Talk:Pescetarianism

Broken Link

Sorry, I don't know how to edit references, but I noticed that reference #15 appears to be a dead link. I suggest someone remove it and get rid of any information relying on that source. Spacelord (talk)

It seems to be ok now. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethics Neutrality

Spare us the "ethics" nonsense. If you veggies were truly "ethical" you'd all kill yourselves in a ecologically positive manner (hemp ropes, anyone?) and stop wasting energy and resources pushing your ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.119.170 (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.66.53 (talk) 04:02, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

sorry to labour the point... but when you say "the primary reason for pescetarianism, at least in myself and the few pescetarians I have met, is ethics" you are stating your opinion, not a sourced fact. The pescetarians I have met have no such ethical basis, they wear leather and don't care one bit about farming methods - If it was about ethics, then surely you would be a vegetarian (someone against the slaughter of animals for food) or you would eat organically farmed meat (someone who is opposed to intensive factory farming). The ethical basis is flawed. While I have no problem with a well sourced version of the paragraph being written, I feel it highly unlikely that you will find such sources as I believe it to be flawed reasoning. Good luck though!! Breed3011 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible resolution - perhaps the ethics section could be retitled "Ethical diet?" (with a question mark) or "Ethics and criticisms" or something of that nature. Breed3011 08:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that I think that stating the main reason for pescetarianism has to do with ethics is flawed. As stated by another, many pescetarians, such as myself, do wear leather and don't have an opinion as to the ethics of widely accepted farming methods. Rather, it is a health-based choice to not expose oneself to the unsanitary methods used in commercial meat processing (i.e., exposure to e-coli), the steroids used in commercial farming, the cannabalistic nature of many animal feeds (in that many farm animals are fed ground up vesions of their same genus and species along with grains) and the saturated fat and cholesterol found in most commercially available mammals. Simply put, pescetarianism is viewed by many that practice it as a healthier way of providing protein in their diet. Madison360 12:34 02 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison360 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Good point Pengo. The story of how the Catholic church came to proclaim fish to not be meat is a *very* interesting one, full of politics, CYA and precious little biological science. The historical, biological and political aspects of that resonate even today. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

The website VeganPorn.org (not actually a porn site) had an exhaustive section on the history and veracity of vegetarian sound-alike me-too words like pescetarian/pescotarian/pesce-vegetarian/flexitarian, etc. To the dismay of users and researchers alike, Jason "Herman" Doucette pulled the site down without leaving any historical record behind. And that's a real loss given the amount of information that was up there. On that forum, there was a scan from a magazine that actually said "you can still eat some kinds of meat (like fish) and still be a vegetarian". As laughable as that magazine's claim was, it's worth noting -- because it demonstrates the utter confusion and non-functionality of the word. It's also worth noting that the term pescetarian is suspiciously close to "vegetarian".

I think there should be an entry on why the term came about, and why it still manages to persist despite not being a very functional term (in part because "pescetarians" have far more in common with the likewise-unpopular "flexitarians" and popular carnivores, and almost nothing in common with vegetarians). No vegetarians like the term because it muddies the waters (no pun intended), and the only people who like it seem to be people people who can't bring themselves to go vegetarian but feel a need to distinguish themselves even though they're still carnivores. It's also interesting that many "pescetarians" also eat crustaceans, mollusks, etc., though there's no sound scientific reason to think that the rules of biology are different underwater.

My friend, who is a linguist, said that the word fails on biological, scientific, ecological and ethical grounds. I tend to agree, but think that the word should remain on Wikipedia only because of what it can tell us about human nature. That is, that it's a verbal consequence of either cognitive dissonance, wanna-be-ism, marketing, or utter scientific ignorance. 74.79.150.218 (talk)

I am a roman catholic, and does not consider fish a meat. I eat fish on fridays of the lent. I have heard that fish and chips (in England normally served every Fridays) was invented for lent when England was still a catholic nation. It might be worth noting that most catholic becomes pescetarian on Fridays of the lent, but the problem is that you are allowed to choose something else besides meat, like abstaining from sugar, etc--w_tanoto 18:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As said above, eating fish for Fridays of lent does not make someone a pescetarian, it's not something you can be on occasion. Muleattack (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tanoto you're mostly correct about the Pope miraculously re-defining fish to no longer be "meat" (I don't know yet how crustaceans fit in here historically). The pope knew more about CYA politics than biology. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

(response to first comment)Kotra, How the bleep can you say there's nothing claiming pescetarianism to be an aspect of vegetarianism? You are correct in that the two are totally, factually and historically unrelated, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of confused people of there conflating the two. Poseurs especially. 30 seconds on Google will find you an endless bounty of vegetarians complaining about pescetarians who claim they're vegetarians, or about articles or restaurants confusing the two.

