Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 2

Really?

"A number of studies of the life expectancy of people practicing different diets consistently find that those who eat restricted amounts of meat live the longest, closely followed by vegetarians followed by unrestricted diet followed by vegans."

I know it says citation needed, but where are these studies? If there are no citations, then it has no place in the article.

Wool

How does harvesting wool kill an animal? Wool was listed among fabrics a vegetarian may not wear in the first section, saying that this was because it is involved in the death of an animal. I'm sorry, what? --Cassius987 01:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheep on most wool-producing farms are often treated poorly, and often do end up being sold for meat. Ralphael 18:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Then wool and meat industries are completely complementary. I live in NZ, one of the largest producers of wool in the world, and have considerable first hand experience with the industry. Almost every sheep here ends up in a slaughterhouse at the end of it's wool producing life, to provide low quality meats and other meat derived products. Mostlyharmless 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a very neutral article???

In the Pkecker's opinion, this article is in need of reworking to give it a more neutral point of view.

Sources, absolutely need to be provided. This will refute any claims of expertise from non-vegetarian activists on their expertise on the veg community. Appearently the Pkecker can define it for the world.

Several of the quotes in the "Non religious motivations" section have no source at all (e.g., "The amount of veg protein fed to the US beef herd would feed almost the entire populations of India and China - two billion people."),

Sorry for the mid-comment comment, but this is probably ballpark accurate, though it should be sourced better. According to statistics in a recent frontpage NYTimes article on US corn production, roughly 80% of US corn is fed to animals, the remainder is either eaten domestically or exported (and presumably ~80% of exported corn also fed to animals). Corn is one of the largest US food crops, and rates of animal usage are similar for soy and most other major grain crops. It doesn't take a genius to see that, distribution aside, feeding these crops directly to people would feed a very large proportion of the world's population. NTK 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

and the vast majority of the quotes are only attributed to a general group (e.g., WHO, Cornell University, Reading University), with no specific publication that the quote came from or what individual from the groups made the original statement. There are lots of people from Cornell and Reading who are probably very intelligent, but them being from the university doesn't make them experts on vegetarianism. We need to know more about the source of the quote to determine it's merit.

The other problem I have with this article is that it includes nothing about potential problems associated with vegetarianism. The main thing that comes to mind now is the possibility of a Vitamin B12 deficiency...but I'm sure that there are others. I saw that the B12 issue came up in an earlier discussion, but it doesn't look like it was definitively resolved. There is also no section about problems that can arise when babies/infants/children are on this diet. There should be a section on the possible hazards associated with a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle.

I'm certainly no expert on this field, but I'm going to do more research and see what I can find...if anyone has any info on these specific items, please include what you know in the article. In the meantime, I think a non-neutral point of view notification should be put on the article.Pkeck 21:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed some material that I thought was biased. There is a separate article on vegetarian nutrition. —Joe Jarvis 17:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also the ADA is a philanthropic organisation, not an independent panel of experts. It supports charities. It's not a neutral body. I think it needs to be tagged until someone can find a better source or the nutritional section is removed entirely. -Rushyo

Thanks to an Anon for writing a much higher quality version -Rushyo

"The psychology of why it is that human beings tolerate or go along with the destruction of nature is analyzed and discussed in Shierry Nicholsen's "The Love of Nature and the End of the World" [5]. But such an argument is regarded as a case of "Intuitionist Ethics". If one person intuitively feels that eating meat is moral, and another believes that anything less than vegetarianism is immoral, then there is no way that either can use intuitionist ideas to convince the other. [6]" This seems unnecessary for an article about ethics in vegetarianism. I'll remove it or rewrite it unless anyone objects. --komencanto 05:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

looking forward to your rewriting. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Done, hope you like it! --komencanto 08:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've only had a quick read of this article, but IMO it seems hopelessly biased in favour of vegetarianism (and thus is not NPOV). I wonder if it's primary writer/s are vegetarians themselves? The criticsm section is definetely not balanced (= is tiny) compared to the rest of the article. - G 05:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

While counter-views are always welcome and NPOV is optimal, lack of "balance" between pro and con points of view doesn't necessarily reflect non-neutrality. Often the current scientific knowledge imparts some "bias" to the relative support for one view over another. For example, in treating cancer, there are those who believe chemotherapy is often a "good" treatment and those who believe it's always always "bad." Current medical knowledge, however, suggests chemo can be helpful in treating many forms of cancer. Thus any NPOV write-up on the topic of chemotherapy treatment for cancer will naturally be more positive than negative, though there is certainly room for both views. Similarly here, lots of modern medical and nutritional research supports the health benefits of a veg diet, so it's natural for that kind of tilt to show up in the write-up. TrulyTessa 21:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind you all, reiterating what has been stated numerous times. This is an article on "vegetarianism". This apparently opens debate on the subject of vegetarianism itself, despite remaining neutral to political viewpoints one way or the other. There is an "critisism" section, included on many reletive articles such as vegetarianism, environmental vegetarianism, veganism) that open arguement to opposing viewpoints. Leave it there, at best. This is no place for activism on either side. However, this is an article on vegetarianism, not non-vegetarianism. Therefore, maybe all of the omni avtivists that dominate many of these pages should create a page describing their pro-omni or anti-vegetarian stances. I have no idea what this community might describe themselves as, since it does not exist as a popular term or a description of a community. Let's create a new page the subject of vegetarian haters. Anti-vegetarianism. It should be interesting for all of the anti-veggies of the world to coagulate and face similar discrimination. Bring em on! Vaggot 18:10, 01 December 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph placement

Is there a better place for this paragraph found under the Vegetarian Nutrition heading?

No diet is necessarily unnatural. Human beings have been omnivores since time immemorial; we have the teeth (incisors and molars) and the digestive systems of creatures who eat both meat and plants. The eating of meat enabled energy. Nearly all the other higher primates are omnivores, except the gorilla. In the past, many people ate meat infrequently, because often it wasn't available or affordable. Strict vegetarianism is something comparatively new in human history.

It seems a little out of place. The whole section could use more guidance and structure. --Ryan H. 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's not very clear, either. Is it implying a diet of rocks is not necessarily unnatural? That just doesn't have any meaning. MShonle 14:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the nutrition section, addressing these concerns. – Joe Jarvis 19:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

What's more, since the section has been removed, this is just an FYI which should interest many about a common myth, but it's related to vegetarianism's 'naturalness' -- just not related enough to put it in the actual wikipedia entry...

The author seemed to be making a point that only omnivores have incisors. Yet, gorillas have incisors -- gorillas which he himself identified as non-omnivores (frugitarians, technically). Incisors have many purposes including self-defense and chewing tough bamboo (not meat, since the gorilla obviously doesn't need those huge fangs to eat little beetles ;-) ), as cited by:

 www.angela-meder.de/publik/eep.pdf 
 www.hitchams.suffolk.sch.uk/skeletons/gorilla.htm
 www.safari.co.za/africa_GORILLA_2.html
 www.leeds.ac.uk/bms/teaching/ modules/humb1060/anth03.pdf
 www.geocities.com/osarsif/bio.htm

Primates developed incisors as a group, making it dubious that even non-gorillas evolved incisors *because* they chewed meat. (confusing causality with commonality, a Post Hoc mistake) Rather, it appears that only some apes, some monkeys, and some homonids only later used the fangs adapted for self-defense and tough vegetation toward an omnivorous diet. And if I'm not mistaken, we descended directly from herbivorous rodents to monkeys, to apes, to humans, rather than having involvement with order Carnivora. We also primarily have other herbivorous features such as our long G-I tract, appendix (only present in 2 other species, both herbivores), and we suffer from greater disease as we eat excessive meat. Thus, for all of these reasons, whether we evolved to gain incisors specifically because we needed them for eating flesh of large creatures and to become omnivores, as opposed to the opposite chronology (developing incisors for other reasons, then some primates and homonids conveniently using them to eat some animals larger than insects), is dubious. And to use, 'We have incisors,' as a stand-alone argument that we are 'naturally' omnivorous, is a fallacious argument due to many non-omnivores having incisors.

motivations: poverty

How about people who are too poor to afford meat? -- Kaihsu 08:25, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

I added this. – Joe Jarvis 13:24, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Are there really examples of people who consider themselves vegetarians for this reason? IMO this is not the same as vegetarianism. I will modify the article to reflect my perspective; see what you think. --User:Chinasaur

actually, being a vegetarian isn't the cheapest thing in the world. all your products like smart "meats" are expensive then you have the rising cost on veggies. edit by 12.18.80.40

There are in fact millions of people who eat minimal amounts or no meat at all for economic reasons, many of them in the world's "dollar or less a day" demographic. Doubtless most of them would not consider themselves vegetarians and would eat plenty of meat given the opportunity. The above edit does point out an apparent contradiction, in that many in developed countries especially of the Western world find "vegetarian foods" expensive.

The fact is that vegetarian staples are cheap compared to meat. Grains (including rice), beans (and legumes such as the peanut), and root vegetables such as the potato, yam, taro, and cassava are all world staples which are extremely cheap sources of nutrition. Fresh produce and fruits tend to be more expensive, but especially so in the developed world where they must be transported huge distances or grown in greenhouses. Local, seasonal fruits and vegetables generally significantly cheaper than meat as a source of nutrition. Finally come things like the anon alludes to, "smart meats," vegetarian-oriented packaged and processed meals, soups, veggie-burgers and the like. These tend to be considerably more expensive than their non-veg counterparts, for many reasons. They are marketed as a niche, often gourmet or "natural" product serving a small segment of the population and so have an inflated "boutique" price without economies of scale. They often use organic or otherwise premium ingredients. Finally they tend to be highly processed and packaged. All this makes them expensive compared to mainstream products. They are usually manufactured for convenience and require little preparation. Importantly, they are not part of the diet eaten by the poor "vegetarian" population of the world, and though they make eliminating meat simpler, are completely unnecessary in the diet of any vegetarian who is willing to learn some tricks and spend extra time preparing food. For instance, the price of a can of vegetarian baked beans is still likely to be relatively cheap, perhaps US$1.50 or so, but the equivalent amount of dry beans cooked from scratch would be mere pennies. A "just add hot water" veggie soup might cost $3.00, but the same quantity of soup cooked from scratch in bulk would probably cost less than $0.50. NTK 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"pragmatic considerations"?

I'm a bit confused by the section on "pragmatic considerations." These seem to me to be just more health reasons, and should be moved to that section. A pragmatic consideration would be something like "meat is just too hard to cook, vegetables are quicker,"--a reason may not be accurate but is occasionally floated. Things like hormones to me would seem to fall back under the health column. 141.158.238.201 03:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There are pragmatic reasons, but the ones in the article under "Pragmatic considerations" don't seem to be any of them. I'd say "pragmatic" would be more like: quicker/easier to cook (is that true?), cheaper to buy, last longer in storage (is that true?), easier to clean up, or you just don't like meat. -- anon

I rewrote the non-religious motivations section, addressing these concerns. Modern agricultural methods like pesticides and growth hormones are irrelevant. One could eat organic meat if that was the concern. – Joe Jarvis 19:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Joe Jarvis' last comment is untrue regarding pesticides -- and SOC's in general (Synthetic-Organic Compounds, a class of chemicals to which many of the most dangerous pesticides belong), due to the following... Pesticides from organic meats are still a concern because of the results when we combine the 2 following facts:

- SOC's concentrate approx. 20 times during each step up the food-chain (i.e., if corn has 1 PPM of a certain SOC as residual, better to eat that corn [and thus the residual pesticide] directly, which gives you 20x the concentration it was in the corn, rather than to have a cow eat the corn [and thus the residual pesticide], which gives the cow 20x the corn's concentration, and then for you to eat the cow (20 PPM) which ate the corn (1 PPM), which gives you 20x the cow's concentration, i.e. 400x the corn's concentration), and

- SOC's introduced to the biosphere make their way into organic foods (e.g., a study [sorry, I lost the citation long ago] found that remote Canadian Inuits above the Arctic Circle, where no PCB's had ever been used, had **HIGHER** PCB levels than most people because their diet is heavier-than-average in fish and meat. The simple fact is that PCB's (and all liquid SOC's -- i.e., most of the old, 'bad', persistent pesticides) spread via natural means such as ocean currents and in groundwater.

The 'organic' nature of these Inuits' meats, such as no PCB factories (nor other **DIRECT** PCB sources) being within hundreds of miles of their fisheries and hunting-grounds, was more than offset by the fact that they ate nearly the diametric opposite of a vegan diet. In other words, it was proven that even non-organic NON-vegans who merely **moderated** their meat-intake more than these Inuits, such as the average American, had lower concentrations of PCB's than the Inuits. By extrapolation, a vegan diet is even more effective (than the Inuit's meat-heavy, yet organic, diet) as a means to reduce one's SOC (pesticide) risks. The only way someone 100%-organic, but non-vegan, can get as low of an SOC (pesticide) toxicity as the typical vegan is to reduce his intake of the organic meats so low as to be insignificant and thus, become a near-vegan himself. -- an epidemiologist

Gorillas?

Article says: "Nearly all the other higher primates are omnivores, except the gorilla." ...which are ... what? (It's not even a link!) I had to do some searching, and finally ended up on the Mountain Gorilla page, to find out what gorillas eat. Could we put that in the article there, somehow?

Perhaps you could--PRB 12:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the gorillas discussion altogether from the nutrition section. It is not relevant to vegetarian nutrition. – Joe Jarvis 19:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Loaded terms

Just for the record, I think many of the terms used in the article are somewhat loaded and POV. The article takes a stance by defining the word "vegetarian," for example. Even while it acknowledges that some people hold different definitions for the term, it labels that definition as "misleading." Now, I don't want to turn this article into a mess of "most vegetarians say this, but others say this" as happens in many POV resolutions. But it's just something the editors here should be aware of. Please resist the urge to use loaded terms, and define contested words in a certain way. "Erosion" has a negative connotation, I don't agree with its inclusion but I'm not going to revert if it's what people want here. Rhobite 16:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think "erosion" (my edit) is a good descriptive term for what is happening. I agree the connotation is negative, but it is used in the context of explaining some of the drawbacks of the mutating terminology, so I think it's appropriate in that context. I can see why you are concerned about other definition stuff, but essentially the problem with "vegetarian" is a usage one, which is for the dictionary people to decide. IMO our best approach is to pick a definition, cover it well, and acknowledge the alternatives (most of which are substantially covered here or given their own pages). --Chinasaur 22:06, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's the best approach. I just think this article takes a stance about the one true definition when it doesn't have to. Rhobite 23:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me there's only the one really objectionable paragraph (mostly my edit): the "erosion" one we have been discussing. But even if you're a pure descriptivist, wouldn't you say it's still worthwhile to identify and highlight usage differences where the ambiguity can lead to significant social angst? I'll look at it now; if you don't see any changes it means I couldn't think of a good way to improve it. --Chinasaur 07:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the recent edits are an improvement. I'll go over the article in more detail soon, and see if I can find more POV. Rhobite 13:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Phrases such as "of course," "obviously," and "it should be noted" are usually unnecessary and opinionated. In this case, the word is used to indicate that this article makes a value judgement about the proper definition of vegetarianism. It doesn't belong here. There's a good discussion of this on the Village Pump.

"Obviously" is appropriate because what is being stated is obvious. Writing to readers' expectations is a fundamental of writing to be understood. Therefore if we find it necessary to state something obvious, it might be worthwhile to acknowledge it.

"This is not considered traditional vegetarianism" is too wishy-washy. It isn't traditional vegetarianism, assuming we all understand and agree on the definition of "traditional vegetarianism" (which we do). IMO, the sentence is acceptable as "most people do not consider this vegetarianism", or "this is not traditional vegetarianism". If you choose the latter, I would make the stylistic choice to add "obviously". --Chinasaur 22:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Economic vegetarianism

I made a number of comments on economic vegetarianism that are relevant to this article. Rather than repost them here, I thought I would link to the economic vegetarianism talk page. – Joe Jarvis 15:08, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hindus and honey

What is the basis of the statement about Hindu vegetarinans not eating honey? As a Hare Krishna, my religion is not included in the list (typical), but I believe this is something we have in common with Hindus. We use honey along with other auspicious substances when worshipping the Lord, and the remnants are later drunk with great satisfaction. --Pandu108 19:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding it being "typical" that Hare Krishna is not on the list, why not add it yourself? I do not know why Hindus refrain from eating honey (I'm Jewish) but I do know, from a friend who is a beekeeper, that bees are often killed (accidentally) during the process of harvesting the honey. Also, parts of bees can end up in the honey itself. Commercial honey is often boiled first and THEN strained, which means that bits of bees might have been boiled in it. Raw honey still in the comb is your best bet to avoid this problem, although it does not avoid the problem of bees being accidentally killed in the harvest process. User: rooster613

I believe what Pandu is saying is that neither Hindus nor Krisnas abstain from honey, and I think he is right. I know a number of Hindu vegs and none of them avoid honey. Most vegans do, but even some vegans do not. As a vegetarian myself, I consider honey more acceptable than eggs or milk, which I do eat in moderation especially if I can get organic/cage free, both because bees are much lower forms of life, and bees are not normally intentionally killed at any stage of the process (unless something goes very wrong, such as infestation with mites, in which case it is for the greater good of beekind), whereas both chickens and dairy cows are normally slaughtered at the end of their productive life. Also there is no indication that bees in apiaries are any worse off than bees in the wild, whereas industrialized henhouses and feedlots are basically animal torture. NTK 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Partial vegetarianism

I've come across people who call themselves vegetarians but do eat fish. More recently, I've heard of people who call themselves vegetarians but will eat free range meat. Are there names for these practices? -- Smjg 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Idiots. The first group are called Pesco-Vegetarians. The second group are called fools. I suppose you could call them Carno-Vegetarians, but then that would apply to all omnivorous humans. PRB 18:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Claims that need sourcing

A number of bits of the article are non-obvious and need sources:

"90 per cent of the UK's animal feed protein concentrates come from poor countries - often those where children die from starvation."

jdb ❋ (talk) 07:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

“The cost of mass-producing cattle, poultry, pigs and sheep and fish to feed our growing population... include highly inefficient use of freshwater and land, heavy pollution from livestock faeces... and spreading destruction of the forests on which much of our planet's life depends.” - Time magazine 11/8/99

TIME is an American magazine, and would not use the British spelling 'faeces' except in a direct quote, which we should not cite without mentioning its source. Removed pending verification. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The quote was taken from http://www.choosevegetarian.com/wasting_resources.asp . On that page you see it with the American spelling, it's just I'm Australian and automatically wrote it in British English. I don't believe the page would fabricate such a quote, so I think it should be returned. In fact I have sources it to this article and found it myself on the database: http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&an=2430637 . Given that the PCRM quotes were removed (fair I guess), I'm sure we can find some other statistics on that issue to source, because the relationship between meat and heart disease, diabetes and cancer is well documented. I'll go looking tomorrow. --komencanto 12:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thanks. Incidentally, there are far too many places on this page that are just laundry lists of sound bites with vague sources (often just acronyms). We probably should clean those up, but that's another issue. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

World Hunger

"Critics of this view may observe that the root causes of world hunger are often traceable to harmful political structures rather than genuine resource shortages; see Hunger." Well proponents of this view observe the same thing... however, the sentence suggests otherwise. I couldn't come up with the different sentence structure without making it to unreadable to those who actually have no idea what vegetarianism is. Beta m (talk)

I thought it made sense in context, but if it doesn't, it may be necessary to rearrange that paragraph a bit. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Water use

This page here contains a lot about this and other issues with references, so if anyone wants to add some information from there: http://www.choosevegetarian.com/wasting_resources.asp . I'm too busy at the moment and I can't be bothered checking the references. --komencanto 09:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've pretty much done this now, but some of the quotes and claims in the motivations section definitely need sourcing. Issues such as topsoil and land use haven't been properly covered. Pollution could do with a larger mention. I've copied a lot of things from the www.choosevegetarian.com website, but I think it is reasonable impartial stuff given it is all sourced. --komencanto 07:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of Vegetarianism

This article could do with a history section, focussing on the growth of vegetarianism over time due to religion. It could also mention the various events in recent history that have promoted vegetarianism, such as the BSE scare, the organics movement, the backlash against factory farming, Peter Singer's [Animal Liberation] and concern over toxins building up in the food chain. Anyone willing to start up something like this? It could even be its own page. --komencanto 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and gender

From personal experience, the majority of vegetarians I have met have been female. Not to say that I don't know male vegetarians/vegans, but I know many more who are female. I know how unfounded it is to extrapolate from very unscientific personal experience, so I was wondering if anyone knew figures on this? Also, I know a few years ago some papers ran stories discussing vegetarianism as a fad among middle school girls. I think these are interesting angles to discuss, anyone agree? The lesbian 02:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My own subjective experience agrees with this, but we need hard numbers before putting anything into the article. Anyone got some? Tannin 02:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you google "vegetarians are women", you get tons of results indicating that some high proportion of vegetarians (60–80%) are women. But I haven't been able to find a scholarly source. (There are no relevant results for "vegetarians are men", in case you were wondering.) —Caesura^(t) 04:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

This is your personal experience—it depends entirely on the population and situation you are looking at. If you were to go to Gujarat you would find as many vegetarian men as women because that is the norm. Or if you went to certain Buddhist countries in east Asia you might well find more vegetarian men than women because this is often associated with asceticism and there are more monks than nuns. On the other hand if you looked at a middle-American middle-school, you might well find that eating a lot of meat—or even killing animals—is considered macho, and concern for animals considered effeminate, and naturally you would expect to find more vegetarian girls. NTK 16:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Another factor, though probably a small one, is probably that vegetarianism and veganism are sometimes adopted to cover up anorexia, which (in the US at least) is more prevalent in young women than in the general population. DanielCristofani 09:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Among Hindus as well, where the family is not traditionally vegetarian, the women are usually the first to give up meat. 7/11 women and 1/11 men in my extended family are veg. --Pranathi 03:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a reference for this. --komencanto 03:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

possible edit war issue

I generally have nothing to do with this article and will continue not having any part in this article but I feel it necessary to bring up the fact that the issue of Fructarianism may end up becoming an edit war issue since it seems that there are different point of views on the subject on whether or not it is a form of vegetarianism, I urge both sides to use this talk page to work out a compromise before a full out edit war occurs.

Here are the reasons for my revert.

I would like to say why these statements included by an anon are wrong. Also he is trying to add vague responses of his own and not backed up by any scientific evidence or reference. Here is what he added :

"Most vegetarians would reply that plants are not self-aware or conscious of their actions or situation as animals are and probably do not experience pleasure or pain in any meaningful way."

Obviously the editor failed to read the previous para that talks about the experiments past and current that they show electrical and other related responses, sometimes even when a nearby plant is cut. (also shown on BBC)

"From an evolutionary perspective plants would have no reason to experience 'pain' as they are eaten, because they cannot respond to that pain in any meaningful way. Animals have evolved pain as a way to motivate an animal to avoid the cause and survive. Most plants have evolved to respond positively to being eaten (it is used to spread seeds) and most can survive being dismembered.

By the same logic many animals can survive being dismembered, some even regrow other parts like a lizard can. plants like the ones in africa and south america make use of defender ants (I just don't remember their actual name) to protect the tree and rewards the ants with a sweet liquid. If this isn't defence, what is?

"Therefore most plants can be grown and harvested without any real harm being done to the plant."

most cereals are harvested by plucking them from the ground. and it's a permanent damage to their lives.

so I hope i made my point. just because some lives don't shout that it's safe to assume they were "born" to be eaten. for even the deer was "born" to be eaten by the tiger or the baboon or any other omnivore (including man) by the same logic. Idleguy 12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Good points, I'll reword those change at some point to make them fit with the objections. --komencanto 08:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded it. Does it now seem more reasonable to you? --komencanto 10:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Nutritional

Sorry to some of you, but I guess you have no idea of vegis. I'm vegetarian for more than 10 years, and i'm still alive - with no problems regarding my health. moreover, i'm still do a lot of sports (triathlon, runing...) and all without eating meat, chicks, fish.

See, you can only do triathlon with veg. i do decathlon with non veg.... Just Kidding! Idleguy 17:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I see that nutritional deficiency in veggie diet is a concern for most people from a traditionally non-vegetarian society and this doesn't have a section addressing that except for a poorly worded section 'criticism'. Seems to me also from the links that it's not just fairy tales, some vegetarian diets do fail - can we maybe list the common causes.. And alongside it mention that most vegetarians (like user above) have no issues and are not limited by any activites.

I would like to expand the criticism section to say 'criticism and nutritional concerns'. I wanted to add that the switch from non-vegetarianism should be made slowly (first eliminate red meat, then months later, chicken and seafood then eggs etc) giving your body the time to adapt. I am not sure if this is an accepted/mainstream idea though? Anyone know? Also, would like to add that veggie diet may need to be well balanced and nutrition concious to be more successful. Any suggestions and help are welcome since I'm not the best person to add this. (I moved from a highly veggie non-red meat diet to completely vegetarian diet..)

Also, completely off-the-topic question. Indian society believes that a vegetarian diet increases mental prowess - traditionally, learned men, and merchants, those that don't need to do physical labour and use their mental faculties more, were vegetarians. How mainstream or far-fetched is that thinking in western vegetarian societies? --Pranathi 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• "Some nutritionists claim that a diet rich in fresh fruit and vegetables but low in, or excluding, animal fat and protein offers numerous health benefits, including a significantly lower risk of coronary heart disease, cancer, renal failure, obesity, diabetes and stroke". changed to "Most nutritionists claim that a diet rich in fresh fruit and vegetables but low in animal fat and red meat offers numerous health benefits, including a significantly lower risk of heart disease, cancer, renal failure and stroke" WHO study shows that there is "possible/insufficient" evidence to indicate that animal fat may increase risk of cancer. A study published in [American Journal of Epidemiology] shows that substitution of red meat and dairy product to vegetable product decrease the risk of cancer and coronary heart disease, though it appear that they did not produce clear statistical comparison of risk between low intake and zero intake concluding "long-term adherence to high-protein diets, without discrimination toward protein source, may have potentially adverse health consequences." For this reason, I have attributed health benefit only to "low in animal fat and red meat". Secondly, the cause of weight change depends entirely on the difference in calorie intake & outtake. Type of food is essentially irrelevant though proxy wise, carb and suger should get the main blame for it. Therefore, attribution of "obesity, diabetes" benefit to this type of diet is inappropriate. Obviously, I could have inserted "low in carb" so to allow re-inclusion of "low risk of obecity and diabetes" but this would cause Atkin diet controversy so I avoided inclusion.

Shouldn't there be an article on Non Vegetarianism?

I think maybe it's time to create an article on Non Vegetarianism since many affluent people in the east are resorting to eating more meat as incomes jump up. Is that the right word to describe meat eaters or is there a better word/article already existing in wikipedia? Idleguy 17:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Carnivore" is the usual term. I guess to differentiate humans from other meat eaters they'd be called "human carnivores." Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction, the human race is an omnivore collectively since people eat all kinds of stuff. What I was referring to is the specific diet each one follows. Idleguy 09:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

This could be interesting although I would probably write about this in another article about economic development and diets rather than just one about human meat eating. --komencanto 10:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversial thinkers and POV

User Idleguy removed a reference I had inserted from Peter Singer on the ground that he is a controversial thinker. My understanding of NPOV is that it does not mean eliminating controversy but, to the controversy, representing it as opposed to suppressing it in favor of advocacy for one particular point of view. ALL of the thinkers mentioned in the vegetarianism article are controversial, because vegetarianism is a controversial subject. Peter Singer is at least one of the most distinguished philosophy professors in the world, and, like many philosophers, adopts controversial positions. The idea that plants have feelings is much more controversial than the idea that animals and plants differ in their consciousness, awareness of suffering, and so on, and Peter Singer isn't usually criticized for distorting information. So it seems to me quite reasonable, and in keeping with Wikipedia's basic philosophy, to cite him in this context, especially since there's a much greater consensus in the scientific community that animals differ from plants with regard to their nervous systems than about plants having feelings of a kind that would make it cruel to kill and eat them. Hence I am going to reinsert that sentence. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly not all the sources mentioned in the article are controversial as claimed. Secondly I think the issue is not if plants possess a neural network or not. The point is do plants feel "pain"? It does not matter if they feel pain despite a lack of nervous system, it is the end result that matters, i.e do they sense their environment to survive. Furthermore you have just tried to change "some vegetarians" to Peter Singer without giving the article or website where this quote of yours seems to exist. I think it's a case of conveniently putting words of yours into others' mouths. If the idea of plants defending themselves seems controversial, either you haven't been pricked by a rose or chanced upon a poisonous plant. Also the idea that animals would "feel" pain when they have no sixth sense might seem equally alien or controversial to others who might not share the same views as yours. the fact remains all lifeforms defend themselves and as per such flawed logic it would be unethical to kill any life for that matter be it a vegetative state of being or a mobile organism. Idleguy 10:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the issue is whether plants feel "pain". I don't understand the connection between a rose having thorns and a rose feeling pain, nor do I understand the reference to sixth sense. I also don't understand the idea that there are no gradations of pain bearing on ethics. Please explain. Meanwhile I'll insert the Singer reference as you suggest. Jeremy J. Shapiro 13:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Following your suggestion and criticism and emphasis on sources, I added the reference to Singer and took out the statement "Critics say...", since there were no sources given either for the idea that plants feel pain or suffering or that the feelings cited for plants should have ethical consequences for human beings. I think that it would contribute to the article if you or others familiar with such sources would add them. Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you have taken things out of context and are confusing yourself in the process. Firstly the links and the works of the author i mentioned clearly stated the source for the starting lines including feeling "pain" etc. I advise you to read the links and the author's works (Bose) before any further mistakes. Also I find it amusing that you have to constantly revert back to the same controversial author. I think it's time this section of the article was properly edited to reflect a more diverse view instead of trying to defend the vegies and trying to put the last word as a pro-veggie. I think we'll leave it to the reader. Also I'll be adding and editing this section in some time. I see that the current article seems to be a tilt towards vegetarianism even in the critics section! Idleguy 15:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

There are no links or references to opinion in the recent edits. By the numbers of 14 gallons water for a pound of rice and 441 for beef, if rice needed 5 times that of wheat it would be 70 gallons - 6-7 times much less than 441. Cow's dung is used as a fertilizer and fuel - but only as long as it's alive. I think the article should present the vegetarian point of view with maybe a phrase or two against their views. The bulk of criticism should go in the criticism section. Just what I think ... --Pranathi 18:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Beef is just one of the meats. goats, sheep and chicken are others and the 441 gallons used is maybe for an american beef and not a cow or carabeef in asia/africa. it's like comparing apples to oranges. I admit i should have clarified such statements and I'm trying to get some online sources (the current edits are based on books). the section on economics plainly states views and opinions from a largely western pov. the techno-economics of animal husbandry in the developing world is entirely different. Idleguy 18:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm convinced that though it's different, it's not really apples to oranges. I think rearing any animal is more resource intensive than growing crops. There are industries around animal rearing even in devlpng countries and it's not just free-ranging, home-grown animals that are eaten. Even free ranging animals can't survive on just left-overs. But that is my pov and I will read up before I speak further.. --Pranathi 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Shocking how people make assumptions on what is eaten in developing countries based on western media. "There are industries around animal rearing even in devlpng countries and it's not just free-ranging, home-grown animals that are eaten." While it's partly true that free ranging animals are not the only ones eaten, the meat industry is only limited to the broiler industry in most of africa and asia. even in the rural and underdeveloped regions free ranging chicken is still eaten and they unlike crops need near zero resources to survive and lay eggs or be eaten as meat. goats and lambs are still herded by shpherds and I assure you that "stallfed" goat rearing has not taken off at all. pigs in these nations are often the least sanitary and grow on nothing more than waste and are labelled "meat king" and reared for subsistence farming. also beef and carabeef are fed not on the grains called rice but on the hay and they are often eaten by the lower classes of hindu society when they die. Sometimes these animals in the city even resort to eating paper and garbage dumped by humans. I'm sure no mentally stable human would feast on hay/paper/discarded vegetables.

"I think rearing any animal is more resource intensive than growing crops." Maybe you fail to see the fact that crops are not just limited to cereals but cash crops, fruits, exotic spices etc. Many times the later requires as much if not more resources to cultivate as these days people look at planting alien food stuff to satisfy the export market or "organic" produce. Furthermore another source of protein from meat, are the fishes which lives in a place called water where the question of resource intensiveness does not arise for we don't have alternatives to see food unless one wishes to eat seaweeds or corals.

I fail to see the point of this paragraph. Are you saying that farming animals is less resource intensive than growing crops that yields the same nutritional content? And on a lighter note; What's wrong with seaweed as food? Andreas Kahari 06:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The fallacy of this argument stands clearly exposed. If anything rearing of livestock and their meat in most developing countries is much more beneficial than just sticking to vegetarian food as few seem to be getting their daily intake of proteins. So please don't jump in with half baked information. I also plan to introduce these facts into the article backed by properly online sources.(most of my references are offline in books etc.) Idleguy 05:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the issue of protein intake from a vegetarian diet is not really an issue. Andreas Kahari 06:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Moreover it ...as these animals' dung ..natural fertilizer and as fuel when dried ..seen as an added bonus. [13]

I could not find the book on the net - which year was it published? Also, couldn't understand how a book on paddy cultivation concerned itself with animal husbandry? If you look at manure the manure of horses, camel etc are used as fertilizer. Only cow (rarely camel) dung is used in India as fuel, where it is not eaten commonly. Chicken's cannot be used as fertilizer if it is fresh - can be used only if it is composted (see manure) (don't see anyone gathering chicken manure : )). basically, argument doesn't stick IMO. --Pranathi 23:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it was published late in the last century. It's an inhouse publication that was widely distributed in the agri banking industry. (In India agri banking includes animal husbandry, if you have ever stepped into SBI or other PSU banks, you'll know what I mean). The net is not the world, btw.

Cows, buffaloes and bulls are eaten in India, mainly the old ones or they are exported. If you exclude the hindi belt of the north, it happens practically everywhere. Maybe the "upper classes" might scorn at the idea, but I assure you it is eaten nontheless. A certain company called Al-Kabeer has minted money out of exports of beef and carabeef to the middle east. Also it's much more economically viable for the farmer to make money out of a dying cow/bull rather than keep it. Moreover, animals per se means sheep, goat, cows and other animals that graze the lands. chickens don't "graze" they just stay around the village and seldom go to the farmlands to eat. So bird manure does not make much of a difference. It is evident that people who talk about vegetarianism know little about the actual facts before making such imprudent economic assumptions based on either outdated info or selectively quoted data obtained mainly from the internet. Idleguy 05:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The name of the book is 'Techno economics of Paddy cultivation' and don't see how it concerns itself with animals, even if it is widely disributed in the agri banking sector. But I guess if you say so, it is. I am not going to indulge in this never ending conversation - especially with you hurling abuses at anyone who challenges your viewpoint as ignorant, idoits etc.. In case you don't realise it, more than your info (which btw is ridden with errors itself as pointed out previously), it is your arrogance and putting everyone else down that jars.

If what you said was true, I would think there would be a rush to gather the numerous ambling, aging cows on the streets of India for export.. no, don't answer. --Pranathi 22:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to answer but your false accusations that I've "abused" is a serious matter. Which was the line exactly I hurled verbal epithets? It is still surprising even after I explained the link of animals and agriculture in the Indian context that you should harp on this issue. Do you even know that paddy is a crop that is consumed by both humans and animals alike? So the economic aspect of paddy naturally includes not just rice but also hay. Thus in the same vein the scope of the book expands to cover the farm animals of indian agriculture. I did not write the book, so why question me on exactly why they decided to add a chapter on this or other environemental aspects of the said crop?

India is amongst the largest exporters of carabeef in the world. So despite your ignorance and wishy washy thinking, many heads of cattle are being consumed locally and also increasingly being exported. If you could step in southern india you will know what I mean. Infact in northeastern india (7 sister states) all animals from dogs to donkeys are eaten with aplomb. It is quite hard to get concrete evidence online for some facts for fear of reprisals from religious fundamentalists opposed to this, but like many other things in India they just go on mainly unheard of. Is it hard to learn and correct mistakes for you? I admit i made a minor mistake of calculation as i put 5 times instead of 4 times (the amount of water needed for paddy). But I find that you are neither willing to correct your mistakes or learn from the facts and are quite happy to shoot the messenger. And don't make false accusations that I've been calling people "idiots, fools" etc. Idleguy 10:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Since I notice that there seems to be some strong emotion, verging on hostility, in some of the recent comments and edits, I would like to suggest working out the issues on this talk page rather than getting into an "edit war". I, in any case, am going to withdraw from making changes to the article itself until some of the actual issues as well as the strong emotions have been clarified on this page. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If there has been anything added without proper references (save the economics part), then please do point them out. If you find it offensive to learn the truth then I can't help it. I have after all not deleted your controversial sources, so I don't get the "hostility" part. Did i revert your edits after your quoted them properly? No. Did I verbally abuse you anyone? No. Was the image I added offensive? I don't believe so. Were the sources (BBC, Bible) as controversial as the ones you added? RESOUNDING NO. I think it's time to learn the facts and append them to the article. Tx Idleguy 19:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I remove the link you, again, added to that BBC news article. The article itself does not refer to any published work by Sally Jordan, and the English Institute of Sport does not do it either. I also question the inclusion of Africa in your other edit, especially after reading this: [1]. Are you able to support it with a resource available on-line (that one can check)? Andreas Kahari 08:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's a clear statement of facts by the said researcher, so I think it does suffice given that statements of controversial thinkers have been passed off without questioning in the article. Secondly I admit there was a mistake in adding africa on the paddy thing and the five times is also only 4 times. Here's another link. [2] stating that it 4 acres of land can be irrigated with the same amount of water that one acre of land needs. the actual techno economics part are available in that book and I think i've given maximum info on the book. if i can get hold of online sources i will add them accordingly. Hope that helps. Idleguy 09:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Move religious section to separate article?

