Talk:Vegetarianism

Find sources: "Vegetarianism" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Health benefits and concerns

I removed the word "no" in this edit from this sentence:

"Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer."

The table associated with the reference seems to show quite the opposite. I'm no expert, so please revert if I'm wrong. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

5 days later and somewhat alarmed

I see nobody has reverted the change. Does this mean that the article, for a long time, contained content which was opposite to the truth?

With all the stats that now show animal protein is related to cancer, one would think that this article would get the facts straight, especially one so close to the reasons for vegetarianism. If I'm out of line here, please tofu-trout me back to the stone age. (By the way, this articles has 635 watchers, and 2,500 visitors a day.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of people have lost the will to do work on this article that could be argued over. I know I have. Neutrality on this article seems to be that anything positive with regards to vegetarianism requires a counter-argument. For instance - The food safety section where it's just become a list of foods that have had contamination issues (vegetarian or otherwise) because avoiding meat contamination doesn't seem to count if it's possible for plant contamination to happen as well.Muleattack (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, it could have been sneaky vandalism. Like many other Wikipedia articles, we have gotten a lot of different types of vandalism (sneaky included). Some vandalism can go unnoticed when none of the main editors/watchers of this article are here to catch it and it is then lost in the edit history with other reverts and such. I have been good at spotting and reverting sneaky vandalism at this article, but maybe that was added before I was regularly watching this article. Maybe it was intentionally added by a registered editor who is otherwise decent in their editing; we'd have to check through a lot of edits in the history to see.

Do either of you or others have any thoughts on this removal from the Religion and diet section? Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Muleattack: I know what you mean. I think there are groups with interests and passions, determined to shift the flavour of these sorts of articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22:

• The false statement was added in this edit. That incorrect information has been in the article of about a year and a half.
• The religion link looks like garden variety IP removal of content without explanation. I don't know what else to make of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you went searching through the edit history for that? Is that how you found it?

I used wikiblame. Easy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, since the IP wasn't reverted, though, it left me wondering if that removal was valid. Maybe others simply missed seeing it? Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What IP? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP we were just commenting on above -- the one who removed information from the Religion and diet section (linked above). Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I see. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

[undent] Actually, the initial sentence (with the "no") was correct. The table shows that there is no significant difference in mortality rates between the different categories. In fact, they're quite a long way away from being statistically significant. I'm replacing the "no." Jgr2 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jgr2 is correct. In fact, the authors of the paper stated exactly the same at the end of their abstract. 98.114.4.26 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant inclusion of "Bovine spongiform" sentence, in Food Safety section

I question and request to either move, expand or remove a sentence in the contents section "Food Safety" [[1]]. Here is the irrelevant (both to the page and paragraph) statement that is located in the third paragraph concerning salmonella: "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, is linked by the World Health Organization to Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in humans.[96]" --Jdmumma (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

• Meatless in the Midwest: A Tale of Survival by A. G. Sulzberger published January 10, 2012

99.181.131.214 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Source 58 Doesn't work

Just pointing that out. Bonfire89 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Bonfire89 Jan 15, 2012