Jump to content

Talk:Vegetarianism

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jds10 (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 20 May 2010 (mushrooms aren't plants). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Minor Change to Intro Wording Section

" A pescetarian diet, for example, includes "fish but no meat".[5] "

This is cited under Mirriam Webster, but "Fish but no meat", implies that fish is NOT meat, when fish is in fact, meat. it should say "fish but no OTHER meat". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.25.10 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, IP. Sorry for the late reply. This has been discussed a few times before. For example, check the fish: meat, not meat, or "meat" (21) in Archive 10 (above). It is also explained well enough in the lead. See where we state "With these diets, the word 'meat' is often defined as only mammalian flesh"? Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main article picture

Please put a picture at the top of the page. Thank you. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.26.95 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What might be appropriate? Ideas? - Sinneed 14:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP, we have discussed the main image often, but nobody can agree on which image to use. Sometimes, there are objections to a simple picture of vegetables, which was the main image for this article for a long time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is everybody okay with this change by the IP (known as 124.176.53.227 under that edit)? I just wanted to say that I am okay with this being the main image instead of where it was previously placed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ok with this image. As you might recall, that particular image was used before and we removed it from the top because it is misleading to illustrate vegetarianism with it. Vegetarianism is not about whole fruits and vegetables. The majority of vegetarians in the world consume dairy, and many more also consume eggs. Even vegans do not typically subsist on whole raw foods, but prepared food (and not rarely including junk food, just like everyone else). -kotra (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What defines vegetarians is what they don't eat, not what they eat. Thus what would be appropriate to illustrate the concept would be an image of... meat, or of living animals. Or perhaps something along that line. David Olivier (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kotra, the lead makes clear what vegetarians eat and do not eat. I do not believe that a simple picture of vegetables and fruits is going to lead people to believe that's all vegetarians eat. I consume dairy products as well (cheese, milk when needed to make certain foods, and icecream). Occasionally...I even eat eggs, when I need a quick source of protein (though I am trying to give up eggs completely), and I am not offended by that image. Would most vegetarians really object to that image? Of course, we are not going to find an image to completely represent vegetarianism. For a lot of articles on Wikipedia, the main image does not completely represent the topic.
Olivierd, I am not sure that a picture of meat would be the best way to go for this article. What would we put in the caption, "Vegetarians do not eat meat"? I mean, that seems pretty obvious. But I do not feel very strongly about whatever is decided for the main image, if anything. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would object to a picture of meat. That would be in bad taste for an article on vegetarianism. A better idea would be to find a picture of foods that vegetarians really do eat. This could well include dairy products and eggs, since those are vegetarian foods. A few years ago a book was published called Hungry Planet: What the World Eats. (Some pictures are available here [1].) I think several vegetarian websites and forums picked up on the idea and published pictures of the foods eaten by vegetarians around the world. If you think that kind of picture would be a good idea, I can ask around and see if someone is willing to publish their pictures under a compatible licence. I'm not opposed to reinstating the vegetables image you're talking about here either. TheLastNinja (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, I agree that none of the photos of a display of food we have currently available to us completely represent vegetarianism... but I would go farther and argue that this particular one doesn't accurately represent vegetarianism at all. This one in question might be appropriate for Raw veganism (though probably not, even there). But just as there is not one photo available to us that accurately represents food, there is not one (that I know of) for such a broad category for vegetarianism. That is not to say one is impossible, just we don't have it yet. I think TheLastNinja is on to something good in this regard. Not that we need constrain ourselves to photos: a vegetarian symbol could be a good lead image, if there is one that's fairly recognizable. I would even be happy with the Indian vegetarian labeling symbol (the left of ), as India has the majority of the world's vegetarians. This is all assuming we need a lead image, which of course is not the case.
And just to clarify, I'm not saying vegetarians will be offended by that photo (I'm not), it's just misleading. We shouldn't worry about being offensive on Wikipedia, but we should be worried about being misleading. -kotra (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see it as misleading, Kotra, but I agree that TheLastNinja is on to something good regarding the lead image. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked around to see if I could find vegetarian versions of the "What the world eats" series (mentioned above). The one I like the best so far is from Flickr: [2]. TheLastNinja (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I feel about people being such prominent elements of the picture, but this could be adequate, maybe with a caption like "A week's food for an American vegetarian family of five.". Assuming the photographer is willing to change the copyright status to a Wikipedia-compatible license. -kotra (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the people are part of the concept in the "What the world eats" series. Personally I think having people in the picture makes it a lot more interesting (psychologically). (I would prefer no celebrities though, just ordinary people.) How do others feel about people vs. no people? I've hunted around for more pictures like this, but not had much luck unfortunately. Another idea I have is to find a picture of a set table or buffet table filled with different vegetarian dishes, and maybe some people sitting around the table as well. Do you think this idea would work? Some examples: [3], [4]. TheLastNinja (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new lead image is great. Not sure how I feel about images of celebrities being in the article. Images of "regular people" should be fine to all, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new lead image is better (because it includes dairy). Not ideal or perfect of course, for a number of reasons, but I think it's better than nothing until something more representative can be found. Thanks for your efforts, TLN! -kotra (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarianism and veganism

I have marked this new article, Vegetarianism and veganism with a PROD flag and a couple of article tags. Interested editors might take a look and improve the article or simply comment on the PROD or tags. This was placed here at the article top. I dropped it, and the other article-top SA.- Sinneed 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were good to prod it. I can't understand why it was even made when there are already Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, separately. Was it made by a new user? Wait, I'll check. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see why it was created (to tackle politics), but it should have a different title (in addition to major cleanup, such as references). Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation clutter

This page is getting hard to load because of the citation templates and the over-referencing (186 refs for 6,600 words). I'm going to start converting these back to manual refs, and moving or removing some of the repetitive ones, just in case anyone wonders what I'm doing. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, SlimVirgin. Good job tweaking. But in the Varieties of vegetarianism section, you took away the Semi-vegetarianism diets subheading. I'm just wondering if everyone is okay with that, since there are vegetarians, including here, who object to semi-vegetarianism being considered vegetarian and would rather keep mention of it separate, like we do in the lead. As this article says, most strict vegetarians do not consider semi-vegetarianism to be vegetarianism at all. I will add a little info you took out about why people start semi-vegetarian diets and the parts specifying what each diet is, but will leave whether or not to add back the subheading to debate. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as for referencing, I prefer citation templates; I feel that it is neater, and I know that most GA and FA articles are required to have their references "properly formatted" (citation templates). But if you and others feel that citation templates are not best for this article, I will go along with that. I added back a few references to the lead, though, due to those who might challenge such information (it has been a problem in the past). Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, I reverted your changes, but I intend to restore them, just without the templates. They are slowing the article down to the point where I can hardly get it to load; preview and diffs are particularly bad. It's not correct that GA or FA are required to have templates, and if you could show me what gave you that impression I'd appreciate it so that I can remove it. In addition WP:CITE says not to add them to properly formatted references, or to articles without consensus. The problem is that they clutter up the text, make it hard to edit (which leads to poor writing), and make it slow to load when there are lots of them, as there are here. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I went back to restore, but all you did was add the templates back, so I'm unsure now of what you were wanting to change. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the semi-vegetarian heading, we already describe some semi-vegetarian diets in that section, so to add a new heading but without those categories in it might look a little odd. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, what gave me the impression that GA or FA articles are usually required to have reference templates is what I have seen during most GA and FA nominations. Most editors passing those articles feel that citation templates are neater and display more or more accurate information, such as who wrote the articles (which is something people often forget to do without citation templates). It also helps to not unnecessarily duplicate references; here is an example of that. I did that without adding the citation template back, but people often do not do that without citation templates. And, no, all I did was not add the templates back. I added back citations to the "With these diets, the word 'meat' is often defined as only mammalian flesh" bit, which, yes, needs citations (because whether or not fish is meat/vegetarian has been an issue in the past). I also tweaked the Varieties of vegetarianism section, as this revert shows.
As for not adding citation templates to "properly formatted" references, or to articles without consensus (I take the "articles without consensus" bit to mean well-watched articles), the opposite (do not add non-templated references without consensus) can be said for well-watched articles that do use them. I do not have a big problem with your removing the citation templates from this article, but it would have been better to see if most of us here agree with you first. I am okay with your changing the reference format style, as long as it is consistent, but try not to remove references from parts that need them. As stated, you undid all my edits. I ask that you try to better spot my changes in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed all that I changed earlier back (what you reverted), but without the citation templates.[5][6]
The Semi-vegetarianism subheading section? I explained that above, but I have not added it back...since no one has objected to its removal. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Appeal to nature" fallacy

The "Psychology" subsection begins with a warning about the Appeal to Nature logical fallacy. I don't necessarily have a problem with this being mentioned, but it seems out of place. There is no clarification, and no link to the other contents of the section. Perhaps it could be rephrased to note that while some people view vegetarianism as "natural", and thus as "good", that this reasoning could be considered fallacious. Or the sentence could be removed altogether, since it has no direct relation to the article. --N-k (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise wording trying to put an end to an edit war, IIRC. I believe the logical falacy and the attached warning can probably simply be dropped. Again.- Sinneed 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I didn't mean to restart an old dispute. The entire sentence seems fairly irrelevant. Readers can make up their own minds when it comes to arguments for and against vegetarianism. --N-k (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section seems completely irrelevant. :) I don't think the original adding editor/edit warrior edits WP any longer.- Sinneed 15:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soy and isoflavones

In the subsection "Gender" there is some discussion of health concerns potentially associated with soy. This has no relation to this article. While vegetarians in the U.S. do tend to eat more soy than omnivores, there is no direct relation between vegetarianism and soy products. There is no reason to believe that vegetarians are more likely to feed their infants soy formula. Omnivores can use soy formula, and vegetarians need not eat any soy at all. This should be removed. --N-k (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural subsection

In the subsection "Cultural", the second paragraph seems irrelevant. What is "limited vegetarianism", and what is the relevance of this "meme" experiment mentioned? It seems so marginal that it should be removed. --N-k (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Mushrooms and fungi aren't plants

The article keeps referring to vegetarian and vegan diets as plant based. Few vegetarians and vegans avoid mushrooms and other fungi, which belong to an entirely different kingdom than plants. Fungi may not be the core of their diets, but they still are part of them. Jds10 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vegetarianism&oldid=363109376"