danogo 08:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What would you change "semi-vegetarian" to? I was thinking "Pseudo-vegetarian", or even just simply "Alternative Diets". --Cpoupart 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's best here. Both of your suggestions seem to be okay to me. However, I'm not sure about the exact meaning of "pseudo". "Pseudo-vegetarian" might imply, that almost all followers of those diets pretend to be vegetarians. Some do, but I don't think almost all of them. --Danogo 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Pseudo has a bit of a negative connotation, which I am not sure is fair. I will change the section to "Alternative Diets", with the suggested text that you provided above. --Cpoupart 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The changes look good. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Vegetariansim: Are pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian misnomers?

The wiktionary defines "misnomer" as 1. A use of a term asserted to be misleading., 2. A term asserted to be widely used incorrectly. and 3. (Wiktionary jargon) A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense.

In order: 1) Both pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian are misleading terms because they create a link to vegetarianism. This in itself is an oxymoron. Vegetarians do not eat fish or chicken, and by doing so, a person is no longer vegetarian. 2) The 'vegetarian' part of both of these terms is misapplied. People often argue that the 'vegetarian' part refers to the consumption of vegetables. That doesn't work with the etymological origins of 'vegetarian' which come from the Latin 'vegetus' (meaning 'lively') not from the English "vegetable". Further, part of any omnivorous diet are vegetables, making the "vegetable" reference redundant. 3) The technical and dictionary definition of "vegetarian" is someone who does not eat the flesh of animals. Saying that someone is a "vegetarian who eats fish" automatically violates the technical definition of 'vegetarian'. --Cpoupart 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, as a vegetarian is defined in the dictionary as "someone who eats no meat or fish" it is contradictory to call someone who does eat meat or fish a vegetarian. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we change the reference from "Pesco/Pollo vegetarianism to Pescatarian and Pollotarian respectively, with a note that these terms are preferred to pesco-vegetarian or pollo-vegetarian. --Cpoupart 02:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds right to me. —mako (talk•contribs) 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they are called pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian because they are vegetarian with and exception for fish and bird. Pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian are both much more commonly used than Pescatarian and Pollotarian. Changing the name contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Jecowa 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That is wrong though. Everyone is "vegetarian" with some exception. Vegetarian means "someone who doesn't eat meat". As soon as you eat meat, you are no longer vegetarian. Further, pescatarian is far more commonly used ( 22,800 results on google) than pesco-vegetarian (15,000 results on google). Changing the name would be in line with the naming conventions. --Cpoupart 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarian means someone that doesn't eat meat, but pollo-vegetarian means someone that doesn't eat any meat except for chicken. Maybe we can use pescatarian and pollo-vegetarian. "pollo-vegetarian -wikipedia" gets 385 Google hits and "Pollotarian -wikipedia" gets 57 Google hits. Jecowa 18:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. By that logic, my wife, an omnivore, is a "bovo-pollo-vegetarian". Though, as you point out, pollo-vegetarian is more common than pollotarian (even though neither is particularly popular). What about changing that back to "pollo-vegetarian" with a comment on the contention surrounding the term, something like "many vegetarians dislike the term 'pollo-vegetarian' because it can be confusing about what constitutes a regular vegetarian diet'? --Cpoupart 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the chicken one doesn't seem very common compared to the fish one. It's fine with me to call them pollotarian and pescatarian for consistency. Jecowa 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am reminded of Alice's discussion with Humpty Dumpty, in which Humpty Dumpty says that when he uses a word, it means whatever he wants it to mean. An alternative view is that a word means what most of the people who use it thinks that it means. When I tell people that I don't eat meat, they often say "how long have you been a vegetarian" or words to that effect. To a lot of people, if you don't eat meat, you're a vegetarian...even if you do eat dairy and eggs, and even if you do eat fish. It's one thing to claim that people who eat fish, say, should not be called "vegetarians"---I agree, and what's more, I think pesco-vegetarian is a bad name for them. But are we supposed to try to change the definitions of words? I don't think pesco-vegetarianism _should_ be called that, but THAT IS WHAT IT IS CALLED. And, what's more, in common terminology it IS a form of vegetarianism. I think the efforts by many people to narrow the definition of vegetarian are misguided, because we don't get to determine what "vegetarian" or "vegetarianism" mean---society has already done that, and the wikipedia entry should reflect it. In the real world, "vegetarian" is someone who doesn't eat meat. "Strict vegetarian" is someone who doesn't eat dairy or eggs either. "Pesco-vegetarian", "ovo-vegetarian", etc., are people who don't eat "meat" but do eat fish or eggs, respectively. There is no such thing as a "bovo-vegetarian" because society has not needed to create this oxy-moronic category...and it really would be an oxymoron, because cows are meat. Most people do not think fish are meat, although everyone agrees that they are not plants. However, I will say it one more time: in actual use in the real world, "vegetarian" is defined by whether or not you eat "meat", not whether or not you eat anything other than plants. Someday, perhaps more terms will arise to describe the various sub-categories of dietary restrictions, but for now, we should try to capture the current state of affairs with respect to what "vegetarian" means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.3.15.46 (talk • contribs) 23:04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

No, "pesco-vegetarian" is what it is sometimes called, but not as frequently as it is called "pescatarian". I have posted the numbers here already, but pescatarian returns something like 25000 more hits than "pesco-vegetarian". Therefor, "pescatarian" is in fact "what it is called". As to people thinking that fish is not meat, I think that is a regional thing. But even if some people define "meat" as "beef" and not as "the flesh of animals" which is the more common definition, the definition of vegetarian isn't just "someone who doesn't eat beef". Around here, people are generally well aware that "vegetarian" excludes fish/"meat"/poultry/slaughterhouse by-products. Furthermore, just because some people are ignorant about a term does not mean that we should reflect (and encourage) that ignorance here by perpetrating the same mistakes. I would almost recommend that we follow the UK Food Standard Agency's new (well, April 2006) guidelines on what constitutes "vegetarian" and "vegan". [5]

Vegetarian: The term ‘vegetarian’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from, or with, the aid of products derived from animals that have died, have been slaughtered, or animals that die as a result of being eaten.

'Animals' means farmed, wild or domestic animals, including for example, livestock poultry, game, fish, shellfish, crustacea, amphibians, tunicates, echinoderms, molluscs and insects.

Vegan:The term 'vegan' should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from, or with, the aid of animals or animal products (including products from living animals).