By the way, it occurs to me that it might be a good idea to have a short paragraph stating that there are various religions sources of and attitudes toward vegetarianism and then move the detail to a separate article. It seems to me that most people wanting an introductory encyclopedia article about the topic wouldn't want all of the detail about each separate religion. There is also a long intellectual history of vegetarianism, and if we were to get into a summary of all of the ideas of important or famous thinkers about vegetarianism, that would take up a lot of space, too. Seems to me the article should capture the important points and not go into all of the detail about all of these things. The general paragraph could say something to the effect that within many major religions, there are people who have interpreted the religion as prescribing vegetarianism, briefly giving the reasons why, as well as people who don't interpret it that way, with one sentence on each religion. Then move the detail. I'm not about to do it, just raising it as a discussion issue. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The biggest percent of vegetarians (I'm going to make a wild guess at 90%) are so for religious reasons (mainly Hindus). Although, reasons within religions usually overlap with the other secular reasons, they still need to be presented. IMO, this article is focussed on vegetarianism as a recent western trend and is less global in nature - no complaints, just an observation. I cannot speak for other religions but I think the Hinduism section should stay or be expanded. --Pranathi 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, I agree with your idea to move "Vegetarianism and religion" to another article. It is a very important part of vegetarianism for many people and worthy of an article on it's own. This article (i.e. "Vegetarianism") should get into the non-spiritual motivations etc. As for Vegetarianism in Hinduism, this would have to moved along with the others in order to keep a neutral stance. However an introduction paragraph should be kept given that they are the first major religion to adopt vegetarianism as part of their spiritual practise. --nirvana2013 12:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

When I made this comment originally, it was not out of any kind of disrespect or wish to neglect the role of religion in vegetarianism, but rather out of my understanding of what an encyclopedia article should be, and that is that any extensive, highly detailed, specialized material does not belong in a general introduction to a topic. To me it's not an issue of what percentage of the world's vegetarians are vegetarians for what reason, it has to do with the level of detail. In working on these article, I'm always asking myself what kind of information an intelligent high school student or member of the general public would want and expect to read in such an article. I believe that the point of each major religion's attitude toward vegetarianism can and should be in the article, with a maximum of a couple of sentences for each. But it seems to me that the detail should be elsewhere. There is a lot more that could be said about the nutritional, ethical, etc. motivations. The issue to me is one of detail and proportion and of keeping a general reader in mind. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, I understand your intentions.. The religious section does take up a disproportionate amt of space and may be better to be moved to a separate article. Like nirvana says, an introductory parah should say that they are the first major religion and also that they make up the largest % of vegetarians. I noticed the hinduism section focusses on details more than philosophy and reasoning.. I will be back from a break end of the month and will attempt to make the section better and possibly article more global .. --Pranathi 22:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, throughout my life, i've been vegetarian for over 14 years, vegan for 4 years, and even i recognize that a lot of the religious motivations put on this page are very very very out of context. these religious motivations, especially religions from teh book (judaism, christianity, islam) and derivations (baha'i, etc) are not very true. this sounds more like a preaching pulpit than a factual basis explaining vegetarianism. Iammaggieryan 01:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Freegan section totally inaccurate

I am the creator of the website freegan.info and do media interviews on this subject once or twice every week. The definition of freeganism offered is entirely inaccurate on numerous points including:

- suggestion that freeganism primarily relates to meat consumption - suggestion that freeganism is primarily related to environmental concerns (implying that it is not concerned with animal or human oppression)

I submitted a corrected definition, which for reasons I don't understand were removed. Can someone explain to me why my changes were removed?

Here is my corrected definition:

• Freeganism; Freegans practice a lifestyle based on the idea that production in our capitalist society is inherently exploitative of animals, the earth, and human beings. Freegans point to the hidden layers of complexity in the production of everyday goods,even vegan ones, revealing worker exploitation, pollution, killing of wildlife, large scale consumption of fossil fuels, forced displacement of indigenous people, increased power and influence for socially unjust corporations fueled by our dollars, etc.

Freegans are critical of conventional vegetarianism, feeling that it is reflects a lack of understanding of the inherent oppressiveness of mass production under capitalism, and inaccurately labels products as "cruelty-free" that, in fact, involve a great deal of cruelty in their production.

Freegans are also deeply concerned with the large scale waste of useable commodities, including food. In fact, one of the mail ways that freegans provide for their needs is by recovering useable discarded commodities from retailers, businesses, homes, and other institutions. Freegans frequently find food, clothing, furniture, literature, computers, toiletries, art supplies--all sorts of goods regularly discarded in our throwaway society. In the United States, according to a recent University of Arizona study, 50% of all food is wasted, often while still perfectly useable. Freegans account for most of all of their dietary needs by recovering wasted foods that have been discarded in perfect shape for reasons like overordering at retail stores. In some cases goods are discarded before they even see a store shelf, guaranteeing freegans can eat food of equal quality to purchasers.

Many freegans are strict vegans. Others are willing to eat dairy, egg, or meat products to varying degrees (meat-eating freegans are called "meagans")if and only if they are recovered from refuse. Much has been made of this point by many vegetarians who have come to misunderstand freeganism as referring to a lifestyle where you eat meat "as long as its free." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and depth of freegan ideology.

Freegans who DO eat meat do so using the following logic:

1) If one studies the complex chain of production in producing ANY mass produced consumer good, animal, worker, and environmental exploitation can be found throughout the various stages of production--even for items marketed as "cruelty-free." For example, vegan, organic produce is transported to market in trucks that splatter insects and burn fossil fuels, contributing to the killing of wildlife in ocean oil spills and open oil pits in rainforests.

2) Since all foods that we buy cause suffering and ecological destruction, the divide between "cruel" animal products and cruelty-free" vegan ones is a false one. This is not to say that veganism is not a step in the right direction, since MOST (but not all)vegan foods require less stages of production than meat foods and thus involve less stages of destructive production impacts (e.g. eating grain is more efficient than feeding to cattle). But it does reduce the dichotomy between "good" vegan and "evil" meat foods, suggesting that we may not want to purchase items in EITHER category.

3) In a capitalist economy, our participation and complicity in production and marketing of goods is at point of purchase. Producers don't care what we do with goods so long as we BUY them. We could buy steaks and use them as hood ornaments for all beef producers care-- they just want the money.

4) Therefore, we lend our support to animal agriculture not by EATING meat, but by BUYING meat.

5) Recovering goods that would otherwise go to waste is a positive act that reduces landfill space consumption while eliminating our need to contribute to more resource consumption by additional purchasing.

6) Because vegan and non-vegan goods BOTH contribute to injustice, and because our consumption of discarded items does not contribute to increased demand for them or profits for their manufacturers, there is no morally significant difference between consuming discarded meat products or discarded vegan products.

7) To torture and kill animals, consume natural resources and exploit workers to create a product, only to have that product go to waste is deeply disrespectful to the animals, workers, and ecological resources that went into the creation of that product. Among animals, the body of a dead animal is food. We do more to honor that animal by allowing the animals' body to sustain life, to be eaten by another animal (a human), than to throw that animal's body into a landfill, a human invention that correlates with nothing in the nonhuman world. Even burying corpses as a way of honoring them is a human custom that makes little sense to impose on other species. Some meagans go so far as to see eating animal flesh under these circumstances as a more DUTY of respect to the animals who were killed and whose corpses then discarded unconsumed.

Among freegans, the eating or non-eating of meat that has been discarded simply isn't viewed as an important question, though many consider PURCHASING meat to be an abomination. Freegans feel that non-freegan vegetarians overemphasize on this question with regards to the overall ideology of freeganism as a result of a simplistic understanding of the relationship between capitalism, mass production, and exploitation. Freegans accuse non-freegan vegetarians of false piety, suggesting that their emphasis on the non-vegetarianism of some freegans is a bait-and-switch that allows them to shift focus away from non-freegan vegetarians having to take responsibility for the destructive impacts of the vegetarian commodities that they buy.

Would your insert not be better served under the article Freeganism? The vegetarian article will become overly long if all types of vegetarianism did the same. I would suggest making the main points under vegetarianism and then merging the rest into the Freeganism article. --nirvana2013 12:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed most of that. If veganism only gets a sentence, then freeganism can't have a page! As said, all of that should go on the freegan page, where anyone can talk about freeganism as much as one wants. This page is about vegetarianism, and freeganism should only get a passing mention as a related practice. I've reworeded the definition to make it sound less emotive and get across the idea in a few sentences only. --komencanto 08:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

A NPOV tag has been listed on the article under the Motivation section for several weeks now. Has this been resolved and can it now be removed? Please advise. --nirvana2013 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly when the section was supposedly on its way to becoming neutral it suddenly seems to have been edited recently with volumes backing why ethically its right etc... Unless the section is pruned by moving large parts to the as yet uncreated main article on Ethics of Vegetarianism, I think the tag should stay given some of the statements are self defeating. Maybe you could hive the ethics section retaining only the gist here. Tx Idleguy 10:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it only the ethics section which is disputed? What about nutritional, environmental, social and spiritual? If it is only the ethics section we could move the NPOV tag down to that section and open up a discussion of what to do on the talk page. --nirvana2013 13:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that I wrote it I'm curious to know what you think is self defeating about it. More criticism the better what I've written will become ^_^ --komencanto 10:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Ethics

What are the NPOV issues in the ethics section? --nirvana2013 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I realise the ethics section is not very neutral, but that's because I've layed out the vegetarian point of view and there is no meat-eater to do the same. I think what I have written stands up as logical and accurate in the most part, but obviously it's a vegetarian's point of view. I look forward to someone with a different opinion working around it to even it out! We could go into a lot of detail over the arguments on a separate page. -- komencanto 03:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Created main page. The arguments section can be hashed out there. I agree, I think the gist may be okay but presentation needs to be changed. It's presented as the defense of meat eaters rather than criticism of the ethics involved of vegetarianism and counter arguments. That makes the section seem to be on the offensive, asking meat eaters to explain themselves..

