Talk:Herbivore/Archive 1

Are you a native speaker of the english language?
I find it hilarious that someone who considers themself wise enough to write encyclopedia articles, would write things like "sheeps" and "mooses". You should see the article of "fishes" and "elks", and not to mention "deers"--ChadThomson 08:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC) you're one to talk chad because if you look at the heading you wouldnt bein talkin like that now would you. "Is you native speaker of english language?" Now that is funny!

A true herbivore?
A true herbivore, such as a cow, is unable to chew or digest meat.
 * Err, that's funny. Then how do they digest meat and bone meal, which is still routinely fed to cattle in the USA, in spite of the BSE scandals in Europe? Maybe cows aren't such true scotsmen after all. Aragorn2 20:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corrected. JohnSankey 14:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am skeptical of biologists' traditional classifications of particular animal species as either "herbivore" or "carnivore," because I have personally witnessed so many cases of a supposed herbivore consuming the flesh of another animal (e.g., cute little blue butterflies swarming on a decaying elk carcass beside a railway through an Oregon forest) or a supposed carnivore consuming plant material (e.g., my pet Springer Spaniel pulling bunches of grapes off a grape vine and devouring them with relish, or simply grazing on the grass in my backyard). I think it is probably more accurate to state that most individuals of a particular species tend to derive most of their dietary intake from particular food sources, but many or most individuals of most species will consume any kind of food source that they can get their lips, teeth, hands, paws, or other body part on if circumstances permit. It is difficult to imagine how various species with dietary traits that we label "herbivorous" or "carnivorous" could have evolved in the first place without presupposing that their ancestors had been generally omnivorous, or at least contained some omnivorous individuals. Ebizur 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger
I merged List of herbivorous animals w this page, as the content was nearly identical, and of little length. Sam Spade 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should humans really be listed under herbivores? While one might argue the origins of the human diet, etc. it's fairly self-evident that modern Homo sapiens sapiens is an omnivorous animal regardless of the dietary habits of specific individuals or even entire cultures. There are currently no healthy, living, human beings who can not metabolize animal flesh. And for the record I am a very strict vegetarian. Human vegetarianism is a sociological trait not a dietary trait. Gabe 05:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vegtarians are not herbivores
Should humans really be listed under herbivores? While one might argue the origins of the human diet, etc. it's fairly self-evident that modern Homo sapiens sapiens is an omnivorous animal regardless of the dietary habits of specific individuals or even entire cultures. There are currently no healthy, living, human beings who can not metabolize animal flesh. And for the record I am a very strict vegetarian. Human vegetarianism is a sociological trait not a dietary trait. Gabe 05:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I left in a paragraph about humans as herbivores, but considered deleting it. I left it in because it makes a biological case, rather than being "vegetarian propaganda", but it lacks a citation and in my view is wrong. Humans, chimps, and bonobos all eat meat. Thus, outgroup comparison would lead to the conclusion that meat as an ordinary part of diet is ancestral in the human/chimp/bonobo clade. Certainly many human populations have taken meat-eating to heights not seen among the other ape species, and this may very well be reflected in our biology, but I don't regard humans as biological herbivores.--Curtis Clark 14:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph about humans being herbivores should be deleted because it has no citations and contradicts the main article about humans which contains sources to back up the position that humans are omnivores. 130.246.132.26 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Beware that we are not truly omnivores. Omnivore animals eat raw flesh, but, do we? And when I mean raw is raw, as there is flesh that can't be taken without being cooked but it has gone through other processes such as spice use and so on (Toni XTC, 15/01/2008)
 * Erhm... we are true omnivores. Being an omnivore has nothing to do with the food being prepared or not. A cocked plant is still a plant. The same applies to meat. Furthermore, we could easily eat raw meat, and many dishes do include raw meat, but the choice of preparing the food (be that meat or plants) is as much related to culture, our wish for a different tastes, and alike, as anything else, although there can be no doubts that it also is a way of minimizing the risk of getting food trasmitted diseases. That still doesn't change the fact that we're omnivores, even if people can choose to avoid certain types of food. Rabo3 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try eating raw chicken. Fish seems to be the only somewhat safe meat - however, humans don't exactly have claws to catch fish. Most vegetables and fruits can be eaten raw, whereas some fungi can't. Said fungi are dangerous to herbivore animals as well. 84.253.211.53 (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of that remark is unclear and its statement seems inadequately informed; just as Japanese cuisine includes raw seafood, it includes raw chicken and other meat, as well as certain nasty uncooked vegetables. Not that I dislike Japanese cooking in general or in particular, much of it is very tasty, but these items are varyingly repellant to me, though I am happy to eat biltong and various other prepared uncooked meats and vegetables, and other members of my family love a good carpaccio. (Most of the jerky I have tasted seems well-named in comparison to biltong! ;) ) Raw fish is no safer than other raw meat, but properly prepared, is a lot safer than say uncooked Colocasia or Manihot. But apart from safety, these are matters of taste and contingency. The article deals strictly with species or populations adapted to ranges of diets that include animal and vegetable materials as staples. It has nothing to do with whether they are cooked or raw, fermented, dried, or fresh, appetising or otherwise, nor even whether individual specimens of an omnivorous species might have digestive problems limiting them to a carnivorous or herbivorous diet, either episodically or life-long. So say I, can the quibbles and store the cans for times of famine. JonRichfield (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Plurals
The completely plural list is rather disgusting, but I don't see how we could fix that without placing "the" in front of all the animals names. If someone can fix it logically, do so. Seems very elementary the way it is. drumguy 8800 - speak? 05:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Consistency error
"An herbivore" or "a herbivore"? Both are used here.

