Talk:Vegetarianism

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

free-range eggs, etc.

Editor Sineed recently removed that vegetarians might prefer free-range eggs from the "Other dietary practices commonly associated with vegetarianism" section. I agree with removing this, since it is not referenced, but I don't agree on it being removed as not relevant to vegetarianism. It's quite possible that vegetarians, or other who think about food sources and production, may prefer locally grown, free-range, etc. products; however, I doubt that there is info to reference how common this is, or even that it amounts to a difference in diet. Bob98133 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it certainly does amount to a difference in diet. What else is it? A difference in farming, yes. But an egg farm ultimately deals with diet. Thus, I think we should look for a reference for the claim, and include it.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. My title ("the fish peddler") is ironic and not meant to convey that I approve of peddling fish. :-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

fish: meat, not meat, or "meat"

In the description of pescetarians, user:Flyer22 citing Merriam-Webster's dictionary edited the article to say: A pescetarian diet, for example, includes "fish but no meat." which is a change from: A pescetarian diet, for example, includes fish but no other meats. I recommend a revert back, because, whether they view it that way or not, fishes are members of the Animalia kingdom, and animal flesh used as food is considered meat, per Wikipedia. Maybe this would be a nice compromise: A pescetarian diet, for example, includes no meat except for fish, which some pescetarians do not view as meat. Still, that wouldn't be true, because they, pescetarians, aren't saying that, unless it's referenced. It's a dictionary saying it. So, I recommend a revert back. What do the rest of you think? And, I'm sure you're doing a good job Flyer22, I don't mean this as a personal attack, but simply trying to find the best way for this article.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Abie the Fish Peddler. This discussion has been had in the past, and recently revisited before now. The definition says "fish but no meat." Most pescetarians, from my experience, also do not consider fish meat; they think of it in that "restrictive sense" the Meat article's lead mentions. Additionally, so do plenty of non-vegetarians. And let us not forget that some dictionaries define fish-eating as vegetarian. If fish was universally considered meat, we would not have to name it in the lead under the things vegetarians do not eat, and the Vegetarian Society would not have to stress it as not being vegetarian. Q Chris changing Webster's definition is not how things are supposed to work here, though I understand that Chris was trying to compromise. We go by sources; the source says "no meat."

When I first brought up the "fish subject" back in 2008, it was because I wanted both viewpoints represented, due to knowing self-proclaimed vegetarians who eat fish. While I myself do not eat fish, I respect their right to call themselves vegetarian; this prompted me to research the term a lot that year, to see why people are always offering me fish even though I am a vegetarian and why a lot of pescetarians classify themselves as vegetarian; what I concluded from sources was that the definition of "vegetarian" had evolved to include fish; others agreed with me. And some did not. Thus, we came to a compromise for the lead. WP:UNDUE and just about every other aspect you can think of was debated here. The point of the lead was/is to present this viewpoint, while also being clear about its position among vegetarians, sort of in the way that the Pedophilia article presents the common usage viewpoint of pedophilia but not without noting its correct definition first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. After reading your words above, and rereading the lede, the quotes seem to be a perfect balance. Thanks for the clear recap on past discussions.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you have not read it yet, here is the link to the most recent discussion I mentioned, which links to the very long, past discussion about this topic more specifically. I realize why I angered some fellow vegetarians back then (in that very long 2008 discussion), but we resolved it civilly enough. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, Abie, if you haven't noticed, we also note this "I'm still a vegetarian" issue in the Semi-vegetarian diets section -- the fish and poultry topic. I personally have not heard as many people who eat chicken, for example, refer to themselves as vegetarian, but I suppose it exists enough for a mention. I am sure that a lot of this confusion exists due to the fact that the words "pescetarian" and "flexitarian" are not in as widespread use as the word "vegetarian" is, and people not knowing how to describe themselves when the only meat they eat is chicken. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For quick future reference, here is a Google link to the big "Fish is not meat" debate; this debate is all over the Internet, and existed long before pescetarians started calling themselves vegetarian (such as in Catholicism). Given its common association with vegetarianism, I felt that it was/is definitely something that should be addressed in the lead. We, of course, have done that.

I don't feel that this common use association will stop any time soon. Many vegetarians are often offered fish (and other seafood), as if it's a usual part of a vegetarian's diet. I recently came across another editor, editor I dream of horses, who it seems faces the same thing (even though linked humorously on her user page). I already mentioned that I face it often; it does not terribly annoy me, but it sometimes makes me want to address the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...the tie-in with Catholicism makes me think it has something to do with Jesus being a fish-eater. Have you come across anything of that sort? If so, maybe we could fill in the Christianity section a little more.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why fish is not considered meat by Catholics, such as on Good Friday, but here is a link to a Catholic forum discussion about it (which is also one of the results from the debate link above). I truly am not sure on this specific matter. Perhaps a Catholic can help, if we have one editing/or looking out for this article? Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Naturalnews.com links

I've removed the citations to naturalnews.com. I don't think this is an appropriate source for an encyclopedia. WP:RS asks us to use "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Naturalnews.com doesn't meet this bar; large parts of it are given over to assertions that the pharmaceutical industry is conspiring to poison and kill patients for money, or that the FDA is in the business of kidnapping alternative-medicine proponents who threaten the status quo. This isn't the sort of source that a serious, respectable reference work should rely upon. And on a topic as visible and well-documented as vegetarianism, there should be a plethora of higher-quality sources on which to rely. MastCell ^Talk 04:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Now, that's really clear! Nice and reasonable catch. And it doesn't even seem like those sentences wil be hurting desperately for lack of a source. They seem covered. By the way, thanks for the generous edit heading, "sorry, my bad". I was starting to wonder whether I'd gotten a little too comfortable here on this article. If anyone feels like I'm moving at a snail's pace, I am not aware of all the archived discussions, and haven't the time just yet to become aware. So, I apologize if I ask yet another person to rehash old info. If you clue me in on my retardation, I'll back off.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all - you were completely right to ask me to elaborate. I probably should have posted here first, but I was sort of on a WP:BRD approach. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please wp:Be Bold, the article has sprouted some bits that just need to GO. It was a good edit, and a good revert, and a good re-cut, and a good discussion, I think. - Sinneed 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie the Fish Peddler, you are no problem at all. You are polite, and take things to the talk page to work them out (for example, you did that before reverting me on the "fish" issue). If anything, I feel that you are a great editor addition to this article. We can always use more editors watching out for this article, and certainly more Wikipedians as respectful as you are. It is only natural that editors who are new to watching/editing certain articles will need to be informed of some past discussions. Are you fairly new to Wikipedia? If so, let me take this time to welcome you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I just noticed this, Flyer22! Very kind of you. I admire your work as well. Cheers!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to "Beyond Vegetarianism"

Why a link to Beyond Vegetarianism on the "External links" section is inappropriate? A link to it was deleted twice. I won't add the link for the third time, but I'd like to know what's the problem with that site, specially when it's already used as a source (#94). 201.50.150.137 (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:EL (and WP:ELNO)? Gabbe (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. After carefully reading WP:EL, I still can't see why this is not an appropriate link. Please, enlighten me. Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. 201.50.150.137 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we add youtube links?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 If so I think this is a decent expose of animal cruelty in the meat industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonova (talk • contribs) 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a source? No. As a link in the "external links" section? Probably not, see WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNO. The video would have to be directly relevant to the topic of vegetarianism, this video seems tangential to the topic. Gabbe (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely non neutral

This article does not show a neutral point of view. Things as vegetarian diet and health are, at least, under debate (specially about vegetarian diet among children), and here are presented as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.110.69 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So, feel free to shape up the article with valid sources cited.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, you are not the first to state that about this article, but everyone who does so does not state specifically what they feel should be done to make it more neutral. And if they do, they do not provide reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-vegetarianism

Should this term be even included in this article?

Based on the UK's Vegetarian societys definition...

"A vegetarian is someone living on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits with or without the use of dairy products and eggs.

A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or slaughter by-products"

see: http://www.vegsoc.org/info/definitions.html

How can somebody be 'half' of this?

There doesn't appear to be any room for grey-area, you are either a vegetarian or you are not. By including the word semi-vegetarian the article confuses people as to what a real vegetarian is.

Are there any traceable origins to the term semi-vegetarian? It just seems to have a sprung up recently with a load of other misleading terms.

For example.. after reading the 'semi-vegetarian' wiki article, it would appear that a semi-vegetarian is just a meat-eater on some kind of restrictive diet, ie atkins, raw meat diet, paleolithic diet etc etc, what types of meats that are / arn't restricted are not even defined.

Eating just one type of meat, no matter how infrequently still makes a person a meat eater, they don't need a special definition for this do they, as surely not every meat eaters habbits are the same. Especially a definition that doens't even define what kinds of meat can / cannot be eaten.

It would be similar to a vegetarian who does not eat celery calling themselves a celertarian or similar, it's just bizzare as surely we all have our own eating habbits based upon our overeall diet.. vegetarian, vegan, meat based, macrobiotic, etc etc.

I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this before re-shaping the article to omit the word 'semi-vegetarian' from the main artcle, and move it to a stub at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neosophist (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The conflict you are addressing... that semi-vegetarians are very much not accepted as vegetarians at all by the society... is the point of the mention. It seems adequately notable. I am certainly amenable to further discussion but would strongly oppose removing it.- Sinneed 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sinneed, and point you to the discussion above...at #fish: meat, not meat, or "meat". Semi-vegetarianism is a notable topic. And whether we agree with these diets being called semi-vegetarianism or not, that is what they are called. Mention of this most definitely belongs in this article. Fish and other seafood have more weight in not being considered meat, though. See the discussion I already linked to. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I also do not believe that anyone is confused about what a vegetarian is after reading the lead of this article; it makes it quite clear. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I also tweaked the lede. I think it's been much improved with all of our efforts. I am remembering that it is the editors who see fault with the article and don't say anything that cause the most harm to WP.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording of lead -- Fish or fishes, and should we specify that fish and birds are animals?

This was taken from my talk page in response to Abie the Fish Peddler about the wording of the semi-vegetarianism part of the article's lead; we encourage others to weigh in on this matter:

Do you really feel that we need to specify that fishes and poultry are animals, though? We make it clear that semi-vegetarians use the word "meat" in a restrictive sense, and that vegetarian groups such as the Vegetarian Society do not consider semi-vegetarian diets to be vegetarian. That already makes it clear that they consider these creatures to be animals. It just seems as though we are undermining our readers' intelligence. As you know, I felt the same way about the addition of omnivorous. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And, oh...I had checked the Fish article before I changed fishes to "fish," and I did not see the word "fishes" used much there. "Fishes" just sounds awkward to me, perhaps because I do not hear many people say "fishes." They usually just say "fish." Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, we're not specifying anything, we are presenting what the vegetarian groups specified, as per the referenced link. As for fish and fishes, I had always thought the difference was between when the animal was prepared as food and when it was in the sea. Your reverting me, caused me to look it up, and I see that it's rather a matter of species than food.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was more a partial revert, LOL. Anyway, I know that we are presenting what the Vegetarian Society specified, but it is still us specifying what they specified. I still see it as unneeded, for the reasons I stated above. It just sounds so unnecessary and as though we are trying to stress to people, "Yeah, you are eating animals."

