Template talk:Comparison of vegetarian and semi-vegetarian diets

Problems with template

There are few things wrong with this template. Firstly there is no such thing as "special diets", the name is wrong. We should do not describe diets on Wikipedia as "special". Secondly via template guidelines categories should be put in alphabetical order, I have no seen "Order of restrictiveness" cited in any Wikipedia guidelines on templates when it comes to order. Thirdly we have no Wikipedia article for "Pesce-pollotarianism", so I am not so sure we should be citing unsourced diets that do not have a Wikipedia article. Another user already removed this [1] but it was restored. I suppose we might be able to create a section on "pesce-pollararianism" on the semi-vegetarianism and redirect it there, but very few reliable sources exist on this diet. An older term for this diet is "demi-vegetarian", i.e. a non-red meat eater. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Template guidelines are that: guidelines. They should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. In this case, restrictiveness allows for more convenient and helpful comparison than alphabetical order. Perhaps we should change the title to "Comparison of vegetarian and semi-vegetarian diets". Koopinator (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair play, I wouldn't object to that title change. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: i am inviting you to comment here on the talk page. Koopinator (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks, didn't see this discussion earlier. As to the new name, there are three vegetarian diets in this template (Vegetarian, Lacto Veg, and Ovo Veg). All the others are non-vegetarian. There term "semi-vegetarian" is controversial and IMO should not be used as a template title (there is an ongoing argument that semi-vegetarian is akin to semi-virgin, semi-truthful, semi-honest, etc.).

Then, the term special diet is very commonly used, much like special needs. Here is one definition of a special diet: ((tpq|A special diet is one that cannot be selected freely from the main choices available. This could be due to an allergy, intolerance or other medical need; or because children are following a religious or cultural diet; or a vegetarian or vegan diet.}}[2]. Google search yields many more examples, predominantly in the context of medicine but also of choice or beliefs.[3]

I am all in favour of retaining the title "special diet" and expanding the template by other types of diet (fruitarians, gluten-free diets, etc.) — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, unfortunately there is no agreed definition of "special diet" (we don't even have an Wikipedia article on it), for example this survey classified special diets as "weight loss or low-calorie diet, low-fat or low-cholesterol diet, low-salt or low-sodium diet, sugar-free or low-sugar diet, low-fiber diet, high-fiber diet, diabetic diet, low-carbohydrate diet, high-protein diet, weight-gain diet, or other". [4]. The criteria is too broad. I have no problem with the now changed template name, but also comparison of plant-based diets might be one to consider. If the list is to be expanded I think fruitarianism, seaganism etc could also be added to the list. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I also have some thoughts. First I’ll talk about the name & which groups should definitely stay imo: I think “Selected ASF-restricted diets” or “Selected Plant-based diets” or “Selected Meat-restricted diets” would both serve as better names considering what we are comparing. (Ovo/Lacto/OvoLacto)-Vegetarianism, Veganism and Pescetarianism all definitely have their place on the list because:1)They’re popular enough where statistics (demographic percentage) can actually be collected on these groups and is often done so regularly around the world 2)They’re popularly studied by researchers who are studying health impact, environmental impact, psychology and social issues 3) Contrary to the popular notion; the very first “vegetarian society” accepted all vegetarians, vegans AND pescetarians as “vegetarians” in its early days (1800s). Source for that statement is cited in the “History” section of the “pescetarianism” article. They divided up later as the standards for the word “vegetarian” changed of course — Vegans just didn’t get their own individual name/identity until years later and pescetarians didn’t get this until many many decades later. Regardless they all evolved alongside each other in western society not as a response/reaction to one another. 4)I live in a society where a very large amount of what I’m exposed to, like: neutral news articles, research articles, polls/surveys and members of the general population who eat conventionally (“meat-eaters/omnivores”) often like to include vegans, vegetarians and pescetarians into a “meatless”/“meat-abstainer”/“meat-free” umbrella group even if they are aware pescetarians aren’t a “type” of vegetarian. Likely due to US English having multiple differing definitions for the word “meat”; and what is included as “a meat” depends on which definition is in mind + context. Here, there are many contexts (ex: Culinary context, certain Nutritional contexts, Kashrut context, Lenten context, several Regional contexts, common Colloquial contexts etc) where it’s formally correct and/or socially expected to differentiate meat from seafood (ie; bony fish/rayfinned-fish & shellfish). People (especially non-vegetarians) use the broadest definitions of meat (which includes seafood) only in certain contexts/conversations even though it’s a very general definition. DietCokeFeast (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There are categories I’m not fully convinced serve much of a purpose. I’ve never met anyone who self-identified as “pollotarian”, I’ve never seen this term mentioned in any surveys/studies from this century that involve researching meat-abstainers & meat-restrictors (vegans, vegetarians, pescetarians & “low-meat eaters/flexitarians” are all included relatively often though), and I hadn’t even heard of the word before until I saw this table. It seems like this term was only ever seriously used by a niche group & for only a short period of time because it never caught on. I won’t mind it much if “pollotarian” remains on the table since at least there is a en.Wikipedia article that exists for it but it’s seems unnecessary since I doubt many people are actually interested in seeing how it compares to the three aformentioned dietary commitments since the term doesn’t seem to be well known/understood in any region, it isn’t known to be an even relatively popular long-term dietary pattern/commitment because there’s no surveys/statistics on its prevalence & the diet hasn’t been well researched in any way. Also I infer meat-eaters might consider “pollotarian” to be out of place among the others because it seems pretty rare for people (besides the USDA sometimes lol) to separate poultry from the category of “meat”— it’s just referred to as a “white meat” most of the time. I also think American vegans, vegetarians and even pescetarians wouldn’t consider it restrictive nor distinct enough to qualify as a restricted/special diet. Finding vegetarian/vegan meal options on menus & at cookouts can still be a big chore. Pescetarians who don’t live near costal areas only would have it mildly easier since seafood is exponentially less popular in the American diet and on American menus than either red meat/poultry (pretty sure it’s the only animal sourced food that nutrition experts insist Americans don’t consume enough of). Pescetarians may not fair any better at restaurants/cookouts than vegetarians at all if they restrict the kinds of seafood they eat (examples: no/marginal/low contaminants, wild caught only, sustainable only, responsibly caught only, no shellfish, oily fish only, MSC/ASC certified only Etc.) because the seafood options at restaurants are often subpar. Meanwhile pollotarians would have it easy everywhere. Beef hasn’t been the most popular meat in America in years, Chicken is king. There’s fried/crispy chicken at every fast food place, there’s chicken wings & breasts at every other regular restaurant in America, a ridiculous amount of the packaged food in grocery stores contain chicken, you can find a whole raw bird in practically every supermarket, etc. “Pesc-pollotarianism” being on the table makes no sense to me at all because 1)we don’t even HAVE an Wikipedia article for it so it shouldn’t even be up for consideration 2)There’s not enough content online that leads me to think this was ever a term a notable amount of people ever actually self-identified with or even took seriously 3)Even if people are following eat like that I doubt they identify with the term they probably just say “I don’t eat red meat” like everyone else. 4)This is just the same exact thing as not eating red meat (mammal meat). Though resisting pork & beef can be emotionally challenging for some, it’s really not that distinct from how a lot of picky eaters eat. The whole thing is unnecessary DietCokeFeast (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A valid point about pesce-pollotarianism. Google trends shows virtually zero searches worldwide since 2004 until today.[5] Removing from template. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)