Talk:Vegetarianism by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Animal Renet in European Hard Cheese

I changed

(virtually all Dutch and European hard cheeses contain animal rennet)

to

(virtually all Dutch hard cheeses contain animal rennet).

I believe this to be wrong, as most British cheese at least is made with non-animal rennet ([1] claims 90%), and I believe the same to be true in Ireland. Even all the rest of Europe produced cheese with animal rennet this could not be described as "virtually all", maybe "most" would do. I have also seen a number of European hard cheeses marked as suitable for vegetarians in British supermarkets. Of course it is possible that more of these will be exported to the UK, but it does seem that use of non-animal rennet is increasing. -- Q Chris 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the original author meant "continental European", but even that seems like an over-generalization. It would probably need a source. -kotra 10:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

What does this mean (bold added):

Virtually all hard cheeses in continental Europe contain animal rennet with the vegetarian form not very widespread or well known. As awareness grows, so does availability, and in most major cities in Western Europe it is quite common to find vegetarian products including cheese.

Does the bold text mean "vegetarian products with cheese in them" or "vegetarian products, including cheese"? -kotra 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would guess "vegetarian products, including cheese", though I am not 100% certain. -- Q Chris 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

reading from ingredients is not easy

Removed the following again:

Because nearly all food products sold in America are required to list all of their ingredients on the food's packaging, it is relatively easy to decipher which foods contain animal products, and what type of animal it came from. In addition, there is also a large and growing number of vegetarian and vegan meals and dishes being sold in most grocery stores.

It is not easy to look at all the ingredients. I can tell you this from experience. Firstly every single packet you buy. This takes a long time and is error prone, think taking 20 minutes for a small hand-basked of groceries. Then you come across ingredients such as "Lecithin" or "Carrageen", which you may have to look up. Also on many packages it will list "fatty acids" or "glycerol", which may or may not be of animal origin, you cannot tell this from the ingredients list - you have to contact the manufacturer. There is NO WAY that anyone can compare having a list of ingredients to having "suitable for vegetarians" or a vegetarian symbol. I find that when I visit the USA I end up eating a very limited range of foods or parve foods from the Jewish section because of this. In the UK there are a few brands I don't buy because they don't label clearly, though fortunately most do. Most countries now include complete ingredients list, so this is hardly a distinguishing point for the USA anyway. -- Q Chris 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in India

I would like to see more evidence that as you say, Vegetarian is most common in the "north and west" of India and less common in the South. In fact, according to most accounts, it is the opposite and the South has a greater tradition of Vegetarianism. The North, influenced by Aryan and Muslim cultures, has more of a meat tradition. Look at Tandoori for example. From my own travels in India alone, I found vegetarian restaurants far more prevalent in the south. We need more information on this. --Mezaco 23:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Red dot in a red square, green dot in a green square... not exactly much use if you're colour-blind, is it?   8^S   --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Color_blind Red-green colour blindness. --Mig77^(t) 06:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the image was wrong, red was considered when they were making the law in India, but they settled on brown (maybe for the colorblindness issue). I've changed it accordingly (more info here). -kotra (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed original research

I've removed the following because it appears to be original research, and confusingly worded besides:

Vegetarian options in North America are often advertised as the "healthy choice" and not for any animal rights reason, perhaps due to large farming communities and every other TV advert promoting red meat.

The connection between large farming communities and the greater use of the "healthy choice" advertising is not described, nor is the connection between "every other TV advert promoting red meat" (which is certainly an exaggeration) and the "healthy choice" advertising, either. -kotra (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

European Section

I have read and edited the European section of this page and observe that some of the comments therein appear to be original research albeit that many seem to be generally accurate based on personal experience. Perhaps we should remove the commentary if we cannot supply more sources for the assertions made? DarkerBlue (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; original research ought to be removed from the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I will begin to look for sources for the statements made and edit accordingly. DarkerBlue (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Mexico?

There should be a section detailing vegetarianism in Mexico. From my experiences in the Yucatán area, they were really tolerant of them and most of their dishes can be made vegetarian. But that is just for the Yucatán area, as for the whole country I don't know and I don't have resources. Someone should look into adding a Mexico section. I would if I knew how to do so properly. Thank you.

Frankster200277 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Africa

Conspicuous in absence is a section on vegetarianism in Africa. It is a large continent with an incredibly diverse set of peoples inhabiting it. Surely there is some information available. Just sayin'

Well, here's a start: "The journey of one thousand kilometers begins with a step. -ISAAC OBIORA DIKEOCHA, PRESIDENT, VEGAN SOCIETY OF GHANA" Davidresseguie (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

References

POV bias?

Hello. Very interesting article but I notice that 17 out of the existing 54 footnotes (or 31%) are from sources with a vested interest in vegetarianism. Mostly are vegetarian societies, others are companies catering to vegetarians only. This may skew the numbers presented; and at any rate it lowers the credibility of the whole article.

What tipped me to look at the references was the "some say 5% of Brazilians are vegetarians". Knowing personally about 200 Brazilians, all of them as meat-loving as you get, I had to check the footnote. The number 5% was floated by Ms. Marly Winckler, president of the Brazilian Vegetarian Society. She goes on to say,

"At present, vegetarians compose about 5% of the Brazilian population," Ms Winckler said. "This means there are approximately 7 million active or potential vegetarians…"

A few things come to mind:

1. Ms. Winckler has a vested interest in the number of vegetarians—she'd like them to be millions and millions, which is very much understandable.
2. She is mixing "active" and "potential" vegetarians. I don't want to be too strict but I'd say a potential vegetarian isn't a vegetarian yet, so it's best not to count them.
3. She is setting the bar too low: all human beings are born with an omnivorous physiology, but we can all become vegetarians if we so choose. So the figure of 5% hints at some estimate, but 100% would do just as well.
4. Her statement is unsourced (there may well exist some kind of study or poll but she doesn't cite it), which coupled with the above reduces the statement's credibility to wishful thinking (in my book).

A cleanup of the footnotes is in order IMO. If there are no credible numbers, better to either remove the section from the article, or indicate the source in the text, e.g. "In 2004, the President of the Brazilian Vegetarian Society said that there may be 5% "active and potential vegetarians" in Brazil". – Tintazul ^msg 08:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the numbers are biased, but you don't address bias on Wikipedia by removing information, you address it by adding it. WP:NPOV compels us to not present a "neutral" or "unbiased" account, but all relevant points of view. That means the problem isn't including these stats, it's with how they are presented. The best way to deal with it is to clarify in the prose where these numbers come from, and to add further stats from government bodies, university/consumer research etc. Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in France

I am having a difficult time understanding the section about France. It says clearly, and supported by the sources, that it is now against the law to serve any vegetarian meal.

If I look at a copy of the decret (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000024614716), it says that:

• Four or five meals on every breakfast or lunch, with at least a main meal containing a garnish or dairy product;
• variety of served meals;
• adapted size of portions; and
• adapted rules for water, bread, salt, and sauces.

As I understand it, the law states that at least a meal must be non-vegetarian.

I don't have first-hand experience in France, but French is my mother tongue. Is it just my understanding of the original document that is off?

If it isn't, I'm concerned about wikipedia and such sites in the sources (including the European Vegetarian Union) that could spread false information.

What do you think?

Zyrthofar Blackcloak (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair Wikipedia says this is what the European Vegetarian Union has reported, and checking the source, that is true as presented. That said, the EVU could be wrong or wilfully misrepresenting the situation—after all it is a vegetarian propaganda site—and I don't agree that we should be relying on it for interpretations of the law. We can't replace it with our own interpretation of the law so ideally we need to find a better source than the EVU. Betty Logan (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan number of vegetarians

"In Taiwan, 1.7 million people, or 10% of the population of Taiwan, follows a vegetarian diet at least some of the time.[4][5] There are more than 6,000 vegetarian eating establishments in Taiwan.[6] Food labelling laws for vegetarian food are the world's strictest, because more than 2 million Taiwanese use vegetarian food". Is it 1.7 million or more then 2 million. the source [6] says "We request clear labeling of vegetarian food to meet the needs of the growing number of vegetarian food users of about 2 million, and to help religious practitioners not break food taboos," health department official Hsu Ching-hsin said." not more than 2 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.131.159 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect this. Mr. Granger (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed? (I'm new to Wikipedia!)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and there's a lot to learn so please bare with me. I made an edit a few days ago, and it was removed. I want to improve my edit but I'm not sure why it was removed, is someone able to offer some help? My addition is written below: (Also...I hope this is the correct place to post this questions!)

Recent globalization and an increase in India’s middle class have led to the beginning of a dietary shift in India. With the onset of industrial animal agriculture, or factory farming, leading to cheaper animal-derived foods, and the introduction of Western fast food restaurant chains, demand is growing for meat, eggs, and dairy products. This shift in dietary customs is opening a public dialogue on the animal welfare, health, environmental, and cultural consequences of a more heavily animal-based diet.

References

~~jlanea4~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlanea4 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edits were inappropriately cited. Select the appropriate template from Wikipedia:Citation templates and fill in all the applicable fields in the correct parameters i.e. author names, title, publisher, date of publication, relevant page numbers, relevant periodical information if applicable, url if online etc. Full bibiographic details are needed for references. Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty! ~~jlanea4~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlanea4 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I went to Citation Templates and cited my references as report on a website, following the template exactly. However, it was removed again. Not sure what I'm doing wrong here? Here is how I sited exactly:

MacDonald, Mia; Iyer, Sangamithra (December 2011). "Brighter Green Veg or Nonveg: India at the Crossroads" (PDF). Brighter Green. Retrieved March 27, 2012.

Your source is properly referenced, and I had a quick look at it and it backed up the statements you made, so I don't quite know why it was removed. Personally I would have permitted your recent edit, so I presume the editor may have objected to the source itself, although I don't know on what grounds (he may have seen that you re-added removed material and wasn't aware that you had corrected the reference). You can ask him at his talk page, I'm sure he'll give you an explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks again, you're very helpful! Jlanea4 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

____________

The article is a bit biased towards veganism, especially where it presents the names of scientists and academics. Campbell's studies with rats are one thing, but sofar nobody has proved that a vegan diet can cure cancer in patients who have not received chemo/radio/hormonetherapy. Where are the clinical trials with his patients and other similar therapies like Gerson or Gonzalez? There should be a section with this on-going debate between vegetarianism and veganism. Duo Li should be on that list too. Numbers many times tend to include under the umbrella name "vegetarians" the vegans and the so-called pescovegetarians and pollovegs. Vegetarians should be labled as lacto-ovo or lacto, any other category falls outside the label. Tchibum (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Israel's paragraph

It didn't come out right, and i would like to fix it before it will be removed. Problem is that im used to the regular editing page (like this one), and the new one is so heavy my computer can't handle it. That's the main reason the edit came out like that. Hope i don't have to much spelling mistakes. :) Id.ma.co (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Switzerland

Even if Switzerland is counted as part of the European Union for the purposes of this article, it would not have the second-highest vegetarian percentage in the EU if Italy's is 10%, Germany's is 9%, and Switzerland's is 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.102.45 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph on New Healthway book from India section

In the section on India, I've deleted the paragraph on the book New Healthway. This was a non-story that got hyped in the media because it sounded funny. But practically no one in India has read the book, and the guy who wrote it isn't even Indian. You could hardly say that it reflects in any meaningful way on Indian attitudes towards vegetarianism, and a long paragraph about it here is not merited. For reference, see this press release that the publisher put out; they claim that only 70 copies of the book were sold in India last year. There are plenty of actually relevant things that could be said about the long history of Indian vegetarianism instead! (FYI, I'm a non-vegetarian American journalist working in India, and I was motivated to intervene here out of embarrassment over the sensationalist tendencies of my profession.) Rollorollor (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising this here. It was me that added this material originally, although it seems it got expanded after I added it.

First, in the context of the rest of the article, I agree that a lengthy passage about this blunder is probably undue weight. This also leads me to wonder if there's not a more detailed Wikipedia account of vegetarianism in India. And of course, if there is, this article should wikilink it.

It's worth pointing out (here) that the publisher's statement is an apology and withdrawal, not a rebuttal of the fact they published the textbook (which is very clearly a textbook). It also mentions more than a thousand sales of the textbook in the preceding year, as well as the "only 70" in the year they mention.

On the other side, although the BBC is a "very reliable" source, their piece here is towards the less reliable and more sensationalist of their articles. But again, they do indicate numerous "academics" (mostly nameless) described this as a serious issue.

I wonder if we might consider something like:

'In (year), one of the largest Indian publishers was criticised for publishing a school textbook "riddled with inaccuracies", arguing that eating meat led to laziness, sex crimes and other problems. The publisher subsequently apologised, withdrew the textbook, and emphasised that the material was only the view of the individual author. Academics suggested that the Indian government should change its view that choice of textbooks was solely a matter for the schools concerned.'

What do you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Spain

I read vegetarianism is more popular in the region of Catalonia. I found this to be false and I don't think the information should be included without a proper reference. I removed the following sentence: Vegetarianism is far more common in Catalonia than in the other autonomous regions. Wallenwood (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Vegan = non-existent? Give evidence of that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.21.33 (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I also found that people were interested in bringing politics instead of data; the Franco reference is pretty dubious, Franco only specifically forbade naturism in 1939, see here:

Durante la segunda República y la guerra civil funcionaron la sociedad naturista "Fruta y Libertad", de Madrid, y la "Sociedad Naturista de Barcelona", pero, debido a los conflictos ideológicos de esa época, el régimen franquista disolvió las sociedades naturistas y prohibió la práctica del naturismo a finales de 1939.

http://www.vegetarianismo.com.br/sitio/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1756&Itemid=130

By 1963 the XVII Vegetarian International Congress was celebrated in Barcelona without any problem during the regimen:

A partir de los años sesenta se inicia otro periodo de actividad con la formación de grupos vegetarianos en varias ciudades españolas, y en 1963 se celebra en Barcelona -auspiciado por la Unión Vegetariana Internacional- el XVII Congreso Internacional Vegetariano. En mayo de 1964 las sociedades de Barcelona, Madrid, Baracaldo y Valladolid establecen la Federación Naturista Vegetariana Española, que después de un periodo de crisis se hace rotativa.

http://www.vegetarianismo.com.br/sitio/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1756&Itemid=130

Also there were a number of vegetarians organisations at the time, a few of them cited above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.42.146 (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Pesco and pollo

I object to the terms "pesco vegetarian" and "pollo vegetarian". If you eat fish or chicken, you are simply not a vegetarian. The terms are not accepted amongst real vegetarians, and no vegetarian organisations use these terms. Instead of "pesco vegetarian", one could use "pescetarian", which does not convey the false impression that pescetarianism is a type of vegetarianism. --TheLastNinja 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a vegan myself, and so fully understand the above point: however, pescetarians, polloterians and pollo-pescetarians still deserve recognition as groups which abstain from certain types of animal-based or derived food. As long as there is a clear distinction between a vegetarian, who eats no animal flesh, from a pescetarian who eats fish and seafood but not other meats, and a polloterian who eats poultry but no other meats, then there is no problem with giving information about these groups within articles concerning vegetarianism. 86.173.147.172 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind that. I was objecting to the usage of confusing terms ("pesco vegetarian" and "pollo vegetarian"). I'm fine with pescetarian and pollotarian. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This topic is better explained here: Vegetarianism#Varieties --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

India section

Percentage

In the § India section it says: "[...], 31% of Indians (over 350 million people) are vegetarians, while another 9% consumes eggs." As it says in the Infobox of Vegetarianism, reliably sourced: "Description: A vegetarian diet is derived from plants, with or without eggs or dairy." I feel tempted to change the 31% to "40% [...], 9% of which", because that may be more accurate. Thoughts? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Deepcruze added the article: http://scroll.in/article/734242/why-do-we-inaccurately-call-india-a-vegetarian-country-when-two-thirds-of-us-eat-meat which is from Scroll.in "opinion"-article and does not contain any references/resources where their data comes from, except an article which is mentioned already further down from the year 2006: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/the-food-habits-of-a-nation/article3089973.ece therefore I moved these details here to clarify the facts before it's added to the article again. Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

split

Vegetarianism in United States, Vegetarianism in United Kingdom, Vegetarianism in India, Vegetarianism in Brazil and Vegetarianism in China. Also can split Vegetarianism in Australia and Vegetarianism in Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.165.171.79 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no longer a split, additionally there are two new articles which cover vegetarians on a worldwide view: List of vegetarian festivals and also List of vegetarian organizations, hope that helps! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs to be rewritten. A lot of the references come from non-reliable sources who is/are/might be biased to promote vegetarianism or veganism. I've added the POV flag for this reason.CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you say which sources are problematic? Note that biased sources may be used cautiously per WP:BIASED, but if there are concerns about the accuracy of the data, we should certainly fix that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not OP, but I checked the first few links to see how they estimated the amount of vegetarians in each country and all of the sources were "problematic" to say the least. Some didn't even say what the article here claim they say.

God, Is that what's going on in the rest of Wikipedia where one requires actual skills and knowledge of the topic to recognize the manipulation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.14.190 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

bad service for vegetarians

blatant propaganda fest.

I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I'm afraid deleting this page or large chunks would constitute as 'defacement' but most of the article is bull*it and biased as hell. Most of the sources are far from reliable and some are downright false.

Editors, do something or at least allow the public to make changes.

Could you indicate more precisely what would need to be corrected? Aside from 'most of the sources' being unreliable I would hope for some more helpful tips as to how to fix the article's alleged bias. I'll have a look anyway if I can find anything myself. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Vegetarian diet

The table headed vegetarian diet is unclear. Is this supposed to show the percentage of populations who are vegetarian? If so, this should be stated. The sources should also be given.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in New Zealand

If the table "Vegetarian diet" is mean to show the percentage of populations who are vegetarian and vegan, I would question the figure for New Zealand. I doubt 6% of the NZ population are vegetarian. I am involved with several organisations who host meals (formal dinners, lunches, etc). The percentage of quests who request a vegetarian option is very low - well under 1%.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What are the neutrality disputes?

There is a tag saying the neutrality of the article is disputes, yet there is no dispute here on the talk page, so it needs to be removed until someone raises their objections here. 122.105.136.111 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting facts

The statement that "India has more vegetarians than the rest of the world put together" is at odds with the world total of 1.45 billion given elsewhere in the article. Even if the number of vegetarians in India is at the high end of the estimate (40%), that would be around 500 million vegetarians in India which is only just over a third of the stated world total. MFlet1 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not 11% in Australia

The poll did not show 11% of people are vegetarian in Australian. 11% said "The food I eat is all, or almost all, vegetarian." So this includes people who are not vegetarian. A while ago I corrected it by linking to other polls that show the number is much lower, but somebody reverted it. 203.220.139.223 (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Brazil vegan data

Brazil data needs citation... and really, it has a very very high rate of vegans (18%). It looks like a mistake.

Today I've found this link that says:

"It is estimated that 4% of the Brazilian population, about 7.6 million people, has adopted a vegetarian diet, many of them, being vegans."

Please, consider if it is worth to update that figure.

--Nachouve (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2018

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 to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Vegetarianism by country → Vegetarianism and veganism by country – Long overdue but better late than never - the article's name should be changed to the above-mentioned new title: It is presently about vegetarianism and Veganism (in different countries). The two cannot be separated, and this is also reflected in Template:Veganism and vegetarianism as well as nearly all other pages and contemporary discussions of the subject. Furthermore, comparing the terms "Vegetarianism by country" and "Veganism by country" (this should later redirect to the page) on Google search, shows us that the latter yields as many as 5 million more results; it is by far a more popular trend today. Note: Most pages that link to this page do so from the template, so it will be modified once the name change takes place. If there's no opposition to this proposal in 7 days, it will be carried out. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC). Shalom11111 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support, two peas in a pod (although one of the peas is covered in cheese). Per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In this case, isn't the pod called vegetarianism? Veganism is a either a subset or a synonym for vegetarianism, depending on the interpretation of vegetarianism, so the proposal is just to create something lengthier by adding redundancy (and to treat veganism as more important than other variations, per AjaxSmack below). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, the article is framed that way throughout including the table so it would be consistent since there is overlap of these identities. The new title would unlump and mention both identities rather than just using one term. Most vegans do not call themselves "vegetarians" because "vegan" is different enough to have another name. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose All vegans are vegetarians. Title is already concise, complete, and inclusive. -- Netoholic @ 07:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