The fish or fishes section you pointed to in the Fish article notes that those words are often used interchangeably. And that is what I mean. People generally do not state "fishes," and I do not feel that they are wrong for not doing so. While "fishes" may be technically correct, "fish" typically covers different species of fish. Or is it that you feel "fishes" should be used in order to cover sharks and seafood? Most people do not think "shark" when they hear or see the word fish. But they also do not think "shark" when they hear or see the word "fishes." I am okay with leaving it as "fishes" as you have, and it is not as awkward to me now that I have looked at it more, but still... We should probably simply state "...and has led vegetarian groups, such as the Vegetarian Society, to note that such fish/seafood or poultry-based diets are not vegetarian." and leave it at that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it reads better as fish than fishes. As for specifying that fish and birds are animals, people do IMO frequently get the terms mammal and animal confused, believing that fish and birds aren't animals (as they aren't mammals). The cited Vegetarian Society page alludes to this fact so I think it may be worth keeping the clarification but rewording it to sound less patronising. Muleattack (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The current wording looks good to me.. "Fishes" to me means the animal, whereas "fish" (plural) means the meat... but this is just my personal view, not a reliable source of course. Both seem acceptable according to [1][2] (American English, FWIW) so I see need to debate it indefinitely. Mentioning that they are animals seems useful here as it briefly explains VegSoc's reasoning. I do not see the current wording as patronizing, merely explanatory, but if that's a common interpretation, it should be changed. -kotra (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you two for weighing in. I suppose I will leave those parts as they currently are for now. If I can think of what I feel is a better way to word the "fishes and birds are animals" part, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add a "Notes" section

This article has several notes listed among the regular cited references, and would be more accessible in their own section. I will make the move so my intention will be clear, but feel free to revert me, and discuss here. Good day!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I created the section, cleaned a few extraneous references and moved one note to the notes section. I still have more to do, but will have to continue tomorrow.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with a Notes section. The note section should be deleted as well as the notes themselves; if a reference isn't comprehensible when it it reviewed by other editors, notes aren't going to help. Or if that's unacceptable, create a new article Notes for the Vegetarian Article. Bob98133 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Meat-packing industry connotation

With these diets, the word "meat" is often used in its restrictive meat-packing industry connotation.

This is an odd statement. Who says this meaning of "meat" came from the meat-packing industry, and why is that relevant? I assumed it was much older, as it's my understanding that Christian fasting from meat (as in Fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church) did not include fish (hence the misleading phrase "fish on friday").

For these reasons, I've reworded it to leave out mention of meat-packing. -kotra (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that Abie the Fish Peddler stated it that way because the Meat article currently says "The word meat is also used by the meat packing industry in a more restrictive sense—the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish and poultry." Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And, you are correct in your surety, though I feel no allegiance to that "meat-packing industry" line. I actually prefer Kotra's version.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Animal-to-human disease transmissions section.

An IP feels that this section is biased, because it comes from "biased books." I replaced the IP's tag with a neutrality tag, but that IP should come to this talk page and state his or her concerns. We cannot work on making that section more neutral unless we also see this bias the IP speaks of, or at least help to make that section more neutral even if we do not see the bias. I do not see this supposed bias. And if the IP does not come to this talk page to state his or her concerns, the neutrality tag should be removed. No tag should be placed on that section unless it is clear what the perceived problems are. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22's assessment. But I don't even think we should wait.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what the anonymous IP meant is that the sources used are mostly books favouring vegetarianism. Per WP:MEDRS we should prefer medical textbooks, position papers, articles published in reputable peer-reviewed journals and other such high quality sources when dealing with medical claims. I assume the books mentioned in this article all have citations to reputable medical journals in them, so it shouldn't be too hard to look these up to list the original references. Gabbe (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, that sounds reasonable. I move for citing more secondary sources.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am the person ("IP") who deems most of these sources unreliable as they are clearly advocating a vegetarian diet (or any diet, for that matter). I completely agree with Gabbe that medical topics should primarily be backed up by reputable medical sources. Partisan sources might not necessarily lie, but spread misinformation by exaggerating the relative risks. It is also a matter of verifiability; for example, I was unable to find/verify the studies mentioned in Hill, John Lawrence (1996). The case for vegetarianism. You are right that I am biased myself, but only in favour of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.95.114 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No one here has called you biased, IP. And thank you for explaining your concerns. I definitely see what you and Gabbe mean. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes considered vegetarian

As such, diets which consist largely of vegetarian foods but also include fish or poultry are sometimes considered vegetarian.

I see this sentence as problematic because "are sometimes considered vegetarian" sounds like "in certain contexts, these are considered vegetarian"; claiming the pescetarianism = vegetarianism view as an occasionally true fact. The intended meaning, however, is "some people consider it vegetarian". When I hear "sometimes considered vegetarian", I think things like "considered vegetarian when it's just a little bit of fish" or "considered vegetarian on certain holidays" or such; it sounds like an objective judgment of fact as opposed to a subjective, individual viewpoint. That is why I prefer we be more specific that we mean "some people" consider it vegetarian.

Unfortunately, Flyer22 is correct that "considered by some" is a weasel word. To fix this, we should be specific as to who considers pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism. Pescetarianism cites Shorter Oxford English Dictionary that basically does this. I do not think that is enough, though, as SOED doesn't say it bases its definition of "vegetarian" on the definition of "meat". I have been searching for other reliable sources to cite for those who consider pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism, and have unfortunately not found any. But I think this is the necessary way to go, since the current wording seems misleading (to me anyway). -kotra (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"are sometimes mistaken as vegetarian" ? Muleattack (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid saying outright it's wrong like that; better to say "Vegetarian Society says it's wrong" and such; we don't decide these people are mistaken or not, but we can cite others who have decided that. -kotra (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kotra, the pescetarianism = vegetarianism view is an occasionally true fact. Have you, as a vegetarian (I believe that you are one), never been offered fish? It has certainly happened to a lot of other vegetarians, and is so commonly thought of as vegetarian that the Vegetarian Society felt they had to speak out about it. I mentioned above that it (being offered fish, when people know that I am a vegetarian) has happened to me often, as if fish is a normal part of a vegetarian diet. However, I have not come across as many people who believe that eating chicken is vegetarian. It is usually seafood that is sometimes considered to be vegetarian. Who considers eating fish or poultry to be vegetarian cannot be specified to just one group. There are various reliable online articles, and books on Google Books categorizing fish or poultry-eating as vegetarian, but we cannot specify these views to one or even just two groups of people.

I am not sure how to word it if you still object to the current wording. Let's all try to think of a different alternative, one that does not involve us out-right calling these people wrong (for the reasons Kotra stated). Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(re: Flyer22) I think you are confusing fact with opinion. Certainly there are people who think pescetarian is a form of vegetarianism. This is opinion. I was saying "sometimes considered vegetarian" sounds to me like this opinion is sometimes not just an opinion, it is a true fact. As in, "sometimes we, society as a whole, consider pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism". I do not think we are intending to make that claim. A subset of society considers pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism all the time, not all society considers pescetarianism a form of vegetarian sometimes. That is the problem I see with the current wording. -kotra (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for further explaining what you mean. I still do not see it as coming across that way, but I understand how you do. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposed way of putting it: "Vegetarianism is a diet which is more commonly adopted individually, as opposed to one which a person is born into. Given the prevalence of meat-eating in many cultures, as well as personal tastes and beliefs, people have adopted a spectrum of variations on vegetarianism..." And then we could go on to explain semi-vegetarianism, pescetarianism, veganism, etc. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are proposing that for the beginning of the lead? In either case, I would have to say I would not be for that wording. That is giving too much weight to different views on what vegetarianism is. It is saying that vegetarianism can basically mean anything, considering how people define it. Sure, people can define things how they want. But vegetarianism is not truly considered to involve meat-eating, as we know. The main reason fish gets as "pass" is because a lot of people do not consider fish to be meat. Which means that even in that case...vegetarianism is still considered a meat-less diet. We have to be clear about what the prominent definition of what vegetarianism is, then go into the semi-vegetarianism stuff...like the lead already does. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this is what I propose for the complete introductory section:

Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet.[1][2] Vegetarianism may be adopted for ethical, health, environmental, religious, political, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or other reasons.

