Talk:Semi-vegetarianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I just want to let everyone know..

..that I am officially semi-celibate and semi-sober. Riselikehelium (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I lol'd. 58.174.169.54 (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All things in moderation, including moderation. 98.243.172.27 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi Vegetarian?

"Merge article with 'omnivore'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.156.189 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Semi-vegetarianism is a term used to describe the practice of excluding some meat (particularly red meat) from the diet while still consuming limited amounts of poultry, fish, and/or seafood[1][2]."

Surely that describes everyone that isn't vegetarian? Everyone is going to exclude "some meat" be it rat meat, dog meat or human baby meat. "Limited amounts" is not quantifiable and therefore cannot be used to identify who is "semi-vegetarian" or not. There's no such thing as semi vegetarianism, you either are or you aren't.

Muleattack (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Vague as the definition is, the term does exist. I'm not sure if "semi-vegetarianism" meets notability guidelines or not, but that's how it's defined. Though to avoid any confusion, maybe it could say "Semi-vegetarianism is a term used to describe the practice of excluding some commonly-consumed meat (particularly red meat) from the diet while still consuming limited amounts of poultry, fish, and/or seafood." (text in bold added). Or we could skip the vagueness altogether and go with the more specific definition given by the citations: "Semi-vegetarianism is a term used to describe the practice of excluding red meat from the diet while still consuming limited amounts of poultry, fish, and/or seafood." I think the latter should be used, because although it may not always be true, it's what the citations say (verifiability, not truth). -kotra (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointless / Nonsensical Article, Delete it or merge it with something else.

There is no such thing as a semi-vegetarian. By definition of a vegetarian (lets choose the vegetarian socieities definition to make it simple).. "We define a vegetarian as someone living on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits, with or without the use of dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or slaughter by-products"

In a nutshell, you cannot be half of an absolute, you cannot half not eat animals, akin to the fact you cannot be half a smoker, you either are or you are not.

A so called semi-vegetarian is just somebody on a low-meat diet.

Listing 'health benefits of a so called semi-vegeatiran lifestyle is ridiculous! For a start theres no definition of what one is, what meats can or cannot be eaten etc. It's just another junk term thrown around to make the low meat diet sound more fancy than it is and shouldn't have a place on wikipedia.

Any thoughts?

Neosophist (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Neosophist,

The main problem with this article is that it lacks WP:RS so I will support WP:AFD. I think your absolutist argument is not relevant. If more people used the word and it were clear that there were many people who intentionally set out to call themselves and be 'semi-vegetarians', the nonsense of the label wouldn't make any difference as long as there were reliable sources. As it is, it may be a candidate for a dictionary entry, though there is a difference of opinion about whether it means the person eschews red meat or that they eat it rarely. That said, it probably doesn't deserve a whole encyclopedic article.-- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As Kotra stated above, the term does exist. So does its diets. The diets supporting the term probably would not exist if it did not. There are plenty of reliable sources out there backing up this and its sub-terms. This article just needs fixing up (in other words, expansion). At least one of its subarticles should be merged into it (Flexitarianism). And the largest two (pescetarianism and pollotarianism) should have some information duplicated from there to here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

At the moment there is a Criticisms section. On one hand, I've no idea why somebody thinks it's "diametrically opposed to vegetarianism" - it would be nice if somebody could provide an explanation for the benefit of those who don't have access to the cited book. Without it, the section is meaningless.

But my reason for claiming a POV issue is that we need to redress the balance by giving motives for semi-vegetarianism. I can speak from experience: I have recently become a part-time carnivore and agree on the whole with the points made on that site. While it's quite different from semi-vegetarianism as talked about here, I suppose the same applies: it's a good compromise for people who don't like the idea of giving up meat completely or of going whatever the vegetarian equivalent of cold turkey is, or who would find it impractical. Still, I'm not sure at the moment how best to factor all this into a section of the article. -- Smjg (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I get your point. But as for the book reference, not having access to a reference does not make its existence pointless (there are plenty of references on Wikipedia that people don't have easy access to); with book references (ones where the cited information is not online), it just means that we have to gain access to the book ourselves. If one does not want to be bothered with that, I suppose it is true that the reference is pointless in backing up the information, but we have to trust the editor who provided the reference.

As for the Criticism section as a whole, it needs expansion (with more sources, of course). Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it's meaningless without further explanation. For all I know, it could mean that the author of the cited book just personally doesn't like the idea. And the point that relates to the definition of a vegetarian isn't an argument against semi-vegetarianism at all - it might be an argument against calling semi-vegetarians vegetarians, but that isn't what the article's about.

Moreover, this doesn't change the fact that we need fair coverage of the arguments for and against semi-vegetarianism - both as opposed to full vegetarianism and as opposed to being a "normal" meat eater. -- Smjg (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I see this as a need to expand the article, rather than a PoV problem. That need is covered by the stub flag. I propose to remove the POV tag. Is there some reason we need to keep the tag?- Sinneed 15:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it not a POV problem? Telling only one side of the story is the basic definition of POV, is it not? I agree that the article needs expanding, but to claim that makes it not POV is nonsense.

But now it's been cut down, I'm not sure if we still need the POV tag. Still, could we have some more opinions on the matter? -- Smjg (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Flexitarianism to Semi-vegetarianism?

There was no discussion of merging this article with the Semi-vegetarianism article, as the merge tag on the Flexitarianism article had stated. So I decided to start a discussion. I am for the merge. The Semi-vegetarianism article needs expansion, and the Flexitarianism article does not seem as though it can ever have much to be added to it. As I stated above, "This article just needs fixing up (in other words, expansion). At least one of its subarticles should be merged into it (Flexitarianism). And the largest two (pescetarianism and pollotarianism) should have some information duplicated from there to here." Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this, basically two article about the same thing.Prezbo (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, the Pollotarianism article was recently deleted (due to lack of good sourcing), but some of that information about this topic can still be added to the Semi-vegetarianism article (as long as reliably sourced). Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Did I miss anything that should have been kept? Keep anything that should have been given the shoe?- Sinneed 15:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Expert article tag.

Propose to drop. While this is certainly a contentious set of articles, they are not technically difficult, simply divisive. Propose to drop the tag. Is there a reason we need it?- Sinneed 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and removed, I don't think there could be an expert on this subject because as you say it's very divisive.Muleattack (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy & un-encyclopedic tags

While it needs expansion, this is covered by the stub tag. I don't see any indication of why this needs an FA tag, and am dropping that one. Easily restored if there is a need, but I would most respectfully request that the need be explained here.- Sinneed 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The same is true of the un-en tag. Dropped it too.- Sinneed 15:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic necessity

The terms plant-based diet, semi vegetarian, and flexitarian are becoming much more widely used. As a vegan myself I agree with the spirit that you either are or are not a vegetarian but when the terms and concept have come into fairly wide use it makes sense to have entries in Wiki - particularly to dispel misinformation. This concept is being promoted by many health sources of note and by environmental groups (including the UN, Mayo clinic etc.). The main focus of this behavior is a substantially reduced meat diet that is better for health and for the environment. Even the USDA is advocating a plant-based diet. Mind you it is a bit of a bait and switch as they are suggesting here that 2/3 of your dinner plate should be plant based and the other third low fat meat. Nonetheless, entries for plant-based, semi-vegetarianism and flexitarian are merited to help dispel confusion.Jmurry (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Types of semi-vegetarian

The current page states " In 2003, the American Dialect Society voted flexitarian as the year's most useful word and defined it as "a vegetarian who occasionally eats meat".[9]" while it's under the current heading of types of semi-vegetarian this just screams "No honest, it is a real word."Muleattack (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So move it out of that heading? I don't read it that way but in any case it's a significant fact about the subject that deserves to be mentioned, insofar as anything about this topic is significant.Prezbo (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

NM, I think I fixed it just by putting that sentence in brackets, it reads better now.Muleattack (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul of article

Wikipedia; half want to merge articles, half want to give article sections whole articles.

I think what is needed is a more systematic approach to the idea of semi-vegetarianism. Lots of angry total vegetarians seem irate that this page exists, as though it is a rejection of the absolutism of vegetarianism. Well lots of people like meat, but aren't going to give it up forever. They've realized it's bad in excess, so this is the vegetarian movement reaching a societal equilibrium. Maybe instead of having types of Vegetarians detailing why they aren't vegetarian, we could have an article on the spectrum of dietary change the vegetarian movement has caused. 58.174.169.54 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This article could certainly be expanded beyond just a lead (intro) and list. But no one has had the passion to do that just yet. Flyer22 (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Traditional food practices

Perhaps some discussion about traditional food practices would be nice. In non-western cultures like asia, some people, specially the lower income groups, use meat and fish not as a main ingredient but a flavoring. It can be as simple as small piece of meat + sauce eaten with a full plate of rice

Vmaldia (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In defence of Semi-Vegetarianism

I believe the term is used for someone who eats very little meat, as in they are "practically vegetarian". For example, someone who has one roast dinner a month as opposed to eating meat every day. I don't think it is a copout- for example, I have coeliacs disease which already rules out 3/4 of food in the western world, it would be very difficult for someone to be both healthy and a coeliac vegetarian, perhaps even impossible for a coeliac vegan. However, it follows that reducing the amount of meat I consume will reduce the harm to animals - this is the rationale I use. --92.232.146.115 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The article already makes it clear that semi-vegetarianism involves occasional meat consumption. But with regard to your comment, see WP:NOT A FORUM. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

However this talk page is littered with people denying the validity of the term, I believe it is completely relevant do defend its existence. 92.232.146.115 (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't eat meat every day, although I do like it. Does that make me a semi-vegetarian? What does it even mean? How many people eat only meat, or make up the majority of their diet from meat? At what point is one considered semivegetarian? I accept that this term is used, possibly by many, but that does not make it any less nonsensical.80.43.22.126 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Other semi-vegetarianism forms

Suggested by: Randy_Kryn I wanted to add the following 2 forms of semi-vegetarianism:

Since 2010, Australia has two more neologism in the form of Reducetarianism:

• Cameltarianism: someone who eats Australian feral camel, but on a vegetarian diet.

• Kangatarianism: someone who eats Kangaroo meat, but on a vegetarian diet

Just came across this through: Kangaroo meat - any comments? --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I did not suggest it, I reversed your edit when you added it to the page and suggested you take it to the talk page. One reason I reverted it was how it was worded. You can't eat camel or kangaroo on a vegetarian diet or anything that comes close to one. Your wording says you can. But your eventual addition of camels and kangaroos to this page using accurate language seems to bring Wikipedia's definition of "semi-vegetarian" into a much-wider range and definition realm. But they must, apparently, be added in some form, for the door to including any and all animals on this page has already been opened by the additions of chicken, turkey, geese, pheasant, tuna, crab, etc. Allowing people who eat those animals to be listed on this 'Semi-vegetarian' page (even with sources) says that someone who eats this way is still somehow in the vicinity of a vegetarian diet. So that certainly allows the addition of camel and kangaroo to a "pretty-close-to-vegetarian-diet-don't-you-think?" entrance onto this page. Just reword it so it doesn't say that people who chow down on camels and kangaroos ("Good evening sir. Will you be wanting the 'Surf and turf' or the 'Hump and jump' vegetarian plate tonight?") are on a vegetarian diet. So with camels and kangaroos entering the fold, this may bring us to the question and rewording of the lead: should Wikipedia's definition of "Semi-vegetarian" include all meat-eaters who aren't strictly 100% carnivore? Why not. It's another name, and an accurate name, for meat-eaters who once in awhile eat something else besides meat. Camels and kangaroos (Good name for a rock band, actually a great name if the band consists of both men and women) ipso facto (dibs). Randy Kryn 15:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wrote already about this here: Template_talk:Veganism_and_vegetarianism look for "Draft to group: Semi-vegetarianism" that was from 27 August 2015. At the end of the day: Whatever the readers perception of "Semi" or "Flexi" is (time or meat) it remains a part-time vegetarian, otherwise changing this definition makes no sense. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Huggi, hi, and by reversing your edit I did not imply that you should not add the data, just add "semi-" to your wording. It comes from reliable sources. As mentioned, there are already sections about birds and fish and such within the article, so adding kangaroos and camels to the mix seems to both fit into Wikipedian style and further add to the viewpoint that the page and name itself borders on satire (but reliably sourced satire). Randy Kryn 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are enough neologisms in the article; see MOS:NEO. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this discussion is so much fun, who needs/wants to edit the real article anyway, maybe the two mentioned terms should also be restricted with it's usage to it's Appellation (origin) in Australia, not sure if "Cameltarianism" can also be practiced in other regions of the world the same way. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Rename the Article

Omnivorism Diet

Why don't we make this the "Omnivorism Diet" page? Fish are meat. Poultry is meat. Camel, Bison, Kangaroo, Crabs, Lobster, and dolphin are all types of meat. Everything discussed seems valid as far as reduced or alternative-meat diets go. We understand that these are all examples of such a change in eating habits. Based on this knowledge and information (not original research, as this is already confirmed by verifiable outside sources), we should draft a page on omnivorism with the information provided on this page as two sections. The first could include the reduced-meat diets, and the second could contain the different/alternative meat diets. We could also go into the difference between the political aspects versus the health aspects of the diets (again using all verified external sources). 134.240.241.240 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

___

(insert <tumbleweed.gif> here) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Flexitarian vs. lessetarian/reducetarian

My understanding from communication with Ken Eckert about the term "lessetarian" some years ago is that although flexitarianism and lessetarianism end up in much the same place (semi-vegetarianism per this article), the former is an adaptation of a vegetarian diet, while the latter is a change from a heavier meat intake (i.e., never vegetarian). Not a big deal, but possibly of interest in considering the origins and uses of these neologisms.--A12n (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Btw, lessetarian is sometimes also seen as lessitarian- for example in a 2011 blog post.--A12n (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No such animal

May I remind editors that there is no such thing as 'Semi-vegetarianism'. You either "is or isn't", as the old song would say. Anyone who eats animal corpses plus adds a potato or ketchup or something from time to time can be called a semi-vegetarian by definition. Required by the term, how about adding something along the lines of 'a meat eater who sometimes eats fruit, seeds, or vegetables' to the lead. Or just change the name to Flexitarian and, if the words 'semi-vegetarian' appear on the page, add quote marks to the otherwise invalid and erroneous term. Randy Kryn 15:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We need to go by what the sources state with WP:Due weight. The current title is a descriptive title and is preferred over the neologism "flexitarian" or similar. See WP:CRITERIA and WP:NEO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)