The only people i've ever seen consider "pescetarians" to be vegetarians are carnivores and "pescetarians" themselves. The use of "etarian" was an unwise move. The linguistic misappropriation deserves emphasis in the entry, as vindicated by the back-and-forth debates made here for some time. It's a controversial word on three different levels and so we should point out that it's contentious. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was nobody claiming pescetarianism to be an aspect of vegetarianism. I specifically mentioned that there were people who believe it is. We appear to be in agreement in that area. My point was that, without any sources to back it up, discussing the "debates" in this article would be declaring existence of a debate that probably doesn't actually exist on any notable level. As far as I can tell, there are simply people who misunderstand the nature of the word "vegetarian", and everyone else. I think how it's worded right now (pointing out that officially, it's not a vegetarian diet) is enough. Unless, of course, some reliable sources can be found that describe an actual debate. -kotra (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What would you consider "reliable sources" then? There's not a single vegetarian group that supports the term, and virtually every vegetarian site online has hostile comments about fish-eaters who feel they need to distinguish themselves with a word that is based upon "vegetarian". As a vegetarian since about 1986, I can tell you that it is indeed a very big fat hairy deal for at least ethical/religious/ecological vegetarians. Those looking to lose weight or stay healthy don't care as much that fish-eaters want to ride coattails, other than of course, that it creates cultural confusion, IE., the waitress to whom you tell you're a vegetarian, who brings you some a dish with fish in it (because she's been confused by terms like pesco-vegetarian/pescetarian). 74.79.150.93 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. Neither of us knows of any reliable sources that describe pescetarianism as a vegetarian diet. And in the absense of such a source, it shouldn't be described as a vegetarian diet here. -kotra (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how we recently got into a debate about this over on the Vegetarianism talk page, where it turns out that there actually are reliable sources out there that describe pescetarianism as a vegetarian diet. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But then again, the Merriam-Webster basically stating it as such is now in this article, so that should suffice enough. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Stupid question. Ultimately, isn't all research "original"? Odds are i've dealt with a hell of a lot more pescetarians/pesce-vegetarians than 99.9% of the writers out there. I believe my own expert experience more than what hacks who write for magazines say. I've hounded one editor on this definition, only to find out her avoidance was because she was also the author. Her writing was "original research" yet her article would no doubt be accepted on Wikipedia as a reference. I may dig up her article to show what a mess the term is. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. You may trust your own experience better than that of published sources, and you are free to make your own judgements about the sources' veracity, but Wikipedia's policy is "verifiability, not truth". The best Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, can do is present the sources of every controversial statement clearly and objectively, and allow readers to make their own informed conclusions of the truth (or truthiness). As for "original research", in Wikipedia that term has a slightly different meaning than its literal meaning (see WP:NOR). -kotra (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is being uncivil? There's no way in hell that a clueless carnie who writes for a promo-instore-rag on this topic (she's neither vegetarian nor "pesco/pesce*.* either) is more of a expert than I am. The absurdity here is that I could easily have my words published in print, and then magically, it's as if my "verifiability" means something more. That is, my statement is somehow more credible when it's put on paper. And, I am something of an expert, having been involved in two related court cases. 74.79.150.93 (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Whatever testimony you gave would surely be in the court transcript, which is (no doubt) a published document. If you were called upon as an expert to testify in whatever case could possibly have to do with pescetarianism, then such testimony is citable information that could be included in the article. 76.121.158.238 (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One should not, of course, forget the notion of fish as 'the harvest of the sea' - this may well have contributed to the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.95.243 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Ethics

There have been some edits regarding the Environment Ethics section, and I can't say that I disagree with them. The two references in the section don't adequately show verifiability. If anyone can find some more links, that would be appreciated. I've added an OR template for the section for now. Trevor ^Talk 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"The main greenhouse gases produced by livestock are methane — the natural result of digestion — and the nitrogen emitted by manure...". Sorry but nitrogen is NOT a greenhouse gas: first, ~80% of the atmosphere is nitrogen so any imbalance in the nitrogen content of the atmosphere caused by decomposing dung is infinitesimal; second, that nitrogen was in plant matter which acquired the nitrogen from the atmosphere in the first place and would have returned it to the atmosphere naturally; third, nitrogen is an element - it cannot be "produced". Wherever this came from it is so typical of the junk being purveyed as science by the ignorant, if not unscrupulous.Scunnerous (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to above: Good observation, yet the obvious oversight doesn't detract from that fact that methane produced by livestock is a major environmental concern. There has (semi)recently been a push to harness and burn methane for energy. Also: The information about global warming is an reason people may choose to avoid consuming livestock; it is NOT a reason why people would choose to consumer fish. This distinction should be made clear by the wording in this section. Additionally, information about fisheries/overfishing, wild caught versus farmed fish, and any related human rights/labor/economic concerns ought to be provided. It makes sense that purchasing locally caught fish, for example, would have very different environmental and social consequences than purchasing, say, imported farm-raised fish (think shipping, resources used for farming, small boats versus huge ships, packaging, local economies, etc.). Perhaps someone has information on overfishing and externalities associated with fish "production". This article could also use an additional section about health studies conducted on traditionally pescetarian popuations. I know there are some well-known ones.67.180.248.70 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)CB

Mention Pesce-Pollotarianism?

I want to make suggestion to add (at least a sentence) regarding Pesce-Pollotarianism. I am one of them, but mainly I am a pescetarian.--w_tanoto 18:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Most PESCO-VEGETARIANS are so for Ethical Reasons

I AM A PESCO-VEGETARIAN FOR ETHICAL REASONS. You will find the majority of Pesco-vegetarians are Pesco-vegetarians for ethical reasons, not health reasons. I like most other pesco-vegetarians differentiate between animals with a high level of sentience and animals with minimal or no sentience. I do not eat primate, mammals and fowl.

There is zero physical evidence that fish are conscious and feel pain, just as there is zero physical evidence that humans are conscious and feel pain. We only surmise humans feel pain, because we are human and we feel pain. Since pain is generated in the brain, and most humans brains are analogous in structure, it is likely most humans feel pain. The truth is not all humans feel pain. There is a medical condition where some humans do not feel pain. Since humans are mammals and evolved from primates, it is very likely most primates and mammals feel pain. The more distant a specie is from human beings the less likely it is they feel pain or for that matter feel anything.

It is very unlikely that insects and worms feel pain. It is more likely they are organic robots capable of reproduction. Pain and consciousness are called "emergent properties." Most experts in the field of emergent properties believe there must exist a certain level of complexity before the possible existence of emergent properties.

Some people ask, how do we know fish, insects, worms, single-celled animals, plants and rocks are not sentient. The answer is we don't know. But science works the other way, in science things are not generally accepted unless there is significant evidence for their truth.

I am aware of research that has found that fish have pain receptors. Some have jumped to the conclusion from this that fish feel pain. I have no doubt that fish have receptors that can detect various different conditions. The question remains if they have a brain that is able to convert the electrical impulses from these receptors into sentient pain and consciousness, It is quite possible and even likely that fish feel no pain, but merely react in accordance with some evolutionary neural net program. Fish may not feel pain, any more than a robot feels pain. There are robots with receptors and detectors. That does not mean they are sentient or conscious.

When angling, a hooked fish may fight to the point where it can die of exhaustion. Foulhooked fish don't.82.6.1.85 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

A sea-horse is not a type of horse. Likewise, a pesco-vegetarian is not a type of vegetarian. I discussed this at length with a top editor at Merriam-Webster. They said they have no problem with the word "Pesco-vegetarian." They do not find it contradictory. They pointed out to me dozens of compound words like sea-horse, where the first part of the compound word did not simply limit the class expressed by the second compound word. They said the meaning of the word was clear as it stood. Hence, there is really nothing controversial about the word pesco-vegetarian when it comes to neutral experts on the English language. Only vegans and vegetarians have trouble with the world.

Since there are more vegans and vegetarians than pesco-vegetarians this entry will be forever distorted. This is a good example why Wikipedia doesn't always work. I have had vegans and vegetarians call me and those like me murderers, because we eat fish.

By the way, even though I eat fish, I don't eat seafood for aesthetic reasons. If you go to any restaurant and it lists a meal as coming with seafood, you can bet they are not talking about fish with fins and scales, but clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, squid and/or octopus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.61.232 (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You might find this wikipedia page interesting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Muleattack 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there Muleattack. 66.229.61.232 is full of AfI. However it is a typical example of those who embrace the term. I also am surprised that a Merriam Webster editor cannot spot the difference between sea-horse and "pesco-vegetarian", the latter being mutually exclusive terms, much like astronaut-FlatEarther. Also lost on them is the fact that squid and octopus may well be more intelligent than fish, cows, chickens and dogs. And many pescetarians do use intelligence or "sentience" (whatever that really is) as a criteria to support their distinction without difference. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

PESCO-VEGETARIAN is not a word and should be changed to Pescatarian. The word complicates things and makes vegetarian mad as some of them should be. Pescatarian is a word that is defined. This "Pesco-Vegetarian" slang sould be moved to it's own page.Wienchs (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

HOW WIKEPEDIA FAILS.

People will read this article and think most Pesco-vegetarians are pesco-vegetarians for health reasons, when in fact this is not true. I've met hundreds of pesco-vegetarians in my life, and the vast majority were Pesco-vegetarians for ethical reasons. These are people I met randomly all over the world. You are letting vegans and vegetarians define pesco-vegetarian.

I am one of them.--w_tanoto 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tanoto, if you "pesco-vegetarians" (your words) didn't cling to a word that borrows from "vegetarian", or the former, which actually includes the word "vegetarian" then you wouldn't have any problems- the vegetarians would happily lump you in with the rest of the carnivores (and leave you alone since you're no longer doing anything to confuse the public about biology or ethics). And you are a carnivore. You're making a distinction but there's really no difference. I suggest either coming up with a better word, or just stop trying to distinguish yourself from all the other omnivores/carnivores. Next thing you know, people who fancy themselves as more "ethical" because they eat "local" might start calling themselves locavores. :-) 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Who the blazes is this Cometstyles person? I'm an expert on this topic, and have followed it's tortuous evolution over the years and this bleep goes an keep reverting all of my edits! 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed ""Some health websites also state that a pescetarian diet is healthier than vegetarian and vegan ones."" because only one web site was listed. And it was non-authoritative to say the least. It also ignores all the other sites (FWIW) that say eating fish isn't a good idea. I also deleted it because any web site can say anything it wants- like the ones that endorse homeopathy and crystal healing. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pescetarianism is not a form of vegetarianism, it's a form of dietry choice, nothing more and nothing less

Urm, seafood of all kinds are meat. Now I eat all kinds of meat, in no way am I ethical regarding vegetarianism etc... But a sea-horse is known as such because it has an appearance similar in ways to a horse and when the name was coined people believed they were an aquatic form of horse. Anyone that eats the flesh of an animal is not a vegetarian. My friend calls herself a "vegetarian that eats fish" to me, thats not a vegetarian. In reality, a human is just as robotic as a fish and as much as any artificial intelligent creature createable. All "pain" is is the feeling that something endangers the organism. Saying the pain a fish feels is any less important than the pain a mammal feels is, in short, ignorant. Jacobshaven3 01:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While i'm on the opposite end of the spectrum Jacobs, you are of course correct on this. Well-said. Our values may differ but at least we are both intellectually honest about the science. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally would AGREE that Pescetarianism is NOT Vegetarianism. By definition that's obviously true. BUT - it is a variation on a vegetarian diet. Sort of like saying "Off-white is NOT white. But the best and most simple way to describe it is to begin with white, and describe what's different". In every way, Pescatarianism is simply vegetarian plus seafood. K.I.S.S. certainly applies here. W@ntonsoup (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ture and again a "vegetarian that eats fish" has now been defined as a pescetarian. There is a word in an English dictionary that has been cited that should hopfully put this to rest. Yes K.I.S.S is the way to go Pescetarianism is NOT Vegetarianism and has been defined to make them seperate. Some like to read into it too much. Wienchs (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Health Benefits

It struck me as odd that the citation needed tag was attached to a statement saying that no data was available to support the claimed health benefits. On the other hand, "there is no data" is a clear statement. But it still looked odd. So I've tweaked it slightly - scientifically speaking I would expect those claiming the benefits to provide the cites, so I've moved the tag to that statement instead, and removed the other. - Shrivenzale (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey now this is *funny*! The bit about claiming benefits of fish- that goes down to Reference # 8? It currently is called "Get Hooked on Fish! by Sue Gilbert, MS, Nutritionis" (sic) and links to http://health.ivillage.com/eating/ewmeat/0,,79sxz0k6,00.html Well that site currently redirects to a page that just happens to have a front page story lead called "The truth about fish food" that links to "Don't Go Fish?" at http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/dont-go-fish.html

That's so ironic, i'll let Cometsyles deal with it.

74.79.150.218 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Red meat

The article fails to differentiate between white meat such as chicken and red meat and instead appears to treat all land based animals including birds such as chickens as red meat which doesn't agree with most definitions (indeed neither wikipedia articles include chickens as red meat). The appliciability of some of the arguments is unclear and in any case, by concentrating on red meat which is generally considered a bigger risk health-wise then white meat the article can hardly be NPOV Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Color of meat is of course, an absurd fascination with these people. It's meaningless. As if color of flesh is some ethical or health benchmark. Now if the pesky-tarians had any foundation in science they would talk about mammals, avians, vs. all the various underwater forms of life like fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, etc., etc. But they don't. The Pretendetarians should address the issue of dark and light meat in birds. It would be very interesting to see that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.150.93 (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Colour of meat often reflects the myoglobin content, which signifies whether the muscle is "fast-twitch" or "slow-twitch" (which, in turn, is helpful in estimating the fat content of a piece of meat). It is, therefore, significant when it comes to food choices based on health concerns. Let me add, too, that your tone isn't helpful to the discussion; I, for one, am not pretending to be vegetarian, nor do I understand how me choosing to eat fish and no other meat could be "pesky" to anyone. I didn't know there _was_ a word for my new diet, and have only come across this article after searching for a word that would describe it. Upon reading the Wikipedia entry, I have decided that "pescetarian" isn't a good word for it at all, as that makes it sound like I only eat fish (or primarily subsist on it), which I don't. If "ovo-lacto vegetarianism" is an acceptable term, then "pesco-vegetarianism" should be as well (an egg, in truth, is a single animal cell, and is therefore animal, is it not?). 76.121.158.238 (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If pescetarian isn't a good word because it makes it sound like the diet consists only of fish then the term vegetarian also would not be a good word because it makes it sound like the diet consists only of vegetables.

The terms vegetarian and pescetarian are mutually exclusive, the difference between an egg and a fish is that in eating an egg no life is (directly) taken, however in order to eat a fish, the fish has to be killed. Muleattack (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth. Vegetarian _isn't_ an especially good word, no - however, it's generally understood that people who are vegetarians are _ovo-lacto_ vegetarians in particular, despite that not necessarily being the meaning (for example, some vegetarians do not consume eggs or milk, which does not necessarily make them vegans - they might still eat gelatin and honey, or whatever). But it's a word long in our vocabulary, so I guess we have to just accept it.

On your second point, okay, yes, a vegetarian and a "pescetarian" may differ if what you're talking about is _ethics_... but what gets me here is that the word "vegetarian," while often linked with certain ethical standpoints and what-have-you, really (by its dictionary definition, mind - www.m-w.com) has _nothing to do_ with ethics (how the thing was killed, whether it has a face, or even whether it was a moving, breathing thing at all). It has to do with the substance of the food. A vegan diet (and we're just talking about the diet here, not the general use of animal products - so a plain vegetarian diet; no milk, eggs, gelatin, etc.) is made entirely of plant and/or fungus cells and water, bottom line. Add animal cell in, and it's no longer a vegan diet; however, if that animal cell is just an egg, than you might call it ovo-vegetarianism (as a sidenote, milk has white blood cells in it too, so I guess you could say that's also partly animal). The diet consists partly of animal, and yet we still call it vegetarianism, that's my point. Nothing to do with ethics. If we can do that, then we can say "pesco-vegetarian" - vegetarian plus fish - or perhaps for me "ovo-lacto-pesco vegetarian" (my, what a mouthful!).

As a sidenote, I'm not trying to fall into some popular or "fashionable" category... I was just curious as to whether there was a simple, recognizable term to describe my diet so I could go somewhere and say "do you have any ---- dishes?" and not have to worry whether there was chicken in it or whatever (I guess the answer is no, there isn't... I'll just have to wing it, I guess). And my reasons have nothing to do with ethics, either... lately certain meats have been making me sick on occasion, that is all. Bleh.76.121.158.238 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well all this has been taken care of because there is a defined name for a person who eats fish but has all the traits of being a vegetarian. That person would be called a pescetarian. Not a pesco-vegetarian (not a defined word) unless you can find a credible source for this article. It was put in an English dictionary this year to end the debate.Wienchs (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that this whole, lengthy discussion about what term is accurate is completely unrelated to my point, which remains unaddressed, which is that the article fails to make any differentation between white meat from land animals and red meat from land animals which may be significant in the discussion of health concerns. In some sections, it makes sense to remove reference to red meat completely, e.g. the section about environmental concerns, which I have done so myself, since red meat or white meat is irrelevant to environmental concerns. (The type of animal is not irrelevant however since raising chickens is AFAIK more efficient then raising cattle) Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Websites

Certain websites are "saying" that eating fish is part of a vegetarian diet. Looking strictly to the word "Pesco-vegetarianism" on these websites they are not saying that at all. All they are saying is that Pesco-vegetarians are eating fish in an other wise vegetarian diet. Just as they at "ovo" to imply they eat eggs and eggproducts.

Like (exception)-(diet). Just a member (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Eggs are commonly accepted as part of a vegetarian diet though, fish are not. In your '(exception)-(diet)' eggs would not be an exception whereas fish would. Not sure what this has to do with the article though, were you suggesting a change somewhere? Muleattack (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The vegan totalitarians constantly messing with this article ruins it.. and the talkpage.

Its unfortunate that the term "Pescetarianism" seems to draw a flock of attention from the vegan and vegetarian hippies as well as "look at me" alternative lifestylers who want something to complain about. Pescetarians happen to have chosen the most healthy, rich and cultured diet in the entire world and are very happy with that. So why does this article draw out so many whingers? You'd think the vegan-totalitarian dictators have enough on their plate (pun intented) with whining about people who eat land dwelling animals. - Bourbonist 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what do you see as a problem with the current article? -kotra (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The text of this article is maddeningly weasely and annoying. Why not leave it with Webster's definition of "a vegetarian whose diet includes fish." Nuf said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.120.92 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, our articles have to be more than just a basic definition. In any case, I just removed a POV-pushing statement, feel free to be specific and point out any others you see. -kotra (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

"Pescetarian" is perhaps the most popular term for the diet. (While the Italian pesce is pronounced /ˈpeˌʃe/, the English term is usually pronounced with a hard "c".) "Pescavore" is also a common term, formed by analogy with "carnivore".

The word "Pescavore" is not a word let alone a common term to describe anything or anyone and should be removed. Pescavore is slang at best. [1] It should be replaced by A "Piscivore" that is a carnivorous animal which lives on eating fish. Some animals, like the sea lion, or alligator, are not completely piscivores, while others, like the Aquatic Genet, are strictly dependent on fish for food.

Wienchs (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Italian pronunciation should actually be written as /ˈpeʃ:e/ in IPA --- not /ˈpeˌʃe/, which was wrong because (1) the sh sound ʃ was not written as geminated, and (2) the secondary stress (ˌ) must not be written in phonemic transcriptions (the ones between slashes). If ever, one could write it in Italian phonetic transcriptions (the ones between square brackets), but even then I would be dubious. Secondary stress is not really a phonetic feature in Italian like it is, for example, in Germanic languages.
Long story short, I corrected the Italian IPA pronunciation and also written the English (non-IPA) one as "pesketarianism". --GiovanniS (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't correct these because I don't have that much experience with IPA or English transcriptions. However, I'll note that one of the English transcriptions is most likely incorrect, as length is not typically phonemically contrastive (it can be, but it's usually not). I'd also like to ask why /sk/ is a violation of English phonotactics (compare with "escape"), since the /s/ will almost certainly appear in coda position. Is any of this sourced? It all strikes me as original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Angriest Man Alive (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

'Ability to feel pain'

I'm not happy with the words "evolutionarily less advanced" when referring to fish in this section. What have fish been doing all these countless millennia if not evolving? It seems to be based on the assumption that 'human-like' = 'advanced', which betrays a lack of understanding of evolution. So I'm taking it out. Ericatom (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that fossil evidence had revealed that at least some fish, like sharks for example, have in fact remained virtually unchanged for millions and millions of years. But even that doesn't necessarily mean they're "evolutionarily less advanced", I suppose. —Angr 11:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems fishes actually can't feel pain and it has been scientifically proven to be so. Fishes do not have the brain for that. See the paper here http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/brfs/2002/00000010/00000001/art00001 Bragador (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if James D. Rose says so then it must be true. All these other scientists must be wrong...

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2004/00000013/A00101s1/art00012 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm Muleattack (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok but the research paper of D.Rose does say "Although it is implausible that fishes can experience pain or emotions, they display robust, nonconscious, neuroendocrine, and physiological stress responses to noxious stimuli.". It's like when you cut the head of a chicken. You can try to cut and burn the body and it will react, but it doesn't feel pain because the head has been cut off. Also, the bbc is not a scientific source.Bragador (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about? Chicken bodies do not react to pain after their heads have been cut off. The BBC may not be a scientific source but it is referring to one so it IS from a recognised scientific society. Muleattack (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never eaten a chicken without its head being cut off.

So what's your problem, vegan-nazi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.119.170 (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this section since it was completely unreferenced anyway. You can't make claims about scientific evidence without some citations to back it up. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

August 7, 2008

For the record, this edit was largely, but not entirely, a reversion of this edit from a few hours earlier. --Mathew5000 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Pescetarians

I think this should probably be it's own article as I think it has the potential to be a very long list, I suspect there's considerably more pescetarians than vegans and that has a pretty long list Muleattack (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The list of vegetarians is a separate article also, but that list is massive whereas there are only half a dozen names here. It seems like jumping the gun a bit to create a separate list. If the section starts to swamp the article the list can be turned into a separate article if need be. Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I really think this section is being overly scrutinised. We could for instance remove Ben Gibbard as the source says;

"Ben Gibbard: I was vegan for a number of years and then flipped off the vegetarian train like with seafood last December or so. I've been eating fish sparingly here and there but still no meat-meat."

Now "no meat-meat" is open to interpretation, that could include chicken for all we know.

Mary Tyler Moore's source;

"MOORE: Well, in that you need a certain amount of protein. So I have to eat a lot of fish and cheese. I'm not a vegan. I do eat dairy products. But I think of that as borrowing."

That says she eats fish and isn't a vegan, it doesn't say she doesn't eat other meats.

Conor Oberst's source;

"He’s been vegetarian, vegan, and even a pescetarian (vegetarian who eats fish)"

So what is he now? we have no way of knowing. (This source also looks suspiciously blog like)

As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources states, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

I suggest a little more common sense is used with regards to verifying the sources for this section as it is near on impossible to ensure the sources are correct, especially as many people do not even understand what terms like 'pescetarian' actually mean and will use them to describe themselves even if they eat e.g. chicken and a persons diet can change at any moment. Muleattack (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree to an extent, the verifiability applies to the validity of the source not to the content. I'm ok with the DAVE reference because it's a website of a major broadcaster, and you would expect a certain level of validity with regards to content. Blogs and student websites are not acceptable in any context, unless they perhaps have video evidence of the claim or carry the views of a recognised expert on the subject.

As for the Ready Steady Cook reference while the programme would be acceptable the reference is not. Even if the show is archived, it must still be publically available so that the claim is verifiable. A reference is supposed to provide the location of the source - like a DVD or internet stream, but the reference doesn't provide that. An unavailable broadcast is acceptable as a secondary reference though since the other one is verifiable.

As for the other names on the list, many of those were just copied over when I took them off the vegetarian list and created a separate pescetarian list so it may well be the case some of the references are not acceptable. If you are not happy with some of the references or indeed with the interpretation then it's your perogative to challenge them or remove them from the list. After all, names should only be included on the list by consensus. Generally, acceptable sources would be newspaper/magazine articles, books, accessible programmes via streams/DVD, specialist sites such a VegSoc/PETA and other established vegetarian/animal rights/dietary sites. Profiles on respected entertainment sites I think would be acceptable for this purpose since many of these people are celebrities, and also official websites. If the source doesn't conform to one of those broadly then it's probably not a valid source. Basically, if you use respectable sources you have a respectable article. Allow any old crap as a source and you may as well not bother. Usually if the claim is true there is a legitimate source out there.Betty Logan (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Health, ethics... what about taste?

I love fish and seafood, but I don't like the taste of meat from land animals. Taste is the only factor that stops from eating meat; health, ethical or religious concerns I don't have. Does it make me a pescetarian? Or am I just weird? — Kpalion^(talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The Vegetarianism article includes a section on "psychological" reasons for being vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fish Farming

The article mentions the inefficiency of farmed animals, a general complaint about meat eating diet, particularly the inefficiency of feeding grain to animals. To an extent this would also apply to fish farming wouldn't it? What about depletion of fish stocks in the wild. The paragraph seems just a bit too negative really in pointing out the downside of a meat eating diet and it feels to me like the article should leave that criticism for another article. -- Horkana (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the gist of the argument is that land has to be set aside for both the grain and the livestock, but then feeding it to livestock doesn't increase the nutritional output so the livestock become a redundant part of the process. Of course this argument doesn't apply to the fish in the wild since we don't harvest grain to feed them. It's a valid point, but the section is clearly biased because it doesn't address depletion of fish stocks which is a major concern. Also, the citation for the first paragraph no longer works so the section is technically unreferenced. The whole section is biased and poor and needs to be re-written really. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethics (again)

I wish you would try again on an ethics paragraph. I was going to do it but I was afraid I would get my arm bitten off. Issues: environmental concerns and treatment of animals concerns. The treatment of animals is certainly an issue, and the breaking point I suspect can be found in the warm blooded/cold blooded sentience consideration. I find this to be completely coherent, in that it neatly fixes one of the major problems with an ethical view to not kill anything (including broccoli?). The situation is a little more complex, but there is a WP article on the ethics of eating meat that helps a little.--Jarhed (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with an ethics section provided any factual claims are sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pescetarianism and Pescetarian

Being a Pescatarian, I confirmed that Webster spells Pescetarianism as Pescatarianism and Pescetarian as Pescatarian. The prefix Pesca is the same as the Spanish word Pescado ("fish"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.18.50 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Webster offers both "pescatarian" and "pescetarian" as variants so both usages are correct, they are just different spelling veriations. Wikipedia's policy for dealing with spelling differences can be found at WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. The salient part of that is: When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

>>> Actually there is essentially a primary and a secondary way to spell it and this article should include the primary one. The other one is portrayed as a 'variant' in the only source quoted (MW Dictionary). It doesn't say that the 'e' spelling is inferior in hierarchy, but this is the order in which they appear, as well as 'pescatarian' being the spelling on the link and the reference ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pescatarian ) Also that leans more towards common sense. It makes a lot more sense for the word to come from Spanish. It's all based on the assumption in the MW dictionary that says "probably from italian"-- The word being labeled a 'neologism,' it should be considered that there's a larger influence from Spanish than there is from Italian in modern US English. The article even has to clarify that the 'sc' is pronounced as a 'sk' (like it naturally would be in Spanish if it were spelled 'pescatarian' -- for any Spanish speaker this word would almost be self explanatory.

You spelled veriations like that on purpose. Right?