Vegetarianism is more commonly adopted on an individual basis, through development of personal tastes and belief systems, as opposed to diets which people ascribe to by being born into a culture which conditions its members for.(ref)http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/4/1061(ref) Given the prevalence of carnivorism in many cultures,ref needed as well as the wide-array of tastes and beliefs, people have adopted many variations on vegetarianism, including some which are contested as not being vegetarian at all. A semi-vegetarian diet consists largely of vegetarian foods, but may include fish and sometimes poultry, as well as dairy products and eggs. With these diets, the word "meat" is often defined as only mammalian flesh.[3] A pescetarian diet, includes "fish but no meat".[4] The colloquial application of the word "vegetarian" to such diets[5] has led vegetarian groups, such as the Vegetarian Society, to clarify that such fish or poultry-based diets are not vegetarian, due to the fact that fishes and birds are animals.[6]

Veganism, fructarianism, lacto-ovo vegetarianism and other such diets are seen as denominations within the broader definition of vegetarianism.

--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the "colloquial application" sentence, it solves the problem I raised fairly well. I do think there is a problem with the premise of the "commonly adopted on an individual basis" sentence, though. The reference you cited doesn't seem to mention vegetarianism, and in any case, it is only true for vegetarians in western society, who make up a minority of the world's vegetarians. By far the most vegetarians in the world are in India, where it is a cultural/religious practice; most vegetarians there are in fact "born into it". I do not have statistics or studies on this on hand, but we would need a better citation for that sentence if we were to include it I think. -kotra (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so what if we take out the first sentence? Here's a nice, simple version, I think will work:

Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet.[1][2] Vegetarianism may be adopted for ethical, health, environmental, religious, political, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or other reasons.

People have adopted many variations on vegetarianism, including some such as veganism and lacto-ovo vegetarianism, which are seen as denominations within the broader definition of vegetarianism, and some such as semi-vegetarianism and pescetarianism whose designation as vegetarian is contested.[3][4][5][6]

--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I favor this version of the lede is mainly because it doesn't spell everything out right in the lede. It does give the majority-held definition, it does mention variations on vegetarianism, and it even hints at some debate. And then, the next section is where we have spelled out the issue of varieties of vegetarianism in detail.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new lead

I find the proposed lead too short and more confusing. This is a large and complex issue. I think the lead needs to be carefully expanded, and I think it has (despite the many setbacks) been slowly improving.- Sinneed 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sinneed. I prefer the current lead. It covers all the points adequately. I get that Abie the Fish Peddler is trying to help Kotra's problem with that one part of the lead, but I do not feel that the lead needs such a drastic re-do all just to better word one sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit, even I prefer the lede as it is now to the lede I proposed above. However, Kotra's problem, is now our problem. I feel the lede is near perfect. And, though it will keep growing and changing through time, I feel that there is a "perfect" state, or state of consensus, which we can bring the article to, at the present time. The lede currently says "sometimes" as opposed to "some people" or "some situations" which would be more accurate, and just as easily understood. Thus, I propose the swapping in of this line: "As such, in some colloquial situations, diets which consist largely of vegetarian foods but which also include fish or poultry are considered vegetarian." Yes, the last suggestions were a little radical. Sorry, I didn't warn you before I made them. But, I'm back to reasonable suggestions now. (At least, I think I am.)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Biomagnification

Has there been done any research of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet in relationship to biomagnification?--158.39.241.19 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)