--Cpoupart 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) Google gives me 16,800 hits for "pescetarian" and 18,200 for "pesco-vegetarian." But of course the exact numbers don't matter, the point is that (a) many people use the term "pesco-vegetarian" to mean "someone who eats fish but not 'meat'", and (b) many people consider this to be a form of "vegetarianism." (Ask just about anyone in Texas what they call someone who doesn't eat beef, pork, or chicken but does eat fish. They won't even say "pesco-vegetarian", they'll just say "vegetarian" or maybe "a vegetarian who eats fish"). (2) I think this terminology is bad and I hope it will change. (3) It is not our place to try to change it.Pnprice 07:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Your search is flawed. The search is not for "pescetarian" but for "pescatarian". Make sure you spell it correctly. Google results are 23,200 results for "pescatarian" [6] and 19,700 results for "pesco-vegetarian" [7]. a) "many people" is a weasel word. When you have a reference to back it up, we can consider it. b) see "a)". 2) That terminology is bad, but it will not change if it is used inappropriately on sites like this. 3) No, but it is our place to accurately use the terms. Vegetarians do not eat meat, by the official technical definition (set by the inventors of the word), by the government definitions, by every print publication dealing with vegetarians that I have ever seen (if you find one that calls "pescetarians" vegetarains, I would love to know about it). To say otherwise is a unreferenced non NPOV -- essentially just opinion. If you want to change the this section, then provide some resources to indicate that people are confused about what "meat" means or as to the relation of "pesco-vegetarian" with "vegetarian". "Ask anyone in Texas" doesn't cut it. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1) My search is flawed but my point is valid, the fact that over 20,000 pages use pesco-vegetarian or pescovegetarian indicates that "many people" use these terms. I think you agree that you're finding about twenty thousand of these pages as well. 2) You request some citations about usage, so here are a few. (a) Oxford Dictionaries [8] says "The word demi-vegetarian appears in our file with the sense 'a person who eats fish but not meat', but this is not obvious as the meaning of the term, and some self-styled 'demi-vegetarians' may eat poultry and avoid only red meat." For what it's worth, the Oxford Dictionary [9] says a "vegetarian" is "a person who does not eat meat for moral, religious, or health reasons" and defines "meat" as the flesh of an animal, and has a multi-part definition of "animal" in which the first two parts are "1. a living organism which feeds on organic matter, has specialized sense organs and nervous system, and is able to move about and to respond rapidly to stimuli. 2 a mammal, as opposed to a bird, reptile, fish, or insect. " (b) the Oxford American Dictionary that came with my computer defines Vegetarian as "a person who does not eat meat" and defines Meat as "the flesh of an animal (esp. a mammal) as food."(c) About.com [10] lists the "top 6 types of vegetarians"; the first one listed is "pescetarian", second is "flexitarian/semi-vegetarian" and third is "vegetarian/lacto-ovo-vegetarian." (d) Epicurious.com [11] has a really badly written definition of vegetarian that includes the sentence "Then there are those vegetarians who will eat fish and/or poultry, but not other animal meat." 3) Let's at least fix the grammatical errors in the entries for pescetarian etc. Pnprice 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Yes, pesco-vegetarian is used, but not as frequently as "pescetarian". As such, pescetarian should be used instead of pesco-vegetarian. 2) The AskOxford links are excellent. I have to question the "about.com" one because the same author has other articles on the site describing vegetarian as the same way AskOxford and the OED do: The exclusion of all animal flesh (if you prefer that terminology to "meat") [12]. The epicurious one is also not so hot, as you point out. Two other, better sources, that include references of "partial vegetarian" or "semi-vegetarian" as the exclusion of red meat are Medline Plus [13] and American Heart Association [14]. Though, these non-traditional interpretations seem to be in the minority, and seem to really only be from the USA. Many other reputable sites (Dietitions of Canada [15], Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation [16], Health Canada [17], Mayo Clinic [18]) are clear that "vegetarian" is the exclusion of all animal flesh. 3) It seems that you have made the necessary changes to the grammar, and the organization. Maybe some of the sources cited to here should perhaps be included? --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(I'm de-indenting this discussion because it was starting to get hard to read. This is a follow-up to the immediately preceding comment.) (1) I'm fine with adding references, of course, but I'm not sure which are the most authoritiative. The ones that I mentioned above were just the quickies that I found through a brief web search. (2) If the "I'm a fish-eating vegetarian" concept really is found almost exclusively in the U.S., that would be worth mentioning, with a citation. (3) Yes, I prefer "animals" to "meat" in the "vegetarians don't eat -blank-" phrases because I really do think "meat" is ambiguous. In banquet situations I have been asked "do you want meat or fish?", for example. Perhaps this, too, is U.S.-only. I note that the wikipedia entry for "meat" [19] says that in the (U.S.?) meatpacking industry the term refers only to mammals. (4) Yes, as you noted I folded the "alternative diets" section into the "associated with vegetarianism" section; seems to be clearly true, and if macrobiotic diets (which sometimes include eating fish) go in that section, it seems like pescetarians etc. belong there too. (5) I'm still not entirely happy with the grammar: technically, "pescetarianism" is not a diet, it's a philosophy or ideology that leads one to adopt a vegetarian diet. But I'm not keen to keep tinkering with it. Thanks for your contributions. Pnprice 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1) I think that the references that I provided (both for and against the argument) are more authoritative. They are from government health organizations, established health organizations, established nutritional organizations and established medical research organizations. 2) I have only seen such an idea on US websites, and on "authoritative" sites, only on US ones. Now, I have not searched a lot of other countries, but the UK and Canada both follow the "technical" and "traditional" definitions, as do the American Association of Dietitians and the Dietitians of Canada. 3) This seems to be largely American, though, I have been asked the same question in French in Quebec. That could be the catholic influence. "Animals" is good enough for these definitions. As to the meat page, the first line does say "in the broadest sense" it includes the flesh of all animals. This is how most Vegetarians use the term. Just like someone removed "Raw food" from the list because it can include meat, perhaps "macrobiotic" should be moved, or removed? 5) I have to disagree with that statement. I know more than a few "pescetarians" who do not eat any other types of animals, except for fish. They don't have any illusions about being or becoming vegetarian. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 06:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pnprice about the term "meat". It can mean one of two things: the flesh of ANY animal, or the flesh of a mammal. In a more formal/proper dietary sense, most people understand that "poulty" is not "meat", it is "poultry"... with the three large classes of animal flesh food to be: meat, poultry, and seafood. Why is that? Because the groupings really do have similar tastes, textures, and smells which are not like the other groups. And as such, it doesn't make sense to have a (so called) vegetarian dietary grouping + fish but no meat or poultry, and one that is + poultry but no fish or meat, without also having one that is + poultry AND fish with no meat. In many peoples minds (that I have talked to, anyway) that would squarely fall under flexitarian AND "semi vegetarian". As such, I have inserted a suitable "semi vegetarian" line in the " Other dietary practices commonly associated with vegetarianism" section, with a suitable new page link that discusses it and also points back to "flexitarian". Hopefully it will be helpful. --Crxssi 03:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with including the Semi-Vegetarian link if it is a popular phrase. Poultry however, is a type of meat, as is pork and beef etc... I don't see how it can be defined otherwise. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will explain how it is defined otherwise. One can't correctly say, (as was in the article before I corrected it): "Meat and Fish" when refering to eating animals, in general. If "meat" is meant to mean "any animal flesh", then saying "Meat and Fish" is like saying "Cars and Hondas". Fish and seafood are most certainly animals. That is the first problem with the way it was worded. Now I will explain why "meat" does not precisely mean "any animal flesh". Only sometimes has the term "meat" been used to mean "any animal" (similar to the way "mad" has been twisted to mean "angry"). Many reputable sources clearly indicate that "meat" is defined as "the flesh of a mammal". Birds (poultry) are not mammals, niether are fish or seafood.

• Taken from the Wikipedia "meat" page, itself: "The word meat is [...] the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, etc.) raised and butchered for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish, poultry, and eggs" also "Eggs, poultry, and seafood are rarely referred to as meat even though they consist of animal tissue."
• From the American Heritage Dictionary: "The edible flesh of animals, especially that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry." (And that is the PRIMARY definition)
• From Columbia Electronic Encylopedia: "meat, term for the flesh of animals used for food, especially that of cattle, sheep, lambs, and swine, as distinct from game, poultry, and fish".
• Anecdotally, I hear it used "properly", meaning "flesh of a mammal" all the time. Ironically, I just finished watching "Modern Marvels" about "saws" not 30 minutes ago and they said "band saws are also used for cutting meat, poultry, and fish".

As you can see, it is far more precise to use either use the term "animals" OR use the collective phrase "meat, poultry, and fish" when refering to the vast majority of consumed types of animal flesh. Saying "Meat and fish" leaves many readers believing it does NOT include poultry. My edit was to correct possible misinterpretation, I am not trying to push an agenda, a moral stance, or become argumentative. I believe I was justified to make the original corrections and, later, undo the removal of my edits. --Crxssi 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In English English, meat refers to "the flesh of an animal as food" (from the Oxford Dictionary). Looks like it came to be definied differently in USA. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet bias

This section lacks sources for every single statement made except one. And the wording is very biased, even in the statement that does have a source. It simply does not feel neutral at all. Weasel words like "generally" and "problematic" don't help either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.127.209 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

84.72.116.141, in this that 75.84.127.209 is referring to, "generally" is a weasel word because it isn't very specific. You would want to find a source and change "People don't generally care what has to die to fill their stomachs" to "Nintey-three per cent of Americans surveyed don't care what has to die to fill their stomachs./" "Problematic" is a weasel word because it doesn't say how it is a problem. You would want to find a source and change "Vegetarians are problematic" to "Vegetarians burned down seventeen slaughter houses in 2005.[20]" Jecowa 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This section has a bunch of stuff under the Paleolithic diet that doesn't belong there, such as information about isoflavones in Tofu. It should be reorganized into a section of opposing opinions or something.

I can't see how the Paleolithic diet is related to vegetarianism, as it includes 1/3 meat in it. I deleted the section. 86.133.186.101 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like the correct course of action. I took the liberties of moving the removed text into the article on the paleolithic diet. If it's on topic anywhere, it will be there and the editors of that article are free to include if they want. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Weasel Words" Tag Above Section "Physiological"

Could whoever put this tag in please explain which parts of this section they consider to be "weasel words"? Personally, I think there is a fair equilibrium between pro and con views. --84.72.116.141 13:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so good at explaining. Weasel words are statements that are missing important information. On Wikipedia, many times weasel word statements will be something like, "Many people think eating meat is bad because of the pain inflicted on animals." This would be a weasel word statement because "many people" is relative and readers would not have any idea how many it is. To make it not a weasel word we would have to find a reference to back up this statement. We would want to quantify "many people" to the amount given in the reference. For example, "Fifty-four per cent of vegetarians think eating meat is bad because of the pain inflicted on animals," or perhaps "Eighty and one half per cent of the people of India think eating meat is bad because of the pain inflicted on animals." You can read more about Weasel words. Jecowa 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what the person who added the weasel tag said, "this section has too many of "some feel" without citing soures." This seems to be the statement Idleguy is refering to:

Humans occupy a middle ground between the two; they have no claws and mostly blunt teeth (molars) but also a pair of sharp canine teeth designed for tearing, which some feel is proof of a naturally omnivorous diet (gorillas are herbivorous and have very large canines, though these are at least partly for defensive purposes, while other primates with sharp canines are not strictly herbivorous and will occasionally kill and eat other animals).

Jecowa 22:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to leave out the fact that there are other omnivores that drink with their lips apart from humans. Which contradicts the 'animals that drink with lips are natural' herbivores' argument.Halbared 21:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The section needs a complete re-write, but does at least conclude that humans are generally considered omnivores, which is good common-sense. I feel that adding a series of arguments and counter-arguments isn't really going to improve it any. If other editors agree, maybe we should remove some parts of it, or replace with sourced material? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

Gnocchi 2 by salsachica.jpg has been nominated for deletion. I think it is a great image. Your input is appreciated. Jecowa 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I really like this picture, but the "license" is insufficient. If the author could clarify it and put it under a proper Libre license then it would most certainly be worth keeping. Until then, maybe we should look for another "lead" image? --Cpoupart 00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it is like in other respective countries but over here many food packets come with a 'suitable for vegetarians' sticker on them, perhaps you could swap that for an actual vegetarian meal. I mean, otherwise you might as well put a banaana as the picture 'cause thats vegetarian too. - Magwitch 09:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

not that there is anything wrong with it but it looks, specificaly, more like a vegan meal. Perhaps a picture of a plate with some sort of egg and cheese too on it would be better. Blacklobster

Kellogg Reliability

The section "Health Concerns" cites two books by John Harvey Kellogg several times. I'm not sure they are reliable sources, given their age, and…well just take a look at the article on him. --69.19.14.39 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Americentric | Politicised Speach Pattern

This article is very Americentric, it's written from an American POV and most of the sources cite are American. Also, the quality of the writing is fairly poor 86.147.169.125 10:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's written by mostly Americans, cant blame them for being Americentric. As to the poor writing, feel free to improve it. --Calibas 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article sounds like it was written by vegetarians... which is to be expected, it's WIKIpedia!!, it would be nice to see this article somehow reviewed by those that are Encyclopedic-ally inclined, and not zealously voicing their biases. For one I don't see any "Controversies" section, or even any citing of information regarding vegetarian agenda's. 202.161.87.172 (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pig Meat an Muslim vegetarians

I removed "pig meat" as it seems to give bias to the article, in the section about muslims. Also, the article claims that there are "not many muslim vegetarians" which I don't think is true as there are millions of vegetarian muslims in Northern India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.169.125 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

There are? Last time I was there, it was the south that was more likely to be vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.204.234 (talk) 6 June 2007

Should the page be Semi-protected?

Almost all of the edits over the past couple of days have been vandalism by non-account holders or new accounts. Should we request for the page to be semi-protected? I don't have time to put in the request right now, and I wanted some consensus first. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think we ought to see some kind of "semi-protection". Maynard S. Clark 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)vegetarian

Weston A. Price foundation!?!

I removed the following text, cited from http://www.patrickholford.com/content.asp?id_Content=1415:

"An increasing cause for concern is the oestrogen-like phytoestrogens. They are found to occur naturally (in relatively large quantities) in soya products - soya milk especially. These chemicals were originally supposed to have been preventatives for hormone related cancers but have increasingly been found to have the opposite effect. The hormonal imbalance contributes to a disproportional amount of female to male births among vegetarians."

I don't think the Weston A. Price Foundation's website is an encyclopedia-worthy source of information. It's full of claims that go totally against the mainstream, e.g. skim milk, unlike whole milk, causes obesity; "There is no greater risk of heart disease at cholesterol levels of 300 than at 180", etc. Many claims on the WAPF's website aren't even cited. I personally think the WAPF is a joke and shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia. --PsychoCola 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the Weston A. Price citations have already been removed from Veganism. Original sources, as cited by WAP were included if they were verifiable. But uncited information from that site is not reliable. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What does the "herbivore" first sentence have to do with vegetarianism ?

Here's the current first sentence in the article : "For plant-eating, non-human animals, see Herbivore."

Given the importance of the first words of the wikipedia article, what's that misleading term doing there ?

The term "Herbivore" has to do with veganism at most. I suggest its removal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.244.150.223 (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

That's a disambigutation link and not really the first words or sentence of the article itself. That's why it's indented and in italics. You did point to me the interesting example that the disambiguation link in question was not on the article for Veganism so I went ahead and added it.

If you think there is little room for confusion (and I can understand this argument), than perhaps we don't need to disambiguate the term at all and can remove the link. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the 'Herbivore' term may have some interest in the article, I can indeed hardly think of a real ambiguity; it looks to me like "ridicule", linking vegetarians/vegans with ruminants (In Google, these first words become the main description of the 'vegetarianism' search result). Having little experience in Wikipedia, i'd prefer to leave it to an active user to remove that disambiguation. (I posted the original 'herbivore' remark) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.244.150.223 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It is not mockery at all. Strict vegetarians are technically "herbivores", we just like to give ourselves a fancy name instead. There is at least one vegetarian magazine that I know that uses the word in the title ("Herbivore Magazine" [21]). While I doubt that people are really going to get confused on the issue, the fact that it is used by the vegetarian community, on occasion, to refer to ourselves indicates to me at least that would should have the disambiguation link up there. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Strict vegetarians are not herbivores, as a member of a omnivorous species, strict vegetarians are omnivores, regardless of what dietary choices they make. Vegetarians may use the term herbivore informally and similarly some people who eat little vegetable material may refer to themselves as carnivores, but such usage isn't technically correct.--RLent 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not likely to be considered mockery. There's a vegan restaurant in San Francisco called Herbivore, the magazine, a vegan clothing line (perhaps linked to the magazine) and more use of the term by vegans in the vegan community. In fact, I have a sticker that says "herbivore" on my laptop right now. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Used as a source

I stumbled upon an article that references this (see page 2). Should we tag it with a {{onlinesource}}? -kotra 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No response, so I've been bold and added it. -kotra 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Health

It seems to me that the pro-vegetarians are continually arguing that a well-balanced vegetarian diet is healthier than a poorly balanced non-vegetarian diet. Conversely the anti-vegetarians are continually arguing that a well-balanced non-vegetarian diet is healthier than a poorly balanced vegetarian diet. So we're really just establishing that the important thing is eating a well-balanced diet. Can't we all just get along? --Calibas 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here Here! Gouranga(UK) 10:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect and represent the debate. Even if we, as editors, agree that we should all get along, it's not our mission to pretend that this is already the case so that other follows our lead. At least not in the text of the article. —mako (talk•contribs) 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that the debate is largely superficial and the research (on both sides) is biased and flawed. I think the areas of agreement should be more of a focus than the debate, though that should be mentioned. --Calibas 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. You should edit this article to add information on what you feel are the less controversial aspects of vegetarianism. I can't imagine that anyone will disagree with that. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Help!!!!

Okay, Im 11 and I want to be a ovo lacto vegetarian.I really want to stick to this but my parents say I should try it when Im older,What do I do???????!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.108.187.136 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place for this type of discussion. A social network such as livejournal might have some good communities about vegetarianism that could help you. Sorry! --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

veggieboards is the place to go, http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/index.php, which is a forum for veggies. blacklobster

Inuit diet

I have read, reasonably carefully, through this talk about vegetarianism and would like to add my comment. Vegetarianism [covering all the different types] seems to be healthier - to some people - but how about the Inuit [Eskimo] people's original diet [today most of them obtain their food sources same as the rest of us] of raw meat and frozen fish ? It seems to me that the health of the diet was because they didn't lose the goodness [vitamin C for example] by heating it out. Why do you think we have the number of teeth that we do - not for chewin' vegetables ! Roligpolig 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever mate. This page is about the article's merits, rather than discussing whether we should or shouldn't be vegetarian. Like it says at the top. Did you read that reasonably carefully? Totnesmartin 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually trying to suggest that the article presents a very biased point of view which ought to be corrected.Roligpolig 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Herbivores

Is there any real scientific debate (i.e. amongst scientists) about whether humans are omnivores or herbivores? I've never heard of any. It seems to me that this is an important inclusion for the article. N.B. Some scientists choose to be vegetarians for a variety of reasons. There is also research about which is healthiest diet. However neither in themselves answer the question. A scientist may choose to be a vegetarian and may even think it is the healthiest diet or the only acceptable diet for humane reasons but it doesn't mean they think humans are herbivores. Nil Einne 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Humans are omnivores - they can choose to have a vegetarian or non-vegetarian diet, and be physically healthy either way. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence:

"Other scientific evidence debunks the notion that humans are omnivores, while scientific arguments hold that humans are much more anatomically similar to true herbivores, with long intestinal tracks and blunt teeth, as opposed to omnivores and carnivores." - If you read the source article, it is clear this is someone's opinion, albeit perhaps an educated opinion. However the writer presents a very bias discussion and lacks a significant deal of evolutionary arguments that would undeniably place humans as omnivores just like numerous other primates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.43.248 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Famous Vegetarians - inaccurate

The Famous Vegetarians section is in desperate need of sources. Some of them are completely false. George Bush, for example, is not a vegetarian. A google search to find anything vegetarian about him turned up this (after being offered a tofurkey Thanksgiving dinner, Bush went home to a real turkey with his family). As for Jesus being a vegetarian... you could only argue that he was a pescetarian, because he definitely ate fish (Luke 24:41-43). Like all lists of famous people, this one needs at least one source for each claim. I'll try to properly attribute this section later on, if it stays. -kotra 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All meat diet?

