Miscellaneous desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 5

Does vegetarianism imply a conscious choice?

A typical American may eat a meal that is heavy in meats and fats. However, this does not take into account of ethnic minorities, especially those who recently immigrated into the United States and are more accustomed to preparing foods from their homelands. Now, if such a person eats breakfast and dinner at home and brings a sack lunch to work or school, then he or she may not adopt American eating habits and preferences so quickly, but have nothing against American cuisine, so such a person may eat potato chips and hamburgers during parties or purchase sodapop from a vending machine when the water fountain is non-functional. Alternatively, a person, irrespective of culture, may eat a primarily vegetarian diet, because it tastes good but would not self-identify as a vegetarian, because the eating habits are not made out of concern for the environment or for one's health. I am just wondering if vegetarianism implies a conscious choice for an explicit reason or if vegetarianism can be made arbitrarily and unconsciously by reviewing one's eating habits and preferences. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarianism is not eating meat. The reasons why someone may not eat meat are many. So the unhelpful answer to your question is "It can be both." Mingmingla (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for your reply. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "-ism" means it's an ideology, which means it's a choice. Those who choose to not eat meat because they prefer another flavour made a choice, just like the ones who did it for health or morality reasons.

The ones who don't eat meat because it never crossed their mind have no idea and aren't vegetarians. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your personal opinion, but please see etymological fallacy for why basing your personal opinion on the etymology of words is an unproductive venture, and leads one to wrong conclusions. People may have dietary and health reasons for being vegetarians. It has nothing to do with the "-ism" and "choice" as to how they are properly identified. Vegetarianism means "eating no meat", full stop. It does not mean "eating no meat for reasons that fit only within my own narrow definitions that I try to backjustify with some etymological bullshit." If you practice vegetarianism, you don't eat meat; whether you could eat meat or choose not to, OR if you have reasons why you couldn't eat meat, and thus choice were taken out of the picture. --Jayron 32 20:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow definition? I allowed for every reason. And it's not only my opinion, I read it in the vegetarianism article. First sentence. Of course, you could say the definitions of "practice" and "abstain" are also meaningless. I think words matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merriam-webster.com, dictionary.com, and oxforddictionaries.com all define it to include anyone who doesn't eat meat. The Vegetarian Society, which is apparently responsible for popularizing the term, also defines it that way. -- BenRG (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The full definition in Merriam doesn't, and the others include an "or" or "especially" for the rational aspects. Vegetarian Society is clear that they intend to convince more people to become vegetarians. That requires a conscience. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is melanism an ideology? Priapism? —Tamfang (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is a hot dog a dog? Does that matter to guide dog? There's no absolute rule. When something means something, it does. When it doesn't, that's another deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

When you're young, you eat what the parents put on your plate. Your only choices at that point are "take it or leave it." As you get older, you might choose to continue with that type of food or you might choose to take another path. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if you put a plate of fried chicken to the left of a stone and a plate of spinach to the right, the stone will never eat the meat. Is the stone a vegetarian? Why or why not? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. What do stones normally eat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever they want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. In Hawaii, they are omnivores. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In some places, they will tigers away. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words are an indirect means (often inadequate, inaccurate or imprecise) for expressing facts. Reasoning about the words themselves is not the same thing as reasoning about the facts behind them.

Perhaps it would be safer to reserve the term "herbivore" for one who happens to eat only vegetable material and "vegetarian" for one who does so by active choice or ideology. I am currently an omnivore - but might be forced into a herbivorous diet if I were stuck on a desert island with nothing but berries and coconuts to eat. However, I don't think you'd say that I'd become a vegetarian or taken up vegetarianism - because that's an ideological position that I don't embrace. If forced by circumstances into becoming a full-time herbivore, I'd certainly crave that juicy burger and I'd be very likely eat one if I could get my hands on one. So you couldn't remotely say that I was a vegetarian - that would be silly! Rather a non-vegetarian living a herbivorous life-style. If you found a vegetarian and brutally force-fed him/her a steak, then he/she is still a vegetarian - albeit (temporarily) a carnivore. SteveBaker (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"-ism" doesn't always imply ideology. For instance, Old-maidism isn't an ideology, it's a condition. Wikitionary's entry vegetarianism states it's "the practice of following a vegetarian diet." A practice is not the same thing as having an ideology regarding that practice. --Modocc (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples include abranchialism, absinthism, achromatism, acromegaloidism, acrosticism, actinism, .... Also, any dictionary's entry for -ism will mention that it has non-ideological meanings. wikt:-ism lists a few commoner examples such as magnetism and colloquialism. -- BenRG (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but if I'm stuck on an island with no food available other than plants, so I eat a plant-only diet but still *crave* meat and search obsessively in the futile hunt for an animal to cook and eat...would you describe me as a "vegetarian"? I really don't think that's a tenable linguistic position. SteveBaker (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you are stuck without meat, that is the condition of your diet even if it's against your will. -Modocc (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 2nd-order vegetarian: I don't eat any carnivores. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 10:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 1.5th-order, I don't eat carnivorous plants. SteveBaker (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pity. Venus flytraps are delicious sauteed in a red wine sauce, with shallots and aubergines. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

That's a good joke, but a federal crime if you harvest them in the wild. And the buggers are quite hard to breed. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buggers tend not to reproduce their own kind. Their theme song is "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Bugs brought up a very important point regarding kids not having a choice. This is especially true when kids are still being spoon-fed and are therefore completely clueless. Furthermore, it is important for healthcare providers and others to take proper note of their vegetarian diet, or vegetarianism since that is what these families practice and they are all vegetarian. In addition, BenRG is correct, the dictionary definitions are inclusive, broadly defined and do not preclude the kids' non-rational reason for not being meat-eaters. -Modocc (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little poem from Leonard Cohen:

A person who eats meat wants to get his teeth into something.

A person who eats no meat wants to get his teeth into something else.

If these thoughts interest you for even a moment, you are lost.

--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for animals which can't eat meat (because they can't digest it), we don't call them vegetarians, we call them herbivores. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left and right side on bridges

Is it correct to pick the reference point of a person walking along a bridge (a pedestrian or with a pedestrian sidewalk) and say, for instance "(s)he was walking on the right side of the Fooian Bridge", i.e. on his/her right hand? (Since for a person standing on one end of the bridge the right side would be the one that is left for a person on the other end and vice versa). I suspect that many bridges, particularly pedestrian and those with pedestrian sidewalks, don't have a labelled entrance and exit, so both ends could be an entrance and exit. Brandmeister^talk 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When walking on any kind of road, bridge or otherwise, you would label which side you're on relative to yourself. To say you're walking on the "right side" of a roadway is insufficient info, as your direction also needs to be part of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but I have an impression that the sides may be aligned to north-south direction, as on the maps. Just wanted to confirm whether it's safe to simply write that a person walked on the right/left side. Brandmeister^talk 22:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that works. If I'm walking on my right side of the bridge, and you're coming toward me from the other side, you're also on your right side of the bridge. When highway traffic is being discussed, you're most likely to hear "inbound" and "outbound" lanes (relative to a central city or whatever). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether it works depends on what information you want to convey. If you want to say that the person was walking on the right, then say so. If you want to say that they were walking along the east side of the bridge, then say that. If you want to say both things at once, then say both: they were walking north (or "towards the Tower of London", say) along the east (or right) side of the bridge. There's nothing special about bridges in this. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Walking to the right" tells you nothing about which side of the bridge you're on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the bridge is indeed north-south, why not say east side or west side? Mingmingla (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a bridge over a river, then upstream side or downstream side are also unambiguous.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, meh. Brandmeister^talk 09:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One small complication, rivers and streams have right and left banks, the Seine being the most famous, The orientation faces downstream, so a bridge could be said to have right and left ends according to the bank nomenclature. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a left or right end does nothing to disambiguate which side of the bridge you're walking on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. I have, naturally, heard many times of the Left Bank of the Seine. It never occurred to me to imagine it might also have a Right Bank. I've certainly never heard it mentioned in polite society. We should have a Category:Rivers with only one bank; or, at least, only one bank that anyone ever bothers to talk about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the artsy touristy Left Bank is more famous internationally, the "right bank" term is commonly used in Paris, and is where the department stores, the Hotel de Ville, the Louvre and so on are located. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In New Jersey, reports usually refer to eastbound traffic out of Philly on a Philadelphia station as Jersey-bound, and the same for westward traffic out of NYC on NYC area radio stations. Traffic out of New Jersey to Philly or NYC is described as city-bound traffic, when broadcast from Philly or NYC, respectively. Within NYC itself the question is quite a bit more complex, given the inter-borough bridges. The issue itself is best treated within a local context, rather than trying to make universal policies. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need help editing my novel.

How can I go about finding someone to edit my novel? Hopefully for free with low risk of someone taking my idea's. My mother said she would do it but she's taking far too long and has only reached chapter three in the first week. I can't rely on her to edit, I won't have it until next year. I've searched the internet and can't come up with anything on my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.128.121 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You likely aren't going to find someone to do reliable work for free. People who do this for a living do it to pay their bills and feed their children. It's not reasonable to simply ask one of them to do it for free just because you ask real nice. Unless you're going to pay someone, then you've got your mom. --Jayron 32 02:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking in your local Yellow Pages or similar directory? You will probably find several freelancers who perform document preparation, secretarial services and so on for a modest sum. If you are looking for free editing, you might also try asking for help from one of the "beta readers/editors" who provide help on such websites as Fanfiction.net and AO3. Remember that "free" services are very often worth only what you pay for them!

As for your concerns about someone taking your ideas, whilst this is not legal guidance, it is generally the case that it is unlikely that you will be able to copyright the ideas expressed in the novel. With certain specific exceptions (dependent on your jurisdiction) your intellectual property rights are in the expression of the ideas in the text, and not the ideas themselves. You should read our articles on copyright and the idea–expression divide for more information.

Finally, you should be aware that editing takes time and care, and your mother is doing a difficult technical job for nothing and in her spare time. To have reached chapter three in the first week seems to me to be good progress; it is unlikely that a reliable beta reader on FF.net would be as efficient. I'd encourage you to spend a little less time feeling entitled, and a little more time feeling grateful that you have a parent who'll take on this task for you. RomanSpa (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless your are putting together a vanity novel, find a publisher first. If they think your ~~verbiage~~ literary masterpiece is worthy of publication, they will suggest the services of an experienced copy editor to knock your novel into shape -suitable for the bookshelves of airport departure lounges. Oh yes... That is what it is all about – read it -throw it away. If they they don’t think your novel will sell (ie make them money $ $ $ $ ) then... There are a lot of other hopefuls out there that they can choose from. Be heartened however. Speak to any literary historian and he (or more usually she) will point out that the first attempts of many great authors was trash. It took many tries to hone their style right and unique. Persevere but don't try to reinvent the wheel. After all, did you design the engine management system of the automobile that gets you to the book shop? Seek out the experts in the publication industry. Get them exited... that this time your time machine can prove it unequivocally, that the butler really did do it (or whatever your novel is about). P.S. From one story teller to another: Do not trust Atoms - they make up everything. Yeah, they really do! But don't pinch my next story line OK!--Aspro (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How synchronistic. Only yesterday I joined a sort of writers' collective/support network (it was the first meeting and we haven't decided on a name or purpose or operating procedures or anything like that yet). Twice as many people as expected turned up. We spent the day all sharing our backgrounds and what we want to achieve and what we can offer and getting to know each other. As soon as I mentioned I write for Wikipedia and am fierce on grammar, punctuation, spelling and style, I was flooded with requests* to edit the writing of others. (* This is not to be read as an open invitation to approach me.) Money does not come into this. Most communities would have some sort of writers' groups like this. Try searching online or asking around in bookshops or on Facebook. The most unlikely people turn out to be budding (or, indeed, published) memoirists or novelists or local historians or poets, and you might mix with them socially for years and never know about this aspect of their lives. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think that is an interesting comment Oz. As you may have gathered, I don't have any grasp of grammar at all. Of my friends that do and can churn out page after page of excellent and easy to read prose, they find no one appreciates those skills until a copy-editor is required and they are then expected to provide those skills for nought remittance. Some of my acquaintances are in law. I found out in the past, that if I got their car/heating system/swimming pool/you name it/... running again, they considered that it was a no skilled job but if I asked them about how to set up (say) an affidavit they would not say anything unless a fee was agreed first. If any lawyer, accountant or similar profession is reading this and wonders why their neighbors kids decline to fix their computer or what-not for free... they now know why.--Aspro (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I charge $40 for the first page, double spaced, and less per additional page of something that I ghost-write. Additional fees include $40 per hour of reading sources provided to me, and more for difficult preparatory research I need to do myself. I charge $20 for the first, plus $10 per additional page, to edit something that's been written already. I reserve the right to raise the rate or decline the project. Email me through wikipedia, be prepared to email a word document and a pdf of the same text. Assume that at a minimum, a 200 page document will cost $2,000 for simple copy editing, more for research or editorial comments on the text that address plot holes or other such difficulties. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how much do you pay other Wikipedia editors for helping you with your difficult preparatory research? :¬ )--Aspro (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC) --Aspro (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't remember ever having used the ref desks for such research, but even if I did, I would still charge, since when I am doing work I wouldn't do for fun I expect to get at least $35/hr plus benefits. I did recently ghostwrite a paper on a Mozart Opera, and used WP, but did not ask for any help here at RD. I did charge for time for actually having to watch the opera, even though I enjoyed it. My purpose here was to inform the OP, not to brag that I make enough to pay my outrageous medical bills and liquor allowance. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting someone else to check your writing for free is rather unreasonable, IMHO. Most people who are interested in doing that kind of thing are either writing their own novels - or charging for doing it. As Medeis points out, you shouldn't expect this to be cheap. Going *carefully* through a document doing a good editing job on it is likely to take a significant fraction of an hour per page - and since you can't expect someone with the necessary qualifications to work for minimum wage, I'd say that $10/page is a deal! Finding a group of fellow authors who all need similar services is likely to be your best chance - you could probably figure out some arrangement where you'd edit their book in exchange for them editing yours. But that assumes that the problem is that you need "more eyes" on the book - rather than you just sucking at spelling/grammar/whatever, because if that's your problem, then you're not likely to be able to improve the other person's book either! SteveBaker (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]