Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 7

seems too pro to me

only seems to have one view

-agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.116.230 (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that there are lots of things that are not discussed here, especially criticisms AGAINST vegetarianism... such as potential (observed) problems with child bearing or the fact that major sources of protien, amino acids, essetial fatty acids and vitamins (that are difficult to acquire from a purely plant-based diet) are also the most common and extremely troubling food allergies and dietary intolerances for humans... milk, eggs, wheat/gluten, fish, shellfish, all beans, all nuts, etc. Not to mention... the "higher carbohydrate" 'benefit' is being debunked every month... as carbohydrate is the only causes of tooth decay, major contributor to triglyceride and insulin problems, lowers the effectiveness of human immunity, apparently causes high cholesterol (as low carb diets have lowered "bad" cholesterol in participants) and a host of other blood sugar/insulin-related problems that were ignored for the past several decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.31.230 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 18 June 2008

It seems like most of your concerns are with veganism, not vegetarianism. Vegetarianism can include dairy and eggs, making the vegetarian diet basically equivalent to a meat-inclusive diet, at least in terms of amino acids, protein, and vitamins. The only nutritional disadvantage of a vegetarian diet I can think of is the greater bioavailability of iron in meat sources, which is already addressed in this article.

As for your comment about carbohydrates, feel free to add a counter-claim about it, as long as it is referenced with a reliable source. It could be that some of the disadvantages of carbohydrates you mention here are a result of the confusion surrounding the Atkins/low-carbohydrate diets of the early 2000s. There has been a flurry of research into the topic of carbohydrates in recent years, and a lot of it is inconsistent, so we would need reliable sources, preferably at least as reliable as the American Dietetic Association (which is the source of the "higher carbohydrate = benefit" claim). -kotra (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your carbohydrate problems seem to be closely linked with simple carbohydrates such as sugars and only loosely linked with complex carbohydrates such as starches. These problems have not been ignored in recent times. (only cause of tooth decay my ass) 68.144.80.168 (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Too pro? Why should this be pro or con? Lots of dietary approaches have drawbacks, especially when they aren't practiced well. I do agree that any article in an encyclopedia should be neutral in its tone. There is a section about health concerns right in this article. If you have concerns and can point to valid sources, do it up. I'm sure any vegetarian concerned about their health would appreciate more information on the subject, as would anyone researching the subject. I'd be dissappointed if somebody just wanted to preach against vegetarianism on Wikipedia. Zedmaster375 14.09 1 July 2008 (-5) —Preceding comment was added at 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the very responses here demonstrate some level of hostility to the notion that there could be downsides to vegetarianism. Requesting and desiring a neutral point of view is not "preaching against vegetarianism".

I'm an omnivore, but started reading the article because I was interested in learning the pros and cons of the various form of vegetarianism. After having read through the whole thing (and POV aside, this article is quite unwieldy), I'm left feeling like I've been reading a piece of advertising or propaganda, not an encyclopedia article.

I'm not overly knowledgeable about the subject (that's why I came here to read the article in the first place), but I'm left feeling that I don't know much more than when I started, other than having to be careful not to step on the toes of militant vegetarians. -Stian (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to add that it's not just "militant vegetarians" you are dealing with it's the pro-meat rancher-high protien diet book sellers that are pushing nonsense on the article as well. It's a shame but there is a reason Wikipedia is so popular people have passion to make their not for profit voice stand out over those who wish to make money and the other way around. You have to make a choice because only you can feed yourself. Wienchs (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish people would stop making blanket statements about this article and actually point out the examples of pro- or anti- POV. From where I am sitting the article seems pretty neutral, so just saying it's "pro" or "anti" doesn't help people like me know how to fix it. Be specific and we will try to address any issues that exist. -kotra (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's virtually nothing negative about vegetarianism.
Therefore, when you create an article about vegetarianism, it's likely to have a positive tone.
I've been a nutritionist for 17 years and have never come across a negative finding that would be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article.

"Common belief" phrase added

i just added "Despite common belief that a human needs meat" to the introduction to the title . please see this news article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html and maby add it as reference to that sentence, i dont know how, but it is true its a taboo and common belief that humans needs meat to survive.. for example in a south park episode they make fun of it by people who dont eat meat getting a disease called vaginatas, where small vaginas spring from your skin if you dont eat meat etc.. the article i linked also says "There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run." wich is completely wrong, PROPER vegetarian diet can FULLY satisfy all nutritial needs both for infants or senior ppl, so the article should inform that properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.152.85 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ages Study in Longevity section

Restored study, was removed as of edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetarianism&oldid=220460389. Edit summary at deletion "Removed 38-participant study. Sample size is far too small to be significant and summary showed bias."

I concede that the sample size is small, but I would disagree that this eliminates the studies significance entirely. People can see the information I included on this clearly (sample size) and make a judgement call themselves.

I disagree entirely with the other reason for deletion. Summary wasn't biased as this is what was found by the researchers. Also included a Dr.'s interpretation of study which was based on their findings. Feel free to include a more positive interpretation should you find one from a reputable source, but the section shouldn't be deleted because it's not giving a positive view. By that logic much of the article should be deleted for not having a counterpoint.

It's about having NPOV where counterpoint information is allowed as long as properly referenced (whether or not the majority of people reading the section agree with it, they can make that judgement themselves). Wits (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes that explicitly point out that this study only looked at 38 people in the entire world population to come to the conclusion that "ALL" vegetarians suffer from this problem which can not be the case because however slight "SOME" vegetarians do not eat any fruit. It's a choice not a fact and thus you can not label all vegetarians as having high levels of fructose because some vegetarians don't consume fructose. This lame study did not corner the market to show that being a vegetarian will make you age faster sorry bro!... Wienchs (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

See my full response under "Longevity". In brief, I never said "ALL" vegetarians, but you're wise to change wording to avoid confusion. Never said this study was end all to debate either, just one study that is of some significance and should be included for NPOV.

Wits (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lessetarianism?

The first time I've heard of lessertarianism was reading this article. Is this an actual term? Furthermore, is it vegetarianism? Most meat eaters (myself included) can definitely benefit from a decreased-meat diet, I am unsure if it's a term. Thoughts, anyone? Red dwarf (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be supported by the ref "Gale, Catharine R; Ian J Deary, Ingrid Schoon, G David Batty, G David Batty (2006-12-15). 'IQ in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood: 1970 British cohort study'. British Medical Journal 333 (7581): 245", but at least the available online abstract of that paper doesn't mention the term. It gets some Google hits (I got 140), but it didn't look like many of them were in what could be called reliable sources. —Angr 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This reeks of Yahoo Answers trollery. Several months back a Yahoo Answers troll attempted to add "meatatarian" here but was shot down. Now it's likely the same individual is attempting to add "lessetarian", as he promised to continue his efforts to add a definition at Wiki to use to taunt vegetarians and vegans on the Yahoo Answers forum. There is no such thing as a lessetarian as there was/is no such thing as a meatatarian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.250.138 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Longevity (July 2008)

I wish to remove this reference to "AGEs" because Dr. Michael R. Eades is the best selling author of Protein Power and just wants to sell books on the subject. As you can see this "study" is just of lacto-ovo vegetarians (a whole 38 of them) and it says the researchers "theorized" that increased AGEs levels suggests that vegetarians age faster then those who eat an omnivorous diet. This is just a guess and not fact at all. This study is guessing that fructose intake is the cause. I say the guy that posted this is pushing an agenda for Dr. Eades on his blog page http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/vegetarians-age-faster-2/ it shows a conversation between the two about sticking this crap in and seeing how long is will last on Wikipedia. Time is constant and eating anything will not speed up time. You can not "Age" any faster unless you can go near the speed of light. If he did say the study suggested that vegetarians age faster tehn omnivorous later in the blog someone asks: "I’m curious how much faster do vegetarians age then." he says: "I don’t know that there is any way to make that calculation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wienchs (talk • contribs) 09:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence about what Michael Eades thinks is pretty much book promotion and should be deleted. But the first part of the paragraph is, AFAICT, based on peer-reviewed research published in an academic journal and so ought to be included in the interest of WP:NPOV (there are already complaints on this talk page that the article is too heavily pro-veg). —Angr 09:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

sounds better. I'll have to look for a better study and add it as a reference. Thanks for the help Wienchs (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes that explicitly point out that this study only looked at 38 people in the entire world population to come to the conclusion that "ALL" vegetarians suffer from this problem which can not be the case because however slight "SOME" vegetarians do not eat any fruit. It's a choice not a fact and thus you can not label all vegetarians as having high levels of fructose because some vegetarians don't consume fructose.Wienchs (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wienches, I referenced Dr. Michael R. Eades opinion on this legit study because I feel that he gave an excellent in depth description on what AGEs are and gave an interpretation of the results which are reasonable and supported by the study. NOT that this is the only viewpoint around necessarily (but being npov all views are allowed), or that this study is definite once and for all proof against vegetarianism (as you seem to errouneously imply). Wienches, I see that you've posted on the topic of NPOV/counterpoints in a few places (in talk here), but for better flow I'm condensing my responses all into this section.

This study obviously suggests faster aging of the vegetarians in these comparison groups. I never said "ALL" vegetarians, but you are reasonable Wienches in changing the wording to prevent people from assuming such. This peer reviewed published study said very clearly that AGEs are indicated in a lot of degenerative issues that come with aging, and that vegetarians from this sample had significantly higher levels of AGEs.

By aging faster I mean that environmental factors have an effect on accelerating the process of aging, not something unfathomable like a time machine. If you take a pair of elderly 80 year old identical twins who have lived vastly different lives (one living in optimal conditions for health, and the other in much less optimal conditions) their chronological aging may be the same (their both 80 years old), but functionally speaking the twin that had more favorable conditions will be younger. Really if you look, feel, and function younger that's what matters, as chronological age is just a number.

I'm glad to see this legit study has been reinstated after multiple deletions by named and anonymous users. I've watched this article on and off for several months and read some of the previous edit history and have seen previous bias in non-pro vegetarian info being quickly deleted without good reason even when being well referenced (although not always the case, as with all wiki edits). Dr. Eades apparently noticed the same thing which is why he thought this article was a bunch of junk. There are some reasonable people here (vegetarian and otherwise), so my thoughts were that with some extra work and explanation of my edits I would be able to make the article more neutral. So to no surprise Dr. Mike was happy to read that I had managed to add some counterpoint information (the study he brought to my attention) that wasn't instantly deleted (albeit deleted several times since then).

Wienches, I never mentioned Eades has a book and it's not obvious in the reference link unless you're actively looking for it. Really by bringing this up your letting a lot more people know he has a book out then would have known otherwise. I gave his full name and stance (he's a low carb advocate) to avoid any weasel wording. So I don't really agree with the following sentence being removed:

"Some nutritional experts, such as low carb advocate Michael R. Eades, M.D., have said that this study suggests that vegetarians age faster than those eating an omnivorous diet."

The study does stand well on it's own, Mike just dissects and interprets it so the lay person can better understand. So I'm not going to put up much of a fuss on Dr. Eades explanation being removed (as long as the legitimate study stands). I just think it's hypocritical that somehow him being referenced is a conflict of interest when throughout this article are references to vegetarian books and people who have written advocate books on the vegetarian lifestyle (flipside advocates are no worse, NPOV). I was going to put up some other viewpoints on the study as I got around to it, but it'll won't be NPOV if only opinions from vegetarian advocates are allowed. Unfortunately they tend to ignore studies that don't reinforce what they already believe (this trait of "confirmation bias" is applicable to people in general, not singling out vegetarians, I'm sure I've been guilty at times as well). The significant minority of the scientific community that has a stance counter to that of vegetarianism being completely ideal need to be heard as well.

Wits (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-vegetarian diets

Anonymous editor 78.151.64.212 - this section is called Semi-Vegetarian diets. The ones listed have been discussed and agreed upon as acceptible classifications for people who identify themselves as vegetarian but consume minor amounts of animal products. Your edits removing thse are unproductive. Bob98133 (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs to be changed, not everyone defines fish as meat

Anyone familiar with vegetarianism knows that not all vegetarians exclude fish from their diet, and fish is not considered meat by all. Having the lead not even mention this and take a stance on the side of vegetarians who feel that the ones who eat fish are traitors, with even a source from a website basically advocating that is unacceptable. Both sides should be present in the lead, as well as within the body of the article. But right now, I am concerned with the lead, and will change it to include this fact, with valid sources.

And just in case anyone is wondering, no, I am not a vegetarian who eats fish. When I first became a vegetarian at age 12, I did on occasion, however. That is no longer the case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I balanced out the lead, with mention of the Vegetarian Society and all that. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vegetarianism&action=submit] (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are some people who consider fish to be "not meat". The article didn't dispute that, in fact it clarified "meat" for that reason, by saying "all meat, including poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, and slaughter by-products". That is not the issue here, it's whether the word "meat" as used to define vegetarianism includes fish. The article cited one authoritative definition from the Vegetarian Society and two Oxford dictionaries that say it does not. You cite another Oxford dictionary which says a vegetarian "will consume ... sometimes also fish". This seems strange that Oxford would offer seemingly conflicting definitions, but I'll take you on your word that your definition is accurate. However, one authoritative, mainstream dictionary is not enough to say "The definitions of "vegetarian" in authoritative, mainstream dictionaries vary, and may include consumption of fish, shellfish or crustacea". Firstly, your reference says nothing of shellfish or crustacea, only fish. Secondly, you removed the two dictionary references that exclude fish, with no explanation. These should be re-added, at the very least to back up your "The definitions of "vegetarian" in authoritative, mainstream dictionaries vary". However, of all the definitions of vegetarian I have seen (6, if one counts the two you removed, the three here, and yours), the one you provide is the first I have seen to include fish, so I would hesitate to give "both sides" equal weight. If there is another definition independent of the one you gave, I would be open to including it, but otherwise I think portraying fish-eating vegetarianism as equally valid is giving it undue weight.

Sort of a side-note: the article never gave the impression that pescetarians are "traitors", as far as I can tell. It just said that they are not vegetarians, as per the Vegetarian Society and the two Oxford dictionaries. -kotra (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead including poultry (which can also mean eggs) and fish as "all meet" is stating that without a doubt they are meat. Stating that fish is meat is disputed, no matter a dictionary's definition.

What two sources did I remove? I left in the the vegsoc.org source. Before, it was basically two different links to that same source. And I do not feel that the Vegetarian Society should be thought of as the authoritative definition of what a vegetarian is, no matter how they popularized the term. The matter of the fact is...is that the definition of "vegetarian" varies.

I was not attributing the source I added to shellfish or crustacea, but I do not see how shellfish or crustacea can be disputed but not fish. Also, I took that source from the Pescetarianism article. It's not really "my definition".

As for the impression the article gave before I edited it, yes, it did follow through with the impression that pescetarians are "traitors", as some vegetarians see them. I'm a vegetarian who does not eat fish, though I do eat cheese and icecream at times, and I have seen that train of thought enough times to recognize it. Either way, having the lead flat-out state that if you eat fish, you are not a vegetarian is quite wrong to state as fact, I feel, when it is really a matter of opinion. The way I edited the article is not portraying fish-eating vegetarianism as equally valid; it even states that it is sometimes called pescetarianism, and is not considered "true vegetarianism" by one of the biggest vegetarianism groups out there. All my alteration of the lead has done is provide a fact that, in some dictionaries, vegetarianism may include the consumption of fish. The American Heritage Dictionary, for example, states meat as "the edible flesh of animals, esp. that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry". But I would say that we should definitely keep the part about poultry being stated as meat in the lead (as long as it clarifies, like I have, about the sometimes exception of eggs), but stating fish as indefinitely being meat and not being something that a "true vegetarian" eats is too varied. And, c'omn, whether or not a person who eats fish can be called a vegetarian is disputed enough that it can be mentioned in the lead. Mentioning pescatarians in the lead makes even more sense, given that "vegetarians who eat fish" are officially recognized by Merriam-Webster as pescatarians, as well as by other sources. With vegan being in the lead, a large aspect of vegetarianism, pescatarianism another aspect of vegetarianism should also be in the lead. The fact that vegetarianism can mean someone who will eat fish but not meat is enough to suggest that fish is not meat, at least not to everyone. This article is about vegetarianism; pescatarianism is a part of that. And Merriam-Webster does not define pescatarians as semi-vegetarians, but rather as vegetarians who eat fish. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a bit to respond to. I'll number my points so we can keep track of them easier.

1. Poultry does not include eggs. Poultry has two definitions: the actual birds that are raised for meat and/or eggs, or the meat of those birds. If you don't believe me, see [1] or our article Poultry. When talking about food, the second definition is used, of course. Using the first definition would be like saying "I'm drinking cattle" when we are drinking milk.

2. I specified that in this article, the word "meat" as used to define vegetarianism includes fish. This does not mean that the word "meat" always includes "fish" for everyone in all contexts. But this article uses a common meaning of the word and it explicitly explains the meaning it is using.

3. My mistake, you didn't remove the two citations. I'm not sure why I thought that (probably just carelessness). Sorry.

4. If the Vegetarian Society isn't an authoritative source on what the word "vegetarian" means, then who is? They nearly singlehandedly originated usage of the term, and they remain the largest and most authoritative organization about vegetarianism.

5. Essentially you are claiming that some authoritative definitions include shellfish and crustacea, on the basis of your own personal assumption, not any actual definition given by a dictionary. At the very least, this is original research.

6. I didn't mean that the definition was actually "yours" in a literal sense. I was just using a more convenient wording than "the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary reference". Sorry for the misunderstanding.

7. I think you may be seeing animosity where there is none. I did not get the impression that the article considered pescetarians who call themselves vegetarians "traitors", just "incorrect". This is a big difference. But if you see examples of weasely wording, I would be interested in seeing them.

8. I have yet to see another credible dictionary definition that describes vegetarianism as including fish (see #11 and #12 below for reasons why I discount the two definitions you just gave); so far there has been only one provided. One is not plural, so "The definitions of "vegetarian" in authoritative, mainstream dictionaries vary" is misleading and vague. It would be more accurate to say "The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary includes fish in a possible vegetarian diet, but most other dictionaries do not."

9. The American Heritage Dictionary definition of "meat" is irrelevant, because the definition of "meat" varies (see #2 above). The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "vegetarianism", however, is relevant: "The practice of subsisting on a diet composed primarily or wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products."

10. I'm not sure why you referenced this opinion article, which says the opposite of what you are saying. It makes the case that people who eat fish and call themselves vegetarians are merely "wannabe vegetarians". Unless you are saying that the very existence of people thinking some vegetarians eat fish means that it is a notable meaning of the word "vegetarian". This is not the case: some people still think Japan is in China, but we won't be editing Japan to reflect that.

11. Merriam-Webster definition of pescetarian (there "pescatarian"): I can only assume they defined it as "a vegetarian whose diet includes fish" as a way of shortening the definition, because they define "vegetarian" itself as "consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products". For obscure words like "pescetarian" they are bound to occasionally make misleading definitions in interest of brevity (they are a traditional dictionary, which needs to be conscious of space). For example, "wiki" is similarly misleading. By its definition, any website with a forum or guestbook is a wiki. So I wouldn't put much stock in that definition, especially since it's contradicted by another definition in the same dictionary.

12. This lends a bit more credence to your view, but notice that it says Vitamin B12 is only available in meat products. This is plainly false, as dairy and eggs also contain sufficient B12 (as per NIH). And it seems like it is also saying that fish and poultry do not contain B12, since it appears to be using the meaning of "meat" that does not include fish or poultry. I may be splitting hairs here, but if a source is so blatantly incorrect about one fact, it leads me to mistrust the rest, and I would question its use as a reliable source.

13. So in conclusion (this appears to have escalated into an essay), I still only see one semi-reliable source (Shorter OED) saying that fish can be part of a vegetarian diet. I say it is semi-reliable because it conflicts with other definitions Oxford uses, and because I have yet to actually see it (perhaps I will try to find it at the library for verification). This one source could perhaps be mentioned, even in the lead, but only in a way that makes it clear that among authoritative sources, it is a minority view (see #8 again for the exact wording I would use). Five authoritative definitions (possibly more now, I've lost count) to one makes it a minority view by any perspective. If you are in agreement, I can amend the lead to reflect this if you're busy. -kotra (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You say that poultry does not include eggs, but then say poultry has two definitions: the actual birds that are raised for meat and/or eggs, or the meat of those birds... Well, that is exactly what I was talking about. But you do have a point when you say: "When talking about food, the second definition is used, of course. Using the first definition would be like saying 'I'm drinking cattle' when we are drinking milk."

You stated, "I specified that in this article, the word 'meat' as used to define vegetarianism includes fish. This does not mean that the word 'meat' always includes 'fish' for everyone in all contexts. But this article uses a common meaning of the word and it explicitly explains the meaning it is using."... Well, what I got from the article is that it was saying that if you eat fish, you are not a vegetarian. I was simply saying that was/is disputed. I took out the word "all" because some people consider fish meat, and having the article state "all meat"...but then how some definitions of vegetarianism may include the consumption of fish makes no sense.

You asked, "If the Vegetarian Society isn't an authoritative source on what the word "vegetarian" means, then who is?" My answer is no one. But they are the most important source. That, however, does not mean that we should not present, in the lead, the fact that pescetarianism is thought of as an aspect of vegetaranism. I mean, c'omn, that is why it's mentioned in the lower part of this article. It's not the same as a person who eats fowl or chicken (or both), however. People who eat fowl or chicken are hardly thought of as vegetarians. But people who mostly eat vegetables and sometimes fish as well are thought of as vegetarians often enough.

Yes, I referenced this opinion article, because it was not saying the opposite of what I am saying. You are correct that I was saying that the very existence of people thinking some vegetarians eat fish means that it is a notable meaning of the word "vegetarian". But not so much notable, more so disputed enough, which is notable. Some people still thinking that Japan is in China is not notable. The fact remains that there are three types of vegetarians, which I listed below. These three types are backed up by valid health resources, one which I gave below. I trust valid health resources before trusting dictionaries on this topic. Dictionaries tend to be plain in their view, and often do not reflect a world-wide view of topics. This is why the use of dictionaries as sources are sometimes seen as not being the best route to go on Wikipedia for certain topics.

We also cannot speculate on why we think Merriam-Webster defines "Pescetarian" as "a vegetarian whose diet includes fish"... The fact remains that they have referred to pescetarians as vegetarians, and are a valid source. We cannot exclude one dictionary for another, if we are going to use dictionary sources. As for merriam-webster.com "wiki" being similarly as misleading as Wikipedia, that is not a problem since Merriam-Webster entering "Pescetarian" as a "vegetarian whose diet includes fish" in its vocabularly was reported by major online news outlets. Not to mention, they fact check who contributes to their online dictionary a lot better than Wikipedia keeps tracks of the additions to this encyclopedia. Thus, they are not too much like a forum or guestbook, or Wikipedia. So, yeah, I would put much stock in that definition. And we cannot say that pescetarians being vegetarians is a minority view, without references stating exactly that. It would be silly to state that, anyway, given that a simple Google search shows how debated this topic is. It is hardly a minority view.

The American Heritage Dictionary is also not clear to me as well, considering that it says vegetarianism is "the practice of subsisting on a diet composed primarily or wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products." Notice it says the word "primarily"... How does that not include pescetarians? A pescetarian's diet is composed primarily of vegetables, grains (sometimes fruits, nuts, and seeds), with or without eggs and dairy products.

It does seem as though you are splitting hairs. How is the way I altered the lead in any way inaccurate? This article is called vegetarianism, not vegetarian. And, yes, pescetarianism is an aspect of vegetarianism, just as much as veganism is. In what way would you prefer the lead to be altered? Give an example on this talk page. Because it surely should not be changed back to how it was. I would be okay with something along the line of your #8. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, we do not have to go solely on dictionary definitions, especially since we do not go solely on dictionary sources for this article. Clearly, pescetarianism is thought of as an aspect of vegetarianism, as these sources display:

Body for Life for Women. Fish vegetarian

Healthy Healing. Pesco vegetarians

Nutritional Applications in Exercise and Sport. Pescetarian is a vegetarian, usually lacot-ovo, who also eats fish

Food and You: A Guide to Healthy Habits for Teens

The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets: Issues and Applications

The Vegetarian Handbook. Pesco vegetarians allow fish in their diet

Many health resources and written work acknowledge pescetarians as vegetarians; they are more so called pesco vegetarians in those sources. The truth is...types of vegetarians vary, and a pescetarian is acknowledged as a vegetarian more often than not. The lead should mention that types of vegetarians vary, mention prime ones, and when it mentions pesco vegetarians (and their fish consumption), mention how their association with vegetarianism is controversial and that stuff about the all-powerful vegetarian group not considering pescetarians to be vegetarians. I propose the lead to go like this: Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, including game, slaughter by-products, and poultry (sometimes with the exception of eggs). The definitions of "vegetarian" vary, and there are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products produced from animal labor such as dairy products and honey. Veganism excludes all animal products from diet, such as meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, and eggs. By strict veganism definitions, animal products are not used for attire either, whether or not the production of clothing or items has directly involved the actual death of an animal (dairy, eggs, honey, wool, silk, down feathers, etc.). Lacto and lacto-ovo vegetarianism include dairy products. Ovo vegetarianism includes eggs but not meat or dairy products. Pesco-vegetarianism (pescetarianism) has been defined as a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish. However, the association of pescetarianism with vegetarianism has been controversial; the Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, does not consider pescetarianism a valid vegetarian diet. Pescetarianism is often denoted as a form of semi-vegetarianism. Semi-vegetarianism consists of a diet largely of vegetarian foods, but may include poultry along with fish, as well as dairy products and eggs.

The reasons for choosing vegetarianism may be related to morality, religion, culture, ethics, aesthetics, environment, society, economy, politics, taste, or health. A generic term for both vegetarianism and veganism, as well as for similar diets, is "plant-based diets". Properly planned vegetarian diets have been found to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischemic heart disease, and other diseases.

I have altered the lead to that; it covers all the aspects of vegetarianism properly, and I feel covers your concerns properly. Let me know any problems you have with this new lead, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me. I thought that pescetarianism being a vegetarian diet was a negligible minority view, but the new sources you've provided look like it isn't just a few misinformed people as I'd thought. I still think they're wrong, and that they're expanding the term "vegetarian" which never used to include pescetarianism, but that's just my opinion. I (grudgingly) think your new wording is good. I suggest a few minor wording tweaks, though:

1. "(sometimes with the exception of eggs)" could be removed from the lead because the next sentence says "some of which also exclude eggs" already, and I don't think "poultry" in this context (talking about food) would be interpreted as meaning eggs.

2. "Pesco-vegetarianism (pescetarianism)" should be "Pescetarianism (pesco-vegetarianism)" because Pescetarianism is the more common term (at least according to a Google search: pescetarianism, pesco-vegetarianism)

3. "...has been defined as..." might sound better as "...is sometimes defined as..."

Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that we have found common ground about this. Hmm, your first suggestion is reasonable enough. As for the second, though you seem to be right that "pescetarianism" seems to be more common than saying "pesco-vegetarianism"...(which is what I was thinking as well), I left it as pesco-vegetarianism to keep the continuity flow for having first mentioned lacto and lacto-ovo vegetarianism, as well as ovo vegetarianism. But I'm not against you changing it to just "pescetarianism"... Your last suggestion, however, I see no need for. I mean, pescetarianism has been defined as "a vegetarian who eats fish"... Adding "sometimes" to it would just make it seem like weasel wording. Besides that, the lead notes the controversy about pescetarianism being associated with vegetarianism and how pescetarianism is often denoted as a form of semi-vegetarianism. Thus the reader can easily grasp that pescetarianism is not always thought of as "true vegetarianism". If you would rather it say "has been described as"...I would not be too opposed to that. Still, I feel saying "has been defined as" is better, though. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed "Pesco-vegetarianism (pescetarianism)" to "Pescetarianism (or pesco-vegetarianism)". I see your point about consistency of wording, but it seems more important to me to use the more common term to prevent confusion. Either way, not a big deal though.

My reasoning for preferring "...is sometimes defined as..." is because "...has been defined as..." sounds like it's in the past: it could mean "it has been defined as this, but now it isn't." So I thought instead it should be "...is defined as..." but that sounds too definite, like it's only defined in that way. So I thought "...is defined by some as..." but "some" is sort of vague, so I settled on "...is sometimes defined as..." which is just as vague but sounds better to me somehow. I don't think it's weasel-worded; it's accurate. Some sources (those you cite) define it in that way, others don't ([2],[3],[4][I hate to cite wiktionary, but it's insanely hard to find authoritative definitions of "pescetarian"...I think of all the major dictionaries only Webster has defined it yet]). Anyway, I'm not married to my wording, if you can come up with another one that would be fine by me. -kotra (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it again, "...has been defined as..." doesn't really bother me anymore. For some reason, now it doesn't give me the impression of being in the past. Nevermind... tenses are confusing sometimes! -kotra (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Okay. It's been (and is, LOL) great working with you. Fun, too. Hopefully, we'll get this article up to GA (Good Article) status one day. No hurry right now, though. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your work on this article, by the way. -kotra (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Until you can find a source that defines fish as vegetables, they are meat. Unless there is a new classification, any part of any animal that is eaten is meat. If one eats meat, one is not a vegetarian. I think it's fine to include pescatarian or flexitarian or other vegetarian inspired diets, since they are of interest and since proponents consider themselves to be vegetarian, however, as the first sentence of the article says, vegetarianism is a practice that exlcudes meat. Bob98133 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to find a source that describes fish as vegetables. I gave a source that defines vegetarianism as sometimes including the consumption of fish, which is in the lead. I also pointed out that this type of vegetarian (and it is a type of vegetarian), as even Merriam-Webster points out, is called pescetarianism. I even pointed out a source (American Heritage Dictionary) that states fish as being different than meat.

There are three main types of vegetarians (even though the Vegetarian Society disagrees with the last type):

*A strict vegetarian, a vegan, avoids all foods of animal origin, including meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, and eggs.

*Lacto-vegetarians include dairy products in their diet. Lacto-ovo- vegetarians also eat dairy products and eggs.

*Pesco-vegetarians eat fish, dairy products, and eggs along with plant foods.

"Finally, there are semi-vegetarians, who cheat a little and eat a little poultry along with fish, as well as dairy products and eggs."

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/4/T045400.asp

http://www.whatdoveganseat.com/

Without including pescetarianism in the lead, it's giving a strict definition of what vegetarianism details. Even stricter, and it would exclude dairy products. But does the lead exclude dairy products? No. It goes on to make a point that some vegetarians exclude dairy products (which means not all). Per Wikipedia, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, mention the prominent aspects of the topic. Pescetarianism is a prominent aspect of vegetarianism. More so, this prominent aspect is within the body of the article, below the lead, but should also be in the lead.

I did not alter the lead to state that a pescetarian is a vegetarian. I altered the lead to state that the definition of vegetarian varies, which is true, and that it may sometimes include the consumption of fish, and that those who consume fish are sometimes called pescetarians, which is true. They are not thought of as pescetarians all the time, especially since the word "pescetarian" is not as well-known as "vegetarian"... Thus it only makes since to state that they are sometimes called pescetarians. The first part of the lead states "no meat"...then the second part of the lead states that the definition of vegetarian varies and may include the consumption of fish, and about this practice being defined as pescetarianism, a form of semi-vegetarianism, and how an all-powerful vegetarian group does not consider this practice vegetarianism at all; the lead does not even try to put pescetarianism on the same level as "true vegetarianism"...it is not going into a debate about whether or not fish is meat, but rather pointing out a fact and how this type of diet is (sometimes) thought of as pescetarianism. I do not see how the change/expansion of the lead is unreasonable at all. It is stiil accurate, but now in a way that summarizes this topic as completely as need be.

We can certainly work together to create an expansive lead, as I have started on. But more so, I am interested in expanding this article. And, no, my ideas for expansion are not mainly about pescetarianism (don't worry). I am no pescetarian (not that being a pescetarian is a bad thing), and the Pescetarian article deals with that pescetarianism stuff. I am interested in getting this article to Good Article status; part of that was an accurate expansion of the lead. As this article grows, depending on its length, the lead will need further expansion. But I am very much interested in working with you guys, and doing our best to improve this article. I surely didn't/don't mean to "step on any toes"...nothing like that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Didn't mean to jump on anyone. Let's change the fish article to indicate that fish are a type of vegetable! Bob98133 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I really don't get the attitude. This article is not saying that fish is a vegetable, and I've explained what I have above. If you would rather patronize me instead of work with me, then oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, the Meat article even separates fish from meat, as it currently states: "The word meat is also used by the meat packing and butchering industry in a more restrictive sense—the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, etc.) raised and butchered for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish, poultry, and eggs. Eggs and seafood are rarely referred to as meat even though they consist of animal tissue."

But again, this article (the Vegetarianism article) is not separating fish from meat, and is not calling meat a vegetable. After directly stating that vegetarianism means no meat, it is stating that the definition of vegetarian varies, and may include consumption of fish, directly linking that practice to pescetarianism. If what a vegetarian is was not controversial, there would not be a tag on this talk page saying that it is and basically that its definition is disputed. A person would not be able to Google the words "vegetarian, fish" together and see the debate about this that goes on everywhere, if the definition were as clear as this article made it out to be before I edited that first half of the lead. Not mentioning this in this article does not make this fact go away. The lead clearly states that vegetarianism means no meat; that is the first and primary definition. All it does after that is go on to note other aspects of vegetarianism, which, yes, includes those "pesky" fish-eating pescetarians. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My alteration of the lead is in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to give prominent aspects of a topic and summarize an article with its lead, such as the Sexual intercourse article (and others), which gives the primary or original definition first and then any secondary definitions/other aspects of the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Flyer22, I was serious about the good job - joking about the fish being vegetables. Bob98133 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about my misinterpreting your response there; that serves as a reminder of how communicating over the Internet does not always allow us to accurately convey our feelings. You guys have been doing a good job of keeping this article in tact. And I just want to help with that, of course, and expand this article when I can. I am not sure how much longer I will be editing Wikipedia as actively as I currently am (I mean, my life outside of Wikipedia will become more demanding in a few months or so), but I will surely always help while I am here, especially regarding topics I am interested in. Thanks for being so great. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In modern English, "meat" means the flesh of any animal. I realize there are people who call themselves vegetarians who actually eat fish, and the article should reflect that. However, the article should not treat their poor understanding of the English language as being legitimate. If it's not a plant or a fungus, it's meat. thx1138 (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have made sure not to do that, as pointed out above. I must once again point out, though, that it is not merely their "poor understanding of the English language," when even The American Heritage Dictionary and the Wikipedia Meat article separates fish from meat. But, anyway, a pescetarian is a type of vegetarian, as valid sources state. The lead does not directly call pescetarians vegetarians (due to dispute), but only presents that, in some authoritive dictionaries, vegetarianism may include the consumption of fish. As stated before, the lead then makes sure to tie that type of diet to pescetarianism, and note how pescetarianism being thought of as vegetarianism is disputed. Merriam-Webster even now defines pescetarianism as "vegetarians who eat fish" (as I've already mentioned)...so, clearly, there is validity in mentioning pescetarianism as being an aspect of vegetarianism (as much as veganism is), especially as long we note the dispute between the two terms, and especially when pescetarianism is present within the body of this article, below the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just stating underneath this that, as mentioned above, I have once again altered the lead, in a way that I feel is satisfactory to all. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to weigh in here. Firstly, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source, especially if its contents are subject to change. Who knows whether or not the Wikipedia article on meat will say fish is meat in the future or not?

Secondly, your other source, the American Heritage Dictionary, defines vegetarianism as "The practice of subsisting on a diet composed primarily or wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products." It doesn't mention fish.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary in defining pescetarians as "vegetarians who eat fish" is wrong and at any rate is saying that vegetarians do not normally eat fish which I feel the article ought to say. Note that their definition of vegetarian is a diet "consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products". They don't mention fish. Their definition of a pescetarian is "a vegetarian whose diet includes fish". This, to me, is like making up a word like "Beeritarian" or "Beer-totaller" and saying that it's a tee-totaller who drinks beer. What it MEANS is easy to see in both cases, but it's a clumsy and stupid use of the language, resulting (in both cases) in an oxymoron. All the sources you quote in their definition of vegetarian exclude fish and so should we, in the header.

So what about pescetarians? Well I'm OK with them being mentioned and grouped under semi-vegetarians. Semi (or demi or hemi) vegetarians aren't complete vegetarians, aren't proper vegetarians, any more than the tee-totaller who drinks beer (but, presumably, abstains from wine and spirits) is a proper tee-totaller. Perhaps they call themselves semi-tee-totallers.

A final word about prefixes. The word vegetarian implies only eating vegetables and this is why (no doubt under pressure from vegans) the prefixes of "lacto" and "ovo" have come into being. Note they define what people EAT, not what they EXCLUDE - everything but vegetables is assumed to have already been excluded. Hence lacto-vegetarians eat only vegetables and dairy, ovo-vegetarians eat only vegetables and eggs and lacto-ovo-vegetarians eat only vegetables, eggs and dairy. To fit your pescetarians into this linguistic scheme, they would have to be pesco-lacto-ovo-vegetarians - unless they ate only fish and vegetables (i.e. excluded eggs and dairy.) I think we can all agree that that's a bit unwieldy.Steve3742 (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I went on a trawl of dictionaries today and I did not find one that said vegetarians eat fish. The definition of vegetarian in every single one of them was something along the lines of "a diet that excludes meat and fish". This also applies to all the dictionaries you cited and the online ones that I can find. The compact Oxford dictionary (online) does define vegetarian as "a person who does not eat meat for moral, religious, or health reasons" but then defines meat as "the flesh of an animal for food" and we can, I hope, agree that fish are animals (that other dictionaries and wikipedia define meat differently is by the by. In its OWN definitions, the Compact English Dictionary defines vegetarians as eating no fish.)

I haven't yet read the shorter Oxford English dictionary so I'll comment on it later. But:

The vast majority of dictionaries (Oxford, Harper, Collins, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster) define vegetarianism as excluding fish.

The Vegetarian Society defines vegetarianism as excluding fish and has done since 1847 when it popularised the use of the word.

All vegetarians define vegetarianism as excluding fish.

Finally, all the pescetarians or pesco-ovo-lacto-vegetarians I've known would define vegetarianism as excluding fish. they usually say something like "I'm almost a vegetarian, but..." or "I'm sort of a vegetarian, but..." etc. And when I tell them they're not actually a vegetarian then, they sort of agree.

It's perfectly possible to say that a pescetarian is a vegetarian who eats fish and keep the definition of vegetarian as excluding fish. It's an oxymoron, sure, but people use oxymorons all the time, even dictionaries. They're shorter. I mean, what's the alternative? I don't eat meat but I eat fish? Eight words instead of three?Steve3742 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I've given my proof. All the sources I quote in their definition of vegetarian do not exclude fish. And we do not solely go by dictionary definitions here. But whether we say "defined as" or "described as"...it is clear that pescetarianism is thought of as vegetarianism; tons of valid sources on Google Books showcase this (which you felt not to mention). As for American Heritage Dictionary, I stated that it saying "primarily or wholly" does not mean that it is saying "no fish" since it uses "or." I never said that Wikipedia is a reliable source to use on Wikipedia; I know that it is not, and was only giving an example. You say that "all vegetarians define vegetarianism as excluding fish." Um, no, they don't, as the sources from Google Books I showcased above displays. You say "all the pescetarians or pesco-ovo-lacto-vegetarians I've known would define vegetarianism as excluding fish"... Well, that's you. But that certainly does not apply to my experience, and you are not a reliable source; as neither am I. And, no, we should not include fish in the first part of the lead when not everyone considers that fish is meat, and when we mention pescetarianism later on in the lead, and when it's an oxymoron. The alternative is the way the lead is now, which has been agreed upon. I really do not see your problem with the lead, as kotra and I have agreed upon. Valid sources clearly showcase that pesco vegetarians are thought of as vegetarians. For goodness sakes, they are called pesco vegetarians, no matter the term not being in complete compliance with linguistics. And we cannot exclude Merriam-Webster simply because we disagree with it. The lead is sufficient enough in noting all aspects of vegetarianism, and makes it clear enough how disputed pescetarianism is in association with "true vegetarianism." To simply act as though, no, pescetarianism is never considered to be vegetarianism is POV and untrue. Flyer22 (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And try not to change the lead so drastically again to fit with how you feel, without reaching a consensus/agreement on this talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't ignore the Merriam Webster version, I used their definition of vegetarian, i.e. a diet "consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products". That's not unclear or ambivalent. No Fish.

And this was true for all other dictionaries I looked at in the bookshop yesterday. No Fish.

The American Heritage dictionary, it's true, could be read as allowing fish because of that "primarily" Of course, if you read it that way then someone who eats steak every Friday is a vegetarian. In fact, anyone who gets less than 50% of their calories from meat is a vegetarian according to that definition. I think we can all agree that this is wrong, yes?

If you want to override dictionary definitions, you need a compelling reason. That most of the adherents of a vegetarian diet disagreed with a dictionary definition would be one. They don't, however. Quite the opposite. the vast majority of vegetarians would say that it excludes fish. And you need a compelling reason to override this. I can't see that you have one.

I briefly went through your cited sources the other day. One specifically said that fish eaters weren't vegetarian, most of the others were ambivalent at best. I'll respond more fully later.

Finally, you may have reached a consensus with kotra, but you haven't with me. I will alter the header to be more accurate.Steve3742 (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, your sources:

The Vegetarian Handbook wasn't a Google Book. I'll see if I can get a copy

The Dieticians Guide poses the question "would vegetarians benefit by eating fish?" which is basically admitting that vegetarians don't eat fish. It also talks about "the addition of fish to a vegetarian diet", which is again saying that vegetarians don't eat fish.

Food and You does talk about pesco-vegetarians it's true but it also talks of pollo vegetarians, so-called vegetarians who eat chicken. Unless you wish to defend this, I don't think you can consider it a reliable source.

Nutritional Exercise says "pescitarian is a vegetarian who ALSO eats fish" (my emphasis.) So, it's admitting vegetarians don't eat fish.

Body for Life invents a term - fish vegetarian. She seems ambivalent as to whether or not she's a true vegetarian as she refers to a source that would say she isn't.

Healthy Healing includes pesco-vegetarian under semi-vegetarian. It's the only one of your sources that seems to consider pesco-vegetarian as vegetarian, but it's sort of ambivalent - it may consider it as a form of semi-vegetarianism, which it is.

Finally, and don't take this the wrong way, I note all these sources are American. Here in the UK, we don't have this inaccurate pesco-vegetarian thing - You don't often see the phrase in a UK publication, and when you do it usually points out that they're not actually vegetarians because they eat fish.Steve3742 (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Part 2

Had to start a new section, because my computer at the moment won't let me post in the above section.

I do not know who you think you are, but you cannot change the lead like that without consensus first on the talk page. That is not how Wikipedia works. You are wrong! It's as simple as that. There are plenty of sources that include pesco-vegetarianism as vegetarianism. You can read Merriam-Webster's definition of vegetarian all you want, which does not outright say "no fish"...the same goes for most other dictionaries, but it does not stop the fact that Merriam-Webster defines a pescetarian as a vegetarian who eats fish. You say, "Nutritional Exercise says 'pescitarian is a vegetarian who ALSO eats fish' (my emphasis.) So, it's admitting vegetarians don't eat fish." What? How the hell do you draw that? You also say, "Body for Life invents a term - fish vegetarian. She seems ambivalent as to whether or not she's a true vegetarian..." What? You cannot go around speculating why some sources state pesco-vegetarianism as being vegetarianism. We can can only go on sources, and plenty of vaild sources on Google Books and elsewhere on the net show that pesco-vegetarianism is thought of as vegetarianism. Which means you are wrong. You say that in the UK, "we don't have this inaccurate pesco-vegetarian thing"... Then point that out in the lead, except leave out "inaccuarate." Do not just alter the lead to suit your POV, when you are clearly wrong. I do not have to go and gather more valid Google sources and sources from the net when anyone can easily do that, and my sources above already display what I have said. And your saying, "Healthy Healing includes pesco-vegetarian under semi-vegetarian"... does nothing to stop the fact that pesco-vegetarians are clearly thought of as vegetarians by that source. They are called pesco-vegetarians. And the lead the way I worded it clearly states that pesco-vegetarianism is more often denoted as semi-vegetarianism. This article is about vegetarianism, not solely about vegetarian. Your problem is that you do not want to give respect at all to the fact that there are plenty of people out there that consider themselves vegetarians even though they eat fish, and have valid sources, including the Merriam-Webster, to back them up, who recognize them as vegetarians. You also just dismiss agreed upon consensus between me and kotra, when that is two people to your one, and when others who had weighed in on this conversation seemed to be okay with the compromise made between us. Kotra was willing to work with me, and we came up with a great, expansive, respectful, and, yes, accurate lead...based on valid sources, not on us trying to analyze why we think the sources define what they do.

Your wanting fish in the first part of the lead is not productive at all, for the reasons I already mentioned above. But even more so because if is fish meat, then why note fish in the first part of the lead? What is it you're so afraid of? That people won't see fish as meat? It seems to me that stating "meat, poultry, fish" is stating that fish is not meat. Or else fish would fall into the meat category. Anyone who considers meat to be fish will see the word "meat" as covering fish. Anyone who does not see fish as meat, will see "meat" as excluding fish. That's a compromise. But your putting "fish" and "meat" in the first part of the lead leaves nothing but for one to asume that fish is not meat, since both are noted in the first part of the lead. Plus, your including "fish" in the first part of the lead is inaccuarte since not everyone considers fish to be meat and pesco-vegetarianism is thought of as vegetarianism and has been defined as vegetarianism. You are not even trying to make a compromise. You are simply trying to exclude pesco-vegetarianism from being thought of as a valid form of vegetarianism at all, based on your own persoanl beliefs, despite a very well-respected dictionary saying that it is. It's associated with vegetarianism either way, considering that it is also linked to semi-vegetarianism. I am working productively on this article. If you would like to, then big changes must be discussed here on the talk page first. Not stated, and then you, thinking you're right, and going off and reverting the lead to your POV. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Mirriam Webster: a diet "consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products". Show me the fish.

As for your main points, I've been giving this some thought:

When you have phrases such as "vegans are vegetarians who also..." and "pescetarians are vegetarians who also..." then it's obvious from them that vegetarianism has already been defined. Further, it must be defined as a diet excluding meat, fish and poultry (I'll come back to your version later, but run with this for now.)

Now the definition of vegetarian is exclusive - it says what cannot be eaten. A vegan is taking that definition and narrowing it further - in addition to not eating meat, fish and poultry, they also don't eat dairy or eggs. But they remain within the definition. Like a tee-totaller who also cuts out caffeine. He remains within the definition of tee-totaller, because that too is an exclusionary definition - no alcohol.

But a pescitarian is breaking the definition. They are sticking to a vegetarian diet and also eating fish. But eating fish doesn't narrow the definition like veganism does, it breaks it. Hence they aren't really vegetarians at all, any more than a supposed tee-totaller who drinks beer (but abstains from spirits and wine) would be a real tee-totaller. That, too, breaks the definition.

Now the alternative to all this is your definition - a vegetarian excludes only meat and poultry. But if that is so then a pescetarian - or the oxymoronic pesco-vegetarian - needs no prefix at all as he is using the baseline definition of vegetarian. Real vegetarians, the ones who don't eat fish, they're narrowing the definition, according to you, and so need a prefix of some kind - anti-pesco-vegetarian or something, perhaps. I don't think you can find any support whatsoever for this other than the fact that some people who eat fish consider themselves to be vegetarian. That doesn't seem like anywhere near enough.

If the baseline definition of vegetarian excludes fish then you should have no problem with the header I have written. It uses a definition of vegetarianism that is supported by every dictionary I can find (in the UK - I wonder if your version of the smaller Oxford English, presumably the American one, has a different definition to the English one? Certainly, every Oxford English I've seen over here defines vegetarian as excluding meat and fish.) It's also a definition used by the Vegetarian Society and the vast majority of vegetarians (and the North American Vegetarian Society also.) It mentions that there are pescetarians, that they are "semi-vegetarians" and that the Vegetarian Society dislikes the whole concept of semi-vegetarianism as they are not vegetarian diets. What it does not do is say that they are vegetarians. Because they are not, as they eat fish.

Either vegetarians eat fish (in which case the vast majority of dictionaries, vegetarians and vegetarian societies are wrong in their idea of vegetarianism and you should mention this in your header - "the vast majority of dictionaries, vegetarians and vegetarian societies believe that a vegetarian diet must exclude fish, but they are mistaken because...") or they do not (in which case you should have no problem with my header.) Which is it?Steve3742 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong; it's not either or. You are wrong about most of what you state above. But if you want "the vast majority of dictionaries, vegetarians and vegetarian societies believe that a vegetarian diet must exclude fish" in the header, I will add that to why pescetarianism is disputed as being associated with vegetarianism. I go on sources. And just as you have sources, I have mine. But I will not completely separate pescetarianism from vegetarianism, because I don't have to. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to expand? Your sources I've dealt with. They're using oxymorons and I was saying why. You think that I am wrong in most of what I write above, want to add some detail?Steve3742 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A little addition on why there should be fish in the first line. Everything you said about the reasons for excluding fish could be said about poultry. So why have that in? Fish meat is meat. Poultry meat is meat. Really we ought to just say "excludes meat" and that would be OK. But we say "meat fish and poultry" because we're trying to be precise and leave no doubt about what is meant. That's what encyclopaedias are for, right?Steve3742 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded enough. Your analyzing of my sources I've dealt with. Encyclopedias are here to be accurate, and give weight to both prominent sides. There are enough valid sources that show that pescetarianism is thought of as vegetarianism, and it should be mentioned in the lead. Your version of the lead is not accurate. For example, your version of the lead states, "However, the Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, dislikes the association of semi-vegetarian diets, especially pescetarianism, with vegetarianism as they are not vegetarian diets." Are you kidding me?! Tons of sources show that semi-vegetarian diets are vegetarian diets. Plenty of health resources and written work showcase this. If they were not vegetarian diets in any way, then they would not be called semi-vegetarian diets. Your version of the lead is also excluding the fact (IT IS A FACT) that pescetarianism has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish; it does not matter if that is by one dictionary source, it does not take away from the fact that it has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish, by that one dictionary source and plenty of health sources and written work. You are therefore keeping a valid fact, with valid sources, out of the lead, due to your bias, which is something Wikipedia is against (and, quite frankly, I see as vandalism). What I have stated can be sourced with valid references. If you would rather I note "has been described as" or that "the Merriam Webster has"...then I'm fine with that. But I am not fine with your excluding facts from the lead, and wording the lead (like the inclusion of fish in the first part of the intro) in a confusing way. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-vegetarian: the prefix semi means half, not complete. A semi-circle is not a circle. A semi-vegetarian is not a vegetarian. Pescetarians are semi-vegetarians, i.e not vegetarians. And the Vegetarian Society (and all the vegetarians I know) dislike the whole concept.

Vegetarian who eats fish is an oxymoron. People (and dictionaries) use oxymorons all the time. I even used it in my header that you disagree with.

Finally, Wikipedia has a very precise definition of vandalism which I suggest you read before throwing accusations about.

Saying that pescetarians are semi-vegetarians is your opinion! Saying a vegetarian who eats fish is an oxymoron is your opinion! And whether it is an oxymoron or not does not take away from the fact that it has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish, which should be mentioned in the lead, just as this impotant little piece of information is mentioned in the Pescetarianism article. And the Vegetarian Society (and all the vegetarians you know) disliking the whole concept does not take away from facts. As for vandalism, I cannot see how you cannot see how what you are doing cannot be seen as that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I argued at some length above why pescetarians are semi-vegetarians and pesco-vegetarianism was an oxymoron above, you didn't respond other than say that nearly everything I wrote was wrong. The Vegetarian Society (and all the vegetarians you know) disliking the whole concept is true and is something I put in the lead that you seemed to disagree with.

I'm not averse to you putting something from the Mirriam Webster or wherever in the part of my header that talks about pescetarianisn. But pescetarianism should be listed under semi-vegetarianism and the first line needs to have fish in. The vast majority of dictionaries, vegetarians, etc. would agree with that one and I really don't see why you have such a problem with it. You WANT the header to be ambiguous in meaning? I don't. You shouldn't.

Read the Wikipedia definition of vandalism and point out what I'm doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve3742 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You argued at some length above why pescetarians are semi-vegetarians and pesco-vegetarianism was an oxymoron above? Puh-leese! All you did was argue your opinion. You say, "I'm not averse to you putting something from the Mirriam Webster or wherever in the part of my header that talks about pescetarianisn. But pescetarianism should be listed under semi-vegetarianism and the first line needs to have fish in." You are wrong again! It should not be listed as simply being semi-vegetarianism. Why? Because other sources state that it is vegetarianism. The vast majority of dictionaries do not outweigh the fact that pescetarianism is thought of widely enough as vegetarianism. I really don't see why you have such a problem with that fact, especially when my version of the lead is beyond what is considered a good compromise. Wait, no, I do, but I'll keep my thoughts about that to myself. You also cannot speak for the vast majority of vegetarians. Almost all you have stated has been based on original research. You WANT the header to be confusing in meaning? I don't. You shouldn't. And you ask me to point out what you're doing as vandalism? I already have. And I will most likely take this to RfC or have something else done about your disgusting POV. You are adamant to do things your way, no compromise, nothing, and I have to be frank that I cannot get along with editors like that. You act as though you OWN this article, and have shown complete disregard for what kotra and I have agreed to, as if your version rules over ours. Days of compromise work thrown out the window simply because ole mighty Steve objects! This will be a back and forth thing, and I guess you want something like that. I will not let the lead stay as you have done it. Right now, I need to go and cool down before I say some things I won't regret but will be on my record and may later be used against me. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is poultry included in the first part of the lead? Because vegetarianism has not been defined as including poultry (unless you count eggs), though semi-vegetarianism has. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And what would you say about pollo-vegetarianism, mentioned by one of your sources? The header should be precise and leave no room for doubt. I'm a little surprised that I have to argue this.

I'm a little surprised that I have to argue to include valid sources. And "the header" should be accurate; yours is not. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And just to note, over at the Pedophilia article, we exclude dictionary definitions from being the primary definition for a reason. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit warring is unacceptable. I've protected the page until consensus is found here on the talk page. I think an RFC would be a very good idea. —Angr 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Steve on this, for whoever's counting votes. Bob98133 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for an RFC. I said as much earlier in the History section.

OK, going again. You - Flyer22 - accuse me of many things and seem to be really annoyed with me because I didn't agree with the consensus that you and kotra worked out. Well, that's sort of tough, but I wasn't part of that consensus. I did read that argument and wasn't convinced. As I understand consensus (and I have read the Wikipedia section on it) we all have to agree. Well I don't, nor does Bob98133. So there is no consensus.

I've given my reasons in some length and you've dismissed them as being nearly all wrong or my opinion. You state that "it's not either or" but then in your dispute about fish being included in the opening show that it IS either or. Either the opening defines vegetarianism as excluding fish or it doesn't. For my part, I have the authority of pretty much every dictionary, all the vegetarian societies and the vast majority of vegetarians. You have... what? A few people who eat fish and consider themselves vegetarian? A few oxymoronic definitions of pesco-vegetarianism in some dictionaries (most of which, when you look up vegetarian, define it as excluding fish!)

I'm not saying that we should rely on dictionary definitions, merely that you need a good reason for overturning them. If the dictionary definition AND the opinion of the vast majority of adherents are in agreement, then you need a DAMN good reason for overturning them. I've yet to see one.

Either fish goes in the opening definition or it doesn't. We can agree that, yes? I've laid out my reasons for including it and maintain that they're stronger than yours by far. You lay out yours and then we'll try RFC.Steve3742 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have given nothing but your opinions and original research. Yes, I "accuse" you of "many things" and seem to be really annoyed with you because it's not just that you "disagreed" with consensus, you completely dismissed it. Bob98133, he, after questioning it, was originally for the change, as noted above. That was three people to your one -- a consensus. You say that you have the authority of pretty much every dictionary. I say whatever. I have the authority of pretty much every health resource, and many books by vegetarians or experts on vegetarianism that prove my point. You say all the vegetarian societies and the vast majority of vegetarians agree with you? OPINION! That is your opinion!!!! I have... what? A few people who eat fish and consider themselves vegetarian? A few oxymoronic definitions of pesco-vegetarianism in some dictionaries (most of which, when you look up vegetarian, define it as excluding fish!)? You wish! I gave a damn good reason, several, in fact, for changing the lead. And I will state them...and many more in the RfC as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Go to it then.

Consensus changes. What you had earlier was a status quo that I disturbed. This happens a lot in Wikipedia. Note that if Bob98133 has changed his mind then he must see something in my arguments beyond the mindless vandalism you're constantly accusing me of. And I repeat (check the Wikipedia page out) consensus is everyone's agreement. You don't have consensus.

And I repeat that everyone was in agreement. It's called consensus, not your little pretty name of "status quo" for it. And you did not simply "disturb"... As for Bob, it's no surprise, considering how against he was in changing the lead to my version to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re the accusation of opinion, the Vegetarian Society's position on fish is quite clear. So is the North American Vegetarian Society's, in case you think it's just a Brit thing. So are all the other vegetarian societies' positions and that of the International Vegetarian Union. I can and will cite sources for all of these (you cited one for the Vegetarian Society yourself.) This isn't just my opinion.

I'd also be surprised if you could find a book by a vegetarian (a real one, not a pescetarian) that agrees with you. Or a majority of the health resources.Steve3742 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you will be surprised. Or are you going to denounce those health resources as simply being pescetarians as well? You also insult vegetarians, as you probably feel I am doing. I am a vegetarian, a "real one" who does not eat fish, and know many other "real ones" who respect people's title of being a vegetarian even when they eat fish. I do not try and tell people, no, they are wrong. Like, you have admitted to doing. If they said they ate hamburgers, then that would be another story. But some validity has been given to pescetarians being thought of as vegetarians. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For the RFC, we need to agree on a suitable title. I suggest "Do Vegetarians eat fish? Or is it correct to call people who eat fish vegetarian?"

The brief summary could read "The definition of vegetarian in the header is under dispute. Should it be a diet excluding meat and poultry or a diet excluding meat, fish and poultry?"

And I would suggest placing it in Society, Politics and Science

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve3742 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus among formal vegetarians (ie, those who belong to vegetarian/vegan societies or groups, or are published authors on the topic), is overwhelmingly in consensus that fish are not part of a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism, by definition from the vegetarian society, excludes all animals, and is a plant-based diet. That there exists in the US some uninformed people who label themselves "vegetarian" but continue to eat fish doesn't affect the meaning of the word. It only means that some people find the label appealing (eg. it makes them sound sophisticated or counter-culture or health-oriented or environmentally conscious) without actually giving up eating animals. The table at the start of the article below the contents is completely accurate, as is separating semi/pseudo-vegetarian diets from actual vegetarian diets. Vegetarianism and eating meat are mutually exclusive. A pescetarian is not a "type of vegetarian"; but more correctly a meat-eater who excludes various types of meat to the point that their diet resembles a vegetarian diet, plus fish. Likewise a "semi-vegetarian" may often eat vegetarian meals, but in practice is not a vegetarian since they don't reject eating meat. Steve3742's analogy to a "beertotaller" above is excellent and captures the nature of the problem. Someone who drinks beer isn't a teetotaler; someone who eats fish isn't a vegetarian. A person who drinks nothing but beer is like a teetotaler in that they don't drink wine or spirits, except that they drink beer. In just the same way, a pescetarian eats what would be considered a vegetarian diet except they also eat fish. It deserves a mention as a semi-vegetarian diet, but is not an aspect of vegetarianism, nor directly a form of it. I think that any alteration of the article that attempts to assert "some vegetarians eat fish", or that fish does not constitute "meat" for the understanding of the meaning of vegetarianism, is only perpetuating an ignorant colloquial misunderstanding, and is not a factual statement about how the word is correctly used. --Sylvank (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a factual statement, then there would not be valid sources that state that it is, as I have just displayed below in the RfC. There would be no debate about it, but there is, and not just the debate here. As I stated above, and now in the RfC, I am not simply trying to say that vegetarians eat fish. I am trying to acknowledge in the lead that pescetarianism has been defined or described as a vegetarian who eats fish, and is not always considered a form a semi-vegetarianism. This is true and can be backed up with valid references. Elitist vegetarians who thumb their noses at pescetarians being associated with vegetarianism does not take away from this fact, and should not be excluded from being mentioned in the lead just because of that. Especially when my version of the lead goes beyond what it needs to to point out the dispute of pescetarianism being thought as vegetarianism. I am a vegetarian as well (one who does not eat fish or any kind of animal flesh), and am highly insulted that Wikipedia can be operated this way, simply due to biases. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Do Vegetarians eat fish? Or is it correct to call people who eat fish vegetarian?

Resolved

The definition of vegetarian in the header is under dispute. Should it be a diet excluding meat and poultry or a diet excluding meat, fish and poultry?

OK, I'm going to write an intro here then log out as it's 2 in the morning over here.

I got into something of an edit war with Flyer22 over the intro to the Vegetarian article. Others have weighed in (and my contribution was after others had been arguing for a while and more or less reached consensus) but most of it was us. You can look at the whole argument above, most of it's under "Part 2".

The main point of contention is over fish. I maintain that a vegetarian diet excludes meat, poultry and fish. My position is that all the dictionaries I have seen say this or something like it and that all the Vegetarian Societies also say this, as does the International Vegetarian Union. I can cite websites from the latter (and for some of the former) if need be (but not now - it's 2 in the morning.)

Against Flyer22's contention that pescetarianism or pesco-vegetarianism is a form of vegetarianism, like veganism or such like, I contend that as the definition of vegetarian is exclusionary - it says what you cannot eat - then veganism can be considered a subset of vegetarianism (a vegan is still keeping to the definition of vegetarian, he's just expanded it, like a teetotaller who also gives up caffeine) but pescotarianism breaks the definition, like a teetotaller who drinks only beer - he's not actually a teetotaller at all. Likewise the pescitarian or the oxymoronic pesco-vegetarian.

The alternative would be to say, as Flyer22 does in his edits, that vegetarianism excludes only meat and poultry. If so, then pescitarianism is the baseline version of vegetarianism and does not need a prefix. Instead real vegetarianism - excluding fish also - would need a prefix - anti-pesco-vegetarianism, for example. This goes against all usage and common sense. It is also not what the vast majority of dictionaries, vegetarian societies and vegetarians say.

I grant that we do not have to use dictionary definitions. But we need a good reason for overturning them. If the dictionary definitions AND the opinion of the vast majority of adherents are in agreement, then we need a DAMN good reason for overturning them. I've yet to see one.

I'm not against mentioning pescotarians and grouping them under semi-vegetarians - in fact I've done so in my edits (the version the article was frozen on is mine, purely by chance, I think.) But I think the definition in the first line should exclude meat, fish and poultry and that pescitarianism should be mentioned as a form of semi-vegetarianism. I'm even OK with saying that it has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish, as I have done - it's an oxymoron, sure, but people (and dictionaries) use oxymorons all the time.

OK, I'm off to sleep. Flyer22 has the whole night to slag me and my arguments off unopposed.Steve3742 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you felt the need to go and start the RfC before me. Hmm. (Oh, and I am female.)

Version of the lead by editors previously involved in dispute:

My version:

• Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, slaughter by-products, and poultry.[1][2] The definitions of "vegetarian" vary, and there are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products produced from animal labour such as dairy products and honey. User:Flyer22. 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Lacto vegetarianism and lacto-ovo vegetarianism include dairy products. Ovo vegetarianism includes eggs, but not meat or dairy products. Merriam-Webster and other sources have defined pescetarianism (or pesco-vegetarianism) as a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish.[4][5][6][7] However, the association of pescetarianism with vegetarianism has been controversial; the Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, does not consider pescetarianism to be a valid vegetarian diet.[8] The vast majority of dictionaries, vegetarians and vegetarian societies believe that a vegetarian diet must exclude fish. Pescetarianism is often denoted as a form of semi-vegetarianism. Semi-vegetarianism consists of a diet largely of vegetarian foods, but may include poultry along with fish, as well as dairy products and eggs. User:Flyer22. 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that I'm not really for stating The vast majority of dictionaries, vegetarians and vegetarian societies believe that a vegetarian diet must exclude fish. That was purely for compromise.

Steve's version:

• Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, (including game and slaughter by-products), fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry.[1][2] There are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products produced from animal labour such as dairy products and honey. -- User:Steve3742. 18:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Lacto vegetarianism and lacto-ovo vegetarianism include dairy products. Ovo vegetarianism includes eggs, but not meat or dairy products. Semi-vegetarianism consists of a diet largely of vegetarian foods, but may include poultry along with fish, as well as dairy products and eggs. Pescetarianism (or pesco-vegetarianism) is a form of semi-vegetarianism and has been defined as a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish.[4][5][6][7] However, the Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, dislikes the association of semi-vegetarian diets, especially pescetarianism, with vegetarianism as they are not vegetarian diets.[8] -- User:Steve3742. 18:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My specific comments:

As I stated above, Steve3742 is adamant on doing things his way, no compromise, nothing. He acts as though he OWNS this article, and has shown complete disregard for what kotra and I have agreed to, as if his version rules over ours. Days of compromise were thrown out the window simply because he objects to the previously agreed-upon version. He states that there was no consensus for the change, but I point out that there clearly was, and Bob98133 also originally stated that he was fine with the change. The reasons for my changes to this article are Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Considering that not everyone considers fish to be meat, and there are valid sources out there that define or describe pescetarianism as being an aspect of vegetarianism, I proposed that the lead make this clear and not be so one-sided, but to still point out how pescetarianism is disputed as being thought of as "true vegetarianism." I talked this over with two other editors and they agreed. The compromise came out quite well as not to give undue weight to pescetarianism in the lead but to note that is has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish, which is a fact, also represented in the Pescetarianism article. Pescetarianism, also called pesco-vegetarianism, being thought of as vegetarianism is not a minority view, as these sources attest to:

From health resources and other sources:

• There are several categories of vegetarians. Pesco-vegetarian: eats dairy foods, eggs, and fish, but no other animal foods From medicineonline.com, and it also separates pesco vegetarians from semi-vegetarians.

• There are several categories of vegetarians. Pesco-vegetarian: eats dairy foods, eggs, and fish, but no other animal foods From uimc.discoveryhospital.com, also separates pesco-vegetarians from semi-vegetarians.
• Vegetarian eating. Pesco-vegetarians eat fish, dairy foods, eggs and fruit, vegetables, legimes etc Source from cyh.com/HealthTopics, also separates pesco-vegetarians from semi-vegetarians.
• What are Some Different Types of Vegetarians? The vegetarian community has developed specific titles for different kinds of vegetarians, ranging from pure vegetarians to pesco vegetarians. Pesco vegetarians eat fish, but not red meat. In individual cases, pesco vegetarians may be willing to eat fowl as well. Some members of the vegetarian community scathingly refer to pesco vegetarians as “pseudo vegetarians,” arguing that fish are living animals. Pesco vegetarians may also avoid fatty fish like tuna and swordfish out of concern for mercury contamination. Beyond pesco vegetarianism, most people will eat almost anything, although specific meats may be restricted for religious or personal reasons. In these instances, someone will usually identify an unwillingness to eat pork, beef, shellfish, or other foods they try to refrain from consuming. Notice how it says some members of the vegetarian community scathingly refer to pesco vegetarians as “pseudo vegetarians,” arguing that fish are living animals.
• Definition of Vegetarian and Vegetarianism. There is no exact definition of the words 'vegetarian' or 'vegetarianism.' They cover a wide range of meat-restricted eating habits. In general, a vegetarian is someone whose diet omits animal products, but some vegetarians do eat some meat-products (milk, eggs, meat fats) and some "vegetarians" eat fish Note that even though this source clearly does not consider pesco vegetarians as true vegetarians judging by its use of quotations at the end, it still notes them as vegetarians.
• Pesco-vegetarians eat fish, dairy products, and eggs along with plant foods.
• Types what types? Pesce Vegetarian. Just like lacto-ovo but allow the eating of fish on the basis that fish do not feel pain like other animals because their nerve endings are not very 'fine tuned'. (contributed by nora wafaai) From vegetarianegypt.com, for variety.
• Pesco-vegetarian diets exclude red meat and fowl but include fish and seafood. From http hindustanlink.com, for variety.

From books:

• Public health policy and ethics Makes a good point about the battle within the vegetarian world and certain ones seeing themselves as the holiest group of vegetarians
• The Jack Sprat Low-Fat Diet. Vegetarianism. Again, separates pesco vegetarians from semi-vegetarians.
• Culinary Creation
• Easy Meals for Babies and Toddlers
• Halal Food Production
• The Complete Idiot's Guide to Vitamins and Minerals
• Early Years Practitioner Even mentions the UK, something Steve felt the need to mention.
• People of India For variety, mentions how some people in India consider fish to be vegetarian.
• Why Did It Have to Be Snakes?: From Science to the Supernatural, the Many More info about India, and how some there consider people who eat vegetables (etc.) and no meat but may eat fish as vegetarians.
• Companion for the Apprentice Wizard
• Judaism and Environmental Ethics For variety.
• Biology for You
• The Beginner's Guide to Natural Living
• Dr. Jensen's Nutrition Handbook
• The book called Vegetarian Party Food even notes, "Finally, when tell people l'm vegetarian. the question that often follows is, Do you eat fish?'"
• Another book that notes many people thinking vegetarians eat fish and some people (not a few people) who eat fish considering themselves vegetarians is the book Sunfood Living: Resource Guide for Global Health This book also does not consider pesco-vegetarians to be "true vegetarians" but it does show the dispute, which is all I am asking for in the lead. To state that pesco-vegetarianism has been defined as vegetarianism, but to then show the dispute about that. Which is being neutral. Well, maybe not that neutral to fish-eating vegetarians but neutral enough. My version of the lead even directly, right after stating this dispute, denotes pesco-vegetarianism as rather being semi-vegetarianism. My version of the lead is completely fair, accurate and reasonable. Yet Steve acts as though I have just committed the worse act against vegetarianism societies ever, almost making it seem as though I am some meat-eater or traitor to vegetarianism here to pollute this Vegetarianism article. Note that I do not eat fish; I just want the lead to be as accurate as possible, and my version of the lead is the most accurate.

While pollo-vegetarians are at times listed as being vegetarians, they are not given much validity to being vegetarians. Pesco vegetarians are and it is why it such a debated topic; they are also the more notable. Yet Steve completely ignores that these sources exist and instead tries to rationalize why they consider pescetarianism to be vegetarianism. He instead chooses to rely solely on dictionary definitions to act as though pescetarianism is never considered as vegetarianism, and as if dictionaries properly convey world view. And when I try to include a dictionary definition, Merriam-Webster, as defining pescetarianism as being a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish, he belittles this very valid dictionary and acts as though it should not be mentioned, just because several other dictionaries do not include fish as part of the vegetarian diet. Obviously, whether they do or not does not take away from the fact that Merriam-Webster does, and we can mention it. Furthermore, he is saying fish is meat, and yet feels the need to state "fish" in the first part of the lead. If fish is meat, why is fish in the lead as separate from meat? All that does is further illustrate my point that fish is not meat to everyone. More than that, including fish in the first part of the lead, given the valid sources that define vegetarianism as including fish, which is called pescetarianism or pesco-vegetarianism, is not neutral. Another example of the lead not being neutral in his version is where it states, "However, the Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, dislikes the association of semi-vegetarian diets, especially pescetarianism, with vegetarianism as they are not vegetarian diets." He is flat out using that source to say that semi-vegetarian diets are not vegetarian diets. It does not matter that he consirders the Vegetarian Society to be an authoritive source on what vegetarianism is, it is wrong/completely inaccurate and non-neutral to say that semi-vegetarian diets are not vegetarian diets; it's also kind of silly to say, considering that they are called semi-vegetarian diets. Plenty of valid sources, as shown above, recognize semi-vegetarian diets as vegetarian diets. Thus, Steve's alteration of the lead is false. If anything, he has made this article even more non-neutral than before. I have tried to compromise with him, adding even more info (his proposed info) to the part about pescetarianism being disputed as "true vegetarianism"...but he would just revert to his version, and then state more original research about the vast majority of vegetarians not considering pescetarianism to be vegetarianism, based on his own experiences, as if he has asked every vegetarian in the world...and then he would analyze the valid sources I have given, refusing to let them be attributed as they are. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with Steve. If the article says that fish-eaters are vegetarians then this would be so far from real life usage that I would despair of Wikipedia as an information source. It would be akin to describing Christianity as sect of Judaism (i.e. it is possible to argue it but it goes against the belief of most Christians). It would be as misleading as renaming U.S. state as American State and then adding Amazonas to the list. Including fish eating contradicts common usage, etymology, and the beliefs and desires of most vegetarians. Labelling food containing fish as vegetarian would breach the FSA guidelines, which would almost certainly mean it would be classes as misleading labelling and therefore be illegal [[5]].

The Indian vegetarian symbol (See Vegetarianism in India) is also not permitted where "...any article of food contains whole or part of any animal including birds, fresh or marine animals or eggs or product of any animal origin, but not including milk or milk products, as an ingredient".

I have not been able to find any legislation that has a definition of food labelled as "suitable for vegetarians" which includes fish, though of course many countries have no legal definition of such labelling.

I would also add that any downgrading of the term vegetarian has practical implications for many people. For many vegetarian is a moral or religious choice. Those wanting to pervert the term are like the drinker who thinks it will make him look better if he can slip a little vodka into the orange juice of a teetotaller, or the caterer adding pork fat to Halal and Kosha food because his morals and religion tell him that other choices are nonsense. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"it is wrong/completely inaccurate and non-neutral to say that semi-vegetarian diets are not vegetarian diets; it's also kind of silly to say, considering that they are called semi-vegetarian diets."-Flyer22 Actually, it's completely accurate, because "semi-vegetarian", while understandable as a linguistic short-hand, is as oxymoronic as calling someone a semi-virgin. Vegetarianism is defined by its total exclusion of animal flesh. The word is an invented one, with a specific meaning for which it was coined. A semi-vegetarian diet is not a subset of vegetarianism; it's a diet that excludes only a portion of the meat typical people eat. While this may be seen to bring someone closer to vegetarianism in that they are eating less meat and more plants than average, their diet is assuredly not vegetarian. A misuse of a word, regardless that it becomes increasingly common, does not validate it. Grey may be called semi-white or semi-black, but it is most assuredly neither black nor white.--Sylvank (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To me it is very clear - vegetarianism excludes all meat, poultry and fish.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, dealing with Flyer's main points:

And when I try to include a dictionary definition, Merriam-Webster, as defining pescetarianism as being a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish, he belittles this very valid dictionary and acts as though it should not be mentioned, just because several other dictionaries do not include fish as part of the vegetarian diet.

I believe I've said that I have no objection to her including the Mirriam Webster definition of pescetarianism, in fact I included it in my version - look in the fourth paragraph "Pescetarianism (or pesco-vegetarianism) is a form of semi-vegetarianism and has been defined as a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish." If she wants to add a ref to Mirriam Webster to this, fine, go to it. Of course it's an oxymoron, but people (and dictionaries) use oxymorons all the time.

Furthermore, he is saying fish is meat, and yet feels the need to state "fish" in the first part of the lead. If fish is meat, why is fish in the lead as separate from meat? All that does is further illustrate my point that fish is not meat to everyone.

This was a recurrent theme in our argument. I feel the lead should be clear, precise and unambiguous. it is precisely because not everyone defines fish as meat that we should include fish in the lead and so be clear. Flyer seems to want to leave the lead with an ambiguous meaning, so that different people can interpret it differently. I disagree, I think it should be clear and unambiguous and leave no room for doubt. As I said earlier, I'm a little surprised that this needs to be argued.

Expanding on this, should the consensus go against me and say that vegetarians eat fish, the lead must be changed so as to make that clear. It shouldn't be ambiguous, depending on how you define meat.

More than that, including fish in the first part of the lead, given the valid sources that define vegetarianism as including fish, which is called pescetarianism or pesco-vegetarianism, is not neutral.

I could as easily say that not including fish in the lead given the valid sources that exclude fish (the vegetarian societies, pretty much every dictionary, etc.) is not neutral.

We must decide: Fish or no Fish. I believe my sources have more validity than hers - they're most of the authoritative dictionaries and all the vegetarian societies - you know, the people who actually practise vegetarian and the society that virtually invented the word (it was around before the Vegetarian Society, but they popularised it.)

Another example of the lead not being neutral in his version is where it states, "However, the Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, dislikes the association of semi-vegetarian diets, especially pescetarianism, with vegetarianism as they are not vegetarian diets."

As a comment on the Vegetarian Society's attitude, this is correct and flyer herself has cited a source which shows this. The last bit follows from the definition of vegetarianism. Semi means half, not complete. A semi circle is not a circle. A semi-vegetarian is not a vegetarian. I presume Flyer would have no problem defining pollo-vegetarianism (a "vegetarian" who eats chicken) or other semi-vegetarian diets (people who only eat meat on Fridays or suchlike) as not being vegetarian diets. So it comes back to fish again. Solve that and all the rest follows.

OK, some sources. The Vegetarian Society's definition of vegetarian can be found here The North American Vegetarian Society's definition can be found here The International Vegetarian Union's definition can be found here Note that all affiliate members of the IVU must follow this definition. Rather than list vegetarian society after vegetarian society as flyer has done with her diet books, I suggest getting a list of affiliate members of the IVU, which can be found using the search engine here Just to give an idea, there are 258 in the USA and 63 in the UK. And all of these societies exclude fish.Steve3742 (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to Flyer's list of books, I thought I'd try that myself. So:

Vegan Vittles says "In recent years, the term vegetarian has been woefully misrepresented by the media... the term has even been twisted into oxymoronic malapropisms: pesco-vegetarian..."

Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today "Despite the march of time, fallacies, including the belief that vegetarians eat fish, persist..."

Nutrition and Bone Health and Examining Food and Nutrition both list fish eating "vegetarians" under semi-vegetarian.

I could go on, but I don't see a point. I can find considerable support for the exclusion of fish from a vegetarian diet pretty much everywhere.

I figured I'd ignore Flyer's personal attacks as I always have but I thought I ought to make something clear: I do not consider pescitarians as traitors or any such thing, in fact I find the concept a bit weird. However, pescitarians are not vegetarians. That's quite clear.Steve3742 (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps a solution might be to stick to no fish or poultry but have a statement like,'some people who eat fish, and in some cases poultry, consider themselves vegetarians although this is not the normally accepted meaning of the word'. This covers both angles from a factual point of view. It is a (no doubt verifiable) fact that some people who eat fish or poultry call do themselves vegetarians, even if most authorities consider them wrong doing in this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well I'm open to that, but she doesn't seem to be willing to compromise. I could go for something like:

Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, (including game and slaughter by-products), fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry.[1][2] There are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products produced from animal labour such as dairy products and honey. Some people who eat fish, and in some cases poultry, consider themselves vegetarians although this is not the normally accepted meaning of the word.

But I'm guessing she'll reject it as she seems unable to accept the first sentence. Even though it's the definition of the Vegetarian Society, North American Vegetarian Society, International vegetarian Union (and all their affiliates), the American Dietetic Association, the British Food Standards Agency, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (they're the people behind the Indian Vegetarian mark) and God knows how many others, not to mention every dictionary I've seen. If a few people writing diet books - nearly all of whom aren't vegetarian and most of whom aren't even piscatarian - say that people eating fish are vegetarian, it seems we have to ignore all of this.Steve3742 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How about:

'Vegetarianism is considered by most relevant organisations (refs) to be the practice of a diet that excludes meat, (including game and slaughter by-products), fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry.[1][2] Some people who eat fish, and in some cases poultry, consider themselves vegetarians although this not meaning of the word used by most authorities'.

I have deleted the middle sentence as being superfluous and potentially opening up another (vegetarian/vegan) argument. Maybe the English could be tidied up a bit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't really see the problem with the middle sentence - note that the next paragraph goes on to define veganism. Would probably prefer defined rather than considered. Lets see what Flyer saysSteve3742 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this, but I received some great news today career-wise and have been on the phone nearly all day.

Anyway? Me, not willing to compromise, Steve? As you know, that's how I felt/feel about you. Let me just state that I do not want to say that vegetarians eat fish in the lead of this article. That is not what I was saying at all, as I have repeated more than once. I stated that there is nothing wrong with stating in the lead that pesco-vegetarianism has been defined as a vegetarian who eats, which it has, and to remove fish from the first part of the lead given this reason and others. Wikipedia would not be saying that pesco-vegetarianism is true vegetarianism, especially since we all but flat out say that it is not. How, in any way, would my version of the lead be hurting the credibility of Wikipedia or vegetarianism? My sources are clearly valid. They are not from a few people writing diet books - nearly all of whom aren't vegetarian and most of whom aren't even pescetarian; they are from a lot of people (Google more and pick up more books from the store) who are indeed vegetarians or educated on the matter and also from medical or health resources. There are many books out there like the ones I sampled. Many health resources recognize pesco-vegetarians as vegetarians. I have been a vegetarian since I was 12 years old, which is a lot longer than most people who have been one (given their age and when they began this type of diet, of course), even though I started out as a pescetarian, and I am quite familiar with every aspect of vegetarianism, even vegetarianism in India. But just like America, there are some people in India who very much consider themselves vegetarians even though they eat fish. I saw your revert of my work with another editor here who may be a vegetarian as well as disrespectful, Steve. You did not try and talk it over with us first, but immediately acted as though we were damaging this article, even though we were very careful in our wording not to act as though pesco-vegetarianism is a valid form of vegetarianism. You also act as though I would be all for calling pollo-vegetarians (chicken eaters) vegetarians as well, even though I have made it clear that I would not be. Hell, I was not even calling pesco-vegetarians vegetarians in the lead, but rather noting that they have been defined as vegetarians. The thing is...you make it seem like I or anyone who agreed/agrees with me about changing the lead of this article to my version is not a true vegetarian; you make this clear every time you practically say that most vegetarians or true vegetarians would not agree with my version of the lead, as if I have flat-out stated in the lead that pesco-vegetarians are vegetarians. I mean, c'omn, my version of the lead did/does not do that whatsoever. I did not feel that I was personally attacking you, but I do apologize that I made you feel that way. I felt that you were personally attacking me in some ways, as alluded to in this reply of mine. I was simply responding strongly, but did not feel that I was really attacking you. You say you "could as easily say that not including fish in the lead given the valid sources that exclude fish (the vegetarian societies, pretty much every dictionary, etc.) is not neutral." I just completely disagree with that, and I still don't feel that we must include fish in the first part of the lead either. But I did not say that fish should not be in the lead at all.

I do not feel that your sources have more validity than mine, even though they are from powerful vegetarian groups (I'm not including the dictionay definitions as proving anything on this matter). My reason for changing the lead of this article was/is purely due to wanting to give a neutral point view. That, and the lead needed expansion. I have no alterior motive concerning this article, and I assure you that I am a "pure vegetarian" (whether you believe me or not)...it's just that I have learned to respect the fact that a lot of people call themselves vegetarians even though they eat fish, and that they have been/are recognized as vegetarians, with more validity than chicken-eaters.

From more health resources:

• Vegetarian Meal Planning. Vegetarianism means different things to different people. Vegetarian diets are usually named for the foods that are eaten. Pesco vegetarians eat dairy products, eggs and fish. From .uwhealth.org.
• A Healthy Guide for Vegetarians. There are also variations of vegetarianism. Vegetarians eliminate all animal-based foods from their diets. Lacto-ovo vegetarians consume dairy products, including eggs. Pesco-vegetarians include fish in their diets. A vegan is someone who does not eat anything but plant-based foods, and definitely excludes dairy and seafood products. From csulb.edu.
• HEALTH OF VEGETARIANS DURING PREGNANCY AND PREGNANCY OUTCOME. Questionnaires concerning diet, life style and health were completed by 132 women during pregnancy including 34 lacto-ovo-vegetarians, 17 pesco-vegetarians and 81 non-vegetarians From .llu.edu/llu/nutrition/program, also separates pesco-vegetarians from non-vegetarians.
• VEGETARIAN DIETS. Pesco-vegetarians eat all plant foods, fish, dairy, and eggs. They do not eat red meat Also separates pesco-vegetarians from semi-vegetarians
• ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUES. There are many kinds of vegetarians. Hershaft has already alluded to ethical vegetarians. Does that mean that they are vegans and consume only plant sources? Some draw the line as lacto-ovo vegetarians (dairy products and eggs, respectively). There are pesco-vegetarians (fish), fruitarians ("nuterers") who consume only those plant sources that are ripe or mature (i.e. fruits, grains, and nuts).
• Arctic Omega in fish gelatin for fish-eating vegetarians From nordicnaturals.com.
• Types of Vegetarian Diets. Pesco-Vegetarians eat fish, dairy and eggs but no meat or poultry. Even Kellogg's has gotten in on it. And they state that their source is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets." American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, 2003.

And, finally, one more about the debate

• Can you really be a vegetarian if you eat fish? The lentils and nut cutlets are starting to fly in a food fight that has pitted vegetarians against those who shun meat but eat fish. Purist vegetarians have hit back at that article and, in doing so, have rekindled a dispute within non meat-eating circles. From independent.co.uk

And I could go on and on, but I really don't see the point in that. There's clearly a debate and dispute about this, and not just here. Taking the stance of "purists vegetarians" like myself and not providing a little space to pesco-vegetarians does not take away from the fact that pesco-vegetarians have space, and are prominently labeled vegetarians often. Ignoring this fact, just because we or the all-mighty Vegetarian Society disagrees does not make it go away or any less true, and it is not a neutral point of view. Nor is it a world view. Especially when we have enough people in India who do not eat meat but consume fish and label themselves vegetarians; they very much consider themselves vegetarians. And what are we saying? No? Just because some of our society have a different view on what a vegetarian is, just because some vegetarian societies from American and UK cultures disagree? If pesco-vegetarianism had not emerged as being prominently thought of as vegetarianism, then I would agree. But it has and is thought of as vegetarianism enough that it can be separated from semi-vegetarianism in the lead of this article, just as long as we point out the dispute/debate about this separation, and then still denote it more so as a form of semi-vegetarianism, as I did in my version of the lead.

But if we do stick with fish in the first part of the lead, which it seems that we will (even though I feel that it's silly for the pure fact that it only emphasizes that fish is not meat to everyone, but then again, it also makes sense since fish are living creatures and a lot of vegetarians, the "true ones," exclude anything that was a living creature), I feel that part of Steve's alteration of the lead should be changed. This part: "However, the Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, dislikes the association of semi-vegetarian diets, especially pescetarianism, with vegetarianism as they are not vegetarian diets." It should be changed back to this: "However, the association of pescetarianism with vegetarianism has been controversial; the, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, does not consider pescetarianism to be a valid vegetarian diet." It should be changed back to that for all the reasons I already mentioned. I mean, saying "especially pescetarianism"? What the hell? As if the Vegetarian Society is any more disgusted by fish eaters than chicken and fowl eaters.

I don't even feel that other seafood should be in the first part of the lead. I mean, who really considers seafood to be meat (aside from fish, I mean)? It is hardly ever classified as meat. I don't eat lobster, but I don't think of it as meat either. But again, they were/are living creatures and a lot of vegetarians (the "true ones") exclude eating anything that was living.

That said, yes, I am open to something like Martin Hogbin suggested for the lead. We really need to make the lead flow, though. Mentioning that part first about some people who eat fish, and in some cases poultry, considering themselves vegetarians, although this is not the meaning of the word used by most authoritive sources may not flow as well to then mention the part about pesco-vegetarians and the Vegetarian Society... Wait, no, that does flow well. First we're introducing what is thought of as true vegetarianism, and then variants and types of vegetarianism, as well as semi-vegetarianism (particularly pesco-vegetarians), then specifying one of those authortive sources (the Vegetarian Society) not considering semi-vegetarianism to be vegetarianism at all. Yeah, I'm down with that. Boy, this RfC was a very good idea. I don't feel that we should mention how some people who eat poultry consider themselves vegetarians, though, given that they are not given as much validity as fish-eating vegetarians. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish aren't vegetables. People who eat fish may be described as pescatarians or as semi-vegetarians but should not be described as vegetarians. People who only eat steak every other thursday can also be described as semi-vegetarians. It refers to people who mostly eat a vegetarian diet but not exclusively. Hope this helps.Filceolaire (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've stated what I have above, with valid references. Hope this helps. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I haven't been paying much attention to this discussion lately, so forgive me if I've got this wrong. But basically, it seems to me like some editors want to definitively say that fish is not a possible part of vegetarianism, whereas Flyer22 prefers to leave "fish" out of the list of excluded foods, and let that be addressed more explicitly below. Both parties seem to be basically ok with the part below (that says "pescetarianism" has been defined as a vegetarian diet, but that the Vegetarian Society disagrees).

Firstly, is this correct? If so, my comments are indented below. -kotra (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying pescetarianism isn't vegetarianism (this is my own personal conviction) IF AND ONLY IF it is the only view put forth by reputable, reliable third-party sources. I would, however, consider Merriam-Webster a reliable source, seeing as it is one of the top dictionaries of the English language. This is not just the case of "some people who eat fish claiming they're vegetarian", some uninvolved third-party institutions seem to claim that pescetarianism is vegetarianism as well. On the other hand, there are a whole bunch of reliable sources that say vegetarianism excludes fish, probably more than those that don't. So I recommend the following wording for the lead:

Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, including poultry, game, and slaughter by-products. The term is usually also used to exclude fish and seafood, but not always.[citations for both views go here]

Basically, it's the same as Flyer22's version, but with a concise additional sentence that explains the status of fish/seafood. People can look at the citations themselves and come to their own conclusions. The citations may be too numerous to go in the lead though, so maybe instead of citations there we could say "...but not always (see Pescetarianism)." or some other appropriate article or section to describe the different views in further detail.

Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: understandably, this topic can raise emotions, but let's try to remain civil. This discussion is beginning to veer close to incivility and personal attacks, which we should of course avoid. -kotra (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is just plain wrong. Show me any labelling legislation in the world that includes fish in the definition of "suitable for vegetarians". -- Q Chris (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when are lawmakers the sole arbiters of common usage? Kotra's wording is quite accurate: vegetarianism is usually understood to exclude fish and seafood, but sometimes people interpret fish and seafood to be vegetarian. The various vegetarian societies don't interpret it that way, food labels don't interpret it that way, most dictionaries don't interpret it that way, and probably the vast majority of non-pescetarian vegetarians don't interpret it that way, but the interpretation does exist out there in the world, perhaps only or primarily among pescetarians and non-vegetarians. (For example, the man who comes to my office every morning to sell sandwiches used to offer me salmon and tuna fish sandwiches in addition to cheese and eggs when I'd ask for something vegetarian, until I finally told him that I don't consider fish to be vegetarian.) I do think it's non-NPOV to not even acknowledge that pescetarians are sometimes considered vegetarians, especially by themselves, even though that interpretation is rejected by non-pescetarian vegetarians as well as by food labeling laws and most dictionaries. As ever at Wikipedia, we should be aiming for descriptive accuracy, not the prescriptive Truth™. —Angr 07:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be acknowledged, but to phrase that headline in such a way that it does not exclude fish is totally wrong. Counting fish eating as vegetarianism is a minority view that is almost universally rejected by vegetarians themselves. The legislation is just an example, also references definitions by vegetarian societies all over the world have been given. I know people who consider themselvesTeetotal despite drinking Shandy but that does not mean the article should be changed to define teetotal to include people who only drink diluted alcoholic beverages. There should an entry in the article somewhere saying that fish eaters sometimes consider themselves vegetarian, but that this view is rigorously opposed by most vegetarians. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are under the impression that this view is only held by some fish eaters who want to call themselves vegetarians. This is unfortunately not the case. This view is held by apparently many various sources (as given by Flyer22 above), some of which fall into the category of reliable sources. In light of this, the disagreement should be given as early in the article as possible to clear up any confusion, as I have in my example wording. Note that in my example wording, it is still described as a minority view. This was deliberate. However, refusing to even mention this minority - but still noteworthy - view when defining the term "vegetarianism" is misleading. -kotra (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's totally wrong in the majority opinion, but it's not totally wrong in everyone's opinion. I think Kotra's version of the opening sentence is good; another possible wording is "Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, including poultry, game, slaughter by-products, and (in most interpretations) fish (including shellfish and other sea animals)." We could even go on to mention explicitly that this article interprets vegetarianism to exclude fish. There are sources cited that show that vegetarianism is sometimes (if rarely, and controversially) understood to include eating fish. This isn't the place to debate the definition of teetotalism but if there are reliable sources showing that the term is sometimes interpreted to include the practice of drinking low-alcohol beverages like shandy (or, as in my case, drinking alcohol only in the form of a sip of Communion wine once a week or in the form of medicine like cough syrup), then that article should be edited accordingly. —Angr 07:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I have with kotra's lead is that the first sentence, taken on its own as a definition implies that vegetarianism includes fish. Your version is better because the first sentence makes it clear that most interpretations exclude fish. Personally I could live with that as a compromise if it was immediately followed by a statement that all vegetarian organisations and all vegetarian labelling laws and most vegetarians reject the interpretation of vegetarian as including fish.

"Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, including poultry, game, slaughter by-products, and (in most interpretations) fish (including shellfish and other sea animals). All laws on labelling food as suitable for vegetarians and all vegetarian societies reject the use of the term vegetarian to include fish-eaters, as do most vegetarians." -- Q Chris (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is of practical significance to vegetarians. If the article is not clear on this someone may well look it up to see what is acceptable when preparing a meal for vegetarians. I doubt if anyone has ever had to refuse to eat a meal prepared for them because it didn't contain fish. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"the interpretation does exist out there in the world, perhaps only or primarily among pescetarians and non-vegetarians."-Angr - That there is a group of people misusing a term does not make their use of it valid, or reflect a meaningful contribution to what constitutes "vegetarian". Evolution does not mention in its lead-in that it is considered an evil plot by atheist scientists to deny creationism, and that this view has equal weight as that of biologists. I do not believe NPOV necessitates taking a middle ground between a correct and a wrong interpretation. Vegetarianism has an established meaning: specifically, a diet that excludes all animal flesh. As a linguistic shorthand, some view vegetarianism as being additive, being "a lot of plant food", which then easily leads to the conclusion that eating lots of fruits and vegetables and fish means one is a "vegetarian plus fish-eater". However, vegetarianism in its intent and most common usage is exclusionary: it's the deliberate choice not to eat meat. By all means, pescetarianism should be listed as a semi-vegetarian diet, and there may certainly be room in the article below to discuss how the word vegetarian is at times misunderstood because of this. But the demonstrably erroneous use of "vegetarian" as "may eat fish" is a clear misuse of the term and it does readers a disservice to promote and perpetuate it in the article. It's not a matter of it being a majority vs minority opinion. It's a matter of it being the correct usage. If vegetarian is to mean "eats however much meat they like", then it is meaningless, because its only reason to exist as a word is to distinguish those who eat meat from those who don't. "Some people think vegetarians eat fish" does not mean some vegetarians eat fish, or fish can be part of a vegetarian diet; it means some people don't understand what "vegetarian" means. NPOV would be asserting that fish-eating or meat-eating is bad, a view many vegetarians would support. Stating that vegetarians don't eat fish is not NPOV, it's simply accurate; not a value-judgement about fish-eating. So there is no need or justification to conflate readers' understanding by lending any credence to a misuse of the word by including it in the article header, anymore than the article on Energy needs to discuss New-Age concepts of personal energy fields. It's a minor side-issue and should be treated as such; the article currently addresses it well enough along with the other semi-veg diets. --Sylvank (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:NPOV to remind yourself what it stands for. You seem to be using it (ironically enough considering the discussion we're having) with the opposite meaning of its usual one. Evolution is not described in its lead as "considered an evil plot by atheist scientists to deny creationism, and that this view has equal weight as that of biologists" because the basic definition of evolution itself is not controversial. (Evolutionists and creationists alike agree on what the word "evolution" means.) But like it or not, there is more than one definition of vegetarianism: a majority one that excludes the eating of fish and a minority one that includes it, and the sources show this. Whether vegetarianism includes fish-eating is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact, and saying that the majority definition is the only correct definition and the minority definition is simply wrong is biased against the minority view and violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality. —Angr 08:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Whether vegetarianism includes fish-eating is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact" I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. That an erroneous view has been published in a few books doesn't make those authors anything but wrong in their usage, nor make those books reliable sources. The word was specifically coined to refer to a non-meat diet. "(Evolutionists and creationists alike agree on what the word "evolution" means.)" If creationists define evolution as "them scientists sayin' we done evolved from monkeys", and this view is published in numerous books, does at that point it become valid? I should hope not. It represents the creationist view of evolution, but it does not represent evolution itself. Some people may think that fish are not animals, falsely believing that "animal" and "mammal" are synonymous. If this view can be found in published texts, should the Fish article be edited to reflect that view, saying "some people don't think fish are animals, despite all the biologists insisting they are"? It's also been said above that some people don't consider Fish to be Meat. They may not consider it the same class of food because of taste and how it's harvested, and as the Meat article indicates, there's a religious origin to the distinction. But saying that because vegetarianism can be defined as "not eating meat", and some uses of the word "meat" exclude fish, that vegetarians eat fish is disingenuous in the extreme.

The NPOV policy asserts that all significant views must be represented. The idea that vegetarians eat fish is not significant; it's clearly a misuse of the word and distortion of the meaning as originally intended, and used by the overwhelming majority of practitioners. There's nothing "elitist", as Flyer22 asserted earlier, about insisting that vegetarians don't eat fish, it's only a desire for accuracy. If Vegetarianism is to accurately reflect vegetarianism, then it should describe what it is: a practice of not eating any animals. Conflating the meaning of the term vegetarian for "fish-eaters" in the header, instead of discussing it as a form of a semi-vegetarianism in that section, gives this error of language undue weight.

The view that "vegetarians eat fish" could be handled as a subsection of the article, or its own article, addressing how common this is, and how mainstream vegetarians vigorously dispute it. But if the article lead-in is to give a brief and accurate understanding of what vegetarian is, then being ambiguous on whether vegetarianism excludes fish or not gives those who perpetuate the misunderstanding of the word overwhelmingly undue weight. The lead-in that has previously existed for some time was accurate, and both pescetarianism and confusion over what "vegetarianism" actually means can be dealt with in their own sections. --Sylvank (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A good analogy is the Christianity article that starts off saying that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and only later in the text do they describe minor differences "Latter-day Saints (commonly called Mormons) accept the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but deny that they are the same being. Rather, they believe them to be separate beings united perfectly in will and purpose, thus making up one single Godhead. They believe that the Father, like the Son, has a glorified physical body". The same applies here. I prefer this to my compromise above, as even that gives undue weight to including fish eating in vegetarianism. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your compromise above sounds okay if the phrase "to include fish-eaters" is re-worded to indicate the practice of eating fish rather than people who eat fish (and anyway, "fish-eaters" is sometimes used as a derogatory term for Roman Catholics and so should really be avoided here). If the lead acknowledges that some people who call themselves vegetarian nevertheless eat fish, but that this interpretation of the word is generally rejected, the article will be more stable than if it flat-out excludes eating fish, which, I predict, will inevitably lead to the "extended definition" being added (probably by anons or new users) every few weeks, followed by a revert, probably followed by cries of "censorship". Wishing that no one interpreted vegetarianism in such a way as to include eating fish doesn't make it so. Sylvank is simply mistaken to say "The idea that vegetarians eat fish is not significant"; it most certainly is significant. It is probably the second most widely held definition of "vegetarianism" after the majority definition that makes it synonymous with ovo-lacto-vegetarianism. Other definitions of vegetarianism exist too (e.g. vegetarianism = veganism, vegetarianism = lacto-vegetarianism, vegetarianism excludes onions and garlic, etc.), but those really are too insignificant to be mentioned in the lead. But however much we all may disagree with the idea that pescetarianism (which is, after all, often called pesco-vegetarianism) is a form of vegetarianism, that view is held by a significant minority who should not be allowed to be bullied by the majority. —Angr 10:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What word refers unambiguously to people who do not eat animals, but do eat milk and eggs? Could the photo of vegetables, fruits and grains in the article be replaced with a photo of a fish market, and still accurately represent "A variety of vegetarian food ingredients"? Are sushi (sashimi), shark fin soup, kalamari, oysters, and caviar "vegetarian foods"? Are Pacific Islanders that eat plenty of fish in their diet actually vegetarian and we didn't know it? Even though the word was adopted specifically to exclude eating animals, do (real) vegetarians have to come up with a new word now, because some people have been misusing it due to intellectual laziness?

That there exist people who, for whatever reason, have chosen to reduce the amount of meat they eat (typically for health), but simply don't share the attitude of compassion for animals that typical vegetarians have, decide that they can go ahead and eat fish yet still call themselves vegetarian, because they have stopped eating most kinds of meat, is known. This doesn't mean that their "opinion" of what constitutes vegetarianism is anything but ignorant and a demonstration of fuzzy and uninformed thinking. That a handful of writers have promoted this misuse of the word doesn't give it weight. It's still a demonstrably incorrect interpretation. Generally, cutting down the frequency or amount of meat one eats sounds like a good idea. But that in itself doesn't make one vegetarian, and repeated misuse of the word doesn't make it a valid opinion. The notion of "semi-vegetarianism" has meaning because we can view a choice to eat less meat as becoming "closer to vegetarianism"; but that doesn't mean that someone who eats little meat or only a limited type is vegetarian, any more than someone who is celibate becomes increasingly virginal.

I am sure ample references could be found to support this statement in the article: Vegetarians do not eat fish. [1][2][3][4][5][etc.] There are people who use the term vegetarian to refer to those who eat largely a plant-based diet, but include fish, but this usage is widely considered erroneous. [6][7][8][9][etc.]

"It is probably the second most widely held definition of "vegetarianism" after the majority definition that makes it synonymous with ovo-lacto-vegetarianism." I've seen absolutely no evidence of this, and again, use of "vegetarian" to include "eats meat" makes the term meaningless. It's a misuse of the word that I have seen universally responded to by vegetarians as "what on Earth are you thinking, we don't eat animals!". Roughly 50% of Americans believe the Earth is under 10000 years old. However, note that this extremely popular view is given absolutely no validity in the Age_of_the_Earth article. Yes, many people believe something that isn't true. No, that doesn't mean their view is valid. A link is given to the expressly titled Creation_myth page. The creationist viewpoint is give absolutely no weight on the Age of the Earth page, despite its popularity. That's because whether the Earth is thousands or billions of years old is not a simple matter of opinion. One is correct, one isn't. In just the same way, distortions, confusion, or misinterpretations of the word "vegetarian" do not merit equal treatment in an article about vegetarianism, which should be discussing actual vegetarianism. This amounts to Giving Equal Validity to an "opinion" that does nothing but contribute to misunderstanding of the topic of the article.

Given the discussion here, I think there may be reason to create a separate article about Misuse of the word vegetarian, examine the history of thought that lead some members of the mainstream to erroneously believe that eating fish is consistent with vegetarianism, and the dispute over this. I'd also say Semi-vegetarianism should be dealt with primarily in its own article, as diets that are similar to vegetarianism in that they involve eating less meat than the mainstream public, but aren't actually vegetarian in practice. That there exist semi-vegetarian diets isn't really relevant to knowledge of vegetarianism. Christianity may be an offshoot of Judaism but to say that it is an aspect of Judaism or a form of Jewish belief is mistaken. Fish-eating pseudo-vegetarians do not merit any mention in a brief, accurate description of vegetarianism. Deal with them in their own section. --Sylvank (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are still confusing the way things are with the way you wish things were. The definition of "vegetarianism" is by necessity a matter of opinion, not a matter of testable scientific fact, so your constant and tiresome comparisons with young-Earth creationism are irrelevant and only serve to weaken your argument. You ask, "What word refers unambiguously to people who do not eat animals, but do eat milk and eggs?" The answer is "lacto-ovo vegetarian", which you will notice does not redirect to this article, indicating that there is still perceived to be a difference between the terms. I don't deny that by far the most common view is that the two are exact synonyms, and I even adhere to that view myself. But that doesn't change the fact that other people have different definitions, and their definitions are not "wrong" just because they're in the minority. You wrote, "That there exist people who, for whatever reason, have chosen to reduce the amount of meat they eat (typically for health), but simply don't share the attitude of compassion for animals that typical vegetarians have, decide that they can go ahead and eat fish yet still call themselves vegetarian, because they have stopped eating most kinds of meat, is known"; that's actually just a very wordy way of saying what I've been saying all along: like it or not, there are people whose definition of "vegetarianism" does not exclude eating fish, and it would be a violation of NPOV for this article to pretend there aren't. Interestingly, our article Veganism#Definition says the term "veganism" was coined in 1944 by two people who were "frustrated that the term 'vegetarianism' had come to include the eating of dairy products". That implies that at some point before then, "vegetarianism" was synonymous with the modern word "veganism" and only later came to be used to mean "lacto-vegetarianism" at least (and maybe already ovo-lacto-vegetarianism, as it is used today). That suggests to me that eighty or a hundred years ago, vegetarians might have argued just as strenuously against the idea that a vegetarian diet could include eggs and milk as you are arguing today that it could include fish. They were probably just as angry as you are about the "intellectual laziness" and "fuzzy and uninformed thinking" of people who ate eggs and milk and still had the gall to call themselves "vegetarian"; after all, "That a handful of writers have promoted this misuse of the word doesn't give it weight. It's still a demonstrably incorrect interpretation." Only they lost that battle; nowadays, it's unquestionably the most common understanding of the word "vegetarian", and a new word, "vegan", had to be coined to mean what "vegetarian" used to mean. So does this mean that 100 years from now the word "vegetarian" will generally be understood to mean what today we call "pescetarian"? Maybe, maybe not; who knows? But the fact that the meaning of "vegetarian" has changed over the past 100 years shows that the word does not have one fixed, immutable definition that is the only possible correct one, with any other meaning of the word being "ignorant" and "wrong". —Angr 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are still confusing the way things are with the way you wish things were. Not at all. I am asserting that there is a clear difference between explaining the meaning of a term in an informative article, and muddying that meaning and understanding with a flawed and erroneous use of that term. What the article should be doing is explaining what the primary meaning of "vegetarian" is, then later in the article discussing how in popular culture there is some confusion over what exactly constitutes "vegetarianism", and how valid the sources for the minority opinion are.

The definition of "vegetarianism" is by necessity a matter of opinion, not a matter of testable scientific fact, The definition of vegetarianism has its meaning specifically assigned by vegetarians to distinguish their dietary practices from those of most people. If "vegetarianism" is taken to include practices that are contrary to vegetarianism, then the word is meaningless. It is not a matter of opinion what vegetarianism was intended to represent, nor that it represents that to the vast majority of vegetarians, and all vegetarian advocacy groups.

so your constant and tiresome comparisons with young-Earth creationism are irrelevant and only serve to weaken your argument. The analogy is absolutely relevant. It is the opinion of people that the Age of the Earth can be defined as 6000 years. It is their opinion that any evidence to the contrary is false, or the work of an atheist conspiracy. The validity of the scientific method and any evidence drawn from that method is a matter of opinion. By siding with scientists over creationists, Wikipedia is taking a non-relativist position and not treating the opinions of scientists and the opinions of creationists as equivalent, because they are not. Yet according to your own assertion, because some people have a dissenting opinion, that view should be treated as if it is valid, even if it is not.

"What word refers unambiguously to people who do not eat animals, but do eat milk and eggs?" The answer is "lacto-ovo vegetarian" That misses the point. L.O.V. is a qualification and distinction of a sub-type from the general term "vegetarian". If "vegetarian" CAN validly mean "fish-eater", then a "lacto-ovo vegetarian", per (faulty) definition, CAN mean someone who eats nothing but fish, milk, and eggs.

Whether pescetarians are "types of vegetarians" (I think it can be shown they are not) or "a diet related to vegetarianism" (which I think is more accurate) is not the issue here. It's whether "vegetarian", by itself, can accurately and validly refer to someone who eats fish exclusively, in which case polar bears are also "vegetarian".

But that doesn't change the fact that other people have different definitions, and their definitions are not "wrong" just because they're in the minority. They're not wrong because they're in the minority. They're wrong because they are misusing the word, and their usage is in direct conflict with the primary meaning of the word and the intent for which the word was invented.

In considering whether "vegetarians eat fish" is true or not, the origin of this confusion must be considered. If "vegetarian" in popular (not formal) usage means someone who doesn't appear to eat any meat, but again (in popular usage) many people don't see fish as "meat" or equivalent to furry warm-blooded mammals deserving similar consideration, then the distinction to those groups becomes trivial, and a dietician writing about "vegetarians" may have no idea that by blurring the distinction between A Person Who Eats No Meat (vegetarian) with A Person Who stopped Eating Meat Except Fish (non-vegetarian aka pescetarian), they are wrongly misusing the word, ignorant, as I said, of its meaning and intent. Again, that some people misuse it this way does not justify promoting this misunderstanding, anymore than creationist beliefs merit treatment as valid within the article on the scientific view of the age of the Earth.

But the fact that the meaning of "vegetarian" has changed over the past 100 years shows that the word does not have one fixed, immutable definition that is the only possible correct one, with any other meaning of the word being "ignorant" and "wrong". When defined, "vegetarian" did not take a clear position on dairy and eggs. But its position on animal flesh was incontrovertible. "Vegan" was coined to clarify that distinction. Use of "vegetarian" including "fish-eaters" is not a general shifting of the meaning of the word over time. If "vegetarian" means "someone who eats a lot of plants", then it's very easy to create a colloquial usage referring to "someone who eats a lot of plants + fish" as being a "vegetarian who eats fish". But since a vegetarian is actually someone who by definition does not eat animals, this usage actually is referring to "someone who does not eat animals who eats animals". It is a simple error in usage, and deserves treatment as nothing more than that. It remains ignorant and wrong. Pescetarianism as a neologism works fine because its intent is understood as that compromise between a plant-based diet (vegetarianism) and one type of meat. But that doesn't mean vegetarianism encompasses meat eating. --Sylvank (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems that we're achieving a consensus about mentioning fish in the opening sentence, in some form or other. This is progress (Flyer's refusal to even countenance the idea was what lead to the edit war.)

As for what form. Flyer has quoted lots of sources (and keeps doing so as though it proves anything), usually books by American Dieticians or similar. I could produce similar lists of books by American Dieticians that show vegetarians don't eat fish. Not to mention all the other sources.

As I understand Wikipedia's hierarchy of reliability, the Journal of the American Dietician's Association is a more reliable source than any individual book by an American Dietician. And they say here that vegetarians exclude fish. So - and I'm hoping we can agree on this, especially as Flyer seems to say similar herself at times - the more reliable sources state that vegetarians don't eat fish. The idea that vegetarians eat fish is a minority view backed up by less reliable sources.

When there are conflicting definitions, Wikipedia should use the one from the most reliable sources and held by the majority. It should then mention the minority view. Like the Christian article and the Latter Day Saints. So I maintain that the first sentence should say something like "Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, (including game and slaughter by-products), fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry" and then mention that there are some sources that define vegetarianism as allowing fish, but that this is controversial. To do it the other way round - to say the vegetarianism is to exclude meat and poultry and then say that some (or even most) sources also exclude fish - is to give undue weight to a minority opinion backed up by less reliable sources.Steve3742 (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyer:

How, in any way, would my version of the lead be hurting the credibility of Wikipedia or vegetarianism?

I believe that's been covered: It would lead to people who don't know about vegetarianism coming here and assuming they eat fish. Bear in mind that a lot of people are lazy. They'll read the first paragraph, or even just the first sentence, and say "OK, I'll make them a fish casserole then", not bothering to read the rest. That's why the first sentence has to be precise and has to have the majority definition in. The rest can come later.

I saw your revert of my work with another editor here who may be a vegetarian as well as disrespectful, Steve. You did not try and talk it over with us first, but immediately acted as though we were damaging this article, even though we were very careful in our wording not to act as though pesco-vegetarianism is a valid form of vegetarianism. You also act as though I would be all for calling pollo-vegetarians (chicken eaters) vegetarians as well, even though I have made it clear that I would not be.

I was being bold in editing, sure. I didn't revert your work, incidentally, I edited it. You reverted mine and then I reverted yours, then you reverted mine... etc. And I did say why I'd done this in the talk page. I considered the non-inclusion of fish in the lead to be damaging to the article and credibility of Wikipedia for reasons I've mentioned in the preceding paragraph. And my mentions of pollo-vegetarianism were reductio ad absurdiums, showing that the same reasoning that lead you to include fish could also be used to allow pollo vegetarianism. I don't (and never have) believe that you believe this - that's the whole point of a reductio ad absurdium.

The thing is...you make it seem like I or anyone who agreed/agrees with me about changing the lead of this article to my version is not a true vegetarian; you make this clear every time you practically say that most vegetarians or true vegetarians would not agree with my version of the lead, as if I have flat-out stated in the lead that pesco-vegetarians are vegetarians... I have no ulterior motive concerning this article, and I assure you that I am a "pure vegetarian" (whether you believe me or not)

I have said that most or nearly all vegetarians do not believe that vegetarianism allows fish and I believe it. It's anecdotal, sure, and so counts for nothing in Wikipedia but I still believe it.

Your own personal views and dietary preferences I don't know, other than what you've told me (which I accept, of course), and don't really see as relevant - unlike you, I have always assumed good faith, assumed that you were genuine in your beliefs with no hidden agenda. I just believe that you're wrong.

I did not feel that I was personally attacking you, but I do apologize that I made you feel that way. I felt that you were personally attacking me in some ways, as alluded to in this reply of mine. I was simply responding strongly, but did not feel that I was really attacking you.

OK, apology accepted. And I'm sorry if I've made you feel that I was personally attacking you

You say you "could as easily say that not including fish in the lead given the valid sources that exclude fish (the vegetarian societies, pretty much every dictionary, etc.) is not neutral." I just completely disagree with that, and I still don't feel that we must include fish in the first part of the lead either.

Care to say why you completely disagree with that? You do accept (I hope) that the definition that excludes fish is the majority one and is backed up by reliable sources (Vegetarian Societies, Dictionaries, the ADA, etc.)? So why do you think it should not be mentioned AT ALL in the opening paragraph?

I do not feel that your sources have more validity than mine, even though they are from powerful vegetarian groups (I'm not including the dictionary definitions as proving anything on this matter). My reason for changing the lead of this article was/is purely due to wanting to give a neutral point view. That, and the lead needed expansion. ...it's just that I have learned to respect the fact that a lot of people call themselves vegetarians even though they eat fish, and that they have been/are recognized as vegetarians, with more validity than chicken-eaters.

Not just "powerful vegetarian groups", but also the American Dieticians Association (a more reliable source, as I've said, than any American Dietician), The USDA, the British Food Standards Authority and lots more.

Yes, we should represent the minority view but after stating the majority view and we should say that the minority view is a minority view and is controversial.Steve3742 (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it would give undue weight to the minority view to state it with the majority view. Also, just because they can claim "more validity" does not mean that it is valid. You cannot claim to be a virgin just because you only slept with one partner. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking above at many of the "sources" Flyer22 cites to promote her view of vegetarianism, I see that they include personal blogs, spam-blogs, and extremely informal, off-hand descriptions that represent only personal opinions, not informed sources. That a Google search for "fish" and "vegetarian" can turn up results is not surprising. Further, some of the articles Flyer cites go on to contradict her point, for example, she quoted: "Pesco-vegetarian diets exclude red meat and fowl but include fish and seafood." That same article just below goes on to say: "Vegetarianism is incompatible with eating meat or flesh (of any kind). Furthermore, vegetarianism means avoiding all exploitation of animals for animal products (such as clothes of animal origin) - at least according to vegan philosophy. Therefore, people who eat mostly vegetables and only tiny amounts of meat or flesh are not vegetarians."

Here is Britannica's intro to their article: "vegetarianism - dietary practice - the theory or practice of living solely upon vegetables, fruits, grains, and nuts—with or without the addition of milk products and eggs—generally for ethical, ascetic, environmental, or nutritional reasons. All forms of flesh (meat, fowl, and seafood) are excluded from all vegetarian diets, but many vegetarians use milk and milk products; those in the West usually eat eggs also, but most vegetarians in India exclude them, as did those in the Mediterranean lands in Classical times." From what I've seen so far, the reliable sources and prominent adherents are overwhelmingly in consensus that fish eating is not properly consistent with vegetarianism. Again, this is an issue of undue weight. NPOV would require that those who believe vegetarians eat fish are not labelled ignorant, but whether they are right or not is a matter of fact, and sources promoting this viewpoint can be balanced with authoritative references showing it is in error. Again, in its own section or article, not in the lead-in. --Sylvank (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Flyer also includes a lot of books, mainly written by American Dietitians. I believe, as I have said, that the Journal of the American Dietetic Society is a more reliable source than these, being a peer reviewed journal rather than just a book, but we can't ignore the opinion of a significant number of dietitians. I take your point about putting the stuff about pescitarians in its own section. I have a feeling that Flyer will disagree.Steve3742 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's not my personal view of vegetarianism, as I've made clear more than once. And I don't mostly include personal blogs, spam-blogs, and extremely informal, off-hand descriptions that represent only personal opinions. I've included several valid health resources as references, which others have agreed are reliable sources. And, as Steve has said, I've included a lot of books. I must point out that those books are not merely by dietitians either.

I'll have more to say later. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

OK, it seems that we're achieving a consensus about mentioning fish in the opening sentence, in some form or other. This is progress (Flyer's refusal to even countenance the idea was what lead to the edit war.)

Me: Steve do not blame the edit war on me. And I was quite willing to compromise with you, as even my edit summaries show. You were the one who would not even talk over what had become the agreed upon lead of the article, and would not talk it over before making changes. But, really, we're over that now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

As for what form. Flyer has quoted lots of sources (and keeps doing so as though it proves anything), usually books by American Dieticians or similar. I could produce similar lists of books by American Dieticians that show vegetarians don't eat fish. Not to mention all the other sources.

Me: It proves that there is the view that vegetarianism includes fish, and that it is a notable view, especially given how many people and valid sources out there think that vegetarians eat fish. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

When there are conflicting definitions, Wikipedia should use the one from the most reliable sources and held by the majority. It should then mention the minority view. Like the Christian article and the Latter Day Saints.

Me: And that's what I was doing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

I believe that's been covered: It would lead to people who don't know about vegetarianism coming here and assuming they eat fish. Bear in mind that a lot of people are lazy. They'll read the first paragraph, or even just the first sentence, and say "OK, I'll make them a fish casserole then", not bothering to read the rest. That's why the first sentence has to be precise and has to have the majority definition in. The rest can come later.

Me. I don't get how the lead would give that impression, just because it excludes the word fish in the first sentence, if it were to again. The lead in my version and now in kotra's version points out how disputed fish is as being vegetarian, and that it is not really considered a valid vegetarian choice. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

I was being bold in editing, sure. I didn't revert your work, incidentally, I edited it. You reverted mine and then I reverted yours, then you reverted mine... etc. And I did say why I'd done this in the talk page. I considered the non-inclusion of fish in the lead to be damaging to the article and credibility of Wikipedia for reasons I've mentioned in the preceding paragraph. And my mentions of pollo-vegetarianism were reductio ad absurdiums, showing that the same reasoning that lead you to include fish could also be used to allow pollo vegetarianism. I don't (and never have) believe that you believe this - that's the whole point of a reductio ad absurdium.

Well, I don't believe that we were damaging Wikipedia in any way, as mentioned above. And I don't see pollo-vegetarianism as nearly being the same, for various reasons, as mentioned above. And I still feel that you should have talked this over with us first. The way you see how things went down is the way you see them. But I am glad that you do believe that I don't believe that fish is a valid vegetarian diet. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

I have said that most or nearly all vegetarians do not believe that vegetarianism allows fish and I believe it. It's anecdotal, sure, and so counts for nothing in Wikipedia but I still believe it.

Your own personal views and dietary preferences I don't know, other than what you've told me (which I accept, of course), and don't really see as relevant - unlike you, I have always assumed good faith, assumed that you were genuine in your beliefs with no hidden agenda. I just believe that you're wrong.

Me: And I don't see how I am wrong. All I have done is alter the lead accurately to state that pesco-vegetarianism has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish, and took the word fish from the first part of the lead to go in accordance with this, but still noted how disputed fish being vegetarianism is. I was being neutral. And not that neutral, really. But I get that you did/do not agree with those changes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

OK, apology accepted. And I'm sorry if I've made you feel that I was personally attacking you

Me: Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

Care to say why you completely disagree with that? You do accept (I hope) that the definition that excludes fish is the majority one and is backed up by reliable sources (Vegetarian Societies, Dictionaries, the ADA, etc.)? So why do you think it should not be mentioned AT ALL in the opening paragraph?

Me: I've already given my reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve:

Yes, we should represent the minority view but after stating the majority view and we should say that the minority view is a minority view and is controversial.

Me: And that's what I was doing. Though I'm still not sure it's such a minority view, given how many people and valid sources consider pesco-vegetarians as vegetarians. It's more so an inaccuarate view, if anything. Excluding fish is the majority view of vegetarians (non fish-eating ones), I can see that as a valid argument, sure. I would also like to state that I'm not as against keeping fish in the first part of the lead anymore. I briefly already noted on that above. I do think, though, like people out there confuse what pedophilia is and we (me and the editors there) noted in that article how pedophilia is used in popular vernacular, we should note how vegetarianism is used in popular vernacular, which includes fish. Unlike the Pedophilia article, there is no need to state that the popular vernacular use is wrong for that word, however, since it is quite clear in the lead with that first definition and how it goes on to mention the DSM. But with vegetarianism, there is a need and we should, because even when including fish in the lead, noting pesco-vegetarianism as having been defined as vegetarianism could be confusing if we don't mention the dispute, which is why I have always been adamant on mentioning the dispute. Not flat out saying the word wrong, though, but, you know, mention all that stuff we've already gone over above. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about something like:

Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, (including game and slaughter by-products), fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry.[1][2] There are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products produced from animal labour such as dairy products and honey. In popular vernacular, the word is also sometimes used to denote a diet that is mainly vegetarian but includes some fish, usually with the prefix "pesco" added, i.e. pesco-vegetarianism or combined, i.e. pescitarian.

Needs a bit of polishing, but is it something we can move forward with?Steve3742 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that "popular vernacular", especially if it contradicts formal usage, merits equal treatment in the summary. --Sylvank (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The "dispute" over whether vegetarianism includes fish or not can be dealt with effectively in its own subsection or separate article. The NPOV on that singular issue would be to present what is the mainstream vegetarian view, examine the validity of sources for and against, and examine the history and reasoning of the varying usage of the word. While I have stated that I think this view is ignorant and uninformed, obviously it's not NPOV to say that. But the section can certainly examine the qualifications of those putting forward the alternate usage, and how vegetarian writers typically use it compared to those who deal only peripherally with vegetarianism. I believe it could be strongly shown that including fish-eaters among vegetarians is simply a verbal shorthand in most cases. For example, if I define "hippies" as those who eat "hippyfood", and "hippyfood" never includes fish, but it's shown that there's a group of people who eat "hippyfood plus fish", then it would be understandable to think that these are a variant of "hippies", and might even be called "fishhippies"; but to say that "hippyfood" now includes fish because some hippyfood eaters also eat fish is wrong. Obviously I strongly believe the article lead-in should be unambiguous about the primary meaning of vegetarianism, and that quibbles over usage are side issues that should be treated entirely secondarily. I'm also of the opinion the section on semi-vegetarianism doesn't belong in the lead-in; variants on vegetarianism aren't vegetarianism, anymore than Christianity is Judaism. I recognize you're trying to present a broad and impartial view and that's absolutely to be respected; but I don't believe that promoting or perpetuating a misuse of the word serves the interest of knowledge or understanding of the subject. The lead-in should concisely and accurately answer the question "What is vegetarianism?". And in answer to that, it can be confidently stated that vegetarians do not eat any kind of animal flesh, including fish. Exceptions to that use of the word can be addressed as such further in. --Sylvank (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Liking Steve's version of the lead, but like Steve, I also feel it needs some polishing. I mean, if we mention pesco-vegetarianism that early in the lead, do we just take out the part in the lead where we again mention pesco-vegetarianism and note the dispute? Why don't we just mention that in popular vernacular, the word is also sometimes used to denote a diet that is mainly vegetarian but includes some fish, and other animal flesh, and then we keep the rest of the lead as is, where it's naming the types of vegetarians, has pesco-vegetarianism under semi-vegetarianism as Steve has done, mentions how it has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish and the dispute? I still would rather have that part about "especially pescetarianism" tweaked from Steve's version of the lead, though; it just doesn't make much sense, given that the Vegetarian Society feels the same exact away about pollo vegetarians. I get Steve's point of having originally included it that way, though, given how frustrated some vegetarian societies have become with so many people considering fish eaters as vegetarians.

Popular vernacular, even if it contradicts formal usage, merits equal treatment in this case. It and the part about the dispute over whether vegetarianism includes fish or not, should be in the lead, whether it is the majority view of vegetarians or not. It is quite a notable fact. And the lead is supposed to mention important facts like this, just like the Pedophilia article does, as well as many other articles on Wikipedia, especially if we are going to have a subsection about such a debate/dispute, which would be summarizing the article, something that Wikipedia articles should also do. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"merits equal treatment" "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views." It is quite a notable fact. Your sources didn't support that. They are minor and largely not reliable. What you are calling "popular" vernacular isn't especially popular, and again, I constantly see (real) vegetarians universally condemn this misusage. I also pointed out above that half of Americans believe the age of the Earth to be under 10,000 years. This doesn't mean the Age_of_the_earth article treats that opinion as having equal validity. Again, lending credence to a clear informal and colloquial misuse of a term at the start of an encyclopedic article is giving undue weight. Confusing and muddying the meaning of the word with a misunderstanding doesn't serve the readers or improve the article. Vegetarianism means not eating meat. That some people misuse the word doesn't make their usage a valid alternate meaning of "vegetarianism", but instead is simply erroneous and can be dealt with as a minor issue on its own. --Sylvank (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My sources do support that pesco-vegetarianism being thought of as vegetarianism is a notable fact and my sources are not largely unreliable, as other editors have also now stated. And I get what An is saying about how the meaning of "vegetarian" has changed over the past 100 years, which is another reason I was/am for changing the lead. I am not saying that how the word has changed to include fish in some valid sources makes those sources right. Wikipedia is quite clear on its neutral point of view policy. I did not say that it said that we have to give equal validity to a minority view. I clearly stated that pesco-vegetarianism being thought of as vegetarianism is not a minority view. It is perhaps a minority view to "true vegetarians"...but not amongst the general public and a lot of pesco-vegetarians. I do not see this as the same as people believing how old the Earth is; that is not something we see often and is often associated with the Earth. Pesco-vegetarianism, however, is often associated with vegetarianism and thought of as vegetarianism, much more than pollo-vegetarianism and to where even valid sources list pesco-vegetarianism as vegetarianism, while excluding pollo-vegetarianism and to where "true vegetarians" are tired of this. Confusing and muddying the meaning of the word with a misunderstanding doesn't serve the readers or improve the article? We are not confusing anything. Again, just as the Pedophilia article is not confusing anything. Yes, we are improving this article, just as the Pedophilia article is clear that being sexually attracted to post-pubescents (mid to late teenagers) is not pedophilia, but is used in popular vernacular that way. If anything, we are helping misinformed people. This article is doing the same, while also stating a notable fact in the vegetarian world; the fact that so many vegetarians have to say, "No, I don't eat fish" is notable; the fact that fish-eating has become so associated that with vegetarianism that even the Vegetarian Society had to start a "no fish" campaign about it is notable. All of that messiness about fish is directly and notably linked to vegetarianism and should be in the lead of this article. And as I said before, especially if we include a subsection about it, seeing as the leads of Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize their topics.

It would be better if we just move on now to something along the lines of Steve's lead, and how we can best convey all this stuff about vegetarianism and what it really is/considered to be and be clear about where pesco-vegetarianism/semi-vegetarianism stands. Flyer22 (talk)

It is thought of by non-vegetarians as a variation of vegetarianism. What is your definition of pescetarianism? "vegetarians who eat fish". What is a vegetarian then? If "vegetarians" are already "people who eat fish", then you've recursively defined pescetarianism as "people who eat fish who eat fish". If "vegetarian" is not distinct from "pescetarian" then the word pescetarian is superfluous. You in choosing your sources and making your arguments are ignoring that these uses of "vegetarian" are coming from people who are simply using it as a shorthand to describe "a mostly plant based diet"; where-as vegetarianism proper is a diet that per definition excludes all meat.
The exact frequency of misuse of "vegetarian" has not been established, and trying to assert that vegetarians who actually understand the meaning of the word vegetarian now represent a "minority view" is utterly unsupported. "the fact that so many vegetarians have to say, "No, I don't eat fish" is notable" No, it's a minor hassle for people who live as vegetarians, it doesn't reflect on the actual meaning of the word. That the mainstream public does not have a good understanding of what "vegetarianism" means does not mean that it informs the reader of anything essential about what vegetarianism actually is. Many people, and I'm sure I could regale you with citations, would consider all muslims to be terrorists (just as an example). That does not mean that the lead-in to Muslim should reflect that many Muslims are terrorists, because of this popular belief. That would be a false generalization, just as believing that fish are suitable for those on a vegetarian diet. People who eat fish are not vegetarian. People who eat a vegetarian diet plus fish may be considered semi-vegetarians and pescetarians, which can be seen as a variation on vegetarianism, and that's what I put forward in my suggested wording below. "If anything, we are helping misinformed people." I agree, this is an opportunity to educate. Misinformed people, which probably represent the majority of the public, do not know what vegetarianism is, and the article should inform them unambiguously. Is eating fish something vegetarians do? Without qualifying "real" vegetarian, or the type of vegetarian? No, it's not. The reliable sources overwhelmingly support that point. Are people who eat lots of plants plus fish sometimes considered a type of vegetarian, when in fact they are not vegetarians since eating animals is mutually exclusive with being vegetarian? Yes, erroneously. That is not of notable importance to understanding vegetarianism, but is a secondary issue that can be clarified in the body of the article. --Sylvank (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is notable to mention and important to mention, just as what I stated we mention in the Pedophilia article is notable and important to mention. You say, "No, it's a minor hassle for people who live as vegetarians..." I say that it is a big hassle and a big fact that has largely become associated with the vegetarian world, to which even the Vegetarian Society had to stand up and say something about. It's not just a minority view or a view solely spouted out by non-vegetarians either, inaccurate or not. And the article will inform them unambiguously what "true vegetarianism" is, as Steve, I and others are now working on. I know your stance on what the lead should and should not include; I just disagree with some of what you feel should not be included. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Urban myths or popular misunderstandings of a topic are not relevant or notable to actual information about that topic, it is your bare assertion that they are. What the "Man on the Street" knows about General Relativity does not bear mention in the lead-in to general relativity. Your mention of pedophiles is a red herring: an international organization of pedophiles didn't define the term, and pedophiles the world over don't insist on the correct meaning. The assertion that "vegetarians eat fish" is not "notable and important", it is demonstrably wrong according to all primary sources. VegSoc has an information campaign because the public at large is ignorant and doesn't know vegetarians don't eat fish. You are promoting a biased view by giving credence to a false and misleading use of the word. Vegetarianism does not need to be qualified or restricted to "true vegetarianism", vegetarianism is vegetarianism. And please don't act like you have more say in the wording of this article than others.
Perhaps we should go back and compare all primary, reliable, valid sources and compare definitions and usage, as supported by Steve's reference to the hierarchy of reliability and disregard your wide google-fishing (heh) to come up with any spurious counter-example you could, taken out of context. The question here is not whether pescetarianism merits mention as a form of vegetarianism, or whether pescetarians are informally classed as types of vegetarians by those not considering the formal meaning of "vegetarian". It's whether vegetarians qua vegetarians eat fish. That uninformed people may think they do is no more relevant than some people think the earth is 6000 years old or some people think all Muslims are terrorists. I can find plenty of published books stating these same things. But what do authoritative and reliable sources have to say on the question? --Sylvank (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Urban myths or popular misunderstandings of a topic are sometimes relevant or notable to actual information about that topic, as is the case of the Pedophilia article (as previously mentioned). The assertion that "vegetarians eat fish" not being notable and important and rather demonstrably wrong is your bare assertion/opinion, whether we apply primary sources or not.

I also do not get where you feel that I am acting like I have more say in the wording of this article than others; that is actually how you can be perceived as well. My "wide google-fishing" (yeh, heh) pulled up valid sources proving my point -- that pescetarianism is thought of as vegetarianism. I also pulled up valid health resources, cited a valid article that shows the dispute/debate about this and mentioned how this fish association has become so prominent/problematic that even the Vegetarian Society had to stand up and denounce it. Just because supposedly most "true vegetarians" denounce the association does not stop the fact that this very prominent association exists. You say that the question here is not whether pescetarianism merits mention as a form of vegetarianism, or whether pescetarians are informally classed as types. I say, yes, that is the question, and has been the question throughout this debate. It is not about whether vegetarians qua vegetarians eat fish. You are seemingly making it about that, acting as though if we include what we do about pescetarianism, we are saying that it is a valid form of vegetarianism. We are not. You say that uninformed people may think they do is no more relevant than some people think the earth is 6000 years old or some people think all Muslims are terrorists. I say that none of that is the same thing at all. Again, I say that mentioning what has been proposed we mention in this article about pescetarianism is no more harmful to this article than what I stated above about the Pedophilia article. You disagree with what I feel should be in the lead of this article. I disagree with what you feel should not be in the lead of this article. I get it. We do not need to go back and forth about this. If you feel that we do, just note that I don't and am not up for it, and not because I feel that my argument is weak or anything of that sort, but rather because I feel that I have made my point, as you feel that you have made your point. Now, I am more so for hearing what others think. Not getting into a long, tedious debate about something in addition to what we are already discussing and that may turn uncivil. I respect what you have to say/your opinions, and I really do not have much more to say about what you are stating about the lead, and would rather leave it at that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was not originally for mentioning popular vernacular; though it may be easier to just state that than a few other ways proposed that we elaborate on the word after the primary/otherwise known as true definition of the word. Whether it's Martin Hogbin, kotra or Steve3742's new version, I am for something along the lines of that. Probably more so Martin or Steve's new version. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"proving my point -- that pescetarianism is thought of as vegetarianism." which is then fallaciously turned around and interpreted to mean "vegetarians eat fish", which is false. Let's go through the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions again. Let's go through the major world vegetarian organizations' literature. Let's check books, old and new, rather than a cursory Google. Let's spend weeks or months, if necessary, determining the most authoritative and respected sources on the meaning of these words. We can make the WP definition the most accurate in the world. Should we start a subpage to work on it? You have erroneously latched on to something like MW defining "pescetarian" as "a vegetarian who eats fish" as meaning vegetarians eat fish. Their own definition of vegetarian clearly contradicts that understanding. Instead, if you take a vegetarian, and start them eating fish, they're now a pescetarian. The definition of pescetarian can't be reversed to infer the meaning of vegetarian. If they eat fish, they're pescetarians, not vegetarians. I'm sorry but I'm not concerned that you're tired of discussion, I'm concerned that you established a clear agenda on August 21 to push the POV that "vegetarians can eat fish". You have since used numerous faulty references and inverse logic like the above to justify inserting your opinion into the lead-in of the article. I and others here clearly oppose this on the grounds that it is incorrect and promotes misinformation.
It is not about whether vegetarians qua vegetarians eat fish. As soon as you incorrectly assert that some persons who can correctly be labeled "vegetarian" positively eat fish, you have. You've even tried to twist things to say that because VegSoc is actively trying to address this misconception, it makes that misconception more valid or notable. Whether some non-vegetarians label themselves vegetarian, or others label them vegetarian, is not conducive to an educated understanding of the meaning of the word vegetarian. It's incorrect and a distraction. An error doesn't stop being an error out of popularity. Argumentum_ad_populum. Popular misconceptions about vegetarianism sounds like a good idea. Vegetarianism should introduce people to the accurate meaning of the word, not that meaning distorted by uninformed people. --Sylvank (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is fallaciously turned around and interpreted to mean "vegetarians eat fish"... I have not erroneously latched on to something like Merriam Webster defining "pescetarian" as "a vegetarian who eats fish" as meaning vegetarians eat fish. Your being concerned that I established a clear agenda on August 21 to push the POV that "vegetarians can eat fish" is laughable! As laughable as saying that, in the Pedophilia article, I set out to establish a clear agenda that being sexually attracted to post pubescents is pedophilia. And numerous faulty references? Try numerous valid references. Also, try not my opinion and Wikipedia logic! I have not added any incorrect information to this article, and I and others here clearly oppose your view that that is what I or we are doing. I have not tried to "twist things"... The fact that the Vegetarian Society is actively trying to address this misconception does make it notable. You disagree, and, yes, I cannot see why. But keep the personal attacks coming. It's funny as hell, especially your practically calling me a pescetarian, something I have not been for a long time (jeez!). Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"An error doesn't stop being an error out of popularity." Not to be pedantic, but in the case of words, it does. Words often change in meaning over time (see Semantic progression) and dictionaries usually list the meaning of words in order of their current popularity, not their technical accuracy). -kotra (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do word meanings shift? Yes. But popular misconceptions do not represent a valid reflection of knowledge about a concept. That's the intent of my example of some people equating "Muslim" with "terrorist". If enough people believe it, does that mean it becomes true that Muslims are terrorists, or that the word "Muslim" should validly be used as another word for terrorist? I don't believe so. The same is the case here. There is the established meaning of the word vegetarian. This has been unchanged for over 150 years, and it's very simple: no meat (disregarding Flyer's game-playing regarding the definition of "meat"). But because, like any minority group with unusual beliefs, vegetarians represent a small portion of the population, and the majority of people have no or little interest in understanding what the word actually means, misconceptions can rise and persist, and the term can be used erroneously. So misuse qua misuse in the article may bear discussion. But the article vegetarianism I believe is about the concept and practice. Those that eat fish and call themselves vegetarian, aren't vegetarian. They're people who eat fish and call themselves vegetarian. References in popular literature don't make their view more valid, and as I said, we could perform a rigorous examination over the next few weeks of all appropriate references to decide on just how informed an opinion is being put forward. I believe to lend any credence to the notion that "vegetarians eat fish" is true, would be akin to acknowledging as true any given racist or ethnic stereotype in an article about the subject, when to do so does the topic and the reader a grave disservice. Encyclopedia articles should not be promoting errors, but correcting the unambiguously. I'm advocating this be done in exactly the same way as the dissenting view is treated in Age of the earth, Evolution, or Muslim. Treat the primary view as such, and discuss any contrary opinions in its own section. Do vegetarians eat fish? Not according to vegetarian organizations, or the vast majority of vegetarians themselves. Those who have the opposite opinion should be given exactly the due weight they deserve. The article lead-in should unambiguously describe the concept and practice of vegetarianism, not weasel on the correct meaning of the word. --Sylvank (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22, please try to restrict your edit summaries to comments on your edits and do your talking on the talk pages. Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It did have something to do with my edits. But, yes, sorry about that. I will do as you ask regarding that for this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Response re:"laughable", and the agenda for change

I'm jumping back to the left because it's getting very difficult to maintain the nesting. (Aside: why isn't there a better discussion system built into the Wiki!?)

Flyer22 in her last response to me claims: "I have not erroneously latched on to something like Merriam Webster defining "pescetarian" as "a vegetarian who eats fish" as meaning vegetarians eat fish. Your being concerned that I established a clear agenda on August 21 to push the POV that "vegetarians can eat fish" is laughable!"

Here are some points Flyer22 has made over the last 10 days.

"Anyone familiar with vegetarianism knows that not all vegetarians exclude fish from their diet, and fish is not considered meat by all."-Flyer22, August 21
Disingenuously uses ambiguous definition of "meat" to suggest that vegetarianism doesn't necessarily exclude fish, asserts that some vegetarians eat fish. Flyer22 now is shown to contradict herself.

"Stating that fish is meat is disputed, no matter a dictionary's definition." - Flyer22, August 22
Again, with the disingenuous use of equivocation in the use of meat. When vegetarianism is defined as "not eating meat", it's referring to animal flesh, not only certain subtypes. This is a fallacious argument and not a valid justification for changing the article.

having the lead flat-out state that if you eat fish, you are not a vegetarian is quite wrong to state as fact, I feel, when it is really a matter of opinion. - Flyer22, August 22
Again, contradicting her above statement. By definition vegetarians don't eat fish. Pescetarians aren't vegetarians, they're pescetarians, thus the new word. Their diet is that of a vegetarian, with the addition of fish. Adding fish to the diet makes it a non-vegetarian diet.

"in some authoritive dictionaries, vegetarianism may include the consumption of fish."..."Merriam-Webster even now defines pescetarianism as "vegetarians who eat fish"" - August 23
An example of what I meant above: reversing the shorthand definition of pescetarian, to infer that the dictionary supports the idea that "vegetarian" = "eats fish".

"there are plenty of people out there that consider themselves vegetarians even though they eat fish, and have valid sources, including the Merriam-Webster, to back them up, who recognize them as vegetarians." Flyer22, August 31
Same as above. Using the reverse inference from the definition to assert that pescetarian=vegetarian, even though that definition is clearly defining the distinction between the two concepts, and in its own definition of vegetarian, excludes fish.

"The vast majority of dictionaries do not outweigh the fact that pescetarianism is thought of widely enough as vegetarianism." Flyer22 August 31
Flyer is arbitrarily choosing which sources she likes or disregards, and is overwhelmingly favoring those which are not directly related to vegetarianism, or don't reflect the long-standing use of the word, but instead those that are based on this common misconception, and she is trying to make that misconception an authoritative base for asserting that eating fish is vegetarian.

"I am trying to acknowledge in the lead that pescetarianism has been defined or described as a vegetarian who eats fish, and is not always considered a form a semi-vegetarianism." -Flyer22, Sept 1
This article is vegetarianism, not pescetarianism. Per the most authoritative definitions, and those used overwhelmingly by the vegetarian community, vegetarians do not eat any type of meat, including fish. Pescetarians may be associated with vegetarians by the public and mainstream medical community because the only distinction between the diets is whether or not fish is eaten, but clearly to vegetarians that distinction is important, because to them the word unambiguously refers to people who do not eat any kind of meat. If "pescetarian" is synonymous with "vegetarian", then there's no need to have two words or two concepts; the one implies the other.

Elitist vegetarians who thumb their noses at pescetarians being associated with vegetarianism does not take away from this fact, and should not be excluded from being mentioned in the lead just because of that." -Flyer22, Sept 1
The dismissive labeling of those vegetarians who object to using a distorted meaning of vegetarian as "elitist" is an attempt to minimize the established use of the word and give validity via "underdog status" to the misuse of the word.

And to be clear, I have no personal animosity towards Flyer22. I simply object to her stated intention in altering this article, in the strongest possible terms. It's based on misinformation and popular misconceptions, not valid research and references. If she seems to want to pursue "Good Article" status for this article, then I believe that drive would best be served by ensuring the article provides the most accurate and well-informed understanding of vegetarianism, rather than clouding it with colloquial misperceptions, however common.

I agreed with all of Kotra's enumerated objections to Flyer's argument, and I believe she conceded too easily based on her flawed references equating vegetarianism and pescetarianism. I believe I am largely in agreement with Steve, Bob, and Q Chris. There is definitely not a consensus on equating the meaning of vegetarian with "eats fish", nor do I believe can there be, since this meaning contradicts the established definition and that used overwhelmingly by vegetarians.

I have proposed a wording of the lead-in that classes pescetarianism appropriately as a semi-vegetarian diet. This doesn't represent any hostility or judgement of fish-eating, other than that it is not part of what is consistent with the proper, formal use of the term vegetarianism, which is what this particular article covers. --Sylvank (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Still laughing. When I said "Anyone familiar with vegetarianism knows that not all vegetarians exclude fish from their diet, and fish is not considered meat by all," I was referring to pesco-vegetarianism for the first part and more so to various other sources I have since given for the other part. Nothing disingenuous about my comments. You cannot possibly know what was going on in my mind at any of those moments, thus your view that I was shown to contradict myself is your opinion. I am flat out stating and letting everyone know that your laughable misconceptions about me and why I expanded the lead of this article are wrong. Dead wrong. You can continue to call my sources faulty, even though I have given enough valid sources, that others have also recognized as valid. You can try and turn this RfC into being about me. You can do all of this to try and "win over the crowd" and get your way, including insulting kotra as not being able to think for him or herself and being easily gullible to "my views"...but you are wrong. It's that simple. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. I have probably been a vegetarian a lot longer than you (one which you would call a true vegetarian, or maybe not...since you feel that all vegetarians should think like you), and my wanting the lead to acknowledge what I have stated about pescetarianism does not make me a pescetarian with an agenda, a bad vegetarian or a bad Wikipedian. I have been around very experienced Wikipedians and articles of Good or Featured status, as well as editing Wikipedia longer than you enough to know what a good or featured article entails (though you joined Wikipedia not too long after me; I have done more editing and am sure that I have read more talk pages and examined more good or featured articles than you), and I know that I am right. You act as though I have asked for this article to state that pesco-vegetarianism is vegetarianism. I have not, and no amount of you twisting my words can change that fact. I really feel honored, though, that you read over all my statements again, and, so thoroughly, too. Makes a girl feel proud. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just stated more below. Let's stop this, and get back to solely focusing on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't feel that I was insulted by Sylvank or was called gullible. He or she was merely disagreeing with my compromise with Flyer22. To further explain my reasoning: I don't have time to link up the sources again, but there are a few of those that Flyer22 provided that meet WP:RS and do claim pescetarianism is a subset of vegetarianism. Yes, I think they're wrong, but I also think creationists are wrong, and Age of the Earth's lead and Evolution's lead are very carefully worded to not present scientists' conclusions as absolute truth. The fish-eaters-as-vegetarians view does appear to be a minority view, but it is still a notable view, and deserves to be mentioned somewhere. I don't honestly care where that view is mentioned, but if my earlier version is not used, perhaps Evolution's lead could be copied, for example: "In common usage, vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, (including game and slaughter by-products), fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry." This is the same as the current text, but preceded by "In common usage". I think this should probably satisfy all? -kotra (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, not that I mind being called female, but I actually have a Y chromosome (that's the first time I've seen males assumed to be females on Wikipedia, usually it's the other way around!). -kotra (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kotra, sorry about the assumption, I just guessed from your name since I couldn't see it stated on your page. :) And no, I meant no disrespect, I just disagree with your changing your mind. I do not think Flyer's sources are valid or represent an informed perspective on the meaning of vegetarianism. --Sylvank (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyer, trying to tout your WP resume and the longevity of your vegetarianism gives no weight to your arguments. As I pointed out above, you were making use of faulty reasoning and equivocating terms to support your case. You have a vision for this article that is not consistent with an accurate representation of the topic; you've accused others of insisting that their way is the only way, but as far as I can tell, that's exactly what you're doing yourself. Since I and others disagree, there will be no ready consensus on the issue. There is disagreement it the following areas:

1. Whether "vegetarians" eat fish. That there are people who believe they do is true. That this belief is in error can be shown: the formal definitions overwhelmingly show they don't. As the example is given on the NPOV page, there are people who believe the world is flat, but they don't merit mention on the Earth page. Additionally, many people in the general public may have misconceptions about minority belief systems, ethnicities, cultures, or nations that may be opinions, but can be shown to be misguided, racist, or uninformed and so in no way "notable".
2. Whether "pescetarianism" is a form of "vegetarianism". Since eating fish can be shown to be mutually exclusive with being vegetarian, it's necessary to conclude that the only accurate description of pescetarianism is as a form of semi-vegetarianism. It is a diet similar in appearance, but contrary to the philosophies behind vegetarianism.
3. Whether your sources are valid. Offhand descriptions of vegetarianism in informal settings, convenient linguistic shortcuts, and voicing of popular misconceptions do not lend validity to a certain usage, they are only examples of ongoing misuse. Can you find academic vegetarians who have provided positive support for why fish should be considered part of the vegetarian diet, or major vegetarian groups that have conceded that fish-eating is consistent with vegetarianism? Or are these all just examples of the fuzzy thinking and loose use of language typical among non-experts in a field?
4. Whether the viewpoint merits mention. As I stated, I can find numerous published books and websites stating the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, evolution is false, that Religion X is false while Religion Y is true. These are all sincerely held beliefs, adhered to by millions of people. Yet the articles for the age of the Earth, evolution, and religion X and Y do not contest the validity of the primary description of these things in the article headers; instead they are dealt with later as criticisms and contrary opinions. These things may merit treatment on their own, but they aren't germane to the primary treatment of the subject.
5. Whether the viewpoint really represents a neutral treatment. As above, there are numerous topics which are subject to various forms of social controversy. However, for a proper academic, encyclopedic treatment, they must be allowed to stand on their own merit. Should the opening statements of all articles on deities state that the subject of the article probably doesn't exist as most atheists would contend? Or should that view be treated subordinately? I submit that the view that vegetarianism is anything other than that which vegetarians defined it as, is a form of detraction and either simple ignorance of what vegetarians actually believe (in the case of the general public), or willful disregard or deliberate misappropriation of the term for sake of vanity or social status (eg. being vegetarian sounds cool, but actually not eating meat is too hard). NPOV then would require defining vegetarianism solely as used by vegetarians, and treating contrary opinions as to the definition in a subsection, as they are in effect challenges to the philosophy espoused by vegetarians. That is consistent with both neutral treatment, and due weight.

--Sylvank (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to tout my Wikipedia resume and the longevity of vegetarianism to give weight to my arguments. As I pointed out above, I have given valid sources and I am not making use of faulty reasoning and equivocating terms to support my case. And this is certainly not the same as a few people believing that the Earth is flat in this day and age. We are also not contesting the validity of the primary description/or rather true definition of vegetarianism. I get that you feel that way, but I and others do not, and, no, I cannot understand why you feel that way. And, yes, I have read everything you have stated about this. I have a vision for this article that is consistent with an accurate representation of the topic. Since I and others disagree with you, perhaps there will be no ready consensus on the issue.

As for most of what you again stated, I already stated that I disagree with most of your thoughts on this issue. No need for me state it all over again. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. About the male thing, kotra.

As for your new lead, I am not too opposed to it. I still feel that Steve's new lead is the best, though, since it states what vegetarianism truly is first or rather it's primary/original definition depending on your view, and then notes the misuse of the word. I also prefer Steve's version of the rest of the lead. It's just that "especially pesceterianism" thing that I see as very awkward, and that it gives the impression that the Vegetarian Society is more against fish eaters being considered vegetarians than chicken or any other flesh eaters. But then again, as I noted before, the Vegetarian Society is obviously more frustrated with pesco-vegetarians due to the big misconception that valid vegetarianism includes fish. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is not my second time going through extensive lead problems for an article (though it is my third, this article and the Pedophilia article being the other two); I also had to come up with an expansive and neutral lead for the Sexual intercourse article, and went through a debate (which can be seen in one of the archives there on its talk page) where I was accused of trying to exlude homosexuality as being thought of as sexual intercourse and that I was homophobic. I had to point out that I had fought for the inclusion of the Gay and lesbian section in the soap opera part of the Supercouple article (plus, I had created the fictional lesbian couple Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article). Really, I just wanted to be precise about how sexual intercourse is usually/commonly defined today. I eventually expanded the lead to include homosexuality. I kept its biological/original definition first and then expanded on how the word has, well, expanded. With this article on vegetarianism, I just felt that its lead was not as informative as it should be, especially given that pesco vegetarianism and other forms of semi-vegetarianism were/are present within the lower part of the article. My point? I have always been about Wikipedia's leads being as accurate as possible and summarizing their articles. I know that unlike the Sexual intercourse article, where some other types of sexual intimacy being thought of as sexual intercourse are valid, fish being thought of as vegetarianism is usually not thought of as valid. The key word is usually...but it is a notable misconception. And that's all I was/am going for with the lead of this article. My original alteration of the lead was sure to make clear the dispute about pesco-vegetarianism being thought of as vegetarianism. I did not set my sights on this article to have it act as though pesco-vegetarianism is valid vegetarianism, only that it has been (and is still) thought of that way (even if mostly by misinformed people). If my edits had been anything like trying to pass off pesco-vegetarianism as true vegetarianism, then I can see how one would feel that I am just some fish-eater trying to ruin a decent article on vegetarianism. But that was/is not the case. It's not my first time being accused of something I am not/was not doing on Wikipedia. And I would like to start over with Sylvank, and hope that we can stop these accusations between us. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism as defined by major vegetarian organizations and adherents is a dietary practice that excludes all animal meat, including game and slaughter by-products, fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry. There are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products produced from animal labour such as dairy products and honey.
Lacto-ovo vegetarianism is the most common form[citation], and includes eggs and dairy products. Lacto-vegetarians consume dairy but not eggs, while ovo-vegetarianis eat eggs and not dairy products.
A vegan diet [continued]
Semi-vegetarian diets are those which closely resemble vegetarianism and consist of a diet largely of vegetarian foods, but may include various types of meat such as poultry or fish, as well as dairy products and eggs. Pescetarianism (also called pesco-vegetarianism) is a form of semi-vegetarianism that includes the consumption of fish.[4][5][6][7] However, the Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, dislikes the association of semi-vegetarian diets, especially pescetarianism, with vegetarianism as they are not, according to formal usage of the word, vegetarian diets.[8]

- Retains semi-vegetarian section in lead-in. Pescetarianism and pesco-vegetarianism are defined under semi-vegetarian diets. --Sylvank (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyer, I was actually the one who did the earlier version, my signature was perhaps a little unclear.

I quite like Sylvank's version. Anyone else care to comment?Steve3742 (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I like Steve's earlier version, which tackles the issues I and two other editors have with the lead. The fact that vegetarianism has been defined as a vegetarian who eats fish should maintain, and I don't feel that we should note it as a form of semi-vegetarianism before that, since it is already in the semi-vegetarianism part of the lead and is pointed out as a disputed vegetarian diet right after that. And I still want that "especially pescetarianism" taken out, for the reasons I noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing that last section:

Semi-vegetarian diets are those which closely resemble vegetarianism and consist of a diet largely of vegetarian foods, but may include various types of meat such as poultry or fish, as well as dairy products and eggs. Pescetarianism (also called pesco-vegetarianism) is a form of semi-vegetarianism that includes the consumption of fish.[4][5][6][7] Most vegetarians do not consider semi-vegetarian diets to be consistent with vegetarianism[citation], and it can often be unclear to the public exactly what constitutes a true vegetarian diet.

--Sylvank (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kotra, Angr, what do you two think of Steve's new lead? A few other editors above seemed to want something along the lines of his new lead as well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've actually seen it (since I was gone for a couple days, I've just skimmed over large swaths of this convoluted, Bible-length discussion). Where is it exactly? -kotra (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Laughing out loud. It's here:

Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat, (including game and slaughter by-products), fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry.[1][2] There are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products produced from animal labour such as dairy products and honey. In popular vernacular, the word is also sometimes used to denote a diet that is mainly vegetarian but includes some fish, usually with the prefix "pesco" added, i.e. pesco-vegetarianism or combined, i.e. pescitarian.

But taking into consideration what Sylvank has said, Sylvank, let's say we don't mention in the first part of the lead how popular usage of the word vegetarian has muddied its true definition. Let's say we rather mention this in the part of the lead right after pescetarianism is introduced. We note how some semi-vegetarians, particularly pescetarians, consider themselves vegetarians, which has led to impoper usage of the term, how Merriam Webster (in 2008) has even defined pescetarians as vegetarians who eat fish, and then note how the Vegetarian Society feels about this. Would you be opposed to that? Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Merriam Webster phrases things in simple ways to make it suitable for non-native speakers. The definition of Pescetarian as "a vegetarian whose diet includes fish" does mean that you can conclude that vegetarians eat fish. This dictionary is not attempting to give tight definitions but something easy to understand. An example will illustrate this:

ape1 a: monkey; especially : one of the larger tailless or short-tailed Old World forms b: any of two families (Pongidae and Hylobatidae) of large tailless semierect primates (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon) —called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape. (the Ape article only mentions the usage to cover monkeys in the second paragraph)

--Q Chris (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying, Q Chris, that even though we would be listing pescetarianism in the semi-vegetarianism part of the lead, all that stuff about how the word vegetarian is misused in popular usage to include semi-vegetarianism, particularly pescetarianism, mentioning that the Merriam Webster has defined pescetarians as vegetarians who eat fish, then the Vegetarian Society's stance on all this will still lead people to believe that vegetarians eat fish? If so, I don't belive that for one second. Let's not act like people are that dumb (even if slow). And note that this suggestion of mine is not that different than how we already introduce pescetarianism in the semi-vegetarianism section along with the dispute; this is just a little extra. We don't have to mention the Merriam Webster. It can easily stay as "Pescetarianism (also called pesco-vegetarianism) has been defined as a vegetarian whose diet includes fish" and all that other stuff that we agree to be noted after that. This is not that different than my original alteration of the lead, except now I'm not against fish being in the first part of the lead as much as I was before, and this is not that different than how the lead currently is. Flyer22 (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose this, or something close to this:

Semi-vegetarianism consists of a diet largely of vegetarian foods, but may include poultry along with fish, as well as dairy products and eggs. The association of semi-vegetarianism with vegetarianism in popular vernacular, particularly pescetarianism (also coined as pesco-vegetarianism and recently defined as a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish[4][5][6][7]), has led to improper categorization of these diets as vegetarian. The Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, has condemned the association of semi-vegetarian diets as valid vegetarianism; fish is not vegetarian, they cite.[8]

--Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For me, it is important that Wikipedia's editorial voice not describe any usage as "misuse" or "improper". We can say that the Vegetarian Society and most vegetarians consider such-and-such to be a misuse or an improper use of a word, but we ourselves must stay neutral on the issue of whether such usage is proper or not. —Angr 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Well it could go this way. Or, again, something close to this:

Semi-vegetarianism consists of a diet largely of vegetarian foods, but may include poultry along with fish, as well as dairy products and eggs. The association of semi-vegetarianism with vegetarianism in popular vernacular, particularly pescetarianism (also coined as pesco-vegetarianism and recently defined as a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish[4][5][6][7]), has led to what vegetarian groups cite as improper categorization of these diets as vegetarian. The Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular usage of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, has condemned the association of semi-vegetarian diets as valid vegetarianism; fish is not vegetarian, the organization issued.[8]

--Flyer22 (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be OK with your above text being in the sem-vegetarian section of the lead, but with the omission of "and recently defined as a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish". If the vegetarian society is not permitted to define the term then certainly piscatareans should not be able to, and the dictionary entry is certainly not definitive. I think this also avoids use of "propper", "impropper", etc. I Also would not have a problem reordering the lead paragraph so that semi-vegetarian came before vegan, lacto and ovo-lacto. The first paragraph should remain as it is. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Q Chris, it's not pescetarians defining it as that that we are referencing to. But I'm not against excluding it anymore. But would you mind if it just said also coined as pesco-vegetarianism and described as a vegetarian whose diet includes the consumption of fish? Also notice that that part is in parentheses. As for the order...nah, I feel that the actual types of vegetarians should come first, and then trail off into semi-vegetarianism; that's something that I'm not for changing to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, its the word defined I objected to, especially as it was the only place used. I could see future pescatareans saying "well there is a definition on Wikipedia that says it includes fish. I would prefer vegetarians to be quoted in this context to show the disputed usage: also coined as pesco-vegetarianism and described as a "vegetarian" whose diet includes the consumption of fish -- Q Chris (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay (smiles). I felt/feel that something about what pescetarianism is should be in that parentheses, and if not saying defined as, saying described as is quite fine.

Okay, it seems that we have a good new lead for the semi-vegetarianism section of the lead. Any objections? Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to show how it would look, even though we can easily see without this:

Semi-vegetarianism consists of a diet largely of vegetarian foods, but may include poultry along with fish, as well as dairy products and eggs. The association of semi-vegetarianism with vegetarianism in popular vernacular, particularly pescetarianism (also coined as pesco-vegetarianism and described as a "vegetarian" whose diet includes the consumption of fish[4][5][6][7]), has led to what vegetarian groups cite as improper categorization of these diets as vegetarian. The Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular usage of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, has condemned the association of semi-vegetarian diets as valid vegetarianism; fish is not vegetarian, the organization issued.[8] --Flyer22 (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've unprotected. Knock yourselves out. —Angr 09:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's brave of you, Angr, LOL. Anyway, I went ahead and inserted the new lead for the semi-vegetarianism part that we just discussed. The part where it says "has led to what vegetarian groups cite as improper categorization of these diets as vegetarian" should probably be cited, though. Unless noting the Vegetarian Society after that, which we do, is seen as proof enough that various other vegetarian groups are against the "semi-vegetarianism is vegetarianism" association. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked some parts to it: Changed it to say that the Vegetarian Society condemns, instead of has condemned, and changed cited to cites. I had, on this talk page, changed cite to the organization issued because I had also changed part of my newly proposed lead to include cite earlier on. But after looking over it again and again, it seemed/seems to flow better just to state cites. Flyer22 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Angr has tweaked it a bit more, which is fine. Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the fourth paragraph as amended. As for the first, are we OK with it as it is now? I've sort of come round to the view that it shouldn't mention pescitarianism there as it has enough coverage in paragraph 4 and we don't want to give it undue weight.Steve3742 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've conceded to let fish stay in the first part of the lead. And I compromised to rather mention a bit about popular vernacular after introducing semi-vegetarianism. Flyer22 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Well as Chris Q, Angr and Kotra seem to be OK with it also, if Sylvank agrees, I guess we will have achieved consensus and can close the RFC.Steve3742 (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The text as current does not unnecessarily waffle on the primary meaning of vegetarianism, but then goes on to explain how semi-vegetarian diets are distinct, and whether they are vegetarian or not can be disputed. This is accurate and I believe is a more appropriate weighting of the subject. I like this approach. --Sylvank (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So, does that mean we can close this RFC? I'm reluctant to do it without agreement as I was criticised for putting it up without agreement. Steve3742 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Who criticized you? I hope that you don't mean me? It's just that I noted on how you put it up before me when I said that I was going to do it. Filing an RfC does not really need consensus, I must point out. And, yes, it seems that we have reached consensus about this. Go ahead and close it. Just answer my question below in this section first, though, and give me a chance to respond afterwards to your answer. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest swapping paragraphs 2 and 3 around. It seems to make more sense to talk of lacto-ovo, lacto and ovo vegetarianism first before then going on to veganism. Para 2 (the old para 3) needs rewriting to separate lacto-ovo and lacto vegetarianism also. I'll do these - nobody's really expressed any opinion on paras 2 and 3 so it shouldn't violate any consensus that may be forming.Steve3742 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve, don't you feel that the strictest form of vegetarianism (veganism) should go first, then the less strict, which leads into semi-vegetarianism? That's how I feel, and which is why when I first added the different types of vegetarianism to the lead days ago, I lined it up as such. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, it makes more sense the other way round. But I see the point of starting with Veganism and moving outwards, so to speak. I'm not that bothered about it, swap them back if you want.Steve3742 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I switched it, going from strictest to less strict. Let me know if you ever want to talk that lineup over again. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Source for definition of "vegetarianism".

The first citation on the page is to Ask Oxford, and while this is an adequate reference to the meaning of "pescetarian" which is now defined in the semi-vegetarian section of the lead-in, I don't believe it's ideal for the meaning of vegetarian. Is there any reason that the Vegetarian Society UK, the popular originators of the word (it may have been coined earlier, but they deliberately put it into the public consciousness with the intended meaning), should not be the first reference for the meaning of the word? --Sylvank (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the first reference for pescetarianism is to the Gary Null book, and contains no quote or page number for the citation. The AskOxford link may be more appropriate here. --Sylvank (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The references have been kept over from the old version of the page. I don't think anyone would have a problem with you moving them. The pescetarianism ref could be moved to paragraph 4, perhaps, and the Vegetarian Society (or any other authoritative reference) put in its place.Steve3742 (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the VegSoc definition, moved the AskOxford link to the pescetarianism section. --Sylvank (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Oxford reference completely, per what I stated below in this section right after this comment. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Gary Null reference should stay; that section is stating that a pescetarian has been described as a vegetarian who eats fish, which is why those four references are there, because that's what they are doing. We can add a quote from the book to that reference, but I don't feel that it's needed, since it has a url link that currently allows people to see that page. It also names the number of pages in the book, even though it does not name the specific page of its "pescetarian is a vegetarian" text. If we do not use that reference, then it should be replaced with any of the various other valid references that I gave listing or describing pescetarians as vegetarians. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I went ahead and traded out the Gary Null reference with a different reference, as well as for one of the other references at that part. I still did not put a quote or rather list how it is listed in that first reference, though. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And, yeah, the Vegetarian Society reference should go first over that Oxford reference, since that Oxford reference is rather speaking of pescetarians. Just discard that Oxford reference; it is not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vegans and animal derived materials

I removed pearls, down, and coral from the list of materials vegans avoid, not because there aren't vegans who may, but because these materials are rarely mentioned in relation to veganism: fur, leather, silk, and wool are the main ones. Additionally, some vegans may not object to using previously harvested items (eg. antique pearls, shell combs) or items that don't deprive the animal: found feathers, shells, etc. My purpose here isn't to quibble; but rather it's the previously listed materials that we can be most confident vegans avoid. --Sylvank (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible. There is so little information on pearls and coral that inclusion if it could be considered original research. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever met a vegan who could afford pearls, even if she didn't have an ethical objection to them! ;-) —Angr 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was fine to remove those items from the vegan "such as.." sentence, particularly since this is the Vegetarianism article. However, just because an item is not frequently mentioned as non-vegan, or expensive, does not mean that it is accepted by vegans. The defintion of vegan is clear that pearls, down, coral, horse-hair violin bows, shells, or shellac,etc. are animal products and so are excluded from veganism. And while not all, or perhaps not even many, vegans avoid all of these products, that does not change the precept. There is no question that vegans, such as Pamela Anderson, can afford any animal product but choose not to use them. Bob98133 (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just kidding about the expense issue, as I hoped would be recognizable from the presence of a winking smiley face at the end of my comment. —Angr 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)