Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 2

message: How does harvesting wool kill an animal? Wool was listed among fabrics a vegetarian may not wear in the first section, saying that this was because it is involved in the death of an animal. I'm sorry, what? --Cassius987 01:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wool

message: How about people who are too poor to afford meat? -- Kaihsu 08:25, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
:I added this. – Joe Jarvis 13:24, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
::Are there really examples of people who consider themselves vegetarians for this reason?  IMO this is not the same as vegetarianism.  I will modify the article to reflect my perspective; see what you think.  --User:Chinasaur
actually, being a vegetarian isn't the cheapest thing in the world. all your products like smart "meats" are expensive then you have the rising cost on veggies. edit by 12.18.80.40
:There are in fact millions of people who eat minimal amounts or no meat at all for economic reasons, many of them in the world's "dollar or less a day" demographic.  Doubtless most of them would not consider themselves vegetarians and would eat plenty of meat given the opportunity.  The above edit does point out an apparent contradiction, in that many in developed countries especially of the Western world find "vegetarian foods" expensive.
:The fact is that vegetarian staples are cheap compared to meat.  Grains (including rice), beans (and legumes such as the peanut), and root vegetables such as the potato, yam, taro, and cassava are all world staples which are extremely cheap sources of nutrition.  Fresh produce and fruits tend to be more expensive, but especially so in the developed world where they must be transported huge distances or grown in greenhouses.  Local, seasonal fruits and vegetables generally significantly cheaper than meat as a source of nutrition.  Finally come things like the anon alludes to, "smart meats," vegetarian-oriented packaged and processed meals, soups, veggie-burgers and the like.  These tend to be considerably more expensive than their non-veg counterparts, for many reasons.  They are marketed as a niche, often gourmet or "natural" product serving a small segment of the population and so have an inflated "boutique" price without economies of scale.  They often use organic or otherwise premium ingredients.  Finally they tend to be highly processed and packaged.  All this makes them expensive compared to mainstream products.  They are usually manufactured for convenience and require little preparation. Importantly, they are not part of the diet eaten by the poor "vegetarian" population of the world, and though they make eliminating meat simpler, are completely unnecessary in the diet of any vegetarian who is willing to learn some tricks and spend extra time preparing food.  For instance, the price of a can of vegetarian baked beans is still likely to be relatively cheap, perhaps US$1.50 or so, but the equivalent amount of dry beans cooked from scratch would be mere pennies.  A "just add hot water" veggie soup might cost $3.00, but the same quantity of soup cooked from scratch in bulk would probably cost less than $0.50.  NTK 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  motivations: poverty 

message: What is the basis of the statement about Hindu vegetarinans not eating honey?  As a Hare Krishna, my religion is not included in the list (typical), but I believe this is something we have in common with Hindus.  We use honey along with other auspicious substances when worshipping the Lord, and the remnants are later drunk with great satisfaction.  --Pandu108 19:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe what Pandu is saying is that neither Hindus nor Krisnas abstain from honey, and I think he is right.  I know a number of Hindu vegs and none of them avoid honey.  Most vegans do, but even some vegans do not.  As a vegetarian myself, I consider honey more acceptable than eggs or milk, which I do eat in moderation especially if I can get organic/cage free, both because bees are much lower forms of life, and bees are not normally intentionally killed at any stage of the process (unless something goes very wrong, such as infestation with mites, in which case it is for the greater good of beekind), whereas both chickens and dairy cows are normally slaughtered at the end of their productive life.  Also there is no indication that bees in apiaries are any worse off than bees in the wild, whereas industrialized henhouses and feedlots are basically animal torture. NTK 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindus and honey 

message: I've come across people who call themselves vegetarians but do eat fish.  More recently, I've heard of people who call themselves vegetarians but will eat free range meat.  Are there names for these practices? -- Smjg 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Idiots.  The first group are called Pesco-Vegetarians.  The second group are called fools.  I suppose you could call them Carno-Vegetarians, but then that would apply to all omnivorous humans.  PRB 18:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial vegetarianism 

message: A number of bits of the article are non-obvious and need sources:
:"90 per cent of the UK's animal feed protein concentrates come from poor countries - often those where children die from starvation."
jdb ❋ (talk) 07:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: “The cost of mass-producing cattle, poultry, pigs and sheep and fish to feed our growing population... include highly inefficient use of freshwater and land, heavy pollution from livestock faeces... and spreading destruction of the forests on which much of our planet's life depends.” - Time magazine 11/8/99
TIME is an American magazine, and would not use the British spelling 'faeces' except in a direct quote, which we should not cite without mentioning its source. Removed pending verification. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The quote was taken from http://www.choosevegetarian.com/wasting_resources.asp . On that page you see it with the American spelling, it's just I'm Australian and automatically wrote it in British English. I don't believe the page would fabricate such a quote, so I think it should be returned. In fact I have sources it to this article and found it myself on the database: http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&an=2430637 . Given that the PCRM quotes were removed (fair I guess), I'm sure we can find some other statistics on that issue to source, because the relationship between meat and heart disease, diabetes and cancer is well documented. I'll go looking tomorrow. --komencanto 12:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, good. Thanks. Incidentally, there are far too many places on this page that are just laundry lists of sound bites with vague sources (often just acronyms). We probably should clean those up, but that's another issue. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims that need sourcing 

message: "Critics of this view may observe that the root causes of world hunger are often traceable to harmful political structures rather than genuine resource shortages; see Hunger." Well proponents of this view observe the same thing... however, the sentence suggests otherwise. I couldn't come up with the different sentence structure without making it to unreadable to those who actually have no idea what vegetarianism is. Beta m (talk)
:I thought it made sense in context, but if it doesn't, it may be necessary to rearrange that paragraph a bit. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Hunger 

message: This page here contains a lot about this and other issues with references, so if anyone wants to add some information from there: http://www.choosevegetarian.com/wasting_resources.asp . I'm too busy at the moment and I can't be bothered checking the references. --komencanto 09:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water use 

message: This article could do with a history section, focussing on the growth of vegetarianism over time due to religion. It could also mention the various events in recent history that have promoted vegetarianism, such as the BSE scare, the organics movement, the backlash against factory farming, Peter Singer's [Animal Liberation] and concern over toxins building up in the food chain. Anyone willing to start up something like this? It could even be its own page. --komencanto 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Vegetarianism 

message: From personal experience, the majority of vegetarians I have met have been female.  Not to say that I don't know male vegetarians/vegans, but I know many more who are female.  I know how unfounded it is to extrapolate from very unscientific personal experience, so I was wondering if anyone knew figures on this?  Also, I know a few years ago some papers ran stories discussing vegetarianism as a fad among middle school girls.  I think these are interesting angles to discuss, anyone agree? The lesbian 02:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My own subjective experience agrees with this, but we need hard numbers before putting anything into the article. Anyone got some? Tannin 02:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you google "vegetarians are women", you get tons of results indicating that some high proportion of vegetarians (60–80%) are women. But I haven't been able to find a scholarly source. (There are no relevant results for "vegetarians are men", in case you were wondering.) —Caesura(t) 04:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This is your personal experience—it depends entirely on the population and situation you are looking at.  If you were to go to Gujarat you would find as many vegetarian men as women because that is the norm.  Or if you went to certain Buddhist countries in east Asia you might well find more vegetarian men than women because this is often associated with asceticism and there are more monks than nuns.  On the other hand if you looked at a middle-American middle-school, you might well find that eating a lot of meat—or even killing animals—is considered macho, and concern for animals considered effeminate, and naturally you would expect to find more vegetarian girls.  NTK 16:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another factor, though probably a small one, is probably that vegetarianism and veganism are sometimes adopted to cover up anorexia, which (in the US at least) is more prevalent in young women than in the general population. DanielCristofani 09:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarianism and gender 

message: I would like to say why these statements included by an anon are wrong. Also he is trying to add vague responses of his own and not backed up by any scientific evidence or reference. Here is what he added :
"Most vegetarians would reply that plants are not self-aware or conscious of their actions or situation as animals are and probably do not experience pleasure or pain in any meaningful way."
Obviously the editor failed to read the previous para that talks about the experiments past and current that they show electrical and other related responses, sometimes even when a nearby plant is cut. (also shown on BBC)
"From an evolutionary perspective plants would have no reason to experience 'pain' as they are eaten, because they cannot respond to that pain in any meaningful way. Animals have evolved pain as a way to motivate an animal to avoid the cause and survive. Most plants have evolved to respond positively to being eaten (it is used to spread seeds) and most can survive being dismembered. 
By the same logic many animals can survive being dismembered, some even regrow other parts like a lizard can. plants like the ones in africa and south america make use of defender ants (I just don't remember their actual name) to protect the tree and rewards the ants with a sweet liquid. If this isn't defence, what is?
"Therefore most plants can be grown and harvested without any real harm being done to the plant."
most cereals are harvested by plucking them from the ground. and it's a permanent damage to their lives.
so I hope i made my point. just because some lives don't shout that it's safe to assume they were "born" to be eaten. for even the deer was "born" to be eaten by the tiger or the baboon or any other omnivore (including man) by the same logic. Idleguy 12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Good points, I'll reword those change at some point to make them fit with the objections. --komencanto 08:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it. Does it now seem more reasonable to you? --komencanto 10:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here are the reasons for my revert. 

message: Sorry to some of you, but I guess you have no idea of vegis. I'm vegetarian for more than 10 years, and i'm still alive - with no problems regarding my health. moreover, i'm still do a lot of sports (triathlon, runing...) and all without eating meat, chicks, fish.
:See, you can only do triathlon with veg. i do decathlon with non veg....                                   Just Kidding! Idleguy 17:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
::I see that nutritional deficiency in veggie diet is a concern for most people from a traditionally non-vegetarian society and this doesn't have a section addressing that except for a poorly worded section 'criticism'. Seems to me also from the links that it's not just fairy tales, some vegetarian diets do fail - can we maybe list the common causes.. And alongside it  mention that most vegetarians (like user above) have no issues and are not limited by any activites.
::I would like to expand the criticism section to say 'criticism and nutritional concerns'. I wanted to add that the switch from non-vegetarianism should be made slowly (first eliminate red meat, then months later, chicken and seafood then eggs etc) giving your body the time to adapt. I am not sure if this is an accepted/mainstream idea though? Anyone know? Also, would like to add that veggie diet may need to be well balanced and nutrition concious to be more successful. Any suggestions and help are welcome since I'm not the best person to add this. (I moved from a highly veggie non-red meat diet to completely vegetarian diet..) 