Am I missing something here? Parts of this article seem to ellude that a vegie diet is much better then an all meat diet: "Yet the unhealthiness of a largely meat-based diet is clear; for example, meat is devoid of fiber.[69][70] To begin to be healthy a carnivorous diet must include the whole animal, including organs and bones.[67][68] Without fiber or the numerous vitamins and minerals lacking in meat,[71] disease may result."

I have no doubt that this is true but is there such a thing as an all meat diet? I have lived on a ranch where we ate fresh meat every night but there was always heaping piles of fresh vegetables to go along. It seems like this statement is using a very unlikely scenario of an all meat diet to show the potential benefits of an all vegie diet; which I believe is not NPOV and misleading to the reader.

BTW, I don't want to start the same old argument of what diet is better; meat or no meat. It seems obvious to me that in this day and age a person can live an extremely healthy life whether they be a vegetarian or not and it is really a concientious or religious decision. But, I also don't feel the need to mislead people into thinking that a vegie diet is the way to go because it is probably healthier then an all meat diet.--Csfgdead 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That section has been bugging me for a while, in my opinion it's extremely POV and unscientific. It's making some extreme claims -- "too much protein unhealthy"? Not proven at all, as far as I know. (I think we'd hear a lot about that if it were proven, given the Atkins fad.) Diet books are not good references for any sort of scientific claims. I have deleted most of the section, we'll see if anyone disagrees. -Madeleine 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a full meat diet does exist, and f.e. some Inuit peoples were sustaining on meat exclusively. Nikola 09:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional deficiencies?!

Regarding Omega-3 fatty acids, the wikipedia article says: "...some plant-based sources of it exist... the plant based sources are considered potentially unsafe, and may actually have no health benefits while possibly increasing the risk of prostate cancer and macular degeneration. However these studies are preliminary."

You're re-wording the "findings" of this poorly written news story. The article is an ABC news article first of all - (yeah, real scientific) and it says that not all scientists agree on HOW safe plant-based omega-3 fatty acids are WHEN USED IN HIGH AMOUNTS AS AN ADDITIVE TO FOODS LIKE FOOD COMPANIES ARE STARTING TO DO. But, nobody bothered to read the FIRST HALF OF THE ARTICLE anyway. The "preliminary evidence" it is discussing pertains to (as it says in the article) HIGH amounts - and it doesn't say how high the amounts are. Certainly, it is not time to imply that all plant sources of Omega-3 are unsafe. I'm going to edit this section. And, yes it's true that your body uses fish more efficiently as an Omega-3 source, but that doesn't mean there's anything dangerous about plant sources. Go here if you're still in doubt:[22]

Rob Shepard 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorial

This article reads like it was written by a team of professional vegetarian advocates, extolling all of the "virtues" of vegetarianism with virtually no criticism. So much for "neutral point of view." Wahkeenah 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add criticism of vegetarianism to this article in ways that are as well referenced as the content of the article. mako (talk•contribs) 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article follows the oft-used principle that it's OK to push your own viewpoint as long as you can find a quote for it somewhere on the internet. Wahkeenah 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how well sourced it is. If the owners of the page think it violates the sanctity of their religion, they won't allow it. Period. Wahkeenah 20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Be civil. Vegetarianism isn't a religion, and there's no reason to insult anybody. --PsychoCola 17:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is tilted and I've suggested that you help it. People who do not agree with you are not very likely to document the criticism that you find convincing and important and that they do not. Calling vegetarianism a religion and making wild accusations about what the "owners" of the page will allow is not improving the article. mako (talk•contribs) 10:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Health effects

I think the health benefits section needs a bit of a rewrite as the emphasis on seventh day adventists is disproportionate. I'll base it on stuff like this. Busy at the moment, will come back and do in a week or so - just letting y'all know. --Coroebus 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you posted this link to a study. The most recent revision of this section by Vapour 5/31/07 includes this info, but no reference is given. I'll check back to see if one of you adds the reference since you're already working on this, but if not, I'll add it eventually. Bob98133 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the health section is so incredibly poorly worded. Who the hell wrote that gibberish? 72.197.144.4 23:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the Health, Health Concerns and Health Effects be in one section? Or maybe Health should be a bigger subhead since Nutritional, food safety, etc. are below it? It's a bit confusing having the health info in 3 places. Bob98133 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - Having a "Health" section - with its blatantly pro bias, and then a more balanced "Health Effects" section further down is misleading and confusing. Bulbous 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The study cited in the first paragraph of the longevity subsection does not give conclusive results. The 95% confidence intervals indicate that occasional meat eaters, fish eaters, and vegetarians have a lower death ratio than frequent meat eaters. However, it is impossible to distinguish statistically between these three groups or say anything conclusive whatsoever about the death ratio of vegans. This article's presentation of this study is therefore misleading.

Answer to Question

YES - FISH IS "MEAT!" A Fish is not a PLANT!!! If someone eats Fish they are not vegetarian! --Carlon 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not necessarily true. Fish for many reasons is considered different in many societies. The kind of vegetarianism that you are describing is Locto Ovo vegetarianism. Please cite sources before you make wild claims.

--smkohnstamm 22:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:

veg·e·tar·i·an·ism

\-‡-„-ƒni-z„m\ n (ca. 1851) : the theory or practice of living on a diet made up of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.170.80.62 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Vegetarianism

I am concerned about this section. Some of the claims and sources seem dubious to me; http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm in particular. It states that ammonia contributes to acid rain which seems quite ridiculous to me since ammonia is a basic compound - it would rather prevent acid rain than cause it. Sakkura 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The summary section of this source says "Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems" and gives no reference. Digging into the paper, I find the later statement "Nitrogen oxide and ammonia may be transported and deposited to downwind ecosystems. This deposition can lead to soil acidification, eutrophication of natural ecosystems and shifts is species diversity, with effects on predator and parasite systems (Galloway et al., 1995)." Soil acidification, rather than acid rain ... So then I dig up Galloway et al (Nitrogen fixation: Anthropogenic enhancement-environmental resonse), which says "NH₃ is a major source of alkalinity in the atmosphere and a source of acidity in soils." But from that paper, I gather that the major concern with the nitrogen seems to be fertilization of nitrogen-limited terrestrial areas (not "eutrophication", doesn't kill off plants but does impact ecosystems with unnatural fertilizing, increasing plant growth)... Good catch. Perhaps should simply remove the sentence. - Madeleine 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be blatant misleading misinformation; I am concerned about the following citation. "According to the USDA, growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States' water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Additionally, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and a total of 70% of its grain.[56]" When both myself and a friend went through this citation, we find no support for any of the claims about livestock consumption as a percentage of crops grown! Be it water equivalence, corn, soy... such crops are listed, but I don't see anything about amounts of such crops and distributions to livestock versus to people. Check this out. If so, this should be removed altogether or perhaps some of citations on this (biased) page can be first verified and then used instead? Gwozda 09:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've flagged that section as needing cleanup. It wasn't so much for the dubiously-sourced statements, but for a few completely unsourced statements and especially for the two paragraphs at the end. The tone suddenly changes to first-person plural ("we" are presumably farmers, or Americans, or the world in general), and the last few sentences all! end! with! an! exclamation! point! That sounds like somebody cut and pasted straight off of a veggie website. Even if it's all true, it doesn't sound intelligent enough for Wikipedia. 204.80.136.16 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please add fact tags to the disputed statements, or provide specific issues of the text to clean up this section. If no issues are made the fact tag will be removed Teardrop onthefire 09:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have found a source for It can be argued that vegetarians who use animal products aside from meat (dairy, eggs, fur, etc.) are also partially responsible it is however an investigation of a dairy related waste problem in vietnam, but there is non specific info in it to http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/11502734231ChinhRR6.pdf. Does this source suffice? Teardrop onthefire 09:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS STUPID!

"Some vegetarians believe that consciously taking someone else's possessions without consent amounts to stealing. Since prey cannot consent to its life being taken away, according to this philosophy it would be immoral to consciously kill an animal and eat its flesh."

I removed this once, but someone put it back again (I think there was a misunderstanding of some sort). This just sounds like a joke to me - murder is bad because your "stealing" someone's life? That would be a great argument for a murder prosecutor, wouldn't it: Well this bloke killed someone, and since killing is essentially stealing a life, we should put him in prison for stealing! I don't want to be all rude and personal, but the person who wrote this comment, you're an idiot. Instead of writing for wikipedia you should take some sort of elementary classes in grasping what the hell do the words that you use amount to. WE KNOW THAT KILLING IS BAD!!! WE DON'T NEED THIS "EXPLAINED" TO US!!! 80.233.142.14 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct that the above sentence is very poorly written and I have removed it. Please also see WP:CIVIL in regards to the method of making comments on talk pages. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the sentence borders on insanity. In addition to having a politeness code, someone might write a "thinking clearly" code, where certain stuff would be explained that apparently many people aren't capable of grasping intuitively: ie, that you shouldn't explain a better-known thing through a lesser-known thing, or argue against a clearly more objectionable thing by comparing it to a less-objectionable one. I have a nagging suspicion that the sentence was a deliberate joke, however I would guess that about 50-70% of high-school students would not see a fault of reasoning in it (based on my personal experience). The problem is that a lot of people just read through a sentence like that and say to themselves "well that didn't register in my brain as new and interesting information" (obviously), and go on reading without noticing that the sentence was entirely based on a circumvention of basic tenets of common sense. That presents an opportunity for untold amounts of trash to pile up in the articles, provided that the rest of the text consists of more or less sound arguments. Unfortunately, with a LOT of high-school kids feeling obligated to insert their deep thoughts in articles written by competent adults, that's something that's very likely to happen in wikipedia.

For the sake of good sportsmanship, here's an analysis of the paragraph:

"Some vegetarians believe that consciously taking someone else's possessions without consent amounts to stealing."

Here something that every 5-year old knows is not only meticulously explained, but this explanation is actually presented as a "belief" of a certain isolated group of people; plus the verb "amounts" is used, clearly suggesting that this is not the actual DEFINITION of stealing that is presented here (which it is), but just something that FALLS UNDER this definition (or so certain vegetarians believe...).

"Since prey cannot consent to its life being taken away, according to this philosophy it would be immoral to consciously kill an animal and eat its flesh."

With the creative and eye-opening definition of stealing now at his disposal, the author proceeds to explain yet another thing that every 5-year old knows, and note that the "belief" of the previous sentence has already become a "philosophy" (a rather wide-spread school of philosophy that might be branded "websterism", ie, belief that words mean what the dictionary says they do). Any actually problematic questions, such as applicability of human law and morality to animals, the degree of awareness of the killing (which determines complicity in human law) of the average meat-eater, are swept aside by the roaring train of obviousness.

80.233.142.14 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the quoted statement and I didn't put it there, but your opinion on the statement's validity has no bearing on its inclusion in wikipedia. Ethics exists to explain why "killing is bad," and it does seem that we need that explained to us. If someone wanted to create an ethics based on private property (for some reason), this might be a coherent statement. Either way, if someone actually believes this and has published on it, we should include it. I think the statement should be restored with a "citation needed." If a source doesn't manifest, then we should delete it. Jordansc 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious and spiritual section

Why is the "Religious and spiritual" so long and complete with sub-headings, when there is a sub-article titled Vegetarianism and religion? The vegetarianism article should only list a few introduction paragraphs on the subject, so the main article can be reduced in length. It is currently 66KB, with the recommended article size being 32KB. Readers can follow the link to the sub-article for further information. I recommend that the section is edited down in size (no sub-headings) with the text merged into the sub-article. Comments please. nirvana2013 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would rather we kept the sub-headings, but have reduced that section down to a more relevant size. You are right that it had grown too large for this article, especially when it is discussed in more detail elsewhere. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadowtarianism

I deleted the bullet on shadowtariansim--it doesn't seem to merit inclusion under "commonly associated with vegetarianism. It needs a reference, particularly as google presently has zero hits for it. Here's what I deleted with a couple of the typos fixed:

• Shadowtarianism is concerned with one eating nothing that casts a shadow, i.e. practitioners only consume root vegetables, peanuts, etc.

Perhaps there could be a section on "less common practices...", but even so, this one seems hard to justify inclusion in wikipedia without its notability documented.Ccrrccrr 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a reference to a joke on Simpsons episode Lisa the Tree Hugger where Lisa's love interest is a hippie "who claims to be a level five vegan (he refuses to eat anything that casts a shadow)". And with no Google results, I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. -kotra 09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit of Controversy

I consider myself a vegetarian, yet I do eat fish, and many of my vegan friends do indeed use (but not consume) animal products. I believe the first few sentences of this article are somewhat biased. --MosheA 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentences are correct - a Vegetarian is someone who "does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or slaughter by-products"[23]. Despite what you may believe the term to mean, if you eat fish then you are not a vegetarian by definition. Gouranga(UK) 10:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Fish is not a vegetable. Doovinator 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We should go by the dictionary definition of vegetarianism not by what a particular person does. There are lots of people who call themselves _____ans but don't adhere to the practice described by _______ism. But that doesn't change the meaning of the words. Ccrrccrr 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I concede with the vegetarian issue, but what about the vegans? Is someone not a true vegan if they use animal products? --MosheA 15:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to agree with you there. I looked at a bunch of dictionary definitions, and found that they either referred only to diet, or referred to excluding non-food use of animal products as an option, rather than a requirement. Then I looked up the history of the word, which was coined by Donald Watson, and read the first issue of Vegan News in which he coined the word. (See link at Donal Watson article.) It's clear from that that at the time the word was coined, it was intended to only refer to diet (though it's also clear that Watson's philosophy matches the broader definition). The sentence in the article that you mention refers to one of the dictionary definitions, which mentions but does not require avoiding non-food use. So I would say that it should be modified to agree with the cited source.Ccrrccrr 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Vegan article, Veganism also excludes using animal products such as leather etc... for clothing. See [24] and [25]. Maybe the meaning have changed over time? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary definition you cite is one I had already looked it--it falls in the category I described as describing exclusion of "non-food use of animal products as an option, rather than a requirement". And I am skeptical of using the Vegan Society's definition--I think a dictionary is more likely to have a NPOV. Perhaps I should assemble a list of dictionaries, but there's a pretty strong consensus among them. Yes, the veganism article defines veganism as exluding non-food use of animal products, but the only citation there is again the vegan society. Perhaps Vegan (capitalized) means a member of that society who adheres to their standards whereas vegan means the way the word is used by the general public and is defined in dictionaries? I am not trying to argue that vegan is not often used to mean the broader diet-plus-other-stuff definition--rather I don't think that it is accurate to state one definitive definition when it is clearly used both ways.Ccrrccrr 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarians don't eat any meat, even fish. Vegans don't deal with ANY animal products, even clothing. It's what they essentially are. This isn't biased, it's the truth. 76.177.56.8 01:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I have corrected Etymology, added references, and made it a separate section (instead of a subsection of History), because it is more than just an aspect of history. Etymology is connected with a term’s definition and is as close to the Definition and Terminology sections as it is to History. 89.54.129.128 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:The way the etmology paragraph is described is largely historical, so I don't see a problem with keeping it within the larger Historical sub-heading. Gouranga(UK) 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that - you're right, it works better in it's own section. Gouranga(UK) 09:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but I think the unanimous position of all philologists (I listed just a few of them) and of the historians of vegetarism (Spencer, Haussleiter) should have more weight, in an etymological question, than the non-academic opinion of the Vegetarian Society. The Society did not invent the word (see the evidence quoted in the article), so their point of view should not have the same weight as the position of the scholars. Therefore I suggest to return to my formulation of the sentence. 89.49.188.147 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Dictionary definition in some ways has more weight, but the section is very short (so both are read practically at the same time) - and currently reads better that way around (as the information about OED is given in the context of the earlier quote). I'm of the opinion that either we do a complete re-write of the paragraph, or keep it as it is? Gouranga(UK) 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I intend to re-write the paragraph. I think it is not necessary to have two quotes from the website of the Society, because their claim lacks credibility anyway and is rejected by the scholars (both philologists and historians!) and therefore shouldn't get so much space. The facts are: 1. The Society's claim that they invented the word is obviously wrong, because it existed at least several years before the society was founded, and the earliest known occurrence is even from the United States. So there is no reason to trust them on etymology. They just don't know the etymology. 2. The Society's claim that they derived it from vegetus was made for the first time in the late 19th century by their president John E.B. Mayor and has been upheld by them ever since. So the claim was made for the first time about half a century after the first occurrence of the word, by people who did not invent it but just used it. So how could that be preferred to the verdict of the scholars who wrote the OED, who are obviously much better informed? 89.49.187.156 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the claim has much evidence against it, still it could be worth noting as a notable piece of information. Especially as the OED also makes reference to it. Gouranga(UK) 10:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is notable. I've found a new wording which I think is simply factual and not too long. 89.54.150.88 12:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I'm happy that the terminology section identifies the main forms of vegetarianism (lacto, ovo, lacto-ovo, vegan) but I'm not happy with the follow on section that describes diets associated with vegetarianism. In particular some of these diets are vegetarianism even though they are fringe practices that have no place in the main section. I would advocate splitting that section into "Other varieties" and "Other dietary practices commonly associated with vegetarianism". For my money dietary veganism has no place on the list because it's refining a definition that belongs in another article (the veganism described in the main varieties section is dietary veganism for the purposes of this article). Natural hygiene can probably be deleted altogether. ryker 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact there is a lack of clarity elsewhere in the article with respect to the term vegan. The question is whether the term vegan refers to diet (food consumption), lifestyle (goods consumption), or both. Even the cited references are in conflict on this question. Since I feel that all lifestyle vegans are dietary vegans, it is appropriate to equate veganism with dietary veganism. Lifestyle veganism goes a step further, it specialises veganism, so it would be appropriate to use an additional adjective when you want to specifically refer to this practice. Thoughts? ryker 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion of the definition of veganism in another section of the talk page, under "bit of controversy, two sections above this one. Please see that an join in.

