Talk:Vegetarianism

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WPMEDmedicine articles Medicine portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animal rights (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Food and drink (Rated B-Class, High-importance) Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles Food portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit · history · watch · purge Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Food, Bread, Water, Beef, Curry, Drink, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yoghurt, Agaricus bisporus (a mushroom) Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: , Italian cuisine, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Coffee, Milk, Pasta, French cuisine Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Get rid of Trivia sections in articles you are working on. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner to food and drink related articles to help bring them to members attention. It could encourage new members to the project too. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, click here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of food Review articles currently up for GA status: Burger King legal issues, Chocolate

This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. See American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Vegetarianism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived.  It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully check the discussion-page dialogue (including archives) to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Find sources: "Vegetarianism"— news, books, scholar, images

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11 Specific topics: Peer Review (December 2005)

Lede image

Kotra recently deleted a profile image with explanation and, I think, with good reason. The reason being that raw fruits and vegetables shows a limited easy to misunderstand view of vegetarianism. So, I ask, how about this image? To me, it shows variety. And frankly it is making me hungry. I've gotta go. See you later...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

An added thought, I think if it is decided upon to use this image, another more "Western" style image should be also be used, either in the lede or later in the article. I'm thinking of an image of a veggie burger or something...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a good variety of Korean vegetarian foods. I am unsure, however, if it's a good idea to lead the article for an international diet like Vegetarianism with an illustration of a particular culture's food. Your suggestion of an additional, more "Western" image would help alleviate that, but it strikes me as an inadequate solution for a couple of reasons: Which image goes first? Why stop at just two cultures (Korean and American/Western)? The only solution I can think of is a collage-style single photo like the nationality collages (Arab people, Spanish people, etc)... how that could be done and still be able to have the pictures large enough to comprehend, though, may be a hurdle. -kotra (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You two got me to thinking about how this article has no images, such as of veggie burgers, etc. But I had already been thinking about the lack of mention of veggie burgers and such. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarian cuisine has this, but it's not very prominently linked from Vegetarianism (relegated as it is to just the See also section). Perhaps a summary style section on "Vegetarian cuisine" would be good, or is this article too long already? -kotra (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I think we need a vegetarian cuisine section in article summary form. (I like this teamwork!) As for whether the article will be too long, I think we certainly need to spend some time going over the entire article and trimming here and there, but "vegetarian cuisine" seems central enough to the topic to include regardless of the article's current length. Thoughts?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is already too long, but, like Abie the Fish Peddler suggested, it can probably be trimmed in some places. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The image of fruits and vegetables which Abie has been removing is fine with me. I think it's a good representation of the types of foods eaten by a vegetarian. It could be supplemented with more images later in the article. Bob98133 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I do not really see the problem with the image. It used to be the long-standing main image for this article before. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Eating Disorders

"The American Dietetic Association indicates that vegetarian diets may be more common among adolescents with eating disorders but that the evidence suggests that the adoption of a vegetarian diet does not lead to eating disorders ..."

And what is the point of including this, exactly? This is trivial, given there is no correlation between vegetarianism and eating disorders. It's like someone just tossed some random research into the article hoping someone would misread it and conclude that there is, in fact, some direct correlation between the two. I suspect subtle POV-insertion here. 70.153.104.135 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There was considerable discussion about this edit when it was made.Initially, an attempt was made to indicate that vegetarian diets are a type of eating disorder, or could lead to one. This was a compromise since no ref could be found to support the connection betw. eating disorders and veg diet. Bob98133 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-vegetarianism section

I like Flyer22's intention in that one's recent edits, though I find the particulars a little unclear. Here is my proposal for the section (Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)):

===Semi-vegetarian diets===
Semi-vegetarian diets primarily consist of vegetarian foods, though occasional exceptions are made for some non-vegetarian foods, including fish, poultry and even red meat. These diets may be followed by those who choose to reduce the amount of animal flesh consumed as a way of transitioning to a vegetarian diet, or for health, environmental, or other reasons. The term "semi-vegetarian" is contested by most vegetarian groups, who believe that vegetarianism must exclude all animal flesh.^[1] Many individuals describe themselves as "vegetarian" while practicing a semi-vegetarian diet.^[2] Semi-vegetarian diets include:

• Flexitarianism: A diet that consists primarily of vegetarian food, but includes occasional exceptions such as red meat.
• Pescetarianism: A diet that is mainly vegetarian but also includes fish and sometimes other seafood.
• Pollotarianism: A diet that is mainly vegetarian but also includes poultry.

Either version is fine with me. The one above seems a bit tighter, but you guys can work that out. I like the idea of a separate section for this. Now shouldn't the emphasis on semi-vegetarian diets be removed from the lede? Since they are now classified as a type of vegetarian diet in the Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism section, it seems UNDO to also have this info so prominently in the lede. Bob98133 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of my opinion on that. I see three options: Leaving it in the lede, deleting it, and moving it to a footnote. You want to delete it? I still need a little time to reflect. Curious what everyone else thinks. As for the passage above, I'll insert it, and wait to see what changes are made to it. Hope that works for everyone.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would put scare quotes around "Semi-vegetarian" and tuck this content in at the end of the etymology section, with a bit of a tweak, something like: "Semi-vegetarian" is a term describing diets that primarily consist of vegetarian foods...

