Talk:Pescetarianism/Archive 2

Bill Clinton
I don't think Bill Clinton eats fish, as the note states, at least not anymore. http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/18/bill.clinton.diet.vegan/index.html?hpt=po_bn5 In that article he says his only non-vegan transgression was a bite of turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.48.29 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2011 (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)

Killing yourself or anything is not, er, ethical. Attempting to be intellectual fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2011 (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)
 * Re cannibalistic practices in farming. WHAT exactly do you think many species of fish actually EAT???82.6.1.85 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Lance T
 * The vast majority of the time, they eat species other than themselves, and are thus not cannibals... you seem to be defining cannibalism as "same-phylum diet" or something odd like that. It is almost universally meant to be "same-species diet" only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.80.28 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * and I am a pesce-pollo-carne-fungi-ovo-lacto-anthropo-prokaryoto-eukaryoto-geo-vegetarian. I just wont eat viruses and prions, and some very boring entrees at Carrows. People who eat those foods just don't get the moral complications and health problems associated with viruses, prions, and Carrows. stupid gits.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2011 (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.


 * Interesting. I assume you have never been angling? Hook a fish in the mouth and you can get it to fight till it dies of exhaustion. Foulhook it in the side, and it will not fight at all. Why do you think that is? BTW, will you people stop trying to use the nonword SPECIE? It is NOT the singular of SPECIES. One species, two species, lots of species. You don't have two sheep and one shoop, do you?82.6.1.85 (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Lance T.

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.
 * Would you say that people in a fishing village who only eat fish and vegetables are pescovegetarians? I ask, because there are literlly DOZENS of them in the world...82.6.1.85 (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Lance T.

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)
 * I don't understand how "pesco-vegetarianism" is simply slang. Pescetarianism is called "pesco-vegetarianism" on plenty of reliable food and health sites when describing this diet. In fact, I believe I see it more often than the word Pescetarianism. Even if slang, that does not stop Wikipedia from reporting an alternate (or alternate, more common way of) spelling/referring of/to a term. Whether or not it upsets vegetarians is also not the issue, per WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't view this as such an offense as say...if we were to have the word fuck in the lead of the Sexual intercourse article as an alternate name. I'll start a section about this below to get more views on this specific matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2010 (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.   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) 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)

A vegetarian who eats fish? Then they are not a vegetarian. It's quite simple to get your head around you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.81.209 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (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 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)

This section is bullshit. Teleost fishes have a brain as changed from our common ancestors as ours. Only they changed in another direction, but they have neocortex and complex neurological processes too. And all fishes are capable to feel pain. Consciusness is so hard to probe in all non human species that to say they don't have it is as fallacius as to say they have it. Liem et al. Functional Anatomy of Vertebrates, for a basic lecture on the neurological aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.9.123.181 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2018 (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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerealitosnocturnos (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just one dictionary. Some don't even include the word in any form.  Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary lists "pescetarian" and a variant form "piscetarian" but not "pescatarian" .  Google puts the usage more or less level. There isn't a strong argument for choosing either form unless one usage becomes dominant. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinions
The bulk of discussion on this page seems to include uselesss observations like "I've got this friend who's a linguist and he says..." and/or "my handy dictionary here says that vegetarianism is defined as...".

There are studies that have shown fish and other seafood do not feel pain. Other studies ahve contadicted them. The reality is that flexitarians are a type of vegetarian and the latter has trouble accepting this. It is worth noting that many cultures, particularly those adhering to Vedanta do not accept the fact that seafood (mollusks in particular) have souls. This is different from cows and other source of "true" meat. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting your personal opinion. This is the talk page for pescetarianism however, not flexitarianism. Muleattack (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Nonetheless, the post applies to pescetarianism too.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is quite limited in its scope and could do with a bit of work. If you would like to extend the article feel free to do so, but the reason it isn't very balanced is that often contributors don't back up their claims/research with citations from reliable sources so it then has to be removed.  The article would definitely benefit by including properly sourced sections on the ethical and environmental aspects of pescetarianism.  Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pescetarianism versus pesco-vegetarianism wording
Back in early November of this year, Muleattack removed this alternate spelling/wording of the diet. I was the one who recently added it without knowing there was/is a problem with this wording, but I must state that I am not too against Muleattack's removal.

As I stated in the section above, I don't understand how "pesco-vegetarianism" is simply slang. Pescetarianism is called "pesco-vegetarianism" on plenty of reliable food and health sites when describing this diet. In fact, I believe I see it more often than the word Pescetarianism. Even if slang, that does not stop Wikipedia from reporting an alternate (or alternate, more common way of) spelling/referring of/to a term. Whether or not it upsets vegetarians is also not the issue, per WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't view this as such an offense as say...if we were to have the word fuck in the lead of the Sexual intercourse article as an alternate name. And on that sexual note, plenty of lesbians hate the slang word scissoring for tribadism, as it does not describe all aspects of the term and some don't partake in that aspect (the scissoring motion), but we still include it as an alternate name because the name is so common. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put it in the Pescetarianism section: . I think Muleattack removed it because the definition of vegetarianism technically precludes fish from the diet, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the article since it is a common name for the diet, and we just make it clear it isn't a proper vegetarian diet. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That works, Betty. Thanks for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I was going to ask if maybe it should go in the Etymology section, with possibly some mention of how it came about (if there is any info out on that), but, like I stated, where you put it works. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From my understanding a consensus had been reached earlier on this talk page with you (Flyer22) stating "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)." If it does get a mention anywhere I suggest it is also made clear that it is an oxymoron.Muleattack (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Was I referring to the wording pesco-vegetarianism? It sounds as though I was talking about the fact that Merriam-Webster originally called a pescetarian "a vegetarian who eats fish." The definition on their site no longer says that, though. Will you point to the previous discussion. I would search myself, but I'm doing two things at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see I had to find it myself: . The above was not about the wording pesco-vegetarianism or consensus about not using the wording pesco-vegetarianism. But either way, it is taken care of for now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would work in the Etymology section as well. I chose the section I did because I could just rework a sentence that was already there.  The etymology section could do with a revamp to take account of all the spelling variations, and other names for the diet could be included in that. Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the "-o-" of "Pesco-vegetarianism" would not be considered correct by any traditional form of compounding rules relevant to English vocabulary... AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source discussing this specifically applying to "pesco-vegetarianism" we might have something to add to the article. If not, please restrict your discussion on article talk pages to discussion about improving the article. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- I have a linguistic background (including knowledge of both English and classical language morphologies), and if others can point out these words, I don't see why I can't point out a reason why they're unlikely to catch on (i.e. that they don't obey normal rules of word-formation). AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian fast?
Isn't there a religious holiday for Christians where the only meat they'll eat is fish? I think its one of the days of Easter. Is this relevant enough to mention here? --Senor Freebie (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

-Catholics worldwide are required to abstain from meat every Friday during the year under the pain of venial sin most of the year but under the pain of mortal sin Fridays during Lent and Ash Wednesday. There is a special indult in the USA that eliminates these requirements outside of Lent if the Catholic selects a different form of penance. Liturgically speaking, in the western Church, meat is any warm-blooded creature. So fish, shrimp, snake, clams, etc. would not fall under that. They also do not include eggs and dairy as meat. Certain charisms within the Catholic Church forsake meat altogether (like the Carmelites) or on special days of the year/week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.216.238 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC) i think except in US and other countries it is binding under mortal sin on fridays too 123.231.120.62 (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Etymology
Sorry for my english. I have a question about the fish word. Isn´t come from even in latin (Pisci) from the greek word: Ψάρι? Gina 3.2.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.160.236 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The current version of the article includes the sentence, "The alternative spelling, "pescetarian", is influenced by the Italian word pesce ("fish")." A number of dictionaries do suggest the Italian pesce as the source, but all that I have seen (OED, MW, etc.) give that derivation only as speculation ("assumption", "probably", etc.). As others have noted here already, it seems a somewhat less plausible derivation than the Spanish/Portuguese one, for a number of reasons (e.g. the pronunciation of -sc-, the spelling pescatarian, and the relative commonness of the languages in English-speaking countries). Without a source, those arguments, admittedly, would be original research and certainly there can be no objection to citing dictionaries' speculation about the word's etymology. However, the sentence I quoted from the article goes beyond this in two ways: 1) it states it as fact, rather than speculation and 2) it states it as an "influence" on one spelling of the word. While it's true that pesce is inconsistent with the spelling pescatarian, the same is not true of pescado with the spelling pescetarian, as the second E could as easily come from the second word in the portmanteau (vegetarian) as the first.

Since the quoted sentence is no good as it stands, and since the Italian etymology is ultimately unsourced (by dictionaries themselves) and unnecessary (given the etymology suggested in the Wiki article), I'm taking the liberty of simply removing that sentence. Anyone wishing to restore it should take account of the above points and restrict it to what can actually be cited, viz. that some dictionaries have suggested the Italian pesce as the source of the first half of the word, however spelled. JudahH (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OED edits
An editor has been making the recent edit to etymology setcion:

The edit basically involves adding:
 * 1) The Oxford English Dictionary does not recognize "pescetarian" as a valid term of the English Language.
 * 2) Instead, the recognized standard remains "fish-eater" (i.e. one who lives chiefly upon fish); the latter dates from 1728.

There are several problems with the edit:
 * 1) The OED is not a complete and definitive overview of the English language, it is a work in progress. The last complete edition came out in the 1980s before the word "pescetarian" came into existence.  There are several possible reasons why the word is not included in the online version: it could be that it has never been considered, or its usage wasn't widespread enough to consider its inclusion when it was last considered. At present, it is just not included in the dictionary, so saying that the OED doesn't recognize the word is a POV statement and could be misrepresenting the stance of the dictionary, which violates WP:NPOV.
 * 2) To say the "recognized standard remains 'fish-eater'" is a presumption on the editor's part. The editor has taken the lack of definition for one word, the defintion for another word and drawn to his own conclusions, which violates WP:SYNTHESIS. The OED does not state at any point that "fish-eater" is included instead of "pescetarian" as implied by the statement, or indeed that "fish-eater" is a standardised variant of "pescetarian", which violates WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If the definition of "fish-eater" plays any part in the etymology of the definition of "pesecetarian" then we need a source to explicitly say that: WP:VERIFIABILITY. Pescetarianism is an exclusionary diet, in that it is defined in terms of what people don't eat rather than what they do (unlike "fish-eater"), so they are not synonymous terms.

Finally, there is the issue of whether lack of inclusion in the OED is significant enough to cover in the article. WP:WEIGHT which governs article content states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint...Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Therefore I would say that unless reliable sources actually cover the lack of inclusion of the word in the OED, then it is not relevant enough to mention here i.e. if no other published source cares what the OED doesn't say about the word, then neither should Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious understanding of veganism/vegetarianism
To say that pescetarrianism is a midway point between eating meat and being a vegan/veggie is ridiculous. It's like saying that there is a midway point between being alive and dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.81.209 (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the line "For others it has become the middle ground between eating meat and being a vegan or vegetarian."? If so how do you propose it is improved? Muleattack (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can pull that particular sentence since it is POV and unsourced. In my experience, people who want to become vegetarian become vegetarian; sometimes a pescetarian diet is used as a stepping stone but this aspect is covered by the preceding sentence in the paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source that is included in this section is a commercial website that peddles Omega oil supplements. The author is anonymous and there is no reason to take their statements as fact. From the sourced site: "The pescetarian lifestyle is often adopted by people in transition to becoming veg*an or by those interested in a healthier, more ethical, and environmentally friendly way of life." Often? How often? Did they do a poll or study? If so, where is the citation? Until an appropriate source can be provided, this section should be removed. DSchofield (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
It's spelled PESCATARIAN. I am referring to the American spelling, so if there is a different European spelling, well, this is the American Wiki. Whoever wrote this article should have checked that first.
 * Actually, this is the English Wikipedia not just for Americans, but also the British, Canadians and other commonwealth nations. Just like how the Spanish and Portuguese Wiki's are not just for Spain and Portugal, but also Latin America and so on. Also, I advice you to check out the Manual of Style to find out Wikipedia's stance on this matter. --85.151.35.185 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, there appears to be three acceptable variations.


 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piscetarian
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pescetarian
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pescatarian


 * However, dictionary.reference.com shows "pescatarian" as not found, but refers the user to piscetarian, instead.


 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pescatarian?s=t


 * Who would be more widely accepted as a reliable source?


 * --Allamericanbear (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Eastern Orthodox monks and nuns traditionally observe a vegetarian or pescetarian diet."
This claim is not supported by the source cited. The editor restoring the edit says: "Monks do not eat meat" + "shellfish are permtted;" Shellfish is always permitted for Orthodox Xians, even during severe fasts.

Claim being added is that EO monks and nuns are vegetarian or pescetarian. The source makes no mention whatsoever of nuns. The source says, "Monks do not eat meat". Depending on the definition of "meat" being used, we might be there. However, we have no indication what definition is being used. As for the "shellfish are permtted"[sic] bit, the source does say that "Fish (meaning fish with backbones; shellfish are permitted)" are avoided as part of the Weekly Fast for Orthodox Christians. Yes, during the weekly fast, Orthodox Christians can eat shellfish. How this translates to "monks and nuns can eat shellfish" is unclear. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppescetarians
I know Urban Dictionary isn't exactly reliable source but the word "Oppescetarianism" exists - which is a remix on the Pescetarianism ideology (i.e. eating every meat EXCLUDING seafood)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oppescetarianism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.57.70 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That word is formed in a rather strange way... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source discussing this specifically applying to "pesco-vegetarianism" we might have something to add to the article. If not, please restrict your discussion on article talk pages to discussion about improving the article. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- I have a linguistic background (including knowledge of both English and classical language morphologies), and if others can point out these words, I don't see why I can't point out a reason why they're unlikely to catch on (i.e. that they don't obey normal rules of word-formation). AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of people
As with all such lists, we need criteria for inclusion. Basically: Who do we include? For example, we have List of people from New York City. My aunt is from NYC, but most people don't care (sorry, Aunt Emma!). What criteria can we establish to determine whose basic information (like city of birth, dietary choices or whatever) are of note? Luckily, we have one easily applied criterion to cover this: notability. When an editor adds someone to one of these lists but the person is not notable, we have a warning template that spells this out quite nicely (for example: ). In part it says, "In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fishitarian?
Dear, oh dear. All these spats about how to spell pesce..., er, no, hang on, pesca..., or pisce/pisca, maybe? Come on, life's too short.

I bumped into a nice old guy at a supermarket a few months ago and he declared himself a fishitarian. Etymologically speaking, that seems to be more equivalent to the term "vegetarian" than any of the "p" terms, and whether you're American or not we can probably agree on the spelling.

And if you call yourself a "fishitarian" it's more likely that other people will actually understand what you mean. "Pescetarian"? Sounds like a rather dubious religious sect, to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.132.247 (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Transforming an "Eastern Orthodox" usage to a "Byzantine Rite" usage
"Byzantine Rite" fasts are not mandatory. I was BR before I became Orthodox. I was also the first person to put the proper BR fasts up on the Internet, back in 1996. From a 1929 prayer book. As a BR.

Please don't make agenda-driven changes-- particularly when they're wrong.FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not agenda-driven, it is a desire to bring the articles into conformance with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and that means treating Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches equally. As well as policy on verifiability requires us not to treat all things "Byzantine" as if they were exclusively "Orthodox" when in fact an item of liturgy or discipline belongs to the spiritual patrimony of all Churches which adhere to the Byzantine Rite. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it not also true that a shared beginning in Byzantine practice may yet result in a disparity of practice later? Is the question really equality in treatment of the churches? It looks to me like there is now a disparity in the discipline, where Eastern Catholic churches do not mandate the fasts, but Orthodox do. Surely that can be said neutrally, with both the origin clear and the difference made plain. It takes clear labeling, perhaps not with standard tags. Evensteven (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true. However, these assertions must be backed by WP:RS and not allowed to stand without them. According to the Byzantine Ruthenian Church's FAQ, a minimum fast is mandated, while the Holy Canons describe an "ideal fast", so what wrote in Pescetarianism was an oversimplification to the point of being wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see where Fr. Suaiden got his information about the Melkite Church, this non-RS describes the modern fast period. We need an official source, or another source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. The source in question is like one maintained from one guy's basement. Elizium23 (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to list all the topics individually in a section heading. "Byzantine Rite" covers Orthodox and Catholic patrimony equally, and is neutral, and is therefore a better choice for section heading.
 * Edit warring is never permitted.
 * www.mliles.com is not a reliable secondary source. It has no editorial oversight and no reputation for fact-checking.
 * In summary,, please revert your changes. Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How about a parish website? That good? Because the diocese has no info; we could presume, factually, that the Nativity fast doesn't actually exist. Otherwise, prove that Melkite Catholics follow a 40-day fast. I've actually done my homework.
 * To this I would say, first, that a parish website has no editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking, and so still does not meet Wikipedia policy, and second, that the length of the Nativity fast is trivia which is not appropriate for an article whose topic is the eating of fish as a diet. Elizium23 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What a fascinating shift of position! I'm not the one claiming Byzantine Catholics follow an Orthodox fast. You are. And yes, we are mandated to eat a variation of a pescetarian diet half the year. That's not trivia, but relevant to discussion of pescetarianism (certainly more than the Roman Catholic mandate). The fact that you wish the Byzantine Catholic position to be identical to the Orthodox one simply does not present reality. I don't usually edit-war on Wikipedia, but you are presenting a falsehood. As a former Byzantine Catholic, I get the "why", but there's no reason for this. Keep facts facts, and we're good.FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not contributors. Elizium23 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would, but your contributions are not factual but agenda driven. Content was added that was NPOV. As you continue to change a simple factual position based on nothing but opinion (you have no citation for any reference that the Melkite Church follows the Nativity Fast at all), have spiralled this onto my personal talk page despite your stating that you moved the discussion-- I have accordingly, as we discussed on my talk page-- "moved it up the chain". FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your confidence in an unciteable claim is impressive. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What claim here are you claiming is unciteable? I have made no unciteable claims. Elizium23 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course you have. By changing "Eastern Orthodox" to "Byzantine Rite Christians" generally you widened the net past the point of reality. There are no such strict rules governing Byzantine Rite Christians per minima set by their sui juris churches. Those rules are based largely upon consistency with Roman Catholic canon law, not the Typica of Eastern Orthodox Churches. I was describing Orthodox fasting rules. They're not Byzantine Catholic fasting rules. That's why it's now "Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic usages", which are very divergent. You've asked me for a citation that the Melkites have shortened the fast, which I provided from two different sources. But using citation as a standard, it can be argued (and it would be more consistent with reality) that Melkite Catholics don't follow the Nativity fast at all. Any other questions? FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a spectrum of usage even in the (Eastern) Orthodox Churches, and you know it. First of all, your description of "Orthodox" is lacking. Use the term "Eastern Orthodox" if you want to refer to the Byzantine Rite communion of Churches. But I know you can't do that, because you are a member of True Orthodoxy, which is not in communion with Eastern Orthodox. So there is a spectrum of usage, for Eastern Orthodox, for Byzantine/Eastern Catholic, for Latin Catholic, everyone. And there are different standards. The Holy Canons say one thing, sometimes they describe an ideal fast. The bishops and priests practice oikonomia and allow other things. Sure, that is the practice. Anyway, let's talk about the Melkites. Once again, all this ink spilled on Melkite practice is undue weight given to a minority Church where we have only uncovered the practice of the diaspora. I think much of this stuff is outside the scope of an article which is about people eating fish. The section on "religion" was very small when I got here. I admit I began to balloon it and I introduced some generalizations before I read and added the sources. Now I think we need to agree to cut this down to a couple sentences describing when Byzantine Rite Christians eat fish and leaving out the parts when they do eat fish, and the parts on their respective calendars which govern when they do and they don't, because that is not pescetarianism. It is off-topic. I have tagged this section for neutrality violations. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (e-c) At least one question here seems to me to relate to the definition of "Byzantine rite" Catholic churches. According to Byzantine rite there seem to be quite a few of them. It may well be possible that one or more of them do observe the same fast tradition (I honestly don't know) but for us to say that "Byzantine rite Christians" which also would presumably include all the other churches indicated in the Byzantine rite article which do or have followed the Byzantine rite. I would think given the disparity between them that such a statement could only be adequately supported if specific citations regarding each of those various bodies were produced, and I'm not sure I've seen that yet. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have described the disparity between permitted practice and legislated norms. The former is much less verifiable than the latter. Perhaps it is best to stick to what can be sourced, that is, legislated norms held in the Holy Canons, and I think we will find without exception that the canons mandate abstinence from fish during fast periods. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I was particularly thinking of the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, Society for Eastern Rite Anglicanism, German Eastern Rite Community, and other groups which do or have followed the Byzantine Rite outside of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wowza! You've outed me as a True Orthodox Christian. Unfortunately, had you done your homework, you'd know that there are no differences in fasting rules between True Orthodox and those in communion with Constantinople (except of course for the Antiochian Patriarchate, which abolished the Apostles' fast, which is neither here nor there). You may not have noticed my citations all come from sources in communion with Constantinople. The rule for all Orthodox Christians is that half the year is pescetarian, whether people follow it or not. Your talk of economia is a digression, because by the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches (which, FYI, supersedes the Pedalion, unlike in the Orthodox Church where the Pedalion is the closest we come to "Canon Law"), each Eastern Catholic Church sets its own fasting rules. Therefore, you can't legitimately make the argument without citation that the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic fasting rules are identical. I know for a fact that they are not, and the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, unfortunately for your argument, agrees with this fact . The truth is simple. I put up Orthodox Christian fasting rules because they were relevant to the discussion of pescetarianism, even more so than Roman Catholicism. As it is part of your belief (since you brought up mine) to believe that your sui iuris churches are in fact no different than Eastern Orthodox Churches, you changed it to say all Eastern Christians have the same fasting rules. As someone who put up the Byzantine Catholic fasting rules pre-Vatican II on the Internet back in 1996, a former member of a Byzantine Catholic parish (I converted to Orthodoxy before I formally changed rite), and an Orthodox deacon, I would posit that I might know a bit more than you're assuming about both sides' respective usages. And I'd take care to falsely present "they are all the same" when the Vatican lifted its restriction on, say, married priests in the US a whole month ago . They may have a similar liturgy, but they're not the same. Hence, I changed the title accordingly. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am fairly certain that there is considerable diversity in practice when it comes to fasting among Eastern Christians of all stripes. Local churches have long made minor, and in some cases not so minor changes to church discipline. There is diversity of practice between Greek and Russian customs in a number of areas. The Oriental Orthodox are extremely strict. Within the Eastern Rite Catholics you have on the one hand the relatively lax discipline of the Ruthenians (Byzantine Rite here in the US), and the fairly strict rules observed by the Russian Rite Catholics who basically do follow the Russian Orthodox discipline. I would suggest that any section covering the fasting practices of Eastern Christians should not focus on the discipline of each communion, since there is so much variation. Rather hit the major points with a caveat reflecting that there is much variance and maybe some links to other Wikipedia articles that cover the fasting rules in greater detail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 100% agree with that in sentiment. In separating out the EO and EC's I realized there's nothing about Non-Chalcedonians, etc., who have yet further variations on their fasting rules. I was referring to the point that Greek Old Calendarists, for example, have identical fasting practices, though two weeks apart, as Greek New Calendarists. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that in the whole section we are probably committing WP:SYNTH or WP:OR - does any source actually say "Christians practice pescetarianism" or does it say "Christians eat fish" and we also have "Pescetarianism is eating fish" so "Christians must practice pescetarianism" - or is this a simple enough conclusion to make? Elizium23 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is sufficient to say that many Christians observe fasting disciplines that call for abstinence from meat while permitting the consumption of fish on certain days of the year and in some cases for longer periods such as during Lent. That this is most common in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches and that there is often considerable variation in the specifics of the fasting rules between and even within churches. Add some appropriate links here for those who might want more information and move on. Remember this is an article about fish eating, not the intricacies of Christian fasting disciplines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There probably are however, sufficient grounds and content for a separate article on Christian Fasting, based on the sources I have seen, which could cover all the variations, if anyone wanted to write it. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Environmental effects a fraction of those of farming meat.