::Also, completely off-the-topic question. Indian society believes that a vegetarian diet increases mental prowess - traditionally, learned men, and merchants, those that don't need to do physical labour and use their mental faculties more, were vegetarians. How mainstream or far-fetched is that thinking in western vegetarian societies?    --Pranathi 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutritional 

message: By the way, it occurs to me that it might be a good idea to have a short paragraph stating that there are various religions sources of and attitudes toward vegetarianism and then move the detail to a separate article.  It seems to me that most people wanting an introductory encyclopedia article about the topic wouldn't want all of the detail about each separate religion.  There is also a long intellectual history of vegetarianism, and if we were to get into a summary of all of the ideas of important or famous thinkers about vegetarianism, that would take up a lot of space, too.  Seems to me the article should capture the important points and not go into all of the detail about all of these things.  The general paragraph could say something to the effect that within many major religions, there are people who have interpreted the religion as prescribing vegetarianism, briefly giving the reasons why, as well as people who don't interpret it that way, with one sentence on each religion.  Then move the detail.  I'm not about to do it, just raising it as a discussion issue. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest percent of vegetarians (I'm going to make a wild guess at 90%) are so for religious reasons (mainly Hindus). Although, reasons within religions usually overlap with the other secular reasons, they still need to be presented. IMO, this article is focussed on vegetarianism as a recent western trend and is less global in nature - no complaints, just an observation. I cannot speak for other religions but I think the Hinduism section should stay or be expanded. --Pranathi 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Jeremy, I agree with your idea to move "Vegetarianism and religion" to another article.  It is a very important part of vegetarianism for many people and worthy of an article on it's own.  This article (i.e. "Vegetarianism") should get into the non-spiritual motivations etc.  As for Vegetarianism in Hinduism, this would have to moved along with the others in order to keep a neutral stance.  However an introduction paragraph should be kept given that they are the first major religion to adopt vegetarianism as part of their spiritual practise. --nirvana2013 12:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: When I made this comment originally, it was not out of any kind of disrespect or wish to neglect the role of religion in vegetarianism, but rather out of my understanding of what an encyclopedia article should be, and that is that any extensive, highly detailed, specialized material does not belong in a general introduction to a topic.  To me it's not an issue of what percentage of the world's vegetarians are vegetarians for what reason, it has to do with the level of detail.  In working on these article, I'm always asking myself what kind of information an intelligent high school student or member of the general public would want and expect to read in such an article.  I believe that the point of each major religion's attitude toward vegetarianism can and should be in the article, with a maximum of a couple of sentences for each.  But it seems to me that the detail should be elsewhere.  There is a lot more that could be said about the nutritional, ethical, etc. motivations.  The issue to me is one of detail and proportion and of keeping a general reader in mind. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move religious section to separate article?

