the interpretation does exist out there in the world perhaps only or primarily among pescetarians and nonvegetariansAngr  That there is a group of people misusing a term does not make their use of it valid or reflect a meaningful contribution to what constitutes vegetarian Evolution does not mention in its leadin that it is considered an evil plot by atheist scientists to deny creationism and that this view has equal weight as that of biologists I do not believe NPOV necessitates taking a middle ground between a correct and a wrong interpretation Vegetarianism has an established meaning specifically a diet that excludes all animal flesh As a linguistic shorthand some view vegetarianism as being additive being a lot of plant food which then easily leads to the conclusion that eating lots of fruits and vegetables and fish means one is a vegetarian plus fisheater However vegetarianism in its intent and most common usage is exclusionary its the deliberate choice not to eat meat By all means pescetarianism should be listed as a semivegetarian diet and there may certainly be room in the article below to discuss how the word vegetarian is at times misunderstood because of this But the demonstrably erroneous use of vegetarian as may eat fish is a clear misuse of the term and it does readers a disservice to promote and perpetuate it in the article Its not a matter of it being a majority vs minority opinion Its a matter of it being the correct usage If vegetarian is to mean eats however much meat they like then it is meaningless because its only reason to exist as a word is to distinguish those who eat meat from those who dont Some people think vegetarians eat fish does not mean some vegetarians eat fish or fish can be part of a vegetarian diet it means some people dont understand what vegetarian means NPOV would be asserting that fisheating or meateating is bad a view many vegetarians would support Stating that vegetarians dont eat fish is not NPOV its simply accurate not a valuejudgement about fisheating So there is no need or justification to conflate readers understanding by lending any credence to a misuse of the word by including it in the article header anymore than the article on Energy needs to discuss NewAge concepts of personal energy fields Its a minor sideissue and should be treated as such the article currently addresses it well enough along with the other semiveg diets