Talk:Pescetarianism

Ethics Neutrality

I feel the ethics section of this article is poorly written. I don't believe the reasons cited for ethics are well stated and would like to see some real quotes with good sources or a summarized list that sounds intelligent. --Agent 2000 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - i find this section entirely problematic. There is little ethical value in pescatarianism, it is just a food preference. If ethics were a big issue then they would be vegetarians. Much of the so-called references are little more than the personal opinion of one contributor. If someone is a fussy eater, why cant they say "Im a fussy eater" without trying to mae out it is an ethical choice about global warming or agressively farmed animals.Breed3011 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thats the exact opposite point I was trying to make. I don't intend to argue the point but I believe it is an ethical choice often, for example me, one reason being avoiding factory farmed animals. While your opinion is probably common as well I believe the current wording makes it sound as it has no moral standing because it is worded in a skeptics point of view. I feel it should be worded from the view of someone who does feel it has ethical roots and then state that that viewpoint is disputed by others. Also, the article states that most eat only fish because they feel less attachment to non-land creatures. I do not agree that is the reason and the couple of other pescetarians I do know wouldn't either, I would definately like to see a source on that and see the "most" removed.--Agent 2000 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but the fact if the matter is that the current ethics section is just a platform for one persons opinions - on this we agree. Wikipedia does not provide a platform for theorists or personal opinions - "balance" comes well behind "facts". Facts need to be sourced, not merely attributed to "most people" or "a possible reason". If it cant be attributed to a reliable source it is an opinion and must be removed. Breed3011 09:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that its one persons opinion, the primary reason for pescetarianism, it least in myself and the few pescetarians I have met, is ethics. While you and some may believe that its unfounded and that view should be represented it should not be portrayed as fact. I do agree with you that there needs to be sources. The main thing that I think should be changed would be convert it from non-source quotes to a summarized form..--Agent 2000

A vegetarian diet?

This article seems to have been going back and forth a bit concerning its relation to vegetarianism. Some people think that pescetarianism is a vegetarian diet, some don't. Personally I'm one of the latter. I think I'm in the majority there, but I don't have anything to back me up on that besides personal experience.

So anyway, until there's a good source that proves which is "right", I've deleted the mention of it being a vegetarian diet. Now there's nothing saying it's a vegetarian diet, and nothing saying it's not, or even that it's "similar" (which would imply not). People can infer on their own what they think the relationship to vegetarianism is. At least, until someone wants to write a NPOV, all-inclusive statement about it. Or until someone reverts me. -kotra 10:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following two vandal edits by 80.189.226.45, I tried my hand at rewriting to Comparison to Other Diets sections. I'm not sure it's the all-inclusive statement we'd like, but I would like to think it's NPOV and fair. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any good sources on the issue. Trevor Bekolay 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it might be worth noting that catholics eat fish on fridays and lent because they don't consider fish to be meat. —Pengo 04:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really applicable here because we're talking about a lifestyle diet choice, not a sometimes thing. If I shave my head once a year, I'm not "bald".

Could you get a cite-able reference for that? While I don't think it's significant enough to argue pescetarianism can be considered a vegetarian diet, I think it's interesting enough to add into the article somewhere. Trevor Bekolay 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ethics

ive removed large chunks from this section - it was all original research... stuff like:

Many pescatarian believe that...

or

Due to the advent of global warming pescatarians think that...

well who says that is what they all think? It certainly isnt mentioned in ANY of the refs provided which merely state that the existence of aggressively farmed animals or the existence of wild fish farms but no link to pescatarians using this as an ethical basis for their diet - that connection comes from the writer - and that is Original Research - Breed3011 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at what you blanked, and I'm going to mark it up so it can be improved, and put it back in. —RVJ 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]