Talk:Flexitarianism

message: As an NPOV issue in this article we should be careful not to call vegetarians inflexible. The idea is that a flexitarian is flexible about their own practice; not that they are a flexible person. For example, a vegetarian with their heart set on Indian food but ends up going to a Mexican restaurant because that's where their friends want to go would be a flexible about what they eat too. (Eating a bean burrito when you wanted channa massala is sign of flexibility many vegetarians have, in fact.) MShonle 09:40, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflexible

message: What about flexitarians who are driven by ethical concerns? They seem to be completely unmentioned, although I know of many. People, for example, who only eat meat produced in what they consider to be an ethical manner, often leading them to be effectively vegetarian for cost/convenience purposes or because they cannot get hold of meat they are happy to eat. Interestingly, well-informed British ethical flexitarians may eat eggs (obviously not battery), but not dairy products, as veal is a by-product of the dairy industry. Therefore, if you are eating dairy products and not veal, the calves get exported (at one point alive, I don't know if this is still true) to other countries who are less concerned about animal welfare, and hence may be slaughtered in a less ethical manner. If you're not eating veal for ethical reasons, you shouldn't consume dairy products, goes the reasoning.
:I question the neutrality of the statement "In addition, they may try to stick to a vegetarian diet but are often unsuccessful because they enjoy non-vegetarian foods." There are no references for this assertion, and the links provided do not hint that the word is used to refer to "failed vegetarians". Just as it is not appropriate here to characterize vegetarians as inflexible, flexitarians should not be characterized as lacking in dedication; the references suggest this diet is a conscious choice for those who practice it. Seusomon 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a neutrality problem. The statement is either true or false and because the request to verify it has been removed I suppose that the term "flexitarian" is indeed also used to refer to those people. --Danogo 21:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how can you verify an assumption? The article goes no further than defining "flexitarianism" as "Flexitarianism is the practice of eating mainly vegetarian food." The last two sentences of the the first paragraph are nothing more than assumptions as to the personal reasons why people occasionally eat meat; they cannot be verified. Frankly, what should be asked is not whether such statements can be verified, but rather whether they should even be included. --Kmsiever 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It was a bad idea to use the "verify source" template. I remembered that some time ago a list of such assumptions was removed from this article because they were unsourced and I thought this might be a similar case, so I added "verify source" without thinking about it carefully. --Danogo 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed the statement that characterizes flexitarians as failed vegetarians. I do regard it as a neutrality matter (although relatively mild). As an analogy, consider a statement in an article about the game of checkers such as "In addition, many may attempt to play chess, but find it too intellectually difficult for them" - possibly true in some cases, but would seem more judgmental than informative or helpful to someone interested in checkers. I think the summary of possible reasons for making exceptions to an otherwise vegetarian diet given at the beginning of the article is accurate and adequate. Finally, the term "flexitarianism" (with its -ism ending) would seem, just by its form, to denote a conscious philosophy, deliberate practice, or point of view, rather than just an accidental result of attempting to do something else and failing. Seusomon 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Thanks for doing that. --Kmsiever 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: This article does not quite define what a flexitarian really is.  I am a vegetarian, but was exposed to meats during fetal development (many are not).  Therefore I can eat mat, but generally choose to do so only to avoid offending another (ex. an employer invites me to a steakhouse to talk about a contract).  Most flexitarians are in a similar situation. - Tom Tolnam 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you count that offered by the ADS in the second paragraph. --Kmsiever 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Hi, I just wanted to point out the importance of cultural flexitarianism.  I see a growing number of flexitarians who eat certain foods only for cultural or religious purposes, and I think it's an important area of growth.  
I myself turned vegetarian on my 16th birthday in a moment of divine enlightenment (which inconveniently happened as my beloved grandmother was serving the most awesome corned-beef birthday dinner ever made).  However, I had another enlightening moment as a 21-year old Kanaka Maoli cultural practitioner on the island of Kaho'olawe.  Everyone around me was catching fish and eating straight from the ocean, and suddenly in the clarity of my removal from colonized civilization I could taste the metals and plastics of the canned food that I had to eat in order to continue my "pure" vegetarian practice.  Now I eat fish sometimes, and try to use the experience to heighten my awareness of what is happening to the ocean that surrounds me.  I have eaten pork twice in 24 years under extremely special circumstances, but would not rule out doing it again if it was pono.
I'm pointing out the cultural aspect because one of the hardest things about flexitarianism is the assumption that one encounters in terms of what it's okay for others to assume someone will eat.  Culture and spirituality are tricky things for almost everyone, so I would say to anyone encountering a flexitarian, if you aren't sure, ask. --Laualoha 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cultural

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-01-6 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: This article was moved from flexitarianism to flexi-vegetarianism without gathering consensus . Any comments? I will revert the article and Template:Vegetarianism back to the old name over the coming days, if there are no objections. nirvana2013 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I’d say go ahead and revert not only the move, but all the edits made to the article by MinYinChao and 89.243.51.169. The real issue is not whether the article should be titled “flexi-vegetarianism” but whether that term should be mentioned at all in the article, in the absence of authoritative references. --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Kmsiever (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Move completed. nirvana2013 (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article back to [[Flexitarianism]]  

message: After a merge into semi-vegetarianism I've recreated the article. I think it needs a bit of explanation. Dutch Wikipedians wanted to merge these as well, but decided against is. Main reasons is that flexitarianism seems to a seperate tactic for eating les meat (animals), and therefore an example of a semi-vegetarian diet. Flexitarianism is reducing the amount of days a person eats meat, which is also reflected in many other languages, and also on Wikidata. Which is another tactic than leaving out certain animals from your diet (pescotarianism e.g.). I would encourage others to untangle the article semi-vegetarianism according to this logic. Timelezz (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreated article