Jump to content

Talk:Meat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vizorblaze (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 17 January 2023 (→‎Culture section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

The first word in the section "Meat#History_2" should be "A", not "An". 82.132.184.247 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of complex words

Proper use of complex words so people older than 7 years understand or say bye bye to those viewers. 41.113.181.103 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have examples of this? And there is the Simple English Wikipedia and simple:Meat for people who can't handle this article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence about burnt meat in intro

@user:bon courage seems to have issues with the sources here. The main medical source, the National Cancer Institute, clearly satisfies WP:MEDRS. In the article, it lists various reasons why PAHs and HCAs were thought to be dangerous to humans, including the fact that the have been proven to be carcinogenic to animals. However, they explain that getting data about their effect on humans is difficult because of testing methods, and that a definitive link between PAHs/HCAs and cancer has not been found. Therefore, I changed the wording of my edit to say that PAHs and HCAs are thought to be dangerous. Does this still misrepresent the source? Additionally, there is a section in the article's body about Cooking meat and the negative health effects. Why is adding one sentence about this section to the intro a WP:LEDEBOMB? Brian Shaposky (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What sourced material from the body are you proposing to summarize in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meat#Cooking. It is not worded so elegantly here but it is talking about the dangers of eating burnt meat. A sentence in the intro saying that high temp cooking meat can cause these chemicals to form, and that they might be dangerous, is a good way to summarize it. Brian Shaposky (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably undue since the actual known adverse health effects of eating meat aren't mentioned. Without that, jumping to the speculative stuff would seem odd. Bon courage (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger of Red Meat article into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There is substantial overlap of the Meat article and the Red Meat article. I propose that these articles be merged.sbelknap (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Culture section

The culture section is two sentences sharing a single source, making a WP:SKYISBLUE wrong statement. It is trivial to point out the existence of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It isn't very difficult to find examples of vegetarian discussion in the western world during any period of history.

Current text: Culture For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet.[32]: 1  Only in the 20th century did it begin to become a topic of discourse and contention in society, politics and wider culture.[32]: 11

Suggested text: Blank

Vizorblaze (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is, rather than delete, can we expand by noting that Buddhist and Hindu vegetarian traditions have existed, but that it was in the 20th century that it began to become a topic of discourse in secular society and wider culture? I think that's the point to be made, that not eating meat started to become a matter of ecological and animal welfare concern, rather than religious tradition. But, obviously, the key is, do sources back that up? —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The basic premise that vegetarianism wasn't discussed until recently is just plain incorrect. You suggest expanding it to say there was no secular discussion around this until the 20th century, but that is also not true. I could point out countless obvious examples of secular discourse about meat and the human diet from around the world and throughout history. The page already has a portal linking to vegetarianism, do we really need a "culture" section that isn't about "meat eating culture"? Vizorblaze (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we have a "sociology" section that discusses all of this intl the article already. I just noticed it. I think that alone justifies not expanding this tiny untrue section and just blanking it, leaving the bigger sociology section to cover it. Vizorblaze (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]