![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Surely someone could came up with some criticisms against vegans --76.20.242.2 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been upset that there is no picture. I have been looking at many vegetarian related pictures from dishes to produce but nothing has seemed right. But i looked at the page and there is not a picutre of a vegetarian food pyramid! Why not have the main picture of a vegetarian food pyramid. Here is a good one i found online: http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info/images/pyramid_large.jpg Imatheocracy (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
One can not accurately perceive the weight of the facts stated, without knowing the quantities in question. Namely, the Food safety question with relation to vegetarism seems to be that food safety of vegetables is higher than food safety of meet. This however should not avoid the fact that meat is avoidable and vegetables are not for humans to survive. In this sense, the problems with meat are added on, and it should be clearly stated what is added-on to see what can be avoided, if one decides not to eat meat.
It is not possible to drive this discussion in to the either/either because even non-vegs have to eat vegetables. With relation to meat originated diseases there are traces to 100Milions of deaths, which would not have occured if the population would have been vegetarian. This can not be compared to few cases od diarrhea. There should be some balanced point of view. Atmapuri (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Any sources directy discussing vegetarianism are inherently biased and automatically of lower quality. Best sources are such which are affecting the decision of people to be vegetarians or not, but by themselfs do not consider vegetarianism at all. Vegetarianism is not a religion or a society. It is a decision of each person on its own. And an article in encyclopedia should accurately represent the reasons why people decide to be or not to be vegetarians and also how does the fact of being a vegetarian or not affect our existance as a human society. All aspects of vegetarianism must be represented. UN Report also does not mention vegetarianism nor did it came out of a vegetarian society booklet. However, it does represent a very important fact, about how does being a vegetarian or not affect our environment. If vegetarianism would have been a religion, then such a rule as you mention (has to directly mention the subject) would indeed apply.
In the food scares there are claims that vegetables can also carry E coli and that vegs can be contaminated by other means. This is not relevant to the article of vegetarianism, because both vegetarians and non-vegetarians are affected equally by contaminated vegetables. This is not the case for contaminated meat, which is what the subject of the article is about. Namely about meat consumption and not about organic food.
The uric acid and the dental health issue is not a minor thing. I have personal expirience, that the influence of meat is stronger than sugar, but that is not a reference to be included in the article. I do know that uric acid does play a big role, but could not find more direct evidence on the internet. I am not a dentist and most hits about uric acid are on the topic of gout. Furthermore, the section topic says "concerns". The existing references provided are sufficient to express concern.
It is true, that you cant get flue from eating poultry, but there is also something called social awarness. That is, that you abstain from doing things, which would cause harm to society as a whole, if everybody would be doing it. What individual groups are using as advertisement or not, is not the subject of the article. Social awarness also gives another point: It is not ones own sole responsability when deciding to eat or not to meat, but we also have to consider that in the process of doing so, (either farming or hunting) you could cause milions of deaths, as it has happened in the past, with most notable and well proven example being AIDS. In this context bird flue and swine flue and all other animal originated diseases do carry the flag. If humans would be vegetarian in the past we know now for a fact, that around 150 milion lives would have been saved.
The problem that I see in this article is a POV which sees vegetarianism as a sort of secterian cult, which sometimes gets too loud. This POV is attempting to ignore proven scientific facts about influence of our diet on our existance as a human race. It gives an impression that by sticking our heads in the sand, all the problems will go away and we will be saved, just be the grace of our ignorance (which is not the purpose of encyclopedia). Atmapuri (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." and "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing." All conclusions made depend upon the reader. He is given the opportunity to create his own judgment, where the job of the editor is only to provide relevant facts. It is not acceptable to avoid relevant facts, to prevent conclusions of people reading the article in one or the other direction.