message: I am the creator of the website freegan.info and do media interviews on this subject once or twice every week.  The definition of freeganism offered is entirely inaccurate on numerous points including:
- suggestion that freeganism primarily relates to meat consumption
- suggestion that freeganism is primarily related to environmental concerns (implying that it is not concerned with animal or human oppression)
I submitted a corrected definition, which for reasons I don't understand were removed.  Can someone explain to me why my changes were removed?  
Here is my corrected definition:
* Freeganism; Freegans practice a lifestyle based on the idea that production in our capitalist society is inherently exploitative of animals, the earth, and human beings.  Freegans point to the hidden layers of complexity in the production of everyday goods,even vegan ones, revealing worker exploitation, pollution, killing of wildlife, large scale consumption of fossil fuels, forced displacement of indigenous people, increased power and influence for socially unjust corporations fueled by our dollars, etc.  
Freegans are critical of conventional vegetarianism, feeling that it is reflects a lack of understanding of the inherent oppressiveness of mass production under capitalism, and inaccurately labels products as "cruelty-free" that, in fact, involve a great deal of cruelty in their production.  
Freegans are also deeply concerned with the large scale waste of useable commodities, including food.  In fact, one of the mail ways that freegans provide for their needs is by recovering useable discarded commodities from retailers, businesses, homes, and other institutions.  Freegans frequently find food, clothing, furniture, literature, computers, toiletries, art supplies--all sorts of goods regularly discarded in our throwaway society.  In the United States, according to a recent University of Arizona study, 50% of all food is wasted, often while still perfectly useable.  Freegans account for most of all of their dietary needs by recovering wasted foods that have been discarded in perfect shape for reasons like overordering at retail stores.  In some cases goods are discarded before they even see a store shelf, guaranteeing freegans can eat food of equal quality to purchasers.
Many freegans are strict vegans.  Others are willing to eat dairy, egg, or meat products to varying degrees (meat-eating freegans are called "meagans")if and  only if they are recovered from refuse.  Much has been made of this point by many vegetarians who have come to misunderstand freeganism as referring to a lifestyle where you eat meat "as long as its free." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and depth of freegan ideology.
Freegans who DO eat meat do so using the following logic:
1) If one studies the complex chain of production in producing ANY mass produced consumer good, animal, worker, and environmental exploitation can be found throughout the various stages of production--even for items marketed as "cruelty-free."  For example, vegan, organic produce is transported to market in trucks that splatter insects and burn fossil fuels, contributing to the killing of wildlife in ocean oil spills and open oil pits in rainforests.
2) Since all foods that we buy cause suffering and ecological destruction, the divide between "cruel" animal products and cruelty-free" vegan ones is a false one. This is not to say that veganism is not a step in the right direction, since MOST (but not all)vegan foods require less stages of production than meat foods and thus involve less stages of destructive production impacts (e.g. eating grain is more efficient than feeding to cattle).  But it does reduce the dichotomy between "good" vegan and "evil" meat foods, suggesting that we may not want to purchase items in EITHER category.  
3) In a capitalist economy, our participation and complicity in production and marketing of goods is at point of purchase.  Producers don't care what we do with goods so long as we BUY them.  We could buy steaks and use them as hood ornaments for all beef producers care-- they just want the money.
4) Therefore, we lend our support to animal agriculture not by EATING meat, but by BUYING meat.  
5) Recovering goods that would otherwise go to waste is a positive act that reduces landfill space consumption while eliminating our need to contribute to more resource consumption by additional purchasing.  
6) Because vegan and non-vegan goods BOTH contribute to injustice, and because our consumption of discarded items does not contribute to increased demand for them or profits for their manufacturers, there is no morally significant difference between consuming discarded meat products or discarded vegan products. 
7) To torture and kill animals, consume natural resources and exploit workers to create a product, only to have that product go to waste is deeply disrespectful to the animals, workers, and ecological resources that went into the creation of that product.  Among animals, the body of a dead animal is food.  We do more to honor that animal by allowing the animals' body to sustain life, to be eaten by another animal (a human), than to throw that animal's body into a landfill, a human invention that correlates with nothing in the nonhuman world.  Even burying corpses as a way of honoring them is a human custom that makes little sense to impose on other species.  Some meagans go so far as to see eating animal flesh under these circumstances as a more DUTY of respect to the animals who were killed and whose corpses then discarded unconsumed. 
Among freegans, the eating or non-eating of meat that has been discarded simply isn't viewed as an important question, though many consider PURCHASING meat to be an abomination.  Freegans feel that non-freegan vegetarians overemphasize on this question with regards to the overall ideology of freeganism as a result of a simplistic understanding of the relationship between capitalism, mass production, and exploitation.  Freegans accuse non-freegan vegetarians of false piety, suggesting that their emphasis on the non-vegetarianism of some freegans is a bait-and-switch that allows them to shift focus away from non-freegan vegetarians having to take responsibility for the destructive impacts of the vegetarian commodities that they buy.
:Would your insert not be better served under the article Freeganism?  The vegetarian article will become overly long if all types of vegetarianism did the same.  I would suggest making the main points under vegetarianism and then merging the rest into the Freeganism article.  --nirvana2013 12:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed most of that. If veganism only gets a sentence, then freeganism can't have a page! As said, all of that should go on the freegan page, where anyone can talk about freeganism as much as one wants. This page is about vegetarianism, and freeganism should only get a passing mention as a related practice. I've reworeded the definition to make it sound less emotive and get across the idea in a few sentences only. --komencanto 08:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freegan section totally inaccurate 

message: A NPOV tag has been listed on the article under the Motivation section for several weeks now.  Has this been resolved and can it now be removed?  Please advise. --nirvana2013 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparantly when the section was supposedly on its way to becoming neutral it suddenly seems to have been edited recently with volumes backing why ethically its right etc... Unless the section is pruned by moving large parts to the as yet uncreated main article on Ethics of Vegetarianism, I think the tag should stay given some of the statements are self defeating. Maybe you could hive the ethics section retaining only the gist here. Tx Idleguy 10:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it only the ethics section which is disputed?  What about nutritional, environmental, social and spiritual?  If it is only the ethics section we could move the NPOV tag down to that section and open up a discussion of what to do on the talk page.  --nirvana2013 13:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Given that I wrote it I'm curious to know what you think is self defeating about it. More criticism the better what I've written will become ^_^ --komencanto 10:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The criticisms section now seems redundant. The B12 issue is resolved in the nutrition section, the environmental one is in the environmental section while the third criticism could easily be integrated into the environmetnal discussion. Should that section go? --komencanto 10:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Pranathi, you're edit warring to introduce your own POV, which is a policy violation. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Because there is a dispute about the definition, from now on, we must cite credible sources for our edits related to the definition. In that way, the dispute will disappear. Please read our policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and our guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please do not revert properly referenced edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slimvirgin, I only reverted back to the original edit as of yesterday. That is not my POV or my edit. There is a dispute about the definition - that definitions agreed upon by western countries are not acceptable. You have cited a currently disputed western definition and inserted your own POV without ending the discussion. But, since you are an admin, I guess you win the edit war.  --Pranathi 02:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you didn't answer my question above, I am assuming you want sources that show lacto vegetarianism is common in India. I have cited a source in ref section and here are more: , ,  - one from IVU as well. --Pranathi 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said yesterday, by all means add to the intro or elsewhere, but don't delete what's there. I added definitions from the British Vegetarian Society and the International one (not Western, international). Now you can add definitions from Indian societies, citing the source after the edit. The intro shouldn't be too much longer, but it can stand to have a bit more added. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said before, (applies to the 'international' one as well), these sources are eurocentric. Eurocentrism is the gist of our dispute. I don't wish to add from Indian societies but would like to see this page reflect a global viewpoint. When you inserted your new edits, we were in the process of discussing the intro - whether to include eggs in common definition - whether to include eggs but add an aside on indian habits - or whether to exclude eggs. No consensus was reached, but you are using your argument of 'citing sources' and status as admin, to supercede all discussion and change intro to one that suits your viewpoint in discussion - that of showing india as exception to the general rule. I disagreed with that definition - without counter-argueing you changed the definition. So who's edit is POV?--Pranathi 04:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of that, I think the intro is now reasonable. It points out that there is some uncertainty as to the definition between countries and that in India eggs are excluded for religious reasons. India doesn't have rights to the term alone, given that it was coined by the vegetarian society in Britain.  I don't think it's eurocentrism to give the common definition in the countries that are most associated with english (US, UK) and then state the exceptions in other countries. I have to say that I strongly disagree with the thing in the into about genetically modified foods. That is just a policy of the vegetarian society to do with using their label, based on the anti-gmo opinions of many of the constituents. GMO is really nothin to do with vegetarianism in itself. --komencanto 05:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the fact that we didn't agree on intro, the intro is now reasonable because it covers your stated preferences (POV) in unfinished discussion above - where you did not respond to request for worldview or reply to my point that it is not the language but concept that is important? Also, I don't understand the bias against religion motivations? Why is, say, ethical vegetarianism given more validity? In India, vegetarian mostly means lacto vegetarian - period. The word was coined by the British, but again, it is a concept and not a word. There are similar words in other languages -(shakahari - plant eater in Hindi)- that translate to each other - vegetarian. I agree on what you say about GMO though.--Pranathi 06:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the conventional definition of vegetarian in western-english (i.e., "English") is essentially "lacto-ovo-vegetarian", I think it is then more accurate to say that the concept of "shakahari" is incorrectly translated into english as "vegetarian" and is more accuratly "lacto-vegetarian" (or whatever is suitable) rather than that the English definition being wrong.  Zwat 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not 'modern', does not purport to be a definition, and is in the history section. How is it not credible? because it comes from a source that did not know the english word vegetarian? Sorry for my tone, but that is the general sense I am getting - that editors here are adamant about keeping this page eurocentric - they don't want to reply to valid concerns - keep diverting the topic - attempt to revert any non-eurocentric changes made. Can we finish the definition with regard to egg and then move on to Thirukural, please? --Pranathi 14:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, when I added the above, I believed that the footnote in the intro led to this source and not to the preceding reference, which sounds like a much better source. Apologies SP-KP 15:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for my outburst as well. I read too much into your note. --Pranathi 19:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting - continuation of worldview discussion

message: The reverts on this page are getting somewhat out of hand (I have to share some of the responsibility myself). My feeling is that there must be a better way to get consensus on the subject matter. I'd like to propose that everyone involved in the "What is vegetarianism" debate holds off from editing the article in any way which changes it from one viewpoint to the other, or back and discusses the subject on the talk page instead. I'm including reverts in this too - if enough of us agree to do this, we should be able to exert pressure on those making changes of this nature through lack of awareness of the debate to self-revert). I'm optimistic that we can arrive at an agreed approach if we do that. Can the main protagonists indicate whether they are willing to try this by signing below? SP-KP 18:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a main protagonist, but this makes sense to me.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. --Pranathi 20:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to assume, by the silence, that slimvirgin is convinced on lactovegetarianism being most common (see revert discussion above). I will attempt to change the page shortly to present a world-wide view. Please discuss objections in general, objections to particular changes or wording in talk page before reverting.--Pranathi 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still hoping SlimVirgin will sign up to this idea; I will message him/her again with a reminder SP-KP 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better way forward? 

message: :SlimVirgin wrote: deleted ovo vegetarianism because it seems not to exist (eat eggs but no dairy?), and strict vegetarianism is veganism; also deleted the first sentence which contradicted the rest of the paragraph.
Ovo-vegetarianism exists  and it's quoted in Mosby's as well, which I find to be a neutral source.  The diet makes up one of the four types of vegetarian diets; I'm guessing one would go Ovo due to dairy allergies, although there might be other reasons.  Strict vegetarianism  was the original term for veganism and is still used.  I don't think the first sentence contadicts the rest of the paragraph as it refers to the theory of the ideal, and goes on to discuss the different types in practice, which often falls short of the ideal. --Viriditas  | Talk 20:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ovo-vegetarian source, Viri. Regarding strict vegetarianism, do you mind if I tweak the writing to make it clear that it's the same thing as veganism? I also think some tweaking is necessary regarding the first sentence, because otherwise it looks like it contradicts the rest of the paragraph. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that makes sense.  --Viriditas  | Talk 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: strict vegetarianism means different things to different people. To some it means veganism, in India it may mean no onion and garlic, in some places just that they really don't eat meat products even as a hidden ingredient. --Pranathi 00:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored lead 

message: There was a fantastic study about vegetarian athletes compared to meat eaters. What happened to that? --Doc Holliday (unsigned)
:Were you thinking of this?  It was a paragraph in the veganism article that was deleted by someone.  It may be better suited to this article though.  --nirvana2013 22:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: That Bit About Vegetarian Athletes

message: Mosby's is a medical dictionary and IMO is not a reliable source for the definition of the practice or theory. I'd like to remove it and possibly make intro brief as in:
Vegetarianism is the practice of not eating meat, poultry or fish or their by-products, with or without the use of dairy products or eggs. . The vegetarian diet also excludes products derived from animal carcasses, such as lard, tallow, gelatin, rennet and cochineal. Many vegetarians choose to refrain from wearing products the involve the death of animals, including leather, silk, feather, and fur. 
Please discuss. --Pranathi 04:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine to me for an introduction, any other points can be covered elsewhere in the article.  What is the latest on the worldview tag?  I do not believe it does wikipedia much good these tags hanging around indefinately. --nirvana2013 10:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nirvana, I will take a final look and remove tag soon. I will change the intro as well unless I hear objections.--Pranathi 14:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I find that the section rationale reason is pretty unscientific. There is no doubt that humans are omnivores and yet there is almost 30 lines devoted to this flawed reason. Is there any valid reason why this shouldn't be removed considering that the very premise this argument is based upon is flimsy? Idleguy 03:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't remove it, I'd just add sourced information that proves it wrong. Which shouldn't be too hard ;) - FrancisTyers 10:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale behind the "rationale" 

message: I made a request for this article to be peer reviewed here. --Revolución (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: "Perhaps the most famous vegetarian group is the Hunzas (also known as Hunzakuts) that reside near the Himalayas in Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and India."
:Until I read this addition, I had never heard of the Hunzas.  I think that more people tend to associate vegetarianism with Hinduism or Buddhism (although neither of these groups are exclusively vegetarian).  Even the Jains are not very well-known world-wide. NTK 14:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Me neither, never heard of the group until this page. I was confused by the rest of your statement until saw that the history section has no mention of Hinduism in the start. Will add. I think Jains are noted because they are exclusively vegetarian. --Pranathi 23:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous? 

message: :In Spain, most vegetarian meals will be served with egg, or even tuna. Stock is normally used in vegetable soups and many sauces.
Stock is used?  Should that say meat stock? FireWorks 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain stock