Welcome to fletrix.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Talk:Vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. See American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Peer review Vegetarianism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.

Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue (including archives) to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.



Archives

Contents

[edit] Rajendra K Pachauri A Vegetarian and UN Report Bias?

Hi my comment on RK Pachauri, cited below was removed:

It should be noted that Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has been accused of bias, due to the fact he himself is a vegetarian[1], through his Hindu religion and also the fact he is an Economist and not a Climatolagist[2][3].

The point I was trying to make was that seems to be a lot of reliance on the UN article, when we must consider that the author maybe inherently biased. The issue as I see it is not about meat, but about more "Greener" method of farming accross the board for meat and vegetables.

  1. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink
  2. ^ http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/01/comment-on-nyt-blog-about-attacks-on.html.
  3. ^ http://libertynewscentral.blogspot.com/2008/08/announcing-1st-lnc-green-hypocrite.html
The Guardian article asserts that Pachauri is a vegetarian, but never says he's been accused of bias because of that. The other two sources are blogs - and pretty biased ones at that - which cannot be considered reliable sources. +Angr 13:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed those sources are unreliable, but as blogs are used commonly by journalists, acursory search will tell you that there are a lot of critics out there. My main contention is however, the real issue is about "Greener" farming methods.

--Sikh-history (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And neither of those articles mentions either Pachauri or vegetarianism. This article is about vegetarianism, not "green" farming methods, so any additions have to be directly concerned with vegetarianism. +Angr 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In that case this section should be deleted.

--Sikh-history (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But that section is about vegetarianism. I didn't mean green farming methods couldn't be mentioned at all, only that any discussion of them has to relate to their significance to vegetarianism (or vice versa), and the USA Today and Indepdent articles you linked don't even mention vegetarianism as far as I could tell. +Angr 07:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the point I am trying to make is I feel uncomfortable about the entire environmental argument Behind vegetarianism. Compounded by RK Pachauri's report, it is like a Muslim or a Jew arguing hyy pig farming is bad for the environment. I think we have to be careful how we present our arguments, and not become the focus of ridicule. I am happy for this section to stay, but I think we have to make it more encyclopedic, and not allow potentially biased or "fringe" theories into the article. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
What we need to find then is reliable sources directly arguing against the environmental argument for vegetarianism. If no one reputable has said in print "Pachauri is a vegetarian, so he's biased", then we can't say that either. +Angr 10:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I want to see a for or against, but just a balanced article. I think along these lines probably because of my Sikh faith which tells me "Fools Wrangle over Meat ans Vegetable". For me as a Sikh I see it as a personal decision to be a vegetarian. The article in some areas seems to preach to convert people to vegetarianism. Again I see this tactic as flawed. Amongst Sikhs we refer to choosing a certain path as a "Game of love". I thought the following article was pretty good:

--Sikh-history (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution POV (May 2009)

Sorry for returning with the POV problems, but the previous discussions never ended the dispute. Until now this article continues to have a strong vegetarian POV. The article only mentions advantages and/or positive reactions to vegetarianism and none disadvantages and/or negative reactions.

Please help me create a section to solve the problems in the POV of this article. The section can be started here: User:Ularevalo98/Vegetarianism_criticism

While now I will tag the article for POV, as it has a clear vegetarian POV. The Criticism section in creation is strongly necessary to solve the POV problem, as there is lots of criticism but none is in this article.

--Ularevalo98 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this talk page the place to solve any problems the article might have? David Olivier (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The previous discussion was very clear. If there are arguments or criticisms of vegetarianism they should be included with reliable, unbiased references. Adding a POV tag, and repeating that the article is POV doesn't get us any closer to knowing why or what should be done to balance this. To end this alleged dispute, clearly state what is POV or biased and what should be done to counteract this. Until you do that, it is impossible to figure out what you're talking about. If you believe there are valid criticisms, let alone enough to fill an entire section, please supply us with a list. Please, be specific. Bob98133 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am a vegetarian myself, and I agree, that this article has a heavy POV. It is biased. For example health benefits?. In India we have masses of heart disease, despite people having a vegetarian diet. It need to be emphasised that vegetarian diet in itself is not beneficial, but how it is prepared, what type. There is no mention of lack of iron in vegetarians (something I suffer from), or the detrimental efefct of taking supplements such as B12 from tablets, rather than in a natural form. I really do not feel comfortable with some of the assertions here. In Sikhism, we speak of a "Game of Love", and we have no compulsion to be vegatarian, and teherefore if one becomes a vegetarian it is out of love, and not out of FEAR! This article seems to be fear based. --Sikh-history (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, in India the health problems could come more from bad quality water or conditions of cooking, not necessarily from vegetarianism (and all people in India isn't too vegetarian). Some studies talk about "health benefits". And the B12, is only a problem for vegans, not to a lot of vegetarians that eat food that contains it (well, really is a problem from all people: some organizations say all people from some age and all pregnants would take B12 supplements). If you make a badly balanced diet (vegetarian or not) or have previously some health problems, is normal that you have lack of iron, B12, or other things. Our personal problems aren't reliable data to be included in an article. If some criticism is needed, could only be added in the conditions said before by Bob98133. Akhran (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Sikh-history, for coming up with some concrete suggestions of possible problems with a vegetarian diet. From what you wrote, we could look at and find references for:
  1. A large national vegetarian population does not decrease heart attacks in the general population.
  2. Some vegetarian diets are not healthy (usually, Wiki says "well-balanced"), but certainly any diet that does not provide enough calories, or only provides calories from vegetable fat, would be unhealthy.
  3. How vegetarian food is prepared may affect its healthiness. This is addressed in some meat articles, where smoking and use of nitrites affect the healthiness of the food, so it could be addressed in this article.
  4. Taking B12 tablets is less effective, or harmful, compared to natural forms of this vitamin.
If an editor finds reliable references for these, they should be added to the article. These don't seem to be sufficient for a separate section, but there may be more. Bob98133 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Akhra you obviously have not been or lived in rural India.I am not a vegan and iron and B12 are a problem for me and I eat well. I have been advised due to lack of B12 I am at a higher risk of heart disease.

What I suggest is, if you live in the UK, go along to a Gujerati vegetarian restaurant and see how fat and ill the patrons look. You don't need a study for that. In anycase there are a number of deficiencies amongst India people. I am not advocating the following article but it makes me think.

Also there are links to some useful articles on vitamin D. Also note these problems have been highlighted amongst Indians in the UK:

In fact some quarters are advocating a non-vegetarian diet in India to combat hypertension:

--Sikh-history (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To insist that an article on vegetarianism should explain that some vegetarian diets are not healthy seems a bit like wanting us to specify that vegetarianism doesn't protect you from falling off walls or loosing at the lottery. Yes, vegetarians can be overweight; I myself am vegan and could do with 10 kilograms less. I eat too much. Do we really have to include that in the article? David Olivier (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect Olivier, you analogy is incorrect. The article reads to me as if Vegetarianism is the panacea to all the worlds ill's This clearly is not true. The article points out how vegetarians are healthy, but does not show how vegetarians are also unhealthy. The article points to how meat is bad, but does not point out it is OVER-consumption that is bad (be it meat or vegetable), not meat itself. I keep saying it, Vegetarianism (or for that matter any path we choose) should be a "Game of Love", not based on "Fear" as this article is. This article does nothing to promote vegetarians, but makes us look like Fear mongering fascists.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sikh-history - please see the meat article and red meat articles. It is not overconsumption of meat that causes negative health effects, it is continued or usual use, with as little as 4 oz/day having a negative health effect. This is neither a game of love nor fear but an encyclopedic article about vegetarianism. It is not intended to promote vegetarianism but to explain it. If the statistics say that vegetarians are 70% less likely to get colon cancer, it still means that many vegetarians get colon cancer, just fewer statistically than with meat eaters. It doesn't say that vegetarians are 70% healthier or that none of them get these diseases, just that the likelihood is less. The info included has to be well-sourced. For example, just because some Indian vegetarians have low Vit D levels does not mean that vegetarianism leads to this condition. Also, are low Vitamin D levels indicative of illness or disease or decreased life-span? Who knows? That's why everything has to be referenced. Looking at fat people in a restaurant of any sort may be interesting, but proves nothing at all.Bob98133 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL @ "Looking at fat people in a restaurant of any sort may be interesting". For chubby chasers it is, at any rate! +Angr 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Either way let's balance the article.--Sikh-history (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Answering your previously message, that now you have deleted, (Sorry Bob, it is that sort of mumbo jumbo that gives vegetarians a bad name. It is over consumption. Stop trying to be smart. I give up. You will never convince anyone to be a vegetarian with that sort of rhetoric[1]), I don't know what exactly means "jumbo mumbo", but it seems to me that anybody is making the article to convince anyone. We only want to make a good article that includes reliable information, no an article that promote or prejudice vegetarianism itself. And include not reliable information only with the purpose of give a bad name to something or data from your personal experience seems to me that maybe that is too a "jumbo mumbo" about what you talk. Akhran (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Reason why I deleted the previous statement is because I misread what Bob wrote. I do not need articles to tell me this article is biased. I have 4 children. My daughter and me are vegetarians (no eggs). My other kids eat meat. Me and my daughter suffer from B12 deficiency, as well as lack of iron. I supplement, but that has adverse reactions. I can live with this because my conscience does not allow me to eat meat. This article makes vegetarian diets to be sweetness and light. This is clearly not the case. The article needs to reflect this. My other kids have no such problems--Sikh-history (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sikh-history: we are no longer discussing the article or how to improve it. You were asked for references to support your claim that this article is biased - you have not provided any. Personal anecdotes are not references. Perhaps you or your daughter have a genetic disorder affecting your B12 or iron metabolism that has nothing whatsoever to do with your diet. The proof you present would be better suited to a personal blog than an encyclopedia article. As you say, some vegetarians are overweight, but some cigarette smokers live to be 95 years old, however this does not prove that vegetarianism is unhealthy or that cigarette smoking leads to long life. Unless you want to discuss referenced changes to this article, I'm done with this discussion. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Bob there is no need to get personal or insult me and my daughter. We have no genetic abnormalities. I was merely illustrating a point. A point you failed to understand. I was not saying this could be referenced material, but studies carried out in India are useful because India has the largest and longest standing vegetarian population in the world. I really do not want to get embroiled in an argument. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Longevity

Im confused.. I need to find out if vegetarians do live longer and if so how long. I know it already has a part on it but i dont really understand it.. Any decoders out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.8.10 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can make out, it's saying that pesca-vegetarians, vegetarians and low-meat eaters live a little bit longer and vegans are the same when compared to a diet high in meat. Of course, this article is glossing over the fact that the study presented concludes that vegetarians actually had a higher overall mortality rate, and were only significantly less likely to die from ischemic heart disease - hooray for POV issues! Actually, this is an issue that really needs to be addressed. Jgr2 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. People should study the long term effects of a vegetarian diets by looking at what is happening in India, as in here. Rises in Heart disease amongst vegetarians have been explained by "genetic mutation", yet less than 4% of India population is affected by this mutation. Lets be honest. A balanced diet is good for you. Not one that means you lack B12, vitamin D and Iron. Some further studies here. Let's be honest. It is a balanced diet that helps, not a vegetarian diet.I haven't eaten flesh, or eggs in years, but under medical advice I may start to eat eggs.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Source(s)

Source 106, Diet by Design by Tyler Stanley, seems pretty crackpot, honestly. The tone of the book is fanatical, and it's self-published. He may be citing credible sources, but I can't see them in the book previews on Google Books. Because of these indicators I've gone ahead and removed most references to it from the article per WP:RS. Actually, several of these sources seem to be in the same vein, and could use cleaning up. Jgr2 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss about if that book is or not reliable, but the fact is that you had deleted a lot of information well referenced, so I have restored it. If you had seen some "copyright infringement", please say where. Akhran (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I take it by well-referenced information you refer to the lengthy (not to mention copied word-for-word from the sources in question, thus the copyright infringement) discussion of H5N1, a matter completely irrelevant to the article at hand, as well as repeated references to a cancer virus (which, while they do exist, are in this case species specific and thus not relevant)? If you notice, my edits kept the same general information while removing the unnecessary abundance of "facts" from a non-reliable source, as well as a little repetition. Keep in mind that this article is already overly long, and I was merely attempting to make it more readable, as well as a bit less biased. The book, however, is clearly not a reliable source per the guidelines of WP:RS. Jgr2 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The part about "the Animal-to-human disease transmissions" is really relevant because explain some of the reasons that makes a people go vegetarian. Anyway, you are right about the copyright infringement, so I had rewrited and summarized the part about H5N1, without (I think) any missing of important information. Akhran (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That bit is better now, agreed, but I still say that the Stanley source is unreliable and information that has it as its source should be removed, especially as I can't find anything providing corroborating evidence for his claims. Also, I'm going to go back and re-change the stuff that I did that was purely grammatical editing. Jgr2 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After my most recent edit, I noticed several references were from Answers.com (i.e. the bits on Neopaganism and factory farming), which for the most part just mirrors wikipedia articles. These are also not acceptable sources, and new ones should be found. Jgr2 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] vitamin b12

Taken from Talk:veganism

i read on the internet that Dr. james halsted was working with persian iranian vegans who did not get b12 deficiency and discovered they were using humanure to grow there food.Username 1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some info about this - it's called Indirect coprophagy - [2]. Not sure if it's worth a mention, though. One would think that the human manure used would have to come from non-vegans, too. Bob98133 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not worth a mention; this is a very edge case source of B12, and has not been shown to provide adequately for vegan nutritional needs. KellenT 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree this is a bit bizarre, but if there are good refs for it (not the one I cited above), I don't think that a mention would be out of place. As you say, Kellen, it would require good research to prove that this method does provide adequate B12, but if that proof exists, a mention would be OK with me. If Username is interested in documenting this, maybe he/she can post the refs to talk and we can discuss this again. Bob98133 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
i'm looking for more than a mention. note that the b12 is not left over from the food remains of non-vegans, but from the bacteria in the large intestines in vegans before it is excreted. Vitamin B12 cannot be made by plants or animals as only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. Also on the internet i found a study in which scientist cured vitamin b12 def. in vegans by giving them concentrated doses of b12 from there own fecal matter, which proves there is enough b12 in the feces but that perhaps only barely enough b12 survives the second time through. I found this as well:

"Studies have shown that those eating an omnivorous diet require more vitamin B-12 than vegans. This is because the typical diet leads to digestive atrophy. Because vitamin B-12 is peptide bound in animal products and must be enzymatically cleaved from the peptide bonds to be absorbed, a weakening of all gastric acid and gastric enzyme secretions (due to a cooked food diet) causes an inability to efficiently extract vitamin B-12 from external food." Username 1 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also seen studies showing that eating food contaminated with shit may contain B12. However, I have not seen a reliable source indicating that fruitarians specifically may meet their B12 requirements in this way. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it civil. Username, if you have a reliable source for that which you can show the rest of us, rather than quoting from something that sounds like a tertiary source, I see no real reason why it shouldn't be at least mentioned. It is a little gross, though. Jgr2 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vegetarianism"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs