Talk:Meat/Archive 3

The following material has been alleged to be poorly cited, specifically that the FAO citation links to the homepage instead of some document and the fish-count site is biased:

It is estimated that each year 70 billion land animals are slaughtered,^[1] and up to 3 trillion fish and crustaceans are killed for meat.^[2]

However, I cited the FAO's database, which is a very trustworthy statistical source, is easily searchable, and the results yield the numbers given. The fish kill-count website is definitely a more biased source, but wiki guidelines state that reliable sources do not have to be unbiased. The site uses accurate and reliable FAO fish tonnage numbers to calculate approximate individual deaths. The assumptions made are given plainly, and no critics have rebuked them. You can calculate the fish deaths for yourself if you are unsure. I have, and they turned out the same.

Are there any other complaints I should address before adding these notable and verifiable statistics back to the article? RockingGeo (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please indicate the steps one needs to take to retrieve these data from the FAO database? Sandstein 18:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As to the fish, what makes fishcount.org.uk reliable? For scientific information, we normally look to peer-reviewed journals or reliable academic publishers. This is the farthest thing imaginable from that: a random website on the Internet. There is no indication of who even is behind it or what their qualifications are, or who vetted their data. WP:SPS prohibits using such sources. Sandstein 18:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There are no special steps needed for the FAO database, just search for the results you want. Here is its about page . Does the link not work for you?

And for the fish death stats, would just stating the FAO estimated total caught tonnage be a good compromise, without trying quantify that into individual fish deaths? That would bypass this issue of WP:SPS. RockingGeo (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess. Though I don't see why the tonnage of fish caught should be in the lead of Meat. Leads should summarize the most important aspects of a topic. Fish industry statistics hardly qualify. Fish aren't even meat in culinary terms. And in any case, the information would need to be referenced in a manner that allows readers to easily verify the number. That means specific instructions about what to search for in that database. Sandstein 20:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Is fish really not considered meat by some? Ha! I did not know that. I feel that topic alone deserves it own section in this article, Fish meat controversy or something like that. I'm not really that hung up on the fish part. I've always thought of fish meat being like all other meat, but I don't mind leaving the fish tonnage out if it really bothers you. If you change your mind, the fish tonnage data is actually available in a FAO PDF report (which may be easier to read/verify).

That said, have we reached a consensus that a brief mention of total wordwide land animal meat consumption/production is relevant in the article/lead? RockingGeo (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Meat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add clearly that the IARC classifies meat as a group 2A carcinogen because we are herbivores Klikendish1111 (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Both of these assertions would (the one about the IARC and the one about humans being herbivores) would need reliable sources, which you need to provide so we can consider this edit request. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added a sentence in the intro to make clear that meat usually doesn't include fish or other animals. Some references just in case:

• https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm
• https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/meat-industry-guide
• https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/advisory-committees/nacmpi/nacmpi-responsibilities
• https://www.who.int/cancer/media/news/lessmeatmorefish/en/
• http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/meat/home.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpab15 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Vpab15, thanks, but per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the most important aspects of a topic. Definitional issues don't belong there, but in the body text. I've accordingly reverted your addition. Sandstein 09:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Meat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

reference #93 has broken link and is a non peer reviwed press release with an error

Replace Reference #93 with the following source: Micha, R., Michas, G., & Mozaffarian, D. (2012). Unprocessed red and processed meats and risk of coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes–an updated review of the evidence. Current atherosclerosis reports, 14(6), 515-524. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-012-0282-8

Replace "increases risk of coronary heart disease by 42%, and diabetes by 19%" with "increases risk of coronary heart disease by 42%, and diabetes by 51%" [as per the original source]

[Note that in this study unprocessed meat also was associated with an increase in diabetes.]

I would try to make these changes myself but I am not able to access despite being an editor and logged in. Giveamanafish1 (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Done You will be able to edit semi-protected articles once your account is at least 4 days old and has made more than 10 edits. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Meat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please revise statement below title to new statement:

Meat "Meat, archaically, is an article of food to be consumed by human beings."

Cite: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/meat ["Old English mete ‘food’ or ‘article of food’ (as in sweetmeat), of Germanic origin."] 2604:2000:1580:6B3:6938:C9F7:F10E:706D (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. It's not clear how this would be an improvement. Sandstein 09:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Meat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I’m suggesting edits for 12.2 (Sociology—> Religious tradition) as I think the section is lacking a little.

I would like to to expand upon several topics

by changing: “and there are also schools of Buddhism and Hinduism that condemn the eating of meat.” to:

“ and there are also schools of Buddhism and Hinduism that condemn the eating of meat. Cattle slaughter and beef consumption is taboo amongst most meat-eating Hindus and some require all permissible meats to be Jhatka.”

Please change “The rules include prohibitions on the consumption of unclean animals (such as pork, shellfish including mollusca and crustacea, and most insects), and mixtures of meat and milk.” To “The rules include prohibitions on the consumption of unclean animals (such as pork, shellfish including mollusca and crustacea, and most insects), and mixtures of meat and milk. Kosher fish are exempt from the dairy separation law because fish is biblically differentiated from meat. Thus, Kosher fish are considered Pareve along with plant foods, eggs and pure raw honey.”

And lastly would like to add new information

“The majority of Christian denominations are uncritical of meat consumption; one exception being the Seventh-day Adventist Church which promotes vegetarianism. Adherents who choose to not eat vegetarian are expected to follow the Kosher restrictions pertaining to “unclean animals”. Religious meat abstention during Lent is a tradition in Catholicism. In western countries Catholics generally abstain from eating meat on Lent Fridays and sometimes Saturdays. Generally, only fish and shellfish are permissible on days of meat abstinence, but in some areas alligator or beaver are considered Lenten as are some other semiaquatic animals.” DietCokeFeast (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: Those mostly seem like important elements in a basic survey of meat in modern world religions, and they're written clearly. I would suggest that the line about parve foods be cut, and trim the end of the last sentence to but certain semiaquatic animals, such as alligator, may also be eaten.

Wikipedia requires its information to be WP:Verifiable, because we can't expect readers to take us at our word. Could you please provide a list of reliable, published sources supporting your claims? Introductory books on comparative religion or on animals in society would probably be ideal. Thank you! FourViolas (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Meat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like too have an add to the article with a section about meat as "The edible part, as of a piece of fruit or a nut."

The following 2 links contain the definition as it is in the dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meat https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=meat

For example: The pistachio contains a seed (culinary nut) and a shell that is edible. 2001:1C04:430D:7900:4890:E612:24B8:FFB5 (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are distinct from dictionary entries in that our articles are only about one topic, we link to similarly named topics up top. We don't have an article about meat as in fruit, but there is a link to Wiktionary on Meat (disambiguation). – Thjarkur (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, we cover this in the terminology section: "In the context of food, meat can also refer to "the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell)", for example, coconut meat." Sandstein 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this worth adding to this article , or would it be better on the vegetarianism article in the section "mental health" ? Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A study was recently added to the article which is sourced to a reliable secondary source from The Guardian "Eating meat ‘raises risk of heart disease, diabetes and pneumonia’". The study was a UK Biobank study of 475,000 men and women . Per WP:MEDRS we should not cite primary papers for biomedical claims or data - instead we should use meta analyses or systematic reviews which are more reliable. However as the paper itself was not linked directly to and a secondary source is being cited I wouldn't object to the text that was added. Please discuss this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I figured citing The Guardian directly would hopefully mitigate the issue, and demonstrate the notability of the study. I also included proper attribution so that the text was not using Wikipedia's voice.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with that, I believe the text should stay. However as this topic as quite controversial the study will probably be raised on this talk page at some point so I wanted to raise it first. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers aren't appropriate secondary sources for MEDRS, so I went ahead and removed it, which is pretty standard for this sort of situation. If it gets cited in a review someday, then it could be worth including depending on what the review says. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok fair play, I guess we will have to wait until that content is published in a review some day. I think there will be a lot of research done on this subject in the next 5 years so there should be some good upcoming references to cite. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Inline_Citation#In-text_attribution
• Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution
• Veil of ignorance cites John Rawls directly, this is contentious as Rawls might be a primary source on the concept of veil of ignorance.
• Justice still cites John Rawls directly. The philosopher is of course not a primary source on the notion of justice as it's atemporal.