I suggest retaining parah 1, at most parah 2 as well on the entire ethics section. Any thoughts?--Pranathi 23:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The current Ethics sections still needs pruning and all the excess arguments can go into the main article. while the main article has been created, the original content here still remains. I would suggest some of you could do it retaining the essential points here. Idleguy 11:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I suggest retaining only parah 1 and maybe 2. Unless there are objections, I will do it shortly.--Pranathi 12:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag. --nirvana2013 21:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro - eggs or no eggs? - worldwide view discussion

I'd like to discuss the recent changes to the intro section, since it looks like we all have different opinions of what vegetarinism means.

Here is my opinion to current version:

Vegetarianism is a dietary practice characterized by the exclusion of flesh, fish, and fowl. Some (not some but the majority of vegetarians - Indian that make up a big majority + others. It should not be some but included in the definition)) vegetarians may also exclude products derived from animal carcasses, such as lard, tallow, gelatin, rennet and cochineal.

Most vegetarians eat animal-derived products such as honey, milk, and cheese (the common definition (maybe 95% of vegetarians) includes these products). The practice of excluding all animal by-products is called veganism (vegans are a small minority and the practice need not be in the intro). Some vegetarians also choose not to wear products that involve the death of animals, including leather, silk, feather, and fur.

Vegetarianism is a new concept in the west but has been around for a long time in India, Nepal etc. In order to be a global definition and page, this article cannot be presented from a western perspective only. - Pranathi

All I know is that in Australia everyone I've asked assumed that vegetarians would avoid things like lard and tallow and leather but would eat milk and eggs in contrast to veganism. The key question in this country is 'does the animal have to die to get it'. As no animals necessarily die in the production of eggs (free range we all hope!), unlike say fish flesh, it is acceptable. I beleive this is also the accepted definition in the US and Britain but not in Eastern countries. Someone edited the page saying eggs were not acceptable with the explanation that 'eggs aren't vegetables'. But vegetarians clearly don't only eat vegetables, so what a crazy justification! --komencanto 10:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that the definition in Britain matches that in Australia SP-KP 18:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The intro section does not mention egg currently, neither inclusion nor excl. We will need to hash the other issues I mentioned with the section as well.

Coming to egg - a majority in the world don't consider egg as part of the common definition. There is a tendency to eurocentrism in any subject, and I'm hoping we'll prevent that in this page. In Britain, Australia and the US, have the good portion of Hindu vegetarians had a say in the common definition? because I suspect many would consider egg (though some may eat it) as not part of the definition.

Let's take a completely off topic hypothetical subject and use that as a reference point since we (I) may be biased on the vegetarian topic. Let's say slavery was rampant in Argentina but minimal in the rest of the world. Would the practices in Argentina merit more mention than those in the rest of the world? What if some practices were in usage but not common in the rest of the world, but common in Argentina?

I'm not arguing say, mushrooms, which are avoided by many vegetarians in India because they are fungi. It's too exclusive and don't think merits mention but eggs is common ground, sometimes considered not vegetarian even in western countries.--Pranathi 22:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Michelle asked me again to comment on the egg issue, so this is just to say that I agree with the current intro: vegetarians in my experience eat eggs, cheese, cream, and milk, though they'll prefer that the milk and cream be organic if possible, that the cheese isn't made with animal rennet, and that the eggs are free range. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that to many westerners eggs is part of the vegetarian definition. All I am saying is that western vegetarians are a minority in the vegetarian world and cannot solely define it. --Pranathi 00:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

They are clearly two different types of vegetarianism, one a lifestyle choice, the other a religious one. The reason I defend our one is that proper English definitions as in this encyclopaedia will probably come from the US and Britain which speak more precise, internationally recognised English I think. As the vast majority of English speaking contributors and readers on wikipedia are from the US and UK, it seems absurd for them to come and read a definition that is only accurate in India, when the same idea exists slightly differently in their own countries. I think we should just say that in Hindu countries eggs are traditionally excluded, while in most other countries they are included. Easy. --komencanto 08:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

We tend to go with English-language sources, Pranathi, because this is the English Wikipedia, and these would define vegetarianism as the absence of fish, flesh, and fowl. But we could add to the intro something like "And in India, vegetarians refrain from eating eggs." But is there anything else we should add to that sentence - anything other than eggs, and is it only in India where this is widespread? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with the english language (which is commonly spoken in India as well - infact among Indians that are on wikipedia - most use the English one) and it should be defined as a concept. It should be defined the same in English (maybe espcially so in english since it's the closest we have to a global lang), German or Sanskrit. Can we maybe discuss the slavery hypothesis - that will put aside our individual biases. I think in that context slavery would be defined in terms of argentinian practices and all variations are exceptions to the rule. I don't agree with the sentence above because definition is eurocentric, and India is the exception - whereas it should be the other way around. Also I am not sure, but I think Buddhist vegetarians may exclude egg as well. It is not uncommon in western countries as well. In Argentinian Wikipedia, for example, if the readers and contributors were mostly from the argentina high class that defines slavery favourably, that is understandable - but not correct - the balance is tilted only by including the slaves themselves. The concept should be defined globally and not favoured to any region.

I know the slavery thing is a bit absurd, but it helps me think outside my biases in vegetarianism. If in wikipedia, we cannot come to a global definition, then I think hope is lost for all other places that are dominated by eurocentrism. I am more favourable to komencanto's in Hindu (and possibly buddhist) countries eggs are traditionally excluded, while in most other countries they are included.

Another note, many other countries are Hindu dominated like Nepal, Fiji, Trinidad, Bali etc and may have the same definition. In for ex., african countries, where there are many Indian immigrants, vegetarianism is probably unknown except as practised by Hindus. South asian countries also have dominant hindu populations - I looked up vegetarian restaurants in Singapore and nearly half were indian. --Pranathi 16:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I found this in one of Idleguy's edits in subpages of vegetarianism Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. I think it applies to our discussion as well. --Pranathi 17:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting first sentence back to the way it was (see entry on top of this talk section). Please discuss objections. --Pranathi 00:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted, Pranathi, in part because I couldn't understand your edits (e.g. what distinction are you drawing between meat and flesh?), and in part because you're introducing questionable edits without sources. As your view of vegetarianism is being challenged by several editors, it would be helpful if you could produce a credible source that we could cite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to an older version - as mentioned on top - the reason being vegetarianism includes the exculsion of rennet etc. (yes, just one of the 2 - Meat and flesh - can be retained). My view of vegetarinism is being challenged by editors on the topic of eggs. I did not see anyone argueing against exclusion of animals products such as lard or rennet in definition? What type of source are looking for ? for eggs in indian vegetarnism or animal products like rennet - I am confused? For eggs, see [3] (also in the ref section). Let me know if you want more and I'll dig them up.

I think your new edit is controversial for having introduced eggs without finishing discussion. You will note, I did not change anything with respect to eggs.

As a continuation of our discussion, please seeWikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias for your concerns. --Pranathi 01:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

The criticisms section now seems redundant. The B12 issue is resolved in the nutrition section, the environmental one is in the environmental section while the third criticism could easily be integrated into the environmetnal discussion. Should that section go? --komencanto 10:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting - continuation of worldview discussion

Pranathi, you're edit warring to introduce your own POV, which is a policy violation. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Because there is a dispute about the definition, from now on, we must cite credible sources for our edits related to the definition. In that way, the dispute will disappear. Please read our policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and our guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please do not revert properly referenced edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I only reverted back to the original edit as of yesterday. That is not my POV or my edit. There is a dispute about the definition - that definitions agreed upon by western countries are not acceptable. You have cited a currently disputed western definition and inserted your own POV without ending the discussion. But, since you are an admin, I guess you win the edit war. --Pranathi 02:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you didn't answer my question above, I am assuming you want sources that show lacto vegetarianism is common in India. I have cited a source in ref section and here are more: [4], [5], [6] - one from IVU as well. --Pranathi 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, by all means add to the intro or elsewhere, but don't delete what's there. I added definitions from the British Vegetarian Society and the International one (not Western, international). Now you can add definitions from Indian societies, citing the source after the edit. The intro shouldn't be too much longer, but it can stand to have a bit more added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, (applies to the 'international' one as well), these sources are eurocentric. Eurocentrism is the gist of our dispute. I don't wish to add from Indian societies but would like to see this page reflect a global viewpoint. When you inserted your new edits, we were in the process of discussing the intro - whether to include eggs in common definition - whether to include eggs but add an aside on indian habits - or whether to exclude eggs. No consensus was reached, but you are using your argument of 'citing sources' and status as admin, to supercede all discussion and change intro to one that suits your viewpoint in discussion - that of showing india as exception to the general rule. I disagreed with that definition - without counter-argueing you changed the definition. So who's edit is POV?--Pranathi 04:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of that, I think the intro is now reasonable. It points out that there is some uncertainty as to the definition between countries and that in India eggs are excluded for religious reasons. India doesn't have rights to the term alone, given that it was coined by the vegetarian society in Britain. [7] I don't think it's eurocentrism to give the common definition in the countries that are most associated with english (US, UK) and then state the exceptions in other countries. I have to say that I strongly disagree with the thing in the into about genetically modified foods. That is just a policy of the vegetarian society to do with using their label, based on the anti-gmo opinions of many of the constituents. GMO is really nothin to do with vegetarianism in itself. --komencanto 05:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that we didn't agree on intro, the intro is now reasonable because it covers your stated preferences (POV) in unfinished discussion above - where you did not respond to request for worldview or reply to my point that it is not the language but concept that is important? Also, I don't understand the bias against religion motivations? Why is, say, ethical vegetarianism given more validity? In India, vegetarian mostly means lacto vegetarian - period. The word was coined by the British, but again, it is a concept and not a word. There are similar words in other languages -(shakahari - plant eater in Hindi)- that translate to each other - vegetarian. I agree on what you say about GMO though.--Pranathi 06:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If the conventional definition of vegetarian in western-english (i.e., "English") is essentially "lacto-ovo-vegetarian", I think it is then more accurate to say that the concept of "shakahari" is incorrectly translated into english as "vegetarian" and is more accuratly "lacto-vegetarian" (or whatever is suitable) rather than that the English definition being wrong. Zwat 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The first-cited source "Thirukural Chapter 26: Abstaining from Meat" is not really suitable as the primary source for a modern definition of vegetarianism. If we want to keep with the definition, let's go for something more credible please. SP-KP 09:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not 'modern', does not purport to be a definition, and is in the history section. How is it not credible? because it comes from a source that did not know the english word vegetarian? Sorry for my tone, but that is the general sense I am getting - that editors here are adamant about keeping this page eurocentric - they don't want to reply to valid concerns - keep diverting the topic - attempt to revert any non-eurocentric changes made. Can we finish the definition with regard to egg and then move on to Thirukural, please? --Pranathi 14:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, when I added the above, I believed that the footnote in the intro led to this source and not to the preceding reference, which sounds like a much better source. Apologies SP-KP 15:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my outburst as well. I read too much into your note. --Pranathi 19:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an update on what are the current issues regarding the article not conforming to a worldview, or can the tag now be removed? --nirvana2013 12:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana, please the see next sections 'revert' and 'A better way forward' for latest dialogue. --Pranathi 16:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Slimvirgin, Please explain your revert. It has not been established that lacto-ovo is most common - Why are edits that say that allowed without finishing discussion? If you are saying the fact is established, please give reasons explaing why opposing reasons - worldwide view, majority of world's vegetarians, eurocentrism, concept is more important that origin of word - are not valid. I am hoping for a reasonable explanation. And an explanation for why edits are being made without attempting to answer valid objections.--Pranathi 16:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)\