About E Coli. As stated before. Issues with meat can be avoided by avoiding meat. That can not be said for vegetables. That is what the article is about. What do vegetarians think they gain by being vegetarian. You can add statements which would guide the reader to a different conclusion, but you can not remove facts relevant to the subject.Atmapuri (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Issues with meat are not same as issues with vegetables in terms of quantity with relation to Salmonella and E coli. If you eat meat and vegetables you are affected by food scares from both meat and vegetables together which is more, than if you eat only vegetables. Although technically you can get both problems from either source, but if you have two sources, the chances are higher. As you say "Leading the reader" is not forbidden under WP:SYNTH. Making the conclusion myself in written form in the article would be. If I understand you correctly, if a bad thing can happen to you, if you meat, that information may not be published, if the source does not mention vegetarianism? I can not agree with that. Vegetarianism was created mostly because of bad things that can happen to you because of eating meat and those facts are the core of the subject. Atmapuri (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The sections of the article that you complain about have already been edited by Wiki Admins. Any violation's of the policy would have been rectified already within a blink of an eye because the article is well read. Using WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV is thus without grounds. I have been notified by Admins to address the issues related to this before and had to do so already. There is no synthesis and no unreferenced material and no complaints by Admins on the current content. You can fix NPOV, if you feel there is one, by adding referenced material which will turn the mind of the reader in the other direction. Atmapuri (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(deindent) I have to agree with Angr on this. That particular section is one of those that clearly jumped out at me as having an NPOV problem. Also, I'd just like to point out that I eat a very high-protein, high-carb diet with very few fruits and vegetables outside of fruit juices (as a result of a stomach disorder in my formative years preventing me from learning to eat any but the very blandest of foods - namely, unseasoned meat and grains). I get my vitamins from multivitamins and fruit juices, and that's about it, yet I am willing to wager that I am healthier in terms of both physical health and medical history than the vast majority of vegetarians. Now, I realize that my personal experience is not admissable evidence (probably partly because I eat very little in the way of red meat), nor do I intend it to be taken as such - I merely point out that vegetarianism (or lack thereof) is not a hard-and-fast definition of a "healthy" lifestyle, nor is a meat-heavy lifestyle necessarily less healthy than the alternative. Jgr2 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The article does not list "all the horrible things" that "could" happen if not being vegetarian. It does list only some of those horrible things that "have happened" before and could therefore happen also in the future. Listing "all the horrible things", would extend the section by several times. In a world where most of the people are not vegetarian, any concentration of arguments which speak for it, will appear unnatural, implicitly increasing the strain on nerves of those not being vegetarian. There is a distinct desire of people to separate the cause from the consequence and for everything to be a "a matter of free choice" without any consequences, and the consequences described as the stroke of faith and bad luck. However, we are not free from the chains of natural laws and when those are spelled our refusal of acceptance is the first thing to face. Namely that we are their prisoners. You are saying that you saw the evidence in favor of fish based diet, but maybe that evidence was also a a selection? Atmapuri (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I checked the reference and for vegetarians death ratio is always less than 1, where 1 are regular meat eaters. It is constantly and persistently lower than all other groups (occasional meat eaters, fish eaters and vegans). I guess you are referring to the overall where the difference is said to be reduced to %16 and the reason for this are "other causes". These other causes could be car crashes or what? Fish eaters are then leading by 2%. This analysis was not done for proper vegetarians, but mixed lacto and ovo vegetarians in the same group, which clearly indicates basic misunderstanding of vegetarianism and the culture. Vegetarians are typically lacto-vegetarians and one egg contains more hormones than 1kg of red meat. If you avoid one egg per day, you saved yourself more hormone intake than leaving out one big stake of hormone treated beef on its upper legal limit. It also analyzed only US vegetarians and did not cover the length of life living as a vegetarian. Veganism is known to be a tough choice requiring great care for nutrition. The study also did not compensate for the style of life and the biggest effect on life expectancy: the amount of food consumed daily. The less you eat the longer you live. The conclusion from the study from my perspective would be: Fish eaters generally eat less then vegetarians, but both eat less than meat eaters. Problem is also the pollution of the environment. Maybe fish eaters don't get served hormone enhanced meat as frequently as do those which eat red meat. Maybe they eat less. To separate a diet from the culture and environment is very difficult. That is why studies are done on specific type of disease linking to specific type of diet. The biggest black spot in the study you show are "other causes", which translates to "no information" and we don't know, especially when considering the size of the fish eating population. 150 deaths and 2% difference is "not" a reliable statistical estimate especially due the size of the "dark spot". From the point of authority, most doctors and scientists are meat eaters and in most cases where there is a dark spot, they will lean towards their own case due to metaphysical reasons mentioned before. Atmapuri (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sineed- I know why you deleted it I think, but all I want to say is that I found a source, http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777; article: Vegetarian Diets and it says that "The vegan or total vegetarian diet includes only foods from plants: fruits, vegetables, legumes (dried beans and peas), grains, seeds and nuts". Therefore, I believe that the vegan is the same thing as a total vegetarian. If you don't believe me, then you are more than welcome to go to the site yourself. I am sorry if I keep insisting, and you have every right to delete my edits and/or prove me wrong. I won't be offended. I'm just telling you that this is where my information came from. It's a credible source. Sorry again if it causes any inconvenience. Turquoise 101 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sineed- I know why you deleted the edit "vegan, or total vegetarianism" or something along those lines I think, but all I want to say is that I found a source, http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777; article: Vegetarian Diets and it says that "The vegan or total vegetarian diet includes only foods from plants: fruits, vegetables, legumes (dried beans and peas), grains, seeds and nuts". Therefore, I believe that the vegan is the same thing as a total vegetarian. If you don't believe me, then you are more than welcome to go to the site yourself. I am sorry if I keep insisting, and you have every right to delete my edits and/or prove me wrong. I won't be offended. I'm just telling you that this is where my information came from. It's a credible source. Sorry again if it causes any inconvenience. Turquoise 101 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
under the "Psychological" section of the argument, it claims "The "Appeal to nature" logical fallacy invites one to believe that something is good or right because it is natural."
This is also known as a naturalistic fallacy, but it a fallacy in ETHICS not logic. This should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.180.247 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Collapsing a poem posted anon
|
---|
Sometimes considered vegetarian
I see this sentence as problematic because "are sometimes considered vegetarian" sounds like "in certain contexts, these are considered vegetarian"; claiming the pescetarianism = vegetarianism view as an occasionally true fact. The intended meaning, however, is "some people consider it vegetarian". When I hear "sometimes considered vegetarian", I think things like "considered vegetarian when it's just a little bit of fish" or "considered vegetarian on certain holidays" or such; it sounds like an objective judgment of fact as opposed to a subjective, individual viewpoint. That is why I prefer we be more specific that we mean "some people" consider it vegetarian. Unfortunately, Flyer22 is correct that "considered by some" is a weasel word. To fix this, we should be specific as to who considers pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism. Pescetarianism cites Shorter Oxford English Dictionary that basically does this. I do not think that is enough, though, as SOED doesn't say it bases its definition of "vegetarian" on the definition of "meat". I have been searching for other reliable sources to cite for those who consider pescetarianism a form of vegetarianism, and have unfortunately not found any. But I think this is the necessary way to go, since the current wording seems misleading (to me anyway). -kotra (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, this is what I propose for the complete introductory section:
--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed new leadI find the proposed lead too short and more confusing. This is a large and complex issue. I think the lead needs to be carefully expanded, and I think it has (despite the many setbacks) been slowly improving.- Sinneed 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Flyer22's reinsertion of the ref from the "Shorter OED". I think that ref fits well where you put it.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Pictures of notable ones?Maybe there should be pictures of non-disputed, notable veggies as the picture on the left, like the way they do with nationality articles. Perhaps, um, Paul McCartney, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison and Leonardo da Vinci? Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost BACK FROM EXAMS 03:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
GA statusHey, Flyer22, and everyone! I think if we keep moving down the article like we've started doing maybe we can apply for GA status once we reach the bottom. Thoughts?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
|