I like the idea of splitting the list of types into things that really are types of vegetarianism and others loosely related practices.Ccrrccrr 23:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tightened up the definitions in the intro section... I don't think I changed the meaning but made it more clear that there exists a plurality of beliefs under the umbrella label vegetarianism and that this plurality involves a range of restrictions ranging from dietary vegetariansm all the way to lifestyle veganism. I think it's more encyclopaedic this way. Feedback welcomed. I will go ahead and organise the section on varieties too. ryker 00:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. thanks.Ccrrccrr 09:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Carnivore?

The section of Physiology begins "There is considerable debate over whether humans are physiologically better suited to a herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore diet."

I almost edited this but then thought maybe I'd open it for discussion instead. My understanding is that a carnivore lives wholly or predmoniantly on meat - and this accords with what Wiki says if you follow the link to "Carnivore". But since "Omnivore" is also mentioned in the statement, it is logical to assume it is being used here to suggest a diet consisting wholly of meat.

Surely no-one would consider that the human body is designed for a diet consisting wholly of meat? It has to be "Herbivore or omnivore". A carnivorous diet would result in death from malnutrition! If I'm wrong, maybe sources are needed to support the statement that some consider carnivorous diets beneficial.

Omnivore means to eat everything; which most humans do. Even short humans. 129.96.234.80 02:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, the Inuit had a carnivorous diet without bad effects. -- Q Chris 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I have heard that they had the highest rates of osteoporosis in history, and perhaps their lifespan was not long enough to show some of the detrimental effects that appear in middle- to old- age. Don't quote me, it needs to be researched... --Greenwoodtree 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision of the historical section

I’ve replaced the list of miscellaneous incoherent statements by a coherent chronological account of the history of vegetarianism. Some of the statements in the list lacked evidence, others should be moved to the section on religion, as they deal with present religious attitudes rather than with history. Moreover, contemporary religious attitudes are the topic of a separate article “Religion and vegetarianism”. I also replaced non-scholarly references by academic ones. I am sorry some of them are in German; this is due to the fact that the original research happened to be done by German scholars. 89.49.163.76 17:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the older version because several of the statements, such as "Vegetarianism originated in India" appear to give an unbalanced impression. Maybe a new article could be ceated such as History of Vegetarianism, where the subject could be discussed in more depth? Gouranga(UK) 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely a separate article "History of vegetarianism" is an option, if there is real demand for it, but for the time being the task is to improve the history section of this article. With regard to that, I think it would be quite difficult to describe the return to the old version (an incoherent stub) as an improvement. There is no original research in the new version; the only reason why I did not give references for some remarks like "Vegetarianism originated in India" is because they are so trivial, undisputed and universally accepted by historians, so I thought I shouldn't add even more footnotes. Other points which give you an unbalanced impression may be discussed here. By the way, I also replied to your comment on Etymology (see above). 89.49.163.76 21:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The older (pre Aug. 5) version seems like junk to me--a list, not an encyclopedia article. The new version needs a little work, but on the whole seems excellent and I think the Aug. 5 revision should not be trashed. The overall article is at the upper end of the generally recommended article length, without this new contribution. So I recommend that the full new section be split off as a separate article, and then an extremely condensed version be put into the main vegetarianism article. 89...76's concern that there might not be demand for a history article doesn't make sense to me. If there is little interest, it's better to move it to a separate article, leaving the main article a manageable length.

As for specifics, I agree that the statement "originated in India" is problematic without a reference, in part because it's not clear whether that is meant to mean that all vegetarianism is somehow an offshoot of that invention, or what weaker version of that claim is meant. Another one I would like to see a reference for is "In the Western world, the popularity of vegetarianism steadily grew over the 20th century..." It seems clear that it grew, but how steadily? Perhaps really in spurts?

If it's put into a new article, we can all go at it and edit it. Much better to address the particular concerns that throw it all out. At some point a version a similar length to the present history section should be put in the main article.Ccrrccrr 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's too much information for this article - I have moved the recent additions across into History of Vegetarianism where it can be worked on in more depth. It's great so much work has already been done - the new article has a great starting point to develop from. Gouranga(UK) 08:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the Aug. 5 version and I want to point out that the full text of the criticized sentence is: "Vegetarianism originated in India and, independently, in the ancient Greek civilization which flourished in the eastern Mediterranean and in Southern Italy". This is an undisputed fact accepted by all historians. Vegetarianism existed in both areas, independently, by 500 BCE, and it did not exist (as a deliberate concept) in any other place before the end of the Middle Ages. Nobody has ever challenged this obvious fact. 89.49.187.156 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources which confirm that vegetarianism began in India? How can we ever prove where it began exactly? At best we could probably say The first evidence for Vegetarian diet becoming popular within a society is XYZ, in ABC. If you get my point? Have you thought about logging in and creating an account? Gouranga(UK) 08:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It began in both India and Southern Europe, as I already wrote, not in India alone. Theoretically it cannot be ruled out that it began in China or Mongolia or Iran and was imported into India from there, but as there is (1) no hint whatsoever in the sources suggesting a non-Indian origin of ahimsa and/or vegetarianism in Asia, and (2) no intrinsic likelihood whatsoever that it happened that way, because each and every known occurrence of ahimsa/vegetarianism in Asia can be traced back to an Indian origin, and (3) so far nobody has ever suggested a non-Indian origin of ahimsa and/or vegetarianism in Asia, why should Wikipedia doubt the unanimous view of all the historians? Ancient Asian vegetarianism is an aspect of ahimsa and ahimsa is part of the concept of karma, and an enormous amount of research has been done on karma so far, and I've never heard of anyone considering the possibility that the concept of karma may have a non-Indian origin. Anyway, I suggest we continue the discussion on the talk page of the new article. 89.49.187.156 09:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

non-violence as a concept or practice is not restricted to India, or any particular sect - it is far more ancient than history allows us trace. Neither would I say it's an aspect of karma. I agree, yes it's better to discuss these issues on a more relevant page. Gouranga(UK) 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New Condensed History Section

I removed the "steadily" from the "grew over the 20th C" part of the history section. I would be happy to see if restored with a citation. I might as well have added to it, but since it was only the "steadily" part that worried me I decided to just address that. Ccrrccrr 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"steadily" was already part of the old (pre-Aug 5) version and is surely superfluous. In the new condensed section, I find the following flaw:

"Vegetarianism may have been common in the Indian subcontinent as early as the 2nd millennium BCE." This is just speculation. The earliest available evidence refers to the 6th century BCE. Surely it may have been common in the 2nd millennium BCE, but on the same grounds one may guess that it may have been common in the 3rd and 4th millennium BCE ... According to Indian religious texts, it was already common two million years ago. And if you look up the reference, it's just a non-scholarly website, and what they write is: "The rise of vegetarianism in India goes back to more than 500 BC, when India saw the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. These religions preached the principle of ahimsa or "non-violence. During the ancient Aryan Vedic period meat was consumed after animal sacrifice to the Gods. This slowly changed with the rise of Jainism and Buddhisim." So that's precisely the opposite of "as early as the second millennium BCE". 89.49.187.156 12:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The second part of the new condensed history section seems to be o.k.; in the sentence "The International Vegetarian Union, a union of all the national societies, was founded in 1908" I suggest to remove the word "all" (which was not in the old text) - who knows whether each and every of the countless organizations in so many countries has joined the International Union. But the first part of the section contains some flaws (in addition to the one already mentioned above): The motivation of the early Pythagoreans was ethical and religious, hardly nutritional (in the modern sense of that word). The long quote from Ovid is not helpful here, because Ovid was a poet who lived several centuries after Pythagoras, and his poem is not a reliable source for the historical Pythagoras; Ovid's text is as fictional as a modern historical novel - in fact, even more so, because he tells myths. No scholar accepts it as a reliable source. Instead of the present text, I suggest the following: "As far as the sources allow us to trace the roots of vegetarianism, it originated in India and, independently, in the ancient Greek civilization which flourished in the eastern Mediterranean and in Southern Italy. In both areas it was, according to the earliest evidence, closely connected with the idea of nonviolence towards animals, and was promoted by minority groups as an essential part of their religious philosophies. After the Christianization of the Roman Empire in late antiquity it disappeared in Europe as a deliberate concept. Many medieval monks ate little or no meat for ascetic reasons, but they ate fish and were no vegetarians. In Europe vegetarianism only reemerged in the Renaissance. It became a worldwide movement in the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1847 the first Vegetarian Society was founded in England. The International Vegetarian Union, a union of the national societies, ... (etc. as in the present text)." References can be added. 89.49.187.156 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection here, I am going to proceed as suggested above. 89.54.150.88 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

pollotarianism

does this mean chicken or all fowl? meaning: where does turkey fit in? PooperScooper, Int'l 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Environmental section

Since no reply came on the source of environmental issues of dairy I added it. The template for adding sources has been on this section for some time now, please provide more information as to what should be rewritten or sourced, if no comment follows I will remove the template as of 1 October Teardrop onthefire 08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in subvarieties?

There's various articles like Lacto-ovo vegetarianism that look destined to be little more than dictionary definitions with little 'hard' content otherwise - should these be merged back into this article? FlagSteward 13:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is already very long so I would rather not include more information. Maybe they will expand from stubs over time. There is some potential there? Gouranga(UK) 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gouranga this article is suffering from major bloat. Rather don't merge them here. Perhaps merge them into another article Varieties of Vegetarianism? until they grow large enough to merit their own standalone articles? Perhaps they should just link directly to wicktionary if they are just definitions? --Mig77^(t) 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Table is all weird

The table for the 'types of vegetarianism', the last column has a header that is not formatted correctly. I am not sure how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.234.80 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Labor conditions

Antiveg - The reference about vegetarianism improving conditions for slaughterhouse workers does not state that they would become unemployed. Using the reference you cited is a huge jump from anything stated in the article and from the topic of vegetarianism. Why not cite stats that vegetarianism will reduce illegal immigration since recent raids on slaughterhouses have found many undocumented workers? While there may be proof that unemployment causes the problems stated in your ancient reference, there is no indication that vegetarianism will cause unemployment in the slaughterhouse sector. In fact, my guess is that there are more vegetarians now than ever before; and also more slaughterhouse workers, so it could be argued that vegetarianism is a boon to that job field.Bob98133 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"There are variations that admit..."

Here are the first two paragraphs:

Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes all animal flesh, including poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, and slaughter by-products. There are variations that admit dairy products, eggs and/or products from animal labor such as honey.

Veganism in comparison, excludes all animal products from diet...

If we define vegetarianism as not eating flesh and slaughter by-products, it does not make sense to then say "there are some variations that allow milk." Since it was never suggested in the definition that milk is not allowed, saying that there are some "variations" that allow it doesn't logically follow.

If fact, there are some variations that also do not allow dairy products, besides the aforementioned flesh. The next paragraph already states this well: "veganism, in comparison..."

To suggest that milk-drinking is some "variation" of vegetarianism is like saying lettuce-eating is a "variation" of keeping kosher — eating lettuce is not part of the definition of kosher, milk-drinking is not part of the definition of vegetarianism. If you want to amend the definition you have up, that's a different matter.

Therefore, I've removed the line starting with "there are variations..." again. — Sam 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Sikhism

Although the latest edits by User:Lovedeep singh were reverted for whatever reasons, some parts of these edits might be useful for this article, or a future subarticle on this topic. The material appears to be cited from Guru Granth Sahib, and might be used at an appropriate place on wikipedia. The inserted material follows. deeptrivia (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone know's that it's very crucial to abstain from the eating of meat because this increases our karmas, the reasons for becoming vegetarian. Some examples from Sikh Guru’s Hymns that teaches us to not eat meat.

1. Those mortals who consume marijuana, flesh and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. (Guru Granth Sahib p1377)

2. You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain. (Guru Granth Sahib p332)

3. Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect. If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen ? (Guru Granth Sahib p1350)

4. Bhagat Kabir says, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but, which animal is willing to have their head cut ? (Guru Granth Sahib p1374)

5. In this dark age of Kali Yuga, people have faces like dogs; They eat rotting dead bodies for food. (Guru Granth Sahib p1242

6. Falsehood is my dagger and to eat by defrauding is meat. (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raaj p24)

7. Avarice is a dog, falsehood the sweeper and cheating the eating of meat. (Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sri Raag p15)

8.Jey "Ratt" lageey kapra, jama hoi palit, Jey Ratt peeveh manava, ta kyo nirmal cheet. Meaning: If blood touches a cloth, it becomes unfit for use; If blood (or meat) is consumed by a human being, how can his heart be pure. -Adi Granth (Guru Granth Sahib)

9.Janam Sakhi Gou bhens ateh murgian haiwan garib,tin par shuri haram hai khavan tenah palit.In these verse of janam sakhi Guru Nanak mentions that killing of cows buffalos,hens,is considered haram.

10.Bhai Gurdas ji tells about the inhabitants of kaljug "Maran Gou Garib Nu Dharti Upar Paap Pasara" .They have started to kill the cow and the weak thus the earth have been covered with sins.

11.The Animal Killer Will Become an Animal and Be Killed By killing animals, not only will we be bereft of the human form but we will have to take an animal form and somehow or other be killed by the same type of animal we have killed. This is the law of nature. The Sanskrit word "mamsa" means meat. It is said: "mam sah khadatiti mamsah". That means, "I am now eating the flesh of an animal who some day in the future be eating my flesh". The choice is yours think for yourself .Baba Kabir ji says "Kabir Jor Kia So Julm Hai, Lehat Jawaab Khudai"

12. Innumerable are the fools, stark blind in ignorance; and

Innumerable the thieves and crooks that thrive on ill-gotten gains;

Innumerable those that exercise tyranny and oppression; and

Innumerable the cut-throats living by heinous crimes;

Innumerable those that revel in shameless sins; and

Innumerable the liars that practice fraud and falsehood;

Innumerable the impious that live on unwholesome, non-vegetarian foods and intoxications; and

Innumerable the slanderers who add to their burden by calumniating others.

Innumerable, the many for lowly Nanak to describe.

What power have I to conceive of Thy wonderful nature? Too poor, am I, to make an offering of my life to Thee. Whatever pleaseth Thee is good; Thou art forevermore; O Formless One ! -Adi Granth ( Japji, Pauree 18, Guru Nanak Dev ji) Countless fools, blinded by ignorance. Countless thieves and embezzlers. Countless impose their will by force. Countless butchers (cut-throats) and ruthless killers. Countless sinners who keep on sinning. Countless liars, wandering lost in their lies. Countless wretches, eating meat (filth) as their diet. Countless slanderers, carrying the weight of their stupid mistakes on their heads. Nanak describes the state of the lowly. -Adi Granth (Guru Granth Sahib), Ang 4, Japji Sahib: Pauree 18 13.Kabir says at another place: "Maas madha sabh tajj daloo, ho gyan ghore aswar ." Meaning: Stop taking meat and wine, ride the horse of perfect knowledge and remove your doubt.

Farm Animal Excrement

I removed the paragraph on farm animal excrement because 1.) the claim that this destroys topsoil needs to be reconciled with the fact that topsoil health is generally regarded as dependent on the return of human/animal excrement. 2.) Comparing farm animal excrement to the human population's requires a number on the animal population under comparison. 3.) Source identifiers as simply the last names of two indivduals seem inadequate. Rtdrury (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute in health effects section

There is a dispute, raised by an anonymous user, over this sentence:

“Other scientific evidence debunks the notion that humans are omnivores, while scientific arguments hold that humans are much more anatomically similar to true herbivores, with long intestinal tracks and blunt teeth, as opposed to omnivores and carnivores”[26]

The user claims the source is an opinion and not scientific.I disagree, but still, there should be more authoritative sources out there, and two or more of such sources could be added to back this sentence up. Anyone else want to chime in on this? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping it in on the basis of that citation until someone finds reliable sources that say otherwise. Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of disagreement among "experts" about this, and I moved some sentences around in the physiological section so that there are sources for both views: that humans are omnivores by physiology and that humans are herbivores by physiology. There are plenty of scientific papers, sources, and info on both POVs. The best we can do is offer both views. We could always try to find better sources for each, though. Thankfully it's simpler than it could be... there could be experts who say humans are carnivores! Fortunently that's not an accepted idea :P Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist sources. Also, according to WP:V#Burden of evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". Dreadstar † 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is uncertaintly on this subject, regardless. I hardly consider the source extremist, as the "human as herbivore" idea is fairly wide-spread and this certainly isn't the only source for this. Like I said, we could always get more sources, which I will try to find. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Front, clearly on the extreme end of animal rights groups. Dreadstar † 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar, I'm not sure I'm clear on what you are advocating we should do with the article. I think it is basically OK as it is--the ideas of presented as one POV and the other POVs are presented as well. Thanks.Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only commenting on the source used to support the disputed content identified at the beginning of this section. It is not a reliable source and should not be used. The disputed content that it's supporting can therefore be removed or tagged until an adequate source is found, per WP:V#Burden of evidence. That's the only scope of my comments here. Dreadstar † 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anatomical similarity

The introduction of Milton contains a review of literature describing the similarities between the human gut and herbivore guts. Then it discusses the development of meat eating. Thus is can be cited both for both. Note that the text that got removed and reinstated does not claim that humans are "naturally" herbivores (whatever that would mean). It only describes anatomy. One quote from Milton: "Thus, using data from various lines of evidence, there seems to be general consensus that humans come from an ancestral lineage that was strongly dependent on plant foods."

Perhaps the disputed text should be expanded, but I don't see why it should be deleted.Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why I reverted the earlier edit. I owe an apology for no edit summary other than the undoing, but I was.... in a bad mood earlier today with nothing connected to wikipedia! lol :P so my apologies... Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin B12

The article seems rather positivistic about veganism, not really mentioning the recommended supplementation of diet with vitamin B12. It implies that sufficient B12 can be gotten by humans from plant sources, an idea that is largely dismissed according to my reading. See the article on vitamin B12.

The Vegetarianism article states among other things:

Vitamin B12 in plants varies widely depending on the type of plant and the soil in which it is grown.[40]

How about NO B12 whatsoever in ANY unmodified vegetable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.66.70 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. [27] - plants can have B12, they're just not significant sources. However, I'm going to change the sentence you point out to make it clear that plants are not a significant source. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article provided by your link doesn't say much about B12. The Vegan Society article linked to within it says this:

The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms.

...

B12 is an exceptional vitamin. It is required in smaller amounts than any other known vitamin. Ten micrograms of§ B12 spread over a day appears to supply as much as the body can use. In the absence of any apparent dietary supply, deficiency symptoms usually take five years or more to develop in adults, though some people experience problems within a year. A very small number of individuals with no obvious reliable source appear to avoid clinical deficiency symptoms for twenty years or more. B12 is the only vitamin that is not recognised as being reliably supplied from a varied wholefood, plant-based diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, together with exposure to sun. Many herbivorous mammals, including cattle and sheep, absorb B12 produced by bacteria in their own digestive system. B12 is found to some extent in soil and plants. These observations have led some vegans to suggest that B12 was an issue requiring no special attention, or even an elaborate hoax. Others have proposed specific foods, including spirulina, nori, tempeh, and barley grass, as suitable non-animal sources of B12. Such claims have not stood the test of time.

In over 60 years of vegan experimentation only B12 fortified foods and B12 supplements have proven themselves as reliable sources of B12, capable of supporting optimal health. It is very important that all vegans ensure they have an adequate intake of B12, from fortified foods or supplements. This will benefit our health and help to attract others to veganism through our example.

Vitamin B12 deficiency, from what I've read, can cause serious and sometimes irreversible brain damage, so it isn't something to trifle with. When it is "in plants" it is apparently from bacteria, not from the plant. (I don't mean to be secretive by not signing in. I've forgotten my password and haven't bothered to set up another account.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.66.70 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are proposing. The article currently has this information. Originally, you said "How about NO B12 whatsoever in ANY unmodified vegetable source" which is not true according to the American Dietetic Association and the source you have quoted above. The correct statement is that vegetables are not a significant source of vitamin b12. That has been spelled out in the article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only slightly trying to be polemical in this. However, the matter at hand is really one of science and facts. Where is the American Diatetic Association info available? I haven't abandoned my original question. What are the plant sources for B12? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.66.70 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ADA is the link I provided in my initial response: [28] - "Unless fortified, no plant food contains significant amounts of active vitamin B-12. Foods such as sea vegetables and spirulina may contain vitamin B-12 analogs; neither these nor fermented soy products can be counted on as reliable sources of active vitamin B-12 ([29], [88]). Lacto-ovo-vegetarians can get adequate vitamin B-12 from dairy foods and eggs if these foods are consumed regularly." - Plants do contain small (but not adequate or significant) amounts of B12. But they are not devoid of it. I think the article ilustrates this currently. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Right you are, I missed that. However, I'm not sure the WP article really covers the issue in this statement:

Western vegetarian diets are typically high in carotenoids, but relatively low in long-chain n-3 fatty acids, and vitamin B12. Vegans can have particularly low intake of vitamin B and calcium if they do not eat enough items such as collard greens, leafy greens, tempeh and tofu. High levels of dietary fiber, folic acid, vitamins C and E, and magnesium, and low consumption of saturated fat could all be beneficial aspects of a vegetarian diet.[36][37]

It seems to state that B12 is available in "collard greens, leafy greens, tempeh and tofu."

Then this is somewhat optimistic, though it seems to be on both sides of the fence at once:

Vitamin B12 in plants varies widely depending on the type of plant and the soil in which it is grown, but plants are not generally significant sources of the vitamin.[40] Therefore the main sources of this vitamin for vegetarians are dairy products and eggs, fortified foods and dietary supplements. Clinical evidence of Vitamin B12 deficiency is uncommon[41][42] given to the fact that the human body preserves B12, using it without destroying the substance. Vegetarians who were previously meat eaters may preserve, up to 30 years, stores of Vit B12 in their bodies.[40]. The recommendation of taking supplements has been recently challenged by studies indicating that exogenous B12 may actually interfere with the proper absorption of this vitamin in its natural form.[43] The research on vitamin B12 sources has increased in the latest years [6] and researchers at Hiroshima University have developed methods for growing plants rich in vitamin B12. [7]

"Varies widely" seems to indicate that some plants have substantially more than others.

Then, the ADA article you link says this:

Unless fortified, no plant food contains significant amounts of active vitamin B-12. Foods such as sea vegetables and spirulina may contain vitamin B-12 analogs; neither these nor fermented soy products can be counted on as reliable sources of active vitamin B-12.

That seems to argue against "varies widely."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.66.70 (talk)

I agree. Feel free to change any of it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

About an another kind of vitamin

Well, well, well - the same endless arguing here and there. I don't mean to be offensive or cynic in any way, but these kind of disputes generally doesn't have more sense than arguing about the possibilities of space flight. I mean, there are other cultures (surprised?), where vegetarianism has been practiced since thousands of years.

And in the modern societies - the world of so-called intelligent, ethical beings - the general judgment sounds like this: "Oh my god, there is one percent chance that I will suffer form slight deprivation disease in a world of diabetes, obesity, cancer, polluted air, polluted water and polluted land! Then I'll rather kill animals for meat."

Seriously: Please, wake up. Our body, our health and our wealth doesn't have an absolute value. These are not sanctuaries, but just empty shelters - shelters for consciousness and humaneness, which gives the meaning of life. Our body, our health and our wealth will never be complete, but in consciousness and humaneness we can compete and be complete. Not doing any unnecessary harm to animals is our greatest chance to achieve any kind of inner well being.

Anyway; have a peaceful night.

- a moron from Hungary (of course, what else could I be...?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratgab (talk • contribs) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a valuable insight, and I'm not denying your spiritual views. However, WP is supposed to be about facts. The corporeal being which we inhabit is bound by the laws of physics, after all. How do you determine it is a 1% chance of "slight" deprivation? What does that mean?

Bravo Baratgab! And anyway, if B12 is only really an issue within a Vegan diet, then isn't it better discussed at length in the Vegan article? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Veganism is a sub-category of vegetarianism. Misstatements are misstatements no matter where they occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.66.70 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

longevity

I started reviewing the studies that were cited and they did not have the results indicated in the new text. They were not "all" studies, in the first reference just six studies and even those were not entirely conclusive. Also, these were not the "most recent" but were published 5 years ago - 2003. Same story with the second reference. Referencing is great, but these references didn't support the text that was added. Conclusion or discussion that said that the results "may" indicate something were taken as fact, etc. The info might be correct, but the references were not appropriate. Bob98133 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)