Sandstein If I understand your position correctly, we should not cite John Rawls directly in either article, but should rely on other philosophers that respond to Rawl's work?--TZubiri (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw a section that cites a contemporary philosopher which in turn cites modern philosophers. Following Wikipedia's guidelines it is a great starting point to use a secondary source to cite the views of philosophers. But that is only if we consider the philosopher's views as primary sources on their own opinion on the subject of meat. But I am not interested on the views different philosophers had on the subject of meat, I am interested in the subject of meat, under this lens the philosopher are secondary sources on the timeless subject of meat and animals as a source of food, the primary source would be the corpse of an animal, and the modern philosopher is a tertiary source. Since wikipedia should strive to be a tertiary source, it should collect secondary sources directly.

As such, I have added Template: Citation needed for the views of every philosopher, which should be attributed to their original works, and have started by directly referencing Aristotle's view on the subject, including a quote that adds more context for anyone interested in diving in. It's worth noting that in this case there's already inline attribution, which is fine as well, in my opinion inline attribution should coexist with footnote references.

Regards --TZubiri (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

TZubiri, thanks for your contribution but this is not how Wikipedia works. If we want to cover ancient philosophy, we actually strongly prefer citing modern academic sources over the philosophers themselves. That's because the writings of philosophers are primary sources that need interpreting, and we're not allowed to do that ourselves, per WP:NOR. That's why we always look for secondary sources, which do this interpretation for us.

Meat is not a source, it's the topic of this article. Aristotle's writings are a primary source about Aristotle's views on meat, and a modern academic's writing about Aristotle are a secondary source, which we want to cite. This lets us make Wikipedia, a tertiary source. Take a look at WP:PSTS, please, which explains this. Sandstein 09:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"If we want to cover ancient philosophy" We are not covering ancient philosophy, we are covering meat. TZubiri (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We are covering what ancient philosophers thought and wrote about meat. And that's beside the point, which is that Wikipedia's rule dictate the use of secondary sources. Sandstein 19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What we cover defines whether the source is primary or secondary. The subject isn't Aristotle's views on meat, it's meat and the source is Aristotle.

If I were to write:

"meat consumption is an ethical dilemma similar to that of slavery.^[1]"

Is that a primary source?

If I were to attribute inline, would that change because the claim is now about the author instead of the subject? would it require a derivative work as a source?

"According to Jack Jackson, meat consumption is an ethical dilemma similar to that of slavery. ^[1]

Regards.

Yes, the topic of the article is meat, but the topic of the subsection in which you wanted to cite Aristotle (Meat#Philosophy) is philosophers' perspectives on meat. And for that, Aristotle is a primary source. In your example, the claim would need an inline attribution ("In Jackson's view ..."), because this sort of claim is a matter of philosophical opinion which we can't state as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. And citing a secondary source is always preferable, also because it indicates that the view (of this Jackson, in your example) has been noted and studied by scholars and therefore might be worthy of mention in Wikipedia. (That's not a concern for Aristotle, but he probably one of the best-studied philosophers in history, so there should be ample secondary sources for all of his writings.) Sandstein 06:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with that, but it seems like a sensible position. I will readd aristotle's source as a primary source then, along with the secondary source by the modern scholar. After all primary sources can sometimes be used, especially if a secondary one is also used, mostly for pointing out the pages, quotes and book metadata.--TZubiri (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In this section greenhouse gas emission percentages by meat production do not reflect the impact on climate change. Climate change is driven mainly by carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere, but considering meat production also methane and nitrous oxide emissions must be taken into account.

Slaughter animal carbon dioxide and methane emissions cause little or no climate change because they are part of a fast biological carbon cycle, see Carbon_cycle#Fast_and_slow_cycles, in contrast to emissions of these greenhouse gases by fossil-fuel supply and combustion.

Nitrous oxide emission has a 120 year lifetime in the atmosphere and causes 4% of global warming, see Jacobson, M.Z., 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2020, Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Sources are 62% natural and 38% human-related, while agriculture accounts for 67% of the human source, see https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/nitrous-oxide-emissions so nitrous oxide emission by agriculture causes 0.67 x 0.38 x 4% = 1% of climate change. Cattle cause part of this 1%.

Rwbest (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as we have constant herds, or even decreasing herds, livestock is not adding methane – and hence not additional warming. See https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/latest-science-on-methane-emissions-ignored-by-media-dr-mitloehner/ Rwbest (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Meat has been questioned in the human diet pre-20th century by major world religions including Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and early Christians as referenced on the same page under Religion. The current book used as a source (From Body Fuel to Universal Poison Cultural History of Meat: 1900-The Present by Buscemi, Francesco) focuses on the study of Western meat culture from 1900 to the present and has little grounds to be used for the claims that "For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet.[26]: 1  Only in the 20th century did it begin to become a topic of discourse and contention in society, politics and wider culture.[26]: 11 "--Zifmer (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If there are equivalent sources to discuss to assess WP:DUE and expand upon, then do so instead of edit warring. I also mentioned WP:OR in the regard previously. It's sources the rule the roost, not personal editor exposition. That said, we might also be running into a bit of a WP:COATRACK issue where detail level content might belong more at other articles on veganism, etc. The section as it stands is fine in terms of scope at least in that regard, but something to keep an eye on if it is expanded. I have some ideas for cleaning things up, but I'll leave that be until the edit warring settles down. KoA (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I assumed the History section on this page with the referenced content would be enough to refute the claim that "For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet." Even early Western philosophers, as shown in the Philosophy section, questioned meat in the human diet. Nonetheless, here are some additional sources that substantiate my claim that "Meat has been questioned in the human diet pre-20th century by major religions:

• The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism Paperback by Colin Spencer], 1995. Published by ‎Univerity Press New England.
• The Bloodless Revolution: A Cultural History of Vegetarianism: From 1600 to Modern Times by Tristram Stuart], 2008. Published by W. W. Norton & Company
• The History of Vegetarianism and Cow-Veneration in India By Ludwig Alsdorf], 2010. Published by Routledge

Zifmer (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

So the source in question says Only in the 20th century did it begin to become a topic of discourse and contention in society, politics and wider culture. (my bold). That individual philosophers can be cited doesn't really conflict with the statement. If anything, the current content shows the progression the author refers to.

As for the other books, it looks like we're running into a WP:NPOV issue in source selection. This is the article on meat, not vegetarianism, so we shouldn't be looking for just sources like those listed. That's why I mentioned a concern with beginnings of WP:COATRACK issues showing up. While the topics obviously can be intertwined at times, we do need to be careful about that. That's in part why there are separate articles to help with such scope issues. KoA (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, KoA. As it stands, the sources I cited directly refute the current content in the Culture section, and those sources are not being proved false. Currently, the section reads:

For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet.[24]: 1  Only in the 20th century did it begin to become a topic of discourse and contention in society, politics and wider culture.[24]: 11 

As you wrote previously, sources rule the roost. If you can provide proof that the sources I provided are incorrect beyond the source in dispute (From Body Fuel to Universal Poison Cultural History of Meat: 1900-The Present by Buscemi, Francesco), please do. If you could provide proof that the sources I listed are biased texts despite being published from reputable presses and from scholars in their respective fields, please do. I would like to see proof that the statement, "If anything, the current content shows the progression the author refers to" is true rather than a simple assertion.

The history of humans in relation meat is not a [WP:COATRACK]] issue, and it deserves appropriate attention. If you (or other editors of course) cannot provide proof for the current content of the Culture section beyond the source in question or if you cannot refute the validity of the sources I presented, then I move that we blank the section for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zifmer (talk • contribs)

I suggest slowing down. It was already pointed out the sources do not contradict each other because there's a difference between a few philosophers discussing it and the wider culture as a whole. If there is something you wish to add from the other sources you mention, please propose that on the talk page as none of know what you are referring to by just listing whole books. KoA (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder the WP:LEDE content does not need citations since it should already be sourced in the body. Recently, there's been some back in forth after this citation needed tag was added. Simplest solution right now seems to be to remove the tag (it's definitely not a place to showcase PETA's top 10 list) unless someone thinks something isn't sourced well enough in the body? KoA (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the tag removals. Seems unnecessary for a lede, and the sourcing for the paragraph is found later in the body. --Zifmer (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I added those references because someone kept tagging it as needing a citation. The sources illustrate the reasons vegetarians and vegans might have for not eating meat it doesn't matter if those reasons are valid or true just that vegetarians and vegans believe them and act on them. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Even if that type of source were called for (though this isn't the article on vegetarianism), no one should be reaching for a bottom of the barrel source like PETA first. There are also WP:MEDRS concerns since there are health claims being made, and such websites are not reliable for assertions about science. It looks like we'll be better off removing the tag for now.

That said, I'm not seeing the WP:DUE aspect in the article that we even need to mention the sentence in the lead of this article. It might just be better to delete or merge the sentence and reframe something based on the actual article. I'd want to clean up other parts of the article before worrying about that though. KoA (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aliw1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The article cites a UK Biobank study . A recent study has also just been published . However, these look like primary sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised at WikiProject Medicine Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything surprising in that? Eating too much meat, for decades on end, is unhealthy. Eating processed meat is unhealthy. Eating fatty meat is unhealthy. Researchers might disagree somewhat on where to draw the line for "too much", and they may not be absolutely certain about the exact mechanisms (is it primarily because bacon consumption promotes obesity, or primarily because of the fat content, or primarily because of the salt, or primarily because of the preservatives, or primarily because of some mammalian protein, or all of the above?), but there is no dispute over the basic point. The sentence that says "The health effects of red meat are unclear as of 2019" is basically wrong, because some of the health effects are perfectly clear: Eating a pound of bacon a day is bad for your heart. Eating a pound of ham a day is bad for your heart. Eating a double-double hamburger three meals a day is bad for your heart, even if you always get it "protein style". The only thing that's unclear are the precise mechanisms by which eating too much red meat is unhealthful, and whether that effect is independent of fat content and overeating, not the general outlines of nutrition advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Last time I looked at the sourcing, I thought it was less clear for simply "red meat" than processed meat. So yeah, lots of bacon, ham, burgers etc. is deffo bad. Lots of fillet steak (in an otherwise balanced diet), not so clear. As the to OP's question, there is so much decent sourcing on these topics why would we want to use primary sources? Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the information has been unchanged since before the US pork industry started their advertising campaign about The Other White Meat, namely that red meat is less healthful than poultry, which is less healthful than fish. (Also, hamburgers aren't processed meat. Merely grinding or mincing meat doesn't make it a processed food.)