I reverted you because you changed what one of the sources said: where the Indian delegation explained that Indian vegetarians don't eat eggs for religious and cultural reasons, you changed it. But that is what the source said.

I'm not sure what your question above meant. What are you saying is the majority view? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

so for that, you reverted all 3 of my edits? I removed that because I thought it was unnecessary for intro. Since I seem to be the only one that cares about what and why india eats, I did not think that other editors would mind. You should have just reinserted that portion instead of reverting the whole edit (or maybe tell me on talk?). Since it was a paraphrase to being with I added the sidenote about India's vegetarian #s..

I am talking about the majority of the world's vegetarians being lacto vegetarian. --Pranathi 17:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This site, that says that 20-30% in India are strict vegetarians (no eggs). [8]

Despite traditional vegetarian dietary preferences, the growth of the poultry and egg industries is evidence that the expansion of meat and feed demand will play a role in the transformation of Indian agriculture, as it has in other developing countries. In fact, consumer studies suggest that while 20-30 percent of consumers have strict vegetarian preferences, meat consumption by the remaining 70-80 percent is limited more by income than religious preference.

This site says 42% are vegetarians (no eggs) in India.

[9]

An analysis of consumption data originating from National Sample Survey (NSS) shows that 42 percent of households are vegetarian, in that they never eat fish, meat or eggs.

This one says 35%. [10]

Not considering lacto vegetarian in other Hindu dominated or western countries, Buddist monks (that usually don't eat egg) etc., just the Indian population would make up 216 million to 454 million lacto vegetarians (using indian population of 1.08 billion). Even taking the low end 216 million, that accounts for atleast 4.32% of the world's population (5 billion) - a clear majority. --Pranathi 00:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A better way forward?

The reverts on this page are getting somewhat out of hand (I have to share some of the responsibility myself). My feeling is that there must be a better way to get consensus on the subject matter. I'd like to propose that everyone involved in the "What is vegetarianism" debate holds off from editing the article in any way which changes it from one viewpoint to the other, or back and discusses the subject on the talk page instead. I'm including reverts in this too - if enough of us agree to do this, we should be able to exert pressure on those making changes of this nature through lack of awareness of the debate to self-revert). I'm optimistic that we can arrive at an agreed approach if we do that. Can the main protagonists indicate whether they are willing to try this by signing below? SP-KP 18:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a main protagonist, but this makes sense to me. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Pranathi 20:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am going to assume, by the silence, that slimvirgin is convinced on lactovegetarianism being most common (see revert discussion above). I will attempt to change the page shortly to present a world-wide view. Please discuss objections in general, objections to particular changes or wording in talk page before reverting.--Pranathi 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am still hoping SlimVirgin will sign up to this idea; I will message him/her again with a reminder SP-KP 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Restored lead

SlimVirgin wrote: deleted ovo vegetarianism because it seems not to exist (eat eggs but no dairy?), and strict vegetarianism is veganism; also deleted the first sentence which contradicted the rest of the paragraph.

Ovo-vegetarianism exists [11] and it's quoted in Mosby's as well, which I find to be a neutral source. The diet makes up one of the four types of vegetarian diets; I'm guessing one would go Ovo due to dairy allergies, although there might be other reasons. Strict vegetarianism [12] was the original term for veganism and is still used. I don't think the first sentence contadicts the rest of the paragraph as it refers to the theory of the ideal, and goes on to discuss the different types in practice, which often falls short of the ideal. --Viriditas | Talk 20:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the ovo-vegetarian source, Viri. Regarding strict vegetarianism, do you mind if I tweak the writing to make it clear that it's the same thing as veganism? I also think some tweaking is necessary regarding the first sentence, because otherwise it looks like it contradicts the rest of the paragraph. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. --Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

strict vegetarianism means different things to different people. To some it means veganism, in India it may mean no onion and garlic, in some places just that they really don't eat meat products even as a hidden ingredient. --Pranathi 00:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy on quotes

The quotes section selectively quotes people seen to be promoting vegetarianism. But both Mahatma and Buddha have said many other statements not dispising meat and animal products. Shouldn't we include them too? This from Buddha who ate meat: "Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk" and "Today a fat beast, killed by Siha the general, is made into a meal for the recluse Gotama (the Buddha), the recluse Gotama makes use of this meat knowing that it was killed on purpose for him, that the deed was done for his sake"

Gandhi also promoted the eating of sterile eggs and so his statements too must be included as contrarian ones.

Either both the pro and anti veg statements of the said persons should exist or none should exist. Providing only the veggie sympathetic quotes is a selective reading of the person. Pl. decide before I make changes soon. Tx Idleguy 07:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you have a point, but also think adding the quotes will not serve the original purpose of the section. This is a page on vegetarianism and quotes are related to that and not the person. Can we resolve this another way - maybe with a side note after the person's name. I don't know, I'm either way on this one - whatever works.

Also, Gandhi didn't promote eggs but stated that sterile eggs were permissible. slight change of words. --Pranathi 00:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The side note seems fine. Idleguy 03:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus & disciples vegetarian?

Whoever said Jesus and his apostles were vegetarians clearly knows nothing about the Bible and is downright wrong. See Matthew 14:17-19, Luke 24:41-43, John 21:12-13

• well whether Jesus was a vegetarian is up for debate, but many early Christian sects were. --Revolución (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There are records showing that at least seven of the apostles were vegetarians. The above quotes need a context. --Jan/VEDA, 7 Dec 05

I am unclear where that is coming from in the article. But, I have to agree that many of the religious sections are highly biased toward the vegetarian view, and serve as more of an non-neutral pursuasive basis to be vegetarian than a factual analysis of religious motivations for vegetarianism. For instance, most branches of the Baha'i faith do not prohibit eating meat, only certain animals, nor do many branches of Sikhism or Rastafarianism, which requires ital food but most often allows meat. And Islamic justifications for vegetarianism ethics are very, very tenuous. Iammaggieryan 13:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I doubt very much that anyone could make a strong case that Jesus was a vegetarian, but the theological case for vegetarianism does not require that Jesus avoided meat. See the book Is God a Vegetarian, a Christian theological defence of vegetarianism which considers the Jesus "problem" at length in a very balanced and serious fashion. --Irishtimes 04:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• As an Orthodox Jew (and therefore an outsider) reading the Gospel account, my take would be that the debate about "meats" was about keeping kosher, i.e., the early Christians did not want to make a division between those who kept kosher and those who did not, because then they could not eat meals together. This would be consistent with references elsewhere in the Gospels to not eating meat offered to pagan idols, etc. It is possible that the more strict Jewish Christians who still kept kosher might have abstained from meat altogether to avoid eating non-kosher or idolatrous meats at feasts where Jewish and Gentile Christians ate together. (A common practice even today, where many Orthodox Jews will eat only raw vegetables in non-kosher homes.) This would make them de facto vegetarians, but not for the same reasons most of us give up meat today. Although I should note, there are Orthodox Jews today who have given up meat because they do not trust the modern kosher meat industry to slaughter properly -- which would be analagous to the debate about meats referred to in the Gospels, i.e., the meat might not be kosher so don't eat it. Like I said, I'm not a Christian, but since Jesus was a Jew, this might help in terms of cultural/historical context. Rooster613 19:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

That Bit About Vegetarian Athletes

There was a fantastic study about vegetarian athletes compared to meat eaters. What happened to that? --Doc Holliday (unsigned)

Were you thinking of this? [13] It was a paragraph in the veganism article that was deleted by someone. It may be better suited to this article though. --nirvana2013 22:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Mosby's is a medical dictionary and IMO is not a reliable source for the definition of the practice or theory. I'd like to remove it and possibly make intro brief as in:

Vegetarianism is the practice of not eating meat, poultry or fish or their by-products, with or without the use of dairy products or eggs. [14]. The vegetarian diet also excludes products derived from animal carcasses, such as lard, tallow, gelatin, rennet and cochineal. Many vegetarians choose to refrain from wearing products the involve the death of animals, including leather, silk, feather, and fur.

