Talk:Vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
January 9, 2006 Peer review Reviewed

Find sources: "Vegetarianism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Religion - Hinduism[edit]

According to Hindu-Buddhist philosophy, using pesticides in field crops cause many animals to be killed, probably more so than all meat eaters combined. Clearing large areas for crops also causes hardship to many animals who are displaced as a result of this. Being vegetarian does not mean that no animals have been killed in cultivating crops and any ethical arguments to support this perception does not hold up.[1]

Vegetarianism has also led to possible displacement of the Indus Valley civilization to the east (Bihar) and/or may have merged with an older settlement there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.10.54 (talkcontribs)

References

  1. ^ "To Cherish All Life [buddhanet.net;". buddhanet.net. 1982. Retrieved October 1, 2014. 

Recent edits[edit]

I'm bringing this matter to the talk page because it is clear that NightShadow23 will keep reverting instead of creating a discussion section to make his case. He is clearly aware of the WP:Edit warring policy, like I am.

I twice reverted NightShadow23 on a lead matter, seen here and here, because it makes more sense and flows better to note what an ovo-vegetarian diet includes, what a lacto-vegetarian diet includes, and then what an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet includes. I also reverted because of the following sentence: "One of the main differences between a vegan and a lacto-vegetarian diet is the avoidance of dairy products." Not only is that sentence unsourced, it is completely unneeded. There is no need to differentiate a vegan diet from a lacto-vegetarian diet in the lead. Furthermore, the lead already makes clear what a vegan diet entails; it states, " A vegan diet excludes all animal products, including eggs and dairy."

I also reverted NightShadow23 on this table because it is redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted myself on the table since it gives a quick breakdown of the categories. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed the difference, but leave the correct order (see Semi-vegetarianism). Please do not touch the table. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
NightShadow23, what are you even talking about? This order is not any more correct than the order that was there. I gave my reason for liking the previous order. You've given no reason for why the order you reverted to is better. All you have done is pointed to the Semi-vegetarianism article, which lists lacto vegetarianism first, ovo vegetarianism next, and ovo-lacto vegetarianism third; it places the ovo-lacto vegetarianism mention last, just like the lead did before you came along and tinkered with it. I don't like that your change starts out talking about ovo-lacto vegetarianism without first separately noting what the combinations are. As for telling me not to mess with the table, I can if I want to. That stated, I do not have the patience to debate you further on these minor issues. If I see you making other unnecessary or silly edits, I will challenge you on those, and the fact that you are an edit warrior will be to your disadvantage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to. I essentially have those pages and a number of other Wikipedia pages memorized. But I suggest you read up on what a valid argument is. And thoroughly read WP:Edit warring. And read the WP:BRD essay after that. You were reverted on changes to longstanding material; it was your job to make a valid case for the changes. You did not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Did you read WP:WAR? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Primary studies[edit]

There has been some edit warring over inclusion of “Vegetarian diet and mental disorders: results from a representative community survey” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466124/ . As this is a human health related study, WP:MEDRS applies. This study is based on analysis of a single German Health Interview and Examination Survey and its Mental Health Supplement (GHS-MHS). The study size was: Completely vegetarian (N = 54) and predominantly vegetarian (N = 190) participants were compared with non-vegetarian participants (N = 3872) and with a non-vegetarian socio-demographically matched subsample (N = 242). MEDRS strongly favors avoiding primary sources in favor of reviews, though it does describe the possible inclusion of conclusions from 'large RCTs with surprising results'. I don't think this study meets the threshold of weight for inclusion. I would like to see what others think. Dialectric (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget the primary source on IQ. If one stays, so does the other. These sources of are equal quality and equal importance. If one goes, so does the other.Petergstrom (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dialectric: Yup - not reliable source: removed. @Petergstrom: the other source relates IQ and vegetarianism and it's debatable whether this is WP:Biomedical information and so whether WP:MEDRS applies. Per WP:SCIRS we probably should not use it; it also seems undue and its use smacks of WP:ADVOCACY. Your edit-warring has seemed rather WP:POINTy and that is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So removal?Petergstrom (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the IQ info as I agree that we should be consistent and per WP:SCIRS we shouldn't be citing primary research, especially in such a broad article as this. SmartSE (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
One might also want to keep an eye on Petergstrom's edits to the Veganism article. JackNocturne (talk · contribs) tweaked one of his additions, which misrepresented data. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The current wording for that edit should also be tweaked since the source is not about veganism in the general population. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing was misrepresented, veganism in Hong Kong and India is a pretty good sample, and makes up a considerable percentage of the vegan population.Petergstrom (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed a misrepresentation to state "Vitamin B-12 deficiency occurs in roughly 80% of the vegan population.", when the source is specifically talking about one or two parts of the world. If the source is specifically about the United States, for example, we are not supposed to state "Vitamin B-12 deficiency occurs in roughly 80% of the vegan population." We are supposed to state, "In the United States, Vitamin B-12 deficiency occurs in roughly 80% of the vegan population." Bottom line is that you repeatedly give me reasons not to trust your editing and, if I continue to see this type of poor editing from you, I will be taking the matter to WP:AN or WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a debatable guideline, not a policy as you are pushing it to be. You might want to check out WP:ESDOS if you have time. Also, this is the vegetarian article talk page, the talk page of the vegan article to which this discussion is relevant is herePetergstrom (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Trying to turn around what I stated to you does not work. My objecting to you misrepresenting a source is not based on WP:MEDRS. And there is no WP:Civility violation in my above post. I stand by what I stated above. I will only warn an editor so many times before I report that editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, not a misrepresentation. The statement was not misleading, and was corroborated as within the range of values cited in the study below it. Petergstrom (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You can keep repeating that it was not a misrepresentation or misleading all you want, but I'm certain that the vast majority of editors would disagree. And that you do not understand that the edit was problematic is all the more reason to scrutinize your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a problem here[1] too: supporting "one study found" with a citation to a review is distinctly NNPOV. (And the markup is mucked-up too.) Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)"

How so? A review is a study, but I guess that may be misleading language.Petergstrom (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know that calling a review "one study" is a problem, then Wikipedia has a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn, as you may know, Jytdog has tried to mentor Petergstrom. One reason that Petergstrom keeps running into trouble is because he will interpret an editor's words either too strictly or not strictly enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)