It turns out that the "unclear" sentence misrepresented the source. It does say that the recommendation is based on limited evidence, but it also says that people should limit consumption of red meat and processed meat for health reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I was asking about the UK Biobank study because it appears to be a primary source and on nearly all Wikipedia articles we wouldn't cite this sort of study. The same "health" section also cites two cohort studies which are also primary studies. We do not usually cite primary sources, we need reviews so I am not sure what is going on in that section. I agree that we need good sources. Here is a systematic analysis of health risks I recently found . A summary of the findings here in regard to red meat "In 2019, a diet high in red meat was responsible for 23·9 million (95% UI 15·6–32·0) DALYs and 896 000 deaths (536 000–1 250 000). It was the fifth-leading dietary risk factor for attributable DALYs." . You also look up other risks which includes processed meat, the data is logged on the healthdata website. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we'd be on firmer ground using the (ample) solid MEDRS available. As to the misrepresented content, I see that was added by a Zalgo sock back in 2019. They also were at work at Red meat adding material for "balance", but that seems to have been cleaned-up since. The cited source apparently had undisclosed COIs, and we should probably junk it. Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning this study we do have a clear conflict of interest with the meat industry: „WWC received research support from American Egg Board–Egg Nutrition Center, Beef Checkoff, Coca-Cola Foundation, National Dairy Council, National Institutes of Health, Pork Checkoff, and USDA and had a consulting arrangement with Coca-Cola Company.“ The study has a lot if flaws, for example the comparison diets swapped meat for meat (instead of plant protein) so clearly that‘s not a strategy to bring down cholesterol. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's why publisher peer-review exists. Per WP:MEDRS: "Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". And now you are edit warring. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The study was even mentioned by Marion Nestle as example for industry funded junk science in her book „Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat“. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, if there are documented concerns in a strong source that is another matter. Do you have a reference for the Nestle concern? Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This is her book. The paragraph referring to the study is short but I read that as that there‘s not much more to say about this kind of industry funded research:„Studies funded by the meat industry yield predictable results. One concludes that eating more red meat than is recommended has no effect on blood cholesterol levels; its senior author discloses support from the beef and pork checkoff programs, among other food-industry groups.“ Here is a similar study that points out the problem with (bad) comparison diets that the authors of the first one leverage on. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to read the whole book, but I'll take your word for it that this review is called out as "junk science". Probably this whole section needs much stronger sourcing. How about PMID:35294140 ? Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, some studies in the section are now 10 years old. PMID:35294140 is certainly a good source. How would you summarize it? The full review is quite long and at first glance I did not find any concise conclusion that would make for a good summary in the article. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Meat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first word in the section "Meat#History_2" should be "A", not "An". 82.132.184.247 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Proper use of complex words so people older than 7 years understand or say bye bye to those viewers. 41.113.181.103 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have examples of this? And there is the Simple English Wikipedia and simple:Meat for people who can't handle this article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@user:bon courage seems to have issues with the sources here. The main medical source, the National Cancer Institute, clearly satisfies WP:MEDRS. In the article, it lists various reasons why PAHs and HCAs were thought to be dangerous to humans, including the fact that the have been proven to be carcinogenic to animals. However, they explain that getting data about their effect on humans is difficult because of testing methods, and that a definitive link between PAHs/HCAs and cancer has not been found. Therefore, I changed the wording of my edit to say that PAHs and HCAs are thought to be dangerous. Does this still misrepresent the source? Additionally, there is a section in the article's body about Cooking meat and the negative health effects. Why is adding one sentence about this section to the intro a WP:LEDEBOMB? Brian Shaposky (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What sourced material from the body are you proposing to summarize in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Meat#Cooking. It is not worded so elegantly here but it is talking about the dangers of eating burnt meat. A sentence in the intro saying that high temp cooking meat can cause these chemicals to form, and that they might be dangerous, is a good way to summarize it. Brian Shaposky (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably undue since the actual known adverse health effects of eating meat aren't mentioned. Without that, jumping to the speculative stuff would seem odd. Bon courage (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This article mentions 'chevon' as the word for goat meat. This word was invented just a century ago and is not in common use anywhere. Should this reference be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.224.253 (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Meat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The culture section is two sentences sharing a single source, making a WP:SKYISBLUE wrong statement. It is trivial to point out the existence of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It isn't very difficult to find examples of vegetarian discussion in the western world during any period of history.