 * Roughly a pound of feed produces a pound of fish, while it takes nearly two pounds of feed to get a pound of chicken and seven pounds to get a pound of beef. What’s more, aquaculture’s carbon footprint is often a fraction of that of farming on land.
 * http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/1025/The-next-food-revolution-fish-farming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove section header
"Abstinence in religion" was empty, because someone accidentally created a new main header called "Judaism" and then included the other religions under it.

Please remove the empty "Abstinence in religion" section, which has been replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.88 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Elizium23 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus that the proposed title is the clear common name. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pescetarianism → Pescatarianism – "Pescatarianism" should be the title of the article, not "Pescetarianism". Currently, the page for "Pescatarianism" redirects to "Pescetarianism", and it should be the other way around. In English the more common word is "pescatarian" (as opposed to "pescetarian"), and this is the term that appears in most dictionaries, including the Oxford Dictionary of English (British English), the New Oxford American Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster. Also, it is consistent with the etymology of the word, which is explained in the article. --Rekkss (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I cannot find the evidence for your claims on the web. As you can simply verify, Google Web, Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News all return approximately even splits between pescetarian and pescatarian, as does Google Trends Other dictionaries, like the Cambridge dictionary, use pescetarian. As for the etymology, both your cherry-picked dictionaries, the Oxford and the Merriam-Webster, say themselves that the word originated from the Italian "pesce", meaning fish. That suggests pescetarian is the more consistent spelling. You rewrote the etymology in the article yourself, and you have not adequately referenced your changes with reliable sources. You have also changed the spelling to your own preferred variant in other articles around Wikipedia without waiting for the outcome of your request. What is that about? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that in the case of pescetarianism verses pescatarianism, most Google results decisively favour pescetarianism. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Merriam-Webster does not claim the word originated from the Italian "pesce". It's a mere speculation. It says: "probably from Italian pesce". It does not categorically say it comes from Italian. More dictionaries of the English language list it as "pescatarian" rather than "pescetarian". The 'sk' phoneme in "pescatarian" is consistent with the Spanish and Portuguese word "pescado". If "pescetarian" were to be pronounced the Italian way, it would be pronounced "peshetarian". But that's beside the point. Most dictionaries list it with the spelling "pescatarian". Furthermore, when you search for "pescetarian" in Google, the definition it offers is associated with the entry "pescatarian". Rekkss (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The dictionaries are fairly evenly split. And mirroring your argument, most dictionaries list it with the spelling "pescetarian". And further mirroring your argument, when you search for "pescatarian" in Google, the definition it offers is associated with the entry "pescetarian". But all that is beside the point. What is to the point is that there is no better case for pescatarian than there is for pescetarian, so by default the article should retain the name it already has. A further consideration, which clinches the position of retaining the current name, is that Google Web, Google Books and Google Scholar all overwhelmingly favour pescetarianism over pescatarianism. This term was coined very recently. The spelling could be resolved more decisively by common usage in a few more years, and if appropriate the article could be renamed then. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Google does not have an entry for the word "pescetarian". When you enter either "pescatarian" or "pescetarian" in Google, the definition it provides is associated with the word "pescatarian". There is no entry for "pescetarian". Also, Google Books lists more entries for "pescatarian" than for "pescetarian", and Google Scholar is evenly split. --Rekkss (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read what I actually said, and note that pescetarian is different from pescetarianism. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The "pescetarian" spelling variation is listed as a noun. And regular Google shows that use of "pescetarian" is quite common. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Google Trends link above demonstrates no clear, enduring, preferred spelling. Google Books doesn't actually have a statistically significant number of results (at least not enough for it to show up on the Ngram viewer. The lack of a clear consensus among reputable dictionaries suggests there is no preferred spelling at this time. Ibadibam (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lower ischemic heart disease? Or lower all-cause mortality?
Our wikipedia article focuses on the ischemic heart disease benefits, rather than the lower all-cause mortality of the pescetarian diet.

When better science is in hand to update this research and provide a credible all-cause mortality comparison with other diets, the section should be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Pescetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320145423/http://geekmonthly.com:80/blog/?p=188 to http://geekmonthly.com/blog/?p=188
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121024061659/http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=5613&archive=4965 to http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=5613&archive=4965

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pescetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131230232741/http://www.zimbio.com/The+X+Factor/articles/GmTf0OAFb9g/X+Factor+USA+Season+3+Groups+Mentored+Simon to http://www.zimbio.com/The+X+Factor/articles/GmTf0OAFb9g/X+Factor+USA+Season+3+Groups+Mentored+Simon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lent
The article correctly states that during Lent, certain schools of the Christianity religion allow the consume of fish on certain days. The result is not a pescetarian diet though, since milk is forbidden on most days, but mollusca are not. If I have not overseen something I would delete that paragraph. Kind regards, Grueslayer 08:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Danger of Choline and Carnitine is not clear and misinforming
I'm just going to copy and paste this since I don't know how to make proper quotes: "" One commonly cited reason is that of health,[20] based on findings that red meat is detrimental to health in many cases due to non-lean red meats containing high amounts of saturated fats,[21][22] choline and carnitine.[23] "" You will see on citation number 23 that it directs to a broken link. Upon searching for this link via Google I can find duplicate articles. These articles do not adequately cite their source but I managed to find the source with an in-line reference to the specific journal that published the findings: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3145 In this study they are describing interactions between gut microbiota, choline intake, and carnitine intake that increases the risk of "atherosclerosis." However, as you see in the quote from the Wikipage, above, it seems to imply, rather, that choline and carnitine are themselves negative dietary substances. The duplicate article[s] is highly inaccurate in regards to choline, specifically, as it refers to it as a form of dietary fat, which it is not; although it is fat soluble and exists in abundance in all meat and eggs. This article, also, it should be noted, is not a viewpoint from "Pescetarianism" but more or less just an article on the web giving news about science, however badly. I think this area should either be rewritten or removed altogether. I have not found, myself, any specific "Pescetarianism" articles referring to these substances, however, I'm sure there is a viewpoint from a "Pescetarianism" source that talks about increased rates of heart disease, stroke, etc, associated with red meats. Fundamentally, what I'm saying is that citation 23 is a low-quality citation and also that the wording makes it sound like "choline" is a negative dietary supplement when there's little evidence showing any negative effects of increased choline intake. Mbman8 (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Pescovegetarian
The term "pescovegetarian" has also been used. There is hardly any medical studies mentioning pescetarianism right now, (this will probably change in the future) but this paper does use the term "Pescovegetarian" and described here  Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Pescetarianism definition in the lead
It seems a user has been IP hopping trying to insert the claim that Pescetarianism is a vegetarian diet. This is not accurate if we go by the standard criteria and definitions. Pescetarianism is not a vegetarian diet because it includes animal protein from seafood. Pescetarianism is sometimes described as a semi-vegetarian diet but we should not say it is a vegetarian diet directly in the lead. The historical sources do not support this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible source
I noticed you have improved the article. You might be interested in this paper it compared flexitarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, and vegan environmental impacts Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nataliekwortnik.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Health consciousness
Not being allowed to add research from scholarly articles on health that research Pescetarianism specifically. Used to be like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pescetarianism&oldid=1042026228 but it keeps getting reversed.

Why isn’t this page allowed to have more details on the health implications but other pages like vegetarianism & Mediterranean diet are? DietCokeFeast (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to improve the article, but I think some of the concern from other editors is that some of those benefits you mentioned are not fully proven yet, for example colorectal cancer: “While the study is observational and cannot prove a cause/effect relationship, it is exciting to think that..."


 * So I think the current section already describes the health benefits of the diet, without a long, run on list with inconclusive results included. Does that make sense? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit by reverted here had a promotional tone synthesizing several research topics and leading to a conclusive section based on reviews of preliminary dietary research, which, by its nature of difficult experimental design and subject control, is generally of a low quality not meeting WP:MEDRS standards. Only the Mediterranean diet has received adequate review, but with controversies. Many of the sources for pescetarianism were more than 5 years old (indicating faded or lost interest in pursuing them). The edit appeared to partially be WP:SYNTH. Zefr (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The way it's written now though implies that, for example, they are "looking into" reduced diabetes risk and it's preliminary, when the 2019 study clearly states its conclusion: "Low meat and non-meat eaters had a lower risk of diabetes, in part because of a lower BMI." It's perfectly fine to say that a reason someone might be on a fish diet for health reasons is because it's been shown that they have a lower risk of diabetes. It can be rephrased to be less promotional, but it seems perfectly well-sourced to me. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The text that was removed which was claiming that a pescetarian diet reduces the risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, other malignant cancers etc is not supported by reliable secondary references per Wikipedia MEDRS policy. This is a single cohort study, this is a CNN press release that mentions an Adventist Health Prospective Study  and this is another 2009 prospective study . This is all primary literature and none of the studies were done exclusively on pescatarians, they are all about vegetarians. A reliable secondary source such a meta-analysis or review needs to be cited if biomedical claims like this are to be added. DietCokeFeast has been told this many times before. As for modern research they are conducting more on pescetarian diets so in 4-5 years I think we will have more references but there is not much out there right now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The CNN article is not a press release. Can you show me why you think it's a press release? And though the articles and study lead with vegetarians, they absoloutely include pescatarian diets. It does not need to be "excusively" pescatarian. The study about diabetes does not fail MEDRS. The claim does not fail MEDRS and should remain, personal opinions and feelings aside. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The study on diabetes clearly fails MEDRS "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information." It is a cohort study so this is a primary source but as it is not being used to cite any biomedical claims I guess it could be used. But this line "Pescetarian diets are under preliminary research for their potential to affect diabetes,[55] long-term weight gain,[56] and all-cause mortality [57]." If you check reference 57  nowhere in the review does it mention pescetarian diets, the study has absolutely nothing to do with pescetarianism, please read it. I believe we should only cite studies that mention pescetarianism, otherwise this is original research. Read reference 57 and tell me how it supports this article. We are citing off-topic material here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right that ref 57 does not include pescetarianism, and I think a lot of the statements and sourced are flawed and do not belong. However, I think we should take a step back and look at one claim or one source. For example, this source supporting the claim that "Compared with regular meat eaters, the low meat eaters, fish eaters, and vegetarians were less likely to develop diabetes." From this source. Can you tell me specifically how this unequivocally fails MEDRS? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it is a good source, on-topic and in a good journal. But my understanding of MEDRS is that we shouldn't cite primary studies like single cohort or observational studies in most cases. We should cite a meta-analysis or review which is more reliable because it looks at many studies, not just one (it reduces risk of biases when you look at 12 or 20 studies). I understand DietCokeFeast wants to improve the health section on the article and it would be great to but it is hard to find secondary sources (meta-analysis) or review that covers pescetarian diets. The available references are mostly primary cohort studies right now because they are only just starting to publish research looking at this diet. We tend to not cite these on Wikipedia elsewhere because they fail MEDRS policy so I am not so sure we should be citing them here but yes there are exceptions so I could be wrong. Zefr will know more about this because they are experienced with the policies on this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Not history
This revert was justified because a) the content is conjecture based on hearsay (not actual history by documentation, as there are no reliable records from 400 BC) about the supposed comments of a philosopher on a diet that may have included fish, but in no way addresses "pescetarianism" history (search relevant terms here), b) the complete irrelevance of this primary research to history, c) use of a blog opinion and recipe article is not a WP:RS review with historical accuracy, and d) this vague source, under "Fish" which makes no case for the history of pescetarianism. In general, the section was removed due to speculative synthesis of weakly related, unreliable sources, WP:SYNTH. Let's not provide misleading content to the general user who may not check the validity of sources. Zefr (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, also this IP belongs to DietCokeFeast. They have made a few good edits but much of what they add as similar to their account is unreliable or off-topic content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated this does not mention pescetarianism, it is original research to add this kind of paper and argue for a history of pescetarianism. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DietCokeFeast has added a source which does not mention the history of pescatarianism. Also DietCokeFeast selectively leaves the second line from the quote off the article which can be misleading. In full context, the source reads "According to the philosopher, a moderate and thus a healthy diet, consists of cereals, legumes, fruits, milk, honey and fish. However, meat, confectionery and wine should be consumed only in moderate quantities." Meat in "moderate" quantities. This is not a pescatarian diet.


 * Also no page number is given here. I am not sure why we are linking to abebooks. I would add that I consider the content on Pythagoreans relevant for the article but we need to be more careful, some of this sourcing is not good. Please look for better sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seafood or anything aquatic?
The current lede uses the term "seafood" to describe what kind of meat is included in this diet, but the many mentions of "fish" — in the etymology, in the history section — do not seem to preclude the many kinds of freshwater fish people eat. I mean, people don’t usually look at a fish and ask "is it a sea fish" before eating, right? Artoria2e5 🌉 13:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems here is, well, we don’t really have an "aquatic food" article to refer to sea and river and pond and whatever water-food. Fish as food has a bit of hand-waving about "shellfish" in its lede, but that’s far from enough… Artoria2e5 🌉 13:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Marine life which covers it all. The seafood article actually links to marine life in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Study removed
I have just removed this text "Recent research shows that pescetarianism is 74% heritable, with genetic influences accounting for 70-80% of individual differences" sourced to this bizarre paper that took its self-reported data from Twins in the Netherlands. This doesn't belong in the lead and we need a much stronger source to be making the claim that "pescetarianism is 74% heritable". Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)