All vegans are vegetarians, but not visa versa. And since this very article is, quite simply, about the two - it seems so obvious that the rename/move proposal almost borders a technical one. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If all vegans are vegetarians, what would we be adding by inserting "and veganism" in the title? Just redundancy, it appears. For example, we have an article called Americans, but I think no one would propose renaming it to "Americans and Kentuckians". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

But the article is at its current state about both vegetarianism and veganism, this is a fact, and so is that the two are directly related to each other and are treated so on Wikipedia too. Do you not think the title of an article should be a reflection of its content? Not all vegetarians are vegans; sorry but the above example you provided is simply not the same. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

BarrelProof's point is logically valid and his example is appropriate. By definition, all vegans are vegetarians, so the existing title covers them, as well as any other sub-groups mentioned in this article (freegans, pescatarians, pollotarians, ovo-lacto vegetarians, etc etc). This to me sounds like another attempt to elevate one sect over the others. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, adding the subcategory into the title would confuse readers who might read the title and think to themselves – "What? Is there something I don't understand here? Aren't vegans vegetarian? Aren't Kentuckians (or Puerto Ricans or Hawaiians) considered American? I'd better read the article to figure out what is going on here..." – and then they might start digging through the article to desperately try to identify the non-overlapping third part of the Venn diagram that identifies the vegans who are not vegetarian, and they would remain confused or feel cheated when they eventually give up. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Support A redirect from "Veganism by country" would be almost as good. There is a trade-off between accuracy and ease of understanding, particularly by people for whom English is not their first language. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. No need to single out one vegetarian subsect for attention while ignoring others (e.g. Jain vegetarianism, fruitarianism). —  AjaxSmack  15:58, 22 February 2018 (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.

Unreliable sources

I added an unreliable sources tag. Here are some examples justifying why:

The 2017 source for Taiwan's 14% vegetarian percentage cites no additional sources and claims that Taiwan, India and "Sundarapore" (a made-up country on the althistory wikia) banned meat in 2007.

The 2016 source for the UK being 14% vegetarian disagrees with this NHS study, which claims about 2% (granted, this data is from 2012).

The 2016 source for the US being 9.3% vegetarian actually states that it is 3.3% vegetarian.

73.231.253.166 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Should data from advocacy group be used?

They persistently inflate the figures so it will skew this article as vegan/vegetarian propaganda. For example, 4.5% for Japan from Japan vegan society is grossly off. One would struggle to find a place which serve vegetarian meal even in Tokyo. The actual figure would be so minute.

Vapour (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Mexico source not reliable

The source for Mexico is not reliable and should be removed. They reference this study, which doesn't say anything about veganism or vegetarianism in Mexico specifically: https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/eu/docs/pdf/Global%20Ingredient%20and%20Out-of-Home%20Dining%20Trends%20Report.pdf Mr G (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Historical data

I sometimes update this page with current numbers for the Netherlands. This results in removing the historical data in the table. In a way this is a pity, because information of the changes over the years are not visible in this way. Should information for new years be added to the table, instead of replacing old data? - Jan Vlug (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect dutch statistics

Under vegetarianism by country it lists the netherlands has having 7% vegans. According to the listed source NVV (Dutch society of vegans) it's actually only 0.5%. The other listed source dutchnews.nl does cite another dutch website nu.nl as the original source of the 7% vegans. However looking for this article you cannot find anything of the sort. What I suspect is that the dutchnews article means that of the 10% that are vegetarian 7% is vegan which comes out to about 120.000 people matching the numbers of the NVV. On top of that the original article of nu.nl lists other percentages as well as a message saying "This article was previously published with incorrect percentages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.63.253.243 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Idea

Is it a good idea to remove the countries individual info outside of the demographics, starting after China? Because now there's more or less the same info spread over 2 sections, and when something gets updated in 1 section, it gets outdated in the other. I'd say, let's just keep the demographics as the main focus, and only the countries that are not included in the sections below? Interested in your opinion. Cheers Vidyi (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Update Spain data

There are updated figures for Spain vegans and vegetarians from from the same source that the current ones:

http://www.lantern.es/papers/the-green-revolution-2019

Nachouve (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Source unaccessible

The source number 49 ("Veggie survey 2017". Swissveg.ch. Retrieved 23 January 2018.) is not accessible. Eco81 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Aquatic Ambience repeatedly removing important information and misleading people. There is no source here suggesting that 12% of Australians are vegetarian

Aquatic Ambience has repeatedly edited the article to remove important information in a way that misleads people and is uncivil to the editors who worked on including this information. They have performed this deletion of information multiple times and ignored the important reasons for the info being included, giving the same very weak excuses in their edit description each time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetarianism_by_country&type=revision&diff=1003322096&oldid=1002629060

12% of people saying that the food they eat is "all or almost all vegetarian" is clearly not the same thing as 12% of people being vegetarian. The 12% number for Australia includes the seemingly much larger number who are flexitarian, not just vegetarians. The text removed was not "irrelevant and outdated" as Aquatic Ambience claimed. One of the sources was from 2019, which is more recent than the 12% source that Aquatic Ambience is cherry picking. The older Newspoll from 2010 is also worth including because it is more reliable than the ABC survey, and it is from from a poll that actually asked whether people they were vegetarian or not, which is therefore more relevant to this article than the 12% poll. The claim that the actual number of vegetarians is "irrelevant", that a more recent article is "outdated", is obviously false and uncivil, and assumption that a poll number than includes both vegetarians and non-vegetarian flexitarians is somehow a more reliable number is also obviously false and misleading. Deleting other people's constructive contributions on such weak grounds is very disrespectful to those who did the hard work of digging up these other more relevant and more recent sources.

Mr G (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the data you keep adding back is outdated (over 10 years old) so I updated the numbers. The 12,1% is just a margin of vegetarians, like it always is in polls/researches, The numbers are never completely correct but just an estimation. The Roy Morgan research states "vegetarianism had steadily improved since 2012 when only 9.7% of the population identified as having a vegetarian diet equivalent to 1.7 million Australians at the time.", so it's safe to assume it's around 12% about now. The source is from 2019 so it's the latest info I could find. Hope this clears things up. Cheers. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No,it doesn't clear things up. It's incorrect and simply ignores all the points I just made. Mr G (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Table column definitions

Aquatic Ambiance you recently changed the column definition of 'vegetarian' to include vegans. I'm new to this table, but is that really the definition used in most entries? It's not in my recent edit to Norway, and I'd prefer mutually exclusive entries vegetarian vs vegan, perhaps with a caveat remark "unless otherwise stated" (I think for Argentina there's no data for vegans only).

Relatedly, I was a bit surprised to read that pescetarian is included as vegetarian. It seems to me that most people do not count pescetarian as vegetarian, but as semi-vegetarian. Again, do most entries really include pescetarianism? Otherwise I'd change the wording to "excludes pescetarians unless otherwise stated".

What do you and other editors of this page think? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Trimton There's already two columns, one for vegetarians and one for vegans. No need for further differentiation because that will be overkill for this table that already has a lot of info. Yes, in all researches they combined pescetarians, vegans, lacto-ovo, lacto vegetarians under "vegetarians". That's all the categories that don't include meat. The only one that didn't do this was the recently released Orkla research, that's why I combined them myself for this table. The term "semi-vegetarianism" seems a bit vague because I noticed it includes flexitarians (eating meat every now and then), and also includes pollotarians (chickens and other birds only) so it's not a well defined term yet, I'd prefer not to use it. If you eat meat then you're obviously not a vegetarian. But I agree it can be a bit of a mess because there's so many varieties. The way the table is now is the best solution imo. Thank you for your concern. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic Ambiance Ok, let's keep pescetarian+vegetarian+vegan in the left column if that's what the table entries contain. Otherwise too much hassle. You seem to be using the culinary rather than biological definition of meat, where the biological one calls edible flesh from all animals meat. Pescetarians do eat (fish) meat on that definition. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 15:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Trimton Yes, that's true. That's how every source uses them. So Let's just stick with that. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic Ambiance not all, see my recent edits. The German government survey really did not include pescetarians, as my added ref shows ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 14:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Trimton I see. Thank you for adding the page number to the sources, that really helps finding it easier. Well, if enough sources have the numbers of pescetarians maybe another column of "Pescetarians (% of population)" can be added. But then the "Note" section which is not too relevant should be removed otherwise it's too much text. But for now there's not enough sources for all countries so let's just keep it this way for now. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Decent sourcing

The UK number looked a bit high. The source sounded good, but on the linked page they refer to some sort of cooking magazine and they say this about the method: "The source does not specify the number of respondents nor the survey methodology." So basically it's a number without any merit. Makes me worry about the other sources as well. Joost schouppe (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You worry about the other Statista sources or the other sources in this article in general? Statista is a pretty reliable source so I don't think they'd just throw out some numbers. I think it's just surveys done by asking/interviewing a small group of people and then getting the average. I've checked the site for more surveys done by the same company and Germany's numbers are very high compared to the other sources on this article. US vegetarian number is twice as much, but vegans is almost the same. Statista also uses other surveys, the Netherlands' number is pretty accurate compared to other sources. So it's pretty hard to say how reliable this website is. But I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Statista is reliably saying that this particular source for the UK is unreliable. A cooking magazine that did not disclose methods is a fine example of a source not to be trusted. I do not think Statista should even reproduce such a number, and the fact that they do makes me worry about other sources on the same page. But looking at the UK number in isolation, I'd set we absolutely need a different source! Joost schouppe (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also was somewhat amazed that the UK figure for vegetarianism was given as 25.8% with veganism as 4.4%. And also amazed that a source that actual says the survey can't be verifed is a bit weird to be included in Wikipedia. I've just spent the last half an hour trying to find a reliable source and it's proved quite hard. Often vegetarianism and veganism get combined. The Vegetarian Society says: "Our current position is that the number of people in the UK who maintain a vegetarian or vegan diet 100% of the time still holds at 2% – 3% of the population.". Anyway, I digress. I've finally found a survey from Food Standards Agency which gives some recent results although for Vegetarian/Vegan combined. I think that's reliable enough and I'll change the table and add the reference. For what it's worth I think there are loads of zombie stats on the internet coming from marketing campaignes from vegetarian/vegban food producers..Seaweed (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I added the reference to the Food Standards Agency, but another use reverted that saying that Statista is better. The problem with the UK figures is that the Statista page actually doubts it's own figures because it says "The source does not specify the number of respondents nor the survey methodology.". That is not very reliable and the source is hidden behind the paywall. The Food Standards Agency is an official UK government agency with actual publicaly available data on vegetarianism which has got to count for something. My main issue is the figure of 25.8% of the UK population being vegetarian which I can find no reliable source for. Even the Vegetarian Society doesn't say that. Therefore I'm going to put the reference back in for the Food Standard Agency report. Seaweed (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a ludicrous figure, and the source cited when visited only says 14.8%; just all around terrible editing, presumably everyone will just sit around waiting for the approval of a Wiki druid to change such nonsense? To think this medium is substantially forming our society's 'knowledge' is terrifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:A080:4E01:1DB:B670:1163:1632 (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

India stats: Vandalism?

Resolved

 – The numbers in the article now agree with the cited sources

It looks like the numbers in the article and the numbers in the cited sources are completely different. The previous revision contained 37% as the upper limit of the vegetarian population where as the cited sources quote numbers between 20% and 32.8%. As Indian vegetarianism is often linked with "purity" and supremacy, I suspect vandalism at play in editing Wikipedia to suit supremacist narratives. --Nonwiktion (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Statistics

Numbers of US vegetarians and vegans are apparently flipped, and the latter is seemingly a permissive count 2607:FCC8:620C:A000:7469:FB0A:8057:AA50 (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Number of vegan and vegetarian mexicans up to 19%? that must be a joke.The source https://www.statista.com/statistics/859529/mexico-share-vegetarians-flexitarians-vegans/ This is not reliable, its just a survey, not public health data, and everyone likes to say they are more healthy than they are. Also a small number of participants rendering the whole thing statistically irrelevant.

Footnotes?

This page has a couple footnotes, but they don't seem to actually go anywhere. How to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.59.254 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Mexico

Mexico is ranked #2 in vegetarianism globally, yet there is nothing in this article addressing the history, culture or changing trends around the vegetarian diet in Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:FF00:1B:59CE:3F87:FB64:DD66 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 March 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BP988.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Trivia and misleading quotes

@पदाति It doesn't change the fact that this is WP:TRIVIA. Due to the large population size a lot of Trivia can be generated. What is the relevance of adding it there, other than to mislead the viewer from the fact that the vegetarians are a puny minority in India. The quote is historically inaccurate and misleading. Desist from edit warring. Discuss on the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what a "vegeratian" is, but if it makes up 20-39% of the country, then I don't know if it can be called "puny". That's more than the percentage of Muslims in the country, even by the lowest estimate. You haven't mentioned why you think the sourced figure is "historically inaccurate and misleading" - you need to do that if you want to remove it. This isn't trivia, as it's not part of a list of miscellaneous information. It helps the reader understand how many vegetarians are in India compared to the rest of the world. -- पदाति (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:CHALLENGE Please explain why you think this content is deserved in the article. Aquatic Ambiance has removed your edit calling it promotional and it is indeed undue in my opinion. If you want to help the reader with figure give the figure of India first. Not random WP:TRIVIA. --Venkat TL (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The statement was already sourced, before you deleted it, so I don't know why you even brought up WP:CHALLENGE. The content is useful because it gives a picture of how prominent vegetarians are in India relative to other countries. It isn't promotional, it's factual (and it could only be considered "promotional" if you considered vegetarianism to be positive, so I doubt that you and Aquatic Ambiance are actually in agreement here). The exact numbers are already there, both in the list and later in the India section. I would recommend that you actually read WP:TRIVIA before insisting that it applies here. पदाति (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The vegetarians are not even prominent in India, leave the rest of the world. That is why I called this Trivia misleading. Please do not paint false misleading picture of facts. Read WP:TE. Both me and Aquatic Ambiance are in agreement that this content is not deserved into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That statement is obviously relative, it doesn't say anything about the absolute numbers in India. I don't see how you could consider it misleading. It doesn't say "There are more vegetarians than non-vegetarians in India", it is a statement relative to the rest of the world. It doesn't say anything about the absolute prominence of vegetarians in India. The statement is relative, and the various estimates for the absolute percentage are easily available in many places. पदाति (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop promoting vegetarians of India. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO Venkat TL (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already explained that it is a factual statement, not "promotion", and given my justifications. You seem to be refusing to respond to the substance of what I have said and are simply repeating what you previously stated. Wikipedia is supposed to have a WP:NPOV, which includes not omitting relevant facts. -- पदाति (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to provide any convincing argument to include it into the article. Please follow WP:DR Venkat TL (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to remove that fact simply because you don't like it, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. You cannot simply say "I don't want the fact to be there, so it should be removed". Please provide a legitimate reason to remove it, or else cease your WP:TE. --पदाति (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@पदाति I believe you are wise enough. After how many reverts will it dawn upon you that you cannot edit war your way out of this dispute? I have mentioned several reasons above, I note your disagreement to my reasons. Please self revert your addition, or Edit warring will be reported. Venkat TL (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:You are stonewalling the discussion simply because you don't like the statistic. You have not responded meaningfully to anything I said. If you've "noted my disagreements", then you can respond to them. पदाति (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

पदाति You are again misusing Wikipedia for advertisement and promotion. Discuss it on talk. Venkat TL (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:Please explain, clearly and precisely, why you believe that the inclusion of a sourced and relevant statistic is "promotion". --पदाति (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already explained clearly in my comments above. If you want me to elaborate my position on a particular point, please quote it and I will elaborate. Disputed promotional content violating WP:NPOV was added back by you without generating Consensus. Please do not add it. Venkat TL (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Quote by Balmurli Natrajan, anthropologist, and Suraj Jacob economist

A Quote by Balmurli Natrajan, anthropologist, and Suraj Jacob economist was removed by calling it UNDUE in the edit summary. I have restored it back. No explanation was given why it is undue. It is entirely relevant to India section and Due. Venkat TL (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedic statistics

"You are free to use this info on your blog, obviously this has no place in a encyclopedia." @Aquatic Ambiance: Bold claim. If you're so sure it doesn't belong, then point to a specific part of WP:NOTEVERYTHING that makes this content inappropriate. Koopinator (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Common sense. This is a page about vegetarianism, not about political parties. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you broke WP:3RR. Second of all, the content i added was about vegetarianism: the political distribution of vegetarians in the Netherlands is relevant to the topic of "Vegetarianism in the Netherlands", which is a subtopic of Vegetarianism by country.

United Kingdom figures

The 8% vegan statistic is very dubious. The Guardian article it cites says that that 8% is mostly "flexitarian" rather than fully fledged vegan. It also cites earlier studies giving figures of around 1% for full vegans just a few years prior. I'm going to reduce the 8% on this Wiki article down to 1%. Additionally, the 11% vegetarian figure from the Food And You survey includes 1% vegans and 3% vegetarians, with the remainder being "partially vegetarian" (eg flexitarian again). However, the table has a note saying the figure we're presenting in this article includes pescatarians, so I guess that should remain at 11%. Faulty (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC) :User:Aquatic Ambiance, can you explain your revert, because the above explanation appears to be correct? Hemantha (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

User:Hemantha, the provided Guardian source says "YouGov found that 8% of respondents said they were already eating a plant-based diet". The link to the article "Veganuary is huge" I can't open because it wants me to sign up. I don't think the 8% is far off, veganism is booming now. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Source of Figures

How were the vegetarian and vegan percentages by country derived? It seems largely arbitrary, with much potential for inaccuracies. There should be an acknowledgement that numbers of this sort are little more than guesses. 021120x (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WRIT101-04 Fall 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TakaMatsumotoIsCool, Pen with a wing, Jagaimokun (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jagaimokun (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Ukraine

you may be interested in this information

"According to the survey held by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in October 2020, 4,5 million Ukrainians were vegetarians, while about 800,000 were vegans." Source IsraeliEditor54 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

</gallery>

Aquatic Ambience repeatedly removing important information that creates a misleading impression. There is no source here suggesting that 12% of Australians are vegetarian

I'm reposting this because the issue wasn't actually addressed & the conversation was deleted. Aquatic Ambience simply ignored the points I made and repeated one of their false claims. This time I will request a third opinion.

Aquatic Ambience has repeatedly edited the article to remove important information in a way that makes the article misleading and is uncivil to the editors who worked on including this information. They have performed this deletion of information multiple times and ignored the important reasons for the info being included, giving the same very weak justifications in their edit description each time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetarianism_by_country&type=revision&diff=1003322096&oldid=1002629060

12% of people saying that the food they eat is "all or almost all vegetarian" is clearly not the same thing as 12% of people being vegetarian. The 12% number for Australia includes the seemingly much larger number who are flexitarian, not just vegetarians. The text removed was not "irrelevant and outdated" as Aquatic Ambience claimed. One of the sources was from 2019, which is more recent than the 12% source that Aquatic Ambience is cherry picking. The older Newspoll from 2010 is also worth including because it is more reliable than the ABC survey, and it is from from a poll that actually asked whether people they were vegetarian or not, which is therefore more relevant to this article than the 12% poll. The claim that the actual number of vegetarians is "irrelevant", that a more recent article is "outdated", is obviously false and uncivil, and assumption that a poll number than includes both vegetarians and non-vegetarian flexitarians is somehow a more reliable number is also obviously false and misleading. Deleting other people's constructive contributions on such weak grounds (in this case with a false justification) is very disrespectful to those who did the hard work of digging up these other more relevant and more recent sources. It's not just uncivil but very nasty behaviour. Mr G (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Vegans in Poland

Remark: The problem described below has been discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aquatic_Ambiance#Vegans_in_Poland

Several days ago I corrected information in the table about vegans in Poland: I removed information from a dubious source and add information from the same source as for vegetarians in Poland (the source contains also information about vegans). Then, during several edits, I cleaned up technical details. But Aquatic Ambience reverted all this and wrote: "A mess." Why? What was wrong? I think that rather a mess is what is there now: very dubious information about vegans instead of information about vegetarians and vegans from one source (as it is for most countries) and no information that note 1 is not true in this case (according to the source). Please, explain me why my edits was wrong or restore them. (And I think that it is necessary to change the map of vegans respectively.) D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)