Current text: Culture For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet.[32]: 1  Only in the 20th century did it begin to become a topic of discourse and contention in society, politics and wider culture.[32]: 11

Suggested text: Blank

Vizorblaze (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

My thought is, rather than delete, can we expand by noting that Buddhist and Hindu vegetarian traditions have existed, but that it was in the 20th century that it began to become a topic of discourse in secular society and wider culture? I think that's the point to be made, that not eating meat started to become a matter of ecological and animal welfare concern, rather than religious tradition. But, obviously, the key is, do sources back that up? —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The basic premise that vegetarianism wasn't discussed until recently is just plain incorrect. You suggest expanding it to say there was no secular discussion around this until the 20th century, but that is also not true. I could point out countless obvious examples of secular discourse about meat and the human diet from around the world and throughout history. The page already has a portal linking to vegetarianism, do we really need a "culture" section that isn't about "meat eating culture"? Vizorblaze (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, we have a "sociology" section that discusses all of this intl the article already. I just noticed it. I think that alone justifies not expanding this tiny untrue section and just blanking it, leaving the bigger sociology section to cover it. Vizorblaze (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. My two cents: I agree that the Culture subsection is unnecessary and the content questionable, but I'd like input from the user who objected previously to ensure consensus. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The text seems correct. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for making this rather a WP:TLDR post; I started out expecting to write a few short sentences, but the more I looked into it the more relevant material I found, and I got rather carried away. Feel free to jump to my single-sentence summary in my last paragraph.

I read this section, and it seemed so obvious that the original poster was right that I made the suggested change. Probably that was a mistake, and I should have posted here first.

Sandstein reverted my edit, with an edit summary which said "There is nothing about this on the talk page, and the paragraph is reliably sourced". I am at a total loss to understand that. This section constitutes about two thirds of a fairly short talk page, and I am not sure how Sandstein missed it. As for the statement that it is reliably sourced, see my comment in the next paragraph. However, since my edit has been challenged by Sandstein, here are some comments about it.

The contested text is "For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet. Only in the 20th century did it begin to become a topic of discourse and contention in society, politics and wider culture." This is cited to a book to which I have no access, so I can't tell whether the source really does say that, but if it does then I would very much question the description of it as a reliable source, because there are countless reliable sources which contradict it. Here is a small, and very far from complete, sample of such sources cited in other Wikipedia articles:

In Buddhist vegetarianism ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} etc etc...

In History of vegetarianism: ^[5]

^{[6] [7] [8]}

In Vegetarianism#History: ^{[9] [10]}

In Veganism#Origins: ^{[11][12][13][14]}

Vegetarianism has for a very long time been a very significant social factor in India. There is evidence of vegetarianism in the Indus Valley civilization, 300–1300 BC. In the Vedic period (approximately 1500 to 500 BC) vegetarianism was common and encouraged by Vedic texts, and since then there has been an unbroken vegetarian tradition in India, recorded and advocated by many Hindu, Buddhist, and other texts. The Edicts of Ashoka, dating from the 3rd century BC, indicate that Ashoka was vegetarian, and encouraged others to do likewise. Vegetarianism is known to have been established in the Jain community at least as early as the 6th century BC, and later Jain writings say that it dates further back than that. Vegetarianism has continued to be practised by a significant proportion of Hindus to this day, and it is maintained by over 90% of Jains.

Vegetarianism has been practiced by a significant proportion of Taoists since the Tang dynasty.

In Japan, vegetarianism was the norm from the late 7th century AD to the latter half of the 19th century.

There are longstanding traditions of vegetarianism in other parts of Asia.

In Europe, records of vegetarianism go back as far as the 6th century BC, when the Orphics practiced and promoted vegetarianism. Pythagoras was said to have been vegetarian. Like almost everything about Pythagoras, it is uncertain whether that is true, but it is certain that vegetarianism was practised by Pythagoreans after Pythagoras's time. Ovid, who lived from 43 BC to 17 or 18 AD, was a vegetarian, and Roman writings indicate that many other people were at the time. It was, in fact, only with the coming of Christianity that vegetarianism became rare in Europe. It reemerged in the Renaissance, and included various prominent people, such as Leonardo da Vinci and Pierre Gassendi. Vegetarianism continued to be a significant theme in the 16th to 18th centuries. In the nineteenth century there was a growth in vegetarianism in parts of Europe, particularly in parts of England, with the Vegetarian Society being founded in 1847.