In any case it does not belong in the lead, which should be a summary of the article's content. RomaC (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Abie the Fish Peddler, your tweaks to this section are fine.

As for not mentioning semi-vegetarianism in the lead, semi-vegetarianism was already covered in the Terminology and varieties of vegetarianism section, but we also mention it in the lead for very important reasons that I will again touch on. First off, scare quotes around "Semi-vegetarian" are not needed, since that is what it is actually called and we already point out the controversy about this topic. The importance of mentioning semi-vegetarianism in the lead of this article has been discussed several times, including at Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 10#fish: meat, not meat, or "meat" and in the #Semi-vegetarianism and #Sometimes considered vegetarian sections above. Consensus has been for including it in the lead each time, for the reasons stated in all those past discussions. As I have stated before, the idea that pescetarianism is vegetarianism is so strong that the Vegetarian Society spoke out about it; this is why we mention it in the lead. I have also stated more than once that this is no different than pointing out the misuses of the term pedophilia in the lead of the Pedophilia article. The different, prominent ways these terms are applied should be noted in the lead. This is not WP:UNDUE. These are significant viewpoints of these two terms, though they are misuses. The fact that they are misuses is something we should note; we do that. That is quite clear from the leads of these two articles. Mentioning semi-vegetarianism in the lead is summarizing this article's content. It is not some trivial note that should only be regulated further down within the article. These are things that need to be addressed to readers right off the bat. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know my answer came out as if I were oblivious to some of those discussions which I've been a party to. I just wasn't sure after all the changes since then, if the article now reads differently, and if there was no longer any need. I guess it was my own biased wishful thinking taking over. Thanks for keeping it in line, Flyer22.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The changes to the section about semi-vegetarianism have not been too significant. They have more so been tweaks. But even if they had been very significant, this topic should still be noted in the lead; even more if by "significant" in this case, we mean "expansion." Because then, that section would be more prominent in this article than what it currently is. Significantly expanding that section is what would be WP:UNDUE, though. As for you having bias on this topic, if anything, I felt that you were now biased for keeping the semi-vegetarianism/pescetarianism mention in the lead...due to having become aware of just how often people do not consider fish to be meat and pescetarianism to therefore be vegetarianism. But, yeah, I did not feel that you were acting oblivious to what we have discussed in the past. Flyer22 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GA status

Hey, Flyer22, and everyone! I think if we keep moving down the article like we've started doing maybe we can apply for GA status once we reach the bottom. Thoughts?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We all work well together, and this article is just about at GA status. Even during GA status, there may be some suggestions made for further improving this article. My point on that is...when we all feel that this article is ready for GA but may need more tweaks, we should still go ahead with the GA nomination. What needs to be tweaked can be worked out then. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Especially since it might take a month or so until the reviewing administrator gets to us, right? --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent lede edit

User:Plandr recently added the words "but does sometimes eat" to the second sentence of the lede,so that it reads "A vegetarian does not eat meat, game, poultry, but does sometimes eat fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet." Although I appreciate the sentiment and it makes logical sense with the rest of the article, still I think the wording is a tad off. I'd prefer something like this: "Vegetarians do not eat meat, game, or poultry, though some may eat fish, crustacea, shellfish or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet." Is this leaning too much towards semi-vegetarianism now?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Although I disagree with Flyer and believe we should focus on "vegetarianism" in the lead, which is supposed to be "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." per WP:LEAD, I'll review the previous discussions. Mind you, "semi-vegetarian" is a relatively new qualification label and really, not the focus of this article -- as the semi-vegetarian article notes, "Semi-vegetarian diets are not vegetarian diets" -- so would rather support a brief reference to semi-vegetarian and vegan in the lead, and a bit of discussion then links to the other (semi and vegan) articles lower in the body of this article. RomaC (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Roma. We've just been through this. Bob98133 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Seems fair enough. I agree that the lede should stay as it is.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the lead as it currently is, for obvious reasons. Plandr's edit was "off," because fish/other seafood-eating is not supposed to be considered vegetarian (at least according to the Vegetarian Society and most other, what we would call, "true vegetarians"). As for what RomaC stated about semi-vegetarianism, as you all know, I already made my thoughts about that matter clear in past discussions and above. Quickly put again, semi-vegetarianism is not only related to this topic but is a much debated "aspect" of it. And Plandr's edit further shows why the current semi-vegetarianism paragraph in the lead should remain. Summarizing? We already briefly mention veganism and semi-vegetarianism in the lead. The veganism mention is very brief. And I see no good reason why the semi-vegetarianism mention should shortened further, especially given Plandr's edit. I believe that the way the lead is now is one of its better/best versions. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions for article: