Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 5

message: 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)
thread_title: New picture for this article needed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vegetarianism in Buddhism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  POV tag on the "Criticism / Health concerns" section 

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV on Hinduism

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Question? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Sources and OR 

message: [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)
thread_title:  rec.food.veg FAQ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The religion section is HUGE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Hitler 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Some lines need to be rewritten after some thought. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 , the "original" definition of the word. --Cpoupart 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  "Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming meat" <<NOT 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Noteable Vegetarian Sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: This sounds interesting. I've never heard of something like this before, sorry. Jecowa 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ,  --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amirim 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paleolithic diet bias 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Weasel Words" Tag Above Section "Physiological" 

message: has been nominated for deletion. I think it is a great image. Your input is appreciated. Jecowa 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kellogg Reliability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Americentric | Politicised Speach Pattern 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pig Meat an Muslim vegetarians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should the page be Semi-protected? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Weston A. Price foundation!?! 

message: I stumbled upon an article that references this (see page 2). Should we tag it with a ? -kotra 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No response, so I've been bold and added it. -kotra 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used as a source 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Health 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Help!!!!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inuit diet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Herbivores 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Famous Vegetarians - inaccurate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  All meat diet? 

message: 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:
Rob Shepard 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutritional deficiencies?!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Editorial 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Health effects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Environmental Vegetarianism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Religious and spiritual section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shadowtarianism 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bit of Controversy 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: "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 BCEVegetarianism in India http://www.indianchild.com/vegetarianism_in_india.htm." 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Environmental section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge in subvarieties?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table is all weird 

message: 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)
thread_title: Labor conditions

message: 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)
thread_title:  "There are variations that admit..." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Farm Animal Excrement 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dispute in health effects section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anatomical similarity 

message: 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)
thread_title: longevity