Please discuss. --Pranathi 04:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That looks fine to me for an introduction, any other points can be covered elsewhere in the article. What is the latest on the worldview tag? I do not believe it does wikipedia much good these tags hanging around indefinately. --nirvana2013 10:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana, I will take a final look and remove tag soon. I will change the intro as well unless I hear objections.--Pranathi 14:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Order of motivations

Nirvana, you moved religious motivation down - despite it being the biggest motivation for vegetarians 'worldwide'. Your reason is that religion is off putting - isn't that religious bias - and aren't you speaking to a particular audience (the secular westerner) in mind - when you frame the article this way? An encyclopedia should state the facts and leave to the reader to make any value judgements - not try to convert people to a viewpoint (vegetarian diet) and change the look of the page to suit those motives, in addition to assuming a POV on the reader's part. See think of the reader.

I may have understood if the article layout was different. For ex, instead of falling under the motivations heading, the nutrition etc were independent perhaps titled - vegetarian nutrition, ethics of vegetarianism etc. But I don't think layout should change to suit a POV. --Pranathi 02:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for me I have belief, but not religion--it's utterly irrelevant to me what anyone else thinks, which is what religion is--a group of people who supposedly hold the same beliefs, but in fact don't and can't. If it's dead I don't eat it, that's that and it's all the motivation I care about. It mystifies me why explaining "motivation" further serves any purpose at all. Doovinator 02:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Doovinator, The motivations section is for readers who come to the page to understand vegetarianism. This could include non-vegetarians, religious or secular people, nutrionists etc. Some can't comprehend why so many in the world would maintain the diet and this section explains that. Different people are motivated to switch to the diet (if they eat meat) for different reasons - sometimes, over-time, all the reasons make sense to a vegetarian.

Nirvana, I am inclined to change the section back - let me know what you think.--Pranathi 20:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree that many times the motivation may be religious, I only question the need to spell it out in detail and emphasize a religious "connection". Everyone's beliefs are different, and I don't think anything is accomplished by endless discussion of what "our religion says", since someone else's religion always "says" something else, and there's no end to it. "Many vegetarians believe" isn't open to challenge on religious grounds. Doovinator 21:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I get what you're saying (I hope)! You are talking of what religions prescribe the practice and which do not etc.. basically the viewpoint of diff religions on whether to practice vegetarianism. I am coming solely from the Hindu perspective - hence (I think) the disconnect. I think there are several 'reasons' apart from my religion says so or nutritional, ethical etc reasons that Hindus follow the diet - reasons that explain why the religion prescribes the diet. So by motivations, I am translating to reasons - which is a subset of religious motivations. I think I follow the diet because I am concerned about nutrition is as valid as I follow it because I think it subtly influences my emotions or I follow it to make spiritual progress or I follow it to practice ahimsa (non-violence). If we take these out of their religous context - such as meat promotes Rajas - that will make it extremely speculative and place these concepts in unfamiliar settings.

I have to admit, I am a little fazed by the hostility the word 'religion' gets in the west. Religion is what you believe, it doesn't preclude other people from believing something different or not beleive in God at all - respect and tolerance is missing - pls don't take it personally and you don't need to answer, it's just my pov. --Pranathi 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much it--the "reasons" are A,B,C,D; the "religious motivations" are--well, pretty much, "God says so", at which point the counter-argument isn't reasons E,F,G,H, it's "Oh no God doesn't!", and instead of a discussion you have an argument. I don't take it personally; if someone finds an answer in religion which suits them, that's wonderful, but it doesn't advance the debate. My two cents. Doovinator 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is an encyclopaedia not a debate. Hindu religious reasons motivate a majority of the world's vegetarians (of whom maybe 70% is Hindu). I am interested in seeing this reasoning explained, like the short parah that is there which elaborates on spiritual reasons - not going into God says so type of arguments. If 70% of the world's vegetarians believe that the diet is essential to purify your mind, or animals should not be eaten because they have souls etc, I believe it should be mentioned (whether they can be proven or not). These reasons cannot be underplayed with the argument that religion puts readers off, so let's cut it short or let's move it down - atleast I'd expect a better argument. We need to put our personal worldviews aside and take the page to a global level. --Pranathi 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well go ahead if you want to; if I were doing it (which I'm not, at least right now) I'd title the section something like "Common Reasons People Become Vegetarian", with spiritual or religious reasons about third on the list. That's me, though; I've grown so incredibly tired of explaining myself over the last nearly 40 years I don't even want to open that can of worms. I don't care what the Bible says, or Hindus do, or Seventh Day Adventists or Buddhists or anyone else, I care about what I think is right and good and physically and mentally healthy for me, and for the world, and that's all. Anyone who wants to tag along is welcome, but I don't feel like arguing about God while we stroll. Doovinator 02:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Pranathi, I see your point of view, I hope you can see mine. The only reason Religion is the most common motivation for being vegetarian is one because of Hinduism, and two because the largest Hindu community is found in India, which has the second largest population on the planet after China. So one could argue that by putting Religion first is POV, as this only takes into account India and not a worldview. I maybe way of the mark here, so I apologise, but I am assuming you are Indian. --nirvana2013 18:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Nirvana, I am. I am trying to see your viewpoint too, but I reach the same conclusions. It's not just India, but I'll come to that later. Even if it is only India, that's where the majority lies. If this article were about say eating snakes and that was common only in Australia but rare elsewhere wouldn't Australian habits be highlighted? If the editors in the 'eating snakes' article were mostly non-australians, to them snake eating in Australia would be irrelevant. The analogies are stretched but we can think of it more objectively as another subject because as you noted - I am Indian and we are argueing about Indian habits.

Also note that in countries with good % of Hindu and Buddhist populations, Bali, Fiji, Guyana, Singapore,South Africa, Japan, Nepal, Middle east, Sri Lanka etc the majority of the vegetarians there are are probably religiously motivated. In Europe and the US as well, there are many Hindu vegetarians whose opinion is not given coverage. As an example, there are more than 1.5 million Hindus in America [15] - assuming 30% (low estimate) are vegetarians that's atleast 500,000 Hindu vegetarians just in the US. (I'm assuming many though don't take part in vegetarian societies, magazines, research and such, because the scales are so out of balance)

In any case, all motivations are still given coverage in this article. --Pranathi 23:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to move it up soon. Please discuss objections. Also, may I propose that this section only discuss motivations by religion and not exclusive ways of following diet or by subgroups. I already cut this type of material out of the Hindu section and I will extend it to all religions to keep it short. Pls revert if the cropping is not acceptable and talk. --Pranathi 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have an alternative solution to stop any POV disputes now, and in the future. What if the motivations are placed in alphabatical order in the interests of neutrality? --nirvana2013 13:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana, I may have understood your suggestion if the contention was between the different motivations and the order they are in - but conflict here is only between religious and secular - and your suggestion only serves your POV - to put religious motivations further down the list. I am unable to see your suggestion as neutral. I think, as the intro in religious subsection mentions, religion is the biggest reason (70% + )for practising the diet, and should be presented up front without bias. (Please note that I moved it up only after you trimmed down the whole religious section, which was further down in the list, down to 1 or 2 sentences - why this treatment of vegetarianism from one POV?) --Pranathi 01:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pranathi, I cannot help it that Religion starts with the letter "R". Maybe it is God's intention that the secular motivations are read first. --nirvana2013 12:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Greats like Hitler were Vegetarians

Many of the worlds past great people were vegetarians. It's clear that the path for higher understanding and style is stepping aside from bad practices like the living off others death for survival.

As much as I disagree with vegetarianism, this is probably the worst argument against it I've ever heard. Please see: association technique. PS. Greats like Joseph Stalin and Ghenghis Khan were meat-eaters! - FrancisTyers 15:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Also see Reductio ad Hitlerum. --Viriditas 14:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

then tell the PeTa to stop critisizing us normal people (by normal i mean people who actually live on an omnivous diet). Because Vegetarians kill organisms too, they kill trillions of bacteria every time they sit on a chair, or take a walk. All life is equal, killin a cell is equal to killing an elephant.

Rationale behind the "rationale"

I find that the section rationale reason is pretty unscientific. There is no doubt that humans are omnivores and yet there is almost 30 lines devoted to this flawed reason. Is there any valid reason why this shouldn't be removed considering that the very premise this argument is based upon is flimsy? Idleguy 03:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove it, I'd just add sourced information that proves it wrong. Which shouldn't be too hard ;) - FrancisTyers 10:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Terminology correction

Corrected "It should be noted that although vegetarians generally try to abstain from all animal by-products, many are willing to make small exceptions for their diet, attire, and so forth," as it confuses vegetarianism with veganism. While a vegetarian can of course be vegan, most vegetarians are not vegan.

- Vorpalbla 9 December 2005

Peer review

I made a request for this article to be peer reviewed here. --Revolución (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Famous?

"Perhaps the most famous vegetarian group is the Hunzas (also known as Hunzakuts) that reside near the Himalayas in Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and India."

Until I read this addition, I had never heard of the Hunzas. I think that more people tend to associate vegetarianism with Hinduism or Buddhism (although neither of these groups are exclusively vegetarian). Even the Jains are not very well-known world-wide. NTK 14:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Me neither, never heard of the group until this page. I was confused by the rest of your statement until saw that the history section has no mention of Hinduism in the start. Will add. I think Jains are noted because they are exclusively vegetarian. --Pranathi 23:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Spain stock

In Spain, most vegetarian meals will be served with egg, or even tuna. Stock is normally used in vegetable soups and many sauces.

Stock is used? Should that say meat stock? FireWorks 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)