81.129.125.249 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have looked this up and I believe "a herbivore" is more correct. The example given by Merriam-Webster is "a herbivorous animal". That should settle it. AstarothCY (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes by User:69.181.116.226
User:69.181.116.226 stated, "I have corrected substantial errors to the definition of herbivore as it relates to a completely fallacious 'food chain' concept." I've reverted, because (1) human acculturation to eating meat is not supported by outgroup comparison (chimps eat meat as well), and "primary consumers" is a valid ecological term which ought not to be omitted.--Curtis Clark 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have re-inserted corrections that were done to overcome cultural biases. Naming herbivores as primary consumers is nonsense. Most herbivores in nature do not have the role of providing meat for carnivores. This is a cultural myth and does require correction.


 * I wrote the following in response to an email from Cheryl:

The evidence for hominid omnivory is abundant. It is well documented that some chimps eat meat. Although it seems to be in part cultural, I think it is a leap to call the chimps biased. Processed animal bones are a common part of Homo erectus, Homo neandertalensis, and Homo sapiens middens, and I seem to remember that they exist for Homo habilis as well. Among modern humans, the meat-rich diets of pre-European contact Inuit and Yupik are well-attested, and their conversion to "western" diets has caused health problems. I think discounting their aboriginal diet is truly a "cultural bias".

"None of this is to say that modern 'western' meat-rich diets are especially healthy (although the large amounts of refined carbohydrates are at least an equal problem). And certainly modern meat-raising has a harmful ecological footprint (although I would contend that the American short-grass prairie is better used to raise bison than monoculture corn and soybean). But it's actually an insult to the vegetarian movement (IMO) to have to make up 'scientific facts' to support it, as if its health benefits weren't enough."

(http://goveg.org/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp, cited in her email) All this proves is that humans are not dogs or cats. We are clearly also not cows or horses, and in some important ways we are not gorillas, who have far better adaptation for an all-plant diet than we do.

And as for the food chain, yes, it’s a lot more complicated than that, but "primary consumer" is a valid ecological term, and your replacement was basically meaning-free.
 * --Curtis Clark 06:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Humans are not chimps but they are herbivores both anatomically and physiologically and though by Judeo-Christian tradition they are singualrly outside ecological classification, this is not supported by scientific inquiry. Please refer to one of the discussions on this issue: http://goveg.org/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp. Cheryl Maietta http://www.allinharmony.com


 * This is not a religious issue, it is a scientific one, so I don't understand why you cite "Judeo-Christian tradition"--Curtis Clark 06:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dangers and other issues
Nice bit on the misconception about all herbivores being gentle. A more obvious example would be the hippopotimous (Spelling) that is generally considered to be the most dangerous animal (after humans) in Africa if not in the world. Oh and humans are omnivores, they are physiologically adpated to an omnivorous diet. That is the definition. Physiological adaptation, digestive system and dentition. I may pop by to insert some sources and bulk out once I've done the omnivore article next week. AlanD 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Idea for discussion
I've an idea... Howsabout we roll herbivore, ominvore, carnivore and insectivore into one article with redirects from those terms? One article, animal feeding. Might be better than trying to pad out these terms seperately. If the sections fill out properly then they can be split off at a later date. This will also allow comparisons to be drawn between different feeding groups.AlanD 11:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss:


 * The problem calling it 'animal feeding' is that, for example, some plants are carnivorous. The existing article predation should cover the whole subject reasonably well though. This subject itself is more than large enough to warrant not only its own article, but the sub-articles that already exist. What I find concerning is that they are much larger than this one, which is barely more than a stub. They need to be summarized here, and this article further expanded upon. To shift the focus from the herbivores somewhat I would suggest renaming the article herbivory, much as predation is named so instead of predator, which is more one-sided. Herbivore could then redirect here. Richard001 09:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck, it doesn't seem at all controversial, I'm just going to move it.
 * Nevermind, can't move over a redirect. I'll wait for some feedback then we can get some assistance if needed. Richard001 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the page. LMK if there's any controversy, but seems good to me. --DanielCD 13:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge
Suggest we merge folivore here. Little content and herbivory and folivory are often taken to mean the same thing. Richard001 10:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you merge nectarivore instead? Kappa 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't considered that case, though nectivory and frugivory are often considered separately. Feel free to present the case if you like. What do you think about folivore? Richard001 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if you merge folivore you should merge frugivore, nectarivore, granivore, palynivore and xylophagy. Kappa 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think frugivore should be merged but there others are possibilities. You still haven't said if you are in favour of merging though. Richard001 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think summary style would be better for all of them. In-depth discussion of what animals eat what and why doesn't belong on a high-level page like this. Kappa 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The page here isn't exactly too much reading at the moment though, and there's little point using summary style if the main article will be no bigger than the summary. Richard001 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose any of these merges. Each is a separate and large topic, even though they can be subarticles of herbivore. Hadrianheugh (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose the merger. The activities of birds are a bit different than other Herbivors. David Straub (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose any of these merges. They may be subtopics, but they are large enough ones to be worthy of their own entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.197 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Kappa. If Folivore is merged, so should all the others Kappa mentioned, and this article would become way too long. I wouldn't be averse to summaries, though, or even just a list of subtopics. Since there seems to be no consensus for merging Folivore, I've removed the tag. -kotra (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Browser
I was directed to this page from Mastodon. It says that the difference between Mastodons and Woolly Mammoths is that one is a grazer and the other is a browser. But then there's no distinction on this page. And then the link at the point just points to the Browser disambiguation page. I would love to add something, but I really can only guess what the differences are. I would think that cattle are grazers and giraffes are browsers? Please, someone help a poor guy understand the difference between 2 very similar and very extinct species. marnues (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Standardization
The title of this article is "herbivory", while other articles are styled such as "omnivore" and "carnivore". Is there a particular reason that they are not standardized to have the same suffix? --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Updating Herbivory Wikipedia Entry
This posting is to let the Wiki-community know that a project team of Ecologists at the University of Florida has taken the task of editing the Wikipedia Herbivory entry. This new entry will be posted by the end of December 2008. KLCallis (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed outline for new herbivory page
Below is an outline that the UF project team proposes for the new Herbivory page on wikipedia. Please feel free to comment on the outline. Several subtopics on the outline will be ready in a couple weeks for posting. Additional editing from the wiki-community is needed in areas where the project team does not have expertise. These will be addressed when the new page is loaded.

== Herbivores – What are they ==

•	→Termed primary consumers in the food chain

•	→Organisms adapted to subsist solely on plant materials

== Evolution of Herbivores: ==

→• Early fossil record of arthropod herbivory occurred in two stages.

→→o	1st stage during late Silurian to Early Devionian (approx. 417 – 403 MYA)

→•	Earliest evidence of consumption of sporangia and stems

→•	Next 75 MY (Labandeira, 2007)

→•	Evolution of tetrapod herbivores: (Reisz, 2006)

→→o	Dental occlusion

→→o	Increase in food processing

→→o	Phylogenetic framework

== Predator-prey Theory (herbivore-plant interactions) ==

→o	Cyclic

→o	Stabilizing Predator-Prey dynamics

→→•	Spatial heterogeneity

→→→•	specialist herbivores.

→→•	Prey defenses: See section on Plant defenses

→→→•	Second prey type

→→•	generalist herbivores

→→•	Keystone herbivores

→•	Optimal Defense theory: plant defense systems and how herbivores overcome those defenses (McKey, 1974)

→→o	Risk of attack

→→o	Value of plant part

→→o	Metabolic cost of defense

== Feeding strategies ==

→o	Limitations

→→•	Time limited (grazers and browsers) vs resource limited (Selective feeders)

→o	Kleiber’s law

→→•	Formula

→→•	Explanation

→→•	Examples

→o	Types of feeding strategies:

→→•	Table of examples

→•	Foraging tactics (Gray, 1987)

→→o	Search for appropriate habitat

→→o	Active search for food items

→→o	Hoarding

→→o	Consumption

→•	Optimal Foraging Theory

→→o	What it is: Model for predicting animal behavior while looking for food or other niche

→→o	Individual movement and distribution

→→o	Controversy

→→→•	Examples that fit the theory, not a theory that fits the reality

→→→•	Circular and untestable (Pierce and Ollason, 1987 and Stearns and Schmid-Hempel, 1987)

→→→•	Animals do not have the ability to assess and maximize their potential gains (Lewis, 1986 and Janetos and Cole, 1981)

→o	Holling’s disk equation (Stephens and Krebs, 1986)

→→•	Rate of return for an optimal diet model

→→→•	Formula

→→→•	Explanation

→→→•	Examples

→o	Marginal Value Theorem (Charnov, 1976)

→→•	Balance between immediate reward and future reward

→→•	Giving Up Density (GUD) (Brown et al, 1997)

→→•	Giving Up Time (GUT) (Breed et al, 1996)

== Attacks and Counter-Attacks ==

→•	Plant Defense

→→o	What is plant defense? Why defend?

→→o	Tolerance vs Resistance

→→o	Physical (Mechanical) vs Chemical

→→→•	Physical examples

→→→•	Thorns, spines, trichomes, etc.

→→→•	Silica

→→→•	Trichomes

→→→•	Waxes, resins

→→→•	Chemical examples

→→→•	Terpenes

→→→•	Phenolics

→→→•	Alkaloids

→→→•	Cyanogens

→→→•	Semiochemicals

→→•	Constitutive vs induced defenses (Edwards and Wratten 1985)

→→→•	Give examples and pictures of each

→•	Herbivore Offense

→→o	Purpose of offense

→→o	Strategies for offense

→→o	Feeding choice- variety vs specialization (Dearing et al. 2000)

→→o	Dealing with chemicals

→→→•	Detoxify (Karban and Agrawal 2002)

→→→•	Sequester (Nishida 2002, Karban and Agrawal 2002)

→→→•	Avoid (ex. production of lots of saliva)

→→o	Use of Symbionts (ex. aphids, Douglas 1998)

→→o	Host manipulation (ex. leaf rolling, Sagers 1992)

→•	The Adaptation Dance

→o	Intro to coevolution

→→•	Definition of coevolution

→o	Plant defense and herbivore offense as drivers

→o	Coevolutionary arms race (Mead et al. 1985)

→o	Beneficial herbivory (mutualism; Herrera 1985)

→→•	Ex. seed dispersal by vertebrates, pollination

→o	Limits to coevolutionary change

== Herbivore Impacts: ==

→•	Economic Impacts

→→o	Recreational – hunting and ecotourism – hunting generates billions of dollars annually in the US alone - ecotourism is important source of income globally

→→o	Agricultural Crop Damage – white-tailed deer alone in the US damage approximately $100 million in agricultural crops every year - Insect crop damage

→→o	Environmental Destruction – White-tailed deer alone damage approximately $750 million of forest regeneration projects – Herbivores, through over-browsing and high populations, can change the vegetative community of a region and thus impact the carrying capacity of that habitat for both themselves and other species.

→→o	Human – White-tailed deer alone cause over $1 billion in damage repairs from deer-vehicle collisions every year – treatment for 29,000 injuries annually

KLCallis (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On the whole this structure looks amazing, and I look forward to seeing the article take its new form! The last section is the only one I'd take issue with; it seems strange to focus on an animal which just so happens to be a herbivore, rather than the effects of herbivory - for example, locust swarms would seem a much better example of human impact than deer-vehicle collisions when vehicles can also collide with carnivores. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. We used deer just as one example since they do have a significant impact and were something we knew about. We would welcome additions with other examples but thought this would be a starting point. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kifaro50 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Edits by UF ecology group
While a couple of references remain to be entered into the Herbivory page, the major edits by the ecology group at UF are complete. Please feel free to add and contribute to the content we started on this page. We have included information for our area of expertise, however we would encourage people with other areas of expertise to continue expanding this page. Thank you.--KLCallis (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Herbivore. Simple as that, right?
I found it interesting that the base description of Herbivore, the first main section, suggested that herbivores consume plants to "transform the sun's energy stored in the plants to food that can be consumable by carnivores and omnivores up the food chain." Edited this bit simply because photosynthesis is what "transforms the sun's energy stored in plants to food", only it makes food for the plants, which gets the whole cycle rolling. I could be wrong, though... JourneyV (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove vegetarian text, replace "See Also" link to "plant-based diet (disambiguation)"
I propose that we remove the top text: "This article is about plant-based diets for organisms in general. For human diets that exclude meat, see Vegetarianism. For human diets that exclude all animal sources, see Veganism."

and convert the "See Also" vegetarian link to "Plant-based diet (disambiguation)". See disambiguation proposal: Talk:Plant-based_diet --Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC) This proposal has been up for a week without any objection or any additional suggestions. I will be making these updates today. Thanks. --Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Holling's disk equation
Is Holling's theory for real??? Just check what the explanation states. Basically that if an individual is surrounded by food, it will take that individual more time to feed!!!

I quote:

..."Holling’s disk equation models the efficiency at which predators consume prey. The model predicts that as the number of prey increases, the amount of time predators spend handling prey also increases and therefore the efficiency of the predator decreases.[17] In 1959 S. Holling proposed an equation to model the rate of return for an optimal diet: Rate (R ) = Energy gained in foraging (Ef)/(time searching (Ts) + time handling (Th)) R = Ef / (Ts + Th) Where s = cost of search per unit time f = rate of encounter with items, h = handling time, e = energy gained per encounter In effect, this would indicate that an herbivore in a dense forest would spend more time getting handling (eating) the vegetation because there was so much vegetation around than an herbivore in a sparse forest, who could easily browse through the forest vegetation. Therefore, according to the Holling's disk equation, the herbivore in the sparse forest would be more efficient at eating than the herbivore in the dense forest..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.190.168.52 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes some sense to me, one must keep in mind that herbivores do not eat all plants but have selective preferences. If it is surrounded by plants it normaly eats, then it has no problem, but if the herbivore has to look for the type of plant it eats, then it has to expend more time and energy transversing dense growth.  Hardyplants (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you see it that way, but sticking to what the explanation states "...as the number of prey increases...", so, or it is either quite a "blunt" theory or the theory must be better explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.190.168.52 (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Plants are not prey in the same sense as animal, plants do not move around, so herding is not a possible defense strategy. So unless "Holling's theory" specifically talks about plants - its misplaced. At the moment I have no time to look into it but hopefully some one who has specific knowledge of the theory will answer.  Hardyplants (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Is silica absorption by plants really a defense mechanism?
This entry states that "...Finally, some plants sequester silica inside their tissues. These are basically small pieces of glass that wear down the teeth of herbivores..." How true may that be?, don´t some herbivores have this type of teeth that kind of like replace their enamel or something like that? Maybe the plants didn't mean to deter in that manner their consumption and maybe they just absorbed silica for another reason and herbivores adapted accordingly.

Maybe it is like an armaments race.

Maybe I am just wrong altogether =). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.190.168.52 (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
The apparent reference to the etymology of "herbivore" is fragmentary and doubtful.

The current text states that "Comes from the Greek suffix "vora" (Greek -βόρα) meaning "which eat" My Greek is not expert, but I know of no such Greek verb, whereas I am well aware of the Latin verb "vorare" to eat or consume, which, along with "herba," Latin for grass or plants, is generally cited as the origin of "herbivore," from a modern Latin creation, "herbivora."

Humans' similarity to Herbivores
I've reverted this addition. I recognize that the editor went through a lot of trouble putting it together, but this isn't the place for vegetarian propaganda. The undue weight being given to the conclusion of a single study, the synthesis concerning the lumping together of unrelated sources, and the essay-like tone ("The most common cause of choking deaths is eating meat. Real carnivores and omnivores don't have that problem.") is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  06:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I don't think that describing my contribution as "vegetarian propaganda" (without doing anything to vindicate it) sits well with civility criterion of wikipedia. And that is not enough reason for completely erasing the section either. you could have reconstructed the sentences or cited other sources that say Humans are ANATOMICALLY OMNIVORES, sadly you didn't. You should remember that neither wikipedia nor reality is democracy. But instead of being oversensitive to your harsh remarks against my annexations and demanding an apology, I'm politely requesting you to keep in mind that verifiability and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. I encourage you to work for improvement of the article by citing reliable sources. If you keep on reverting the edit gratuitously, then you may be blocked. Thank you that's all.-- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   20:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from inserting vegan propaganda in Wikipedia articles.

The "paper" you keep inserting is not a scientific paper and it was exposed numerous times as such: http://www.andersaaberg.dk/blog/2011/false-science-the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating-by-dr-milton-r-mills/ Mihaiam (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC).

I think over-emphasis on the word "propaganda" was needless. I don't like being called a "Propagandist". The article you directed me to has multiple issues.  It is unreliable because the page itself says in its very first line, ""I am not an expert on the topics “diets”, “anatomy” and “evolution” ""

it is imbued with ad hominem attacks. It has not provided a single factual claim backed with reliable scientific data about HUMAN ANATOMY. Now I think I'd prefer a confident M.D. Milton Mills rather than someone who is clearly an inexpert on that subject and himself admits so (I admire his honesty though!). I ask you now, exactly what scientific data/article is there regarding HUMAN ANATOMY that says humans are not similar to herbivores? Enlighten me please!

→Please refute factual claims with contradicting factual claims. Libels and name-calling don't help anyone. -- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   10:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't adress any of the criticism, as to what make Mr. Mills an expert in this field and in what scientific journal published this paper (your refence is to a vegetarian think tank web site, earthsave.ca). His confidence is by no means a measure of his competence. Until your proposal can be shown to be the consesus of the scientific comunity rather than the personal opinion of a random person please keep it off the Wikpedia page. Mihaiam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC).


 * I didn't address any of the criticism? Where are the criticisms? I admit that Milton's doctoral degree may or may not make him an expert on this subject, but it certainly puts him in a better position to examine the similarities between humans and herbivores. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability remember? All the major criticisms against Milton R Mills' nice article revolves around the fact that his article was not published on certain website of your or anybody else's choice. I say, So what? Remember reality or facts don't change based on consensus. Majority of people believed in geocentric universe few centuries ago. The criticisms of Milton R. Mills' article are not substantiated with any of the medical journals. You are more than welcome to cite some reliable sources that officially scientifically prove that humans are not herbivores. Until then, stop this vandalism. You may be right but please prove it with facts before reverting my changes one more time. -- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   14:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from deleting text on the talk page, like the links I posted. I'll post them again:
 * Here is a articles contesting the supposed factual claims:
 * http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-humans-omnivores.html
 * Meat eating may be what started human evolution:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/food_for_thought1.shtml
 * BTW, the same type of erroneous logic as in Mr. Mills article is used by some people promoting a meat-based diet:
 * http://www.paleodiet.com/comparison.html Mihaiam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
 * For better or worse, Wikipedia policy is based on consensus
 * Milton R. Mills doesn't apper to be published in any scientific journal in the first place, they don't pass muster as reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

@mihaian I didn't delete your references you can check history of the page if you like(there might have been a collision). Wikipedia policy is based on consensus, yes between editors I know. Till now you were referring to consensus between scientists. By the way your first 2 references don't say that humans are not Herbivores nor do they scientifically address the issue of Human's anatomical similarity with herbivores. 3rd reference is a more than three-decades-old comparison of Humans, dogs and ship (exclusive of all other carnivores, herbivores and omnivores). Besides, it claims that human's digestive efficiency is 100%. -- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   16:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is unduly long and detailed and completely unbalances the article. Perhaps more appropriate (in a condensed from) at Human diet.  Tigerboy1966  16:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unduly long? I'm sorry, but I don't think the argument is about length nor should it be considered a valid reason for censoring information. -- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   16:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, please remove it.--Mihaiam (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You think I don't see what you're doing?-- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   16:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In its current form there isn't a snowball's chance of Mrt3366's addition getting consensus approval. Perhaps a short paragraph along the lines of "It has been suggested by x that..." might be appropriate if it were properly supported and written in an appropriate tone.  Tigerboy1966  16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Where are reliable sources? It is unnecessarily getting dragged into a dispute. It's not to be based on consensus. However, if you insist I won't argue further. Nice talking! -- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   16:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In cases like this it's up to the person adding material to show that, for instance, Piero Scaruffi is a reliable source on the topic of human anatomy and diet.  Tigerboy1966  16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Scaruffi? yes. I also cited this page in my section
 * piero scaruffi-vegetarianism
 * Still, I won't argue. But, I've a fair request, please keep some parts of the section (e.g. william c roberts' quote and Milton's conclusion) that's all. As a food for thought. Don't let it all go to waste.(like you initially suggested with a condensed version)
 * Nice talking! -- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   17:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To agree with what Tigerboy said earlier, note that even if we accept the material published by Piero Scaruffi as RS, it doesn't mean we have any need for a section in the article for it, let alone one that long. It's almost definitely WP:Undue weight to include the material at all, let alone such a long section if it's only the opinion of one or a few random person and isn't something well accepted or at least considered significant in the scientific literature. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-contradictory is insufficient justification for inclusion
While ‎Rainbowofpeace was correct in removing the vegetarian remark as being redundant though non-contradictory, it would have been equally correct to remove it on the basis of irrelevance. Vegetarianism has nothing to do with a purely biological article dealing with "organisms that are anatomically and physiologically adapted to eat plant-based foods" which is clearly stated right at the start of the lede. If the editor wishes to refer to herbivory in support of an article on vegetarianism, that is the article where a link could appear if desired. JonRichfield (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I removed it for two reasons, 1) they were dictionary defintions. They should use a more reliable source than something as simple as a dictionary definition. Especially because you would have to read an compare both which is WP:OR. 2) The defintions were non-contradictarary even though they are used to source that they supposedly are 3) Some human digestive systems don't have the ability to digest meat and therefore technically are herbivourous by every definition of the word. I know number 3 from personal experience. 4) The sentence also implied that vegitarianism is always a choice. In conclusion while I do think one should be careful because vegitarianism and hebrivory are not synonymous they are clearly related and do clearly overlap. However it is not my wish to put in pro-vegitarian propaganda in. But keeping anti-vegitarian propoganda out is maintaining WP:NPOV.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, suits me. Just as long as no one comes back to waste our time putting it in on the basis of niggles! ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)