In North America, vegetarianism did not have anywhere near so much support before the twentieth century, though it certainly existed, as for example in the Ephrata Cloister, and Benjamin Franklin was an advocate of vegetarianism for much of his life.

To say "For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet. Only in the 20th century did it begin to become a topic of discourse and contention in society, politics and wider culture" is at best to impose a so-called "Western" perspective, and to some extent even a US perspective. In the world as a whole the statement is so far from the truth as to amount to nonsense. Even applied just to "Western" culture, it shows a historically limited perspective, ignoring ancient traditions, and even if restricted to "Western" culture in recent centuries, it overstates the case, as, while the vast majority of people ate meat if they could get it (in some parts of Europe many poor people couldn't) it was certianly not "largely unquestioned".

This section was started by Vizorblaze, who said "It is trivial to point out the existence of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It isn't very difficult to find examples of vegetarian discussion in the western world during any period of history." Both of those statements are unequivocally true. C.Fred suggests that we "expand by noting that Buddhist and Hindu vegetarian traditions have existed, but that it was in the 20th century that it began to become a topic of discourse in secular society and wider culture", but that too is inaccurate: even in Europe vegetarianism has long been "a topic of discourse in secular society and wider culture", and on a global scale the statement isn't even remotely near to being true. Actualcpscm agrees that the section is "unnecessary" and its content "questionable". Chamaemelum's statement that "The text seems correct", without any explanation or justification, is not very helpful, and that is the only comment from anyone above which attempts to defend the present content: all other participants, while differing in detail, agree that the content should not be kept in its present form.

Brief summary, avoiding TLDR problem: The statement that for most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet is demonstrably false: it reflects a point of view based on a limited part of history in a limited part of the world. JBW (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is completely false. It should be removed. The book by Francesco Buscemi can be found online , it doesn't claim on page 1 that "For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet." A mistake has been made here, it is original research.

Looking through the history of the article, that content was previously deleted but has been restored numerous times by Sandstein who has added the same source elsewhere on the article . I see the content was originally added in 2018 with two other paragraphs of content sourced to Francesco Buscemi's book. As stated page 1 does not support this claim, the other content looks accurate. The line "For most of human history, meat was a largely unquestioned part of the human diet" is not supported by the source. I would certainly dispute including that line but do not object to the source being used elsewhere. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@JBW, thanks for the talk page message. I overlooked this thread. As to its subject matter, in my view Buscemi's book on p. 1 does convey the general idea the phrase at issue conveys, but in view of the above I agree that it is limited to a Western perspective and I no longer object to its removal (or, ideally, replacement with a broader perspective). Sandstein 18:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, Psychologist Guy, particularly for the link to the online excerpts from the cited source. Sandstein, I cannot believe that someone with your amount of experience of Wikipedia does not know that citation to a source which "convey[s] the general idea" of article content is good enough, even if we agree that it does convey the general idea, which is debatable. Writing something sufficiently modified from a cited source that it relates to the same "general idea" but makes a significantly different statement is unacceptable WP:OR, as I am sure you must know. I am also finding it difficult to see how you could have "overlooked this thread". As I have already said, at the time you made your post it was twice as long as the rest of the page, and I really, really, really can't see how anyone who had looked at this page for the express purpose of finding it could have missed it. (And having read my edit summary "As pointed out on the talk page, this is plain untrue" you cannot reasonably have claimed that "There is nothing about this on the talk page" without first expressly looking for the information on this page.) I am to continue to assume good faith, I have to accept an astonishing degree of ability to look directly at something and not see it. Also, at the time when I posted to your talk page, and when I posted my message above, I assumed that you had merely seen my removal of content and reverted it in good faith, without knowing the relevant background. I did not know that you yourself had added he disputed text, that you had previously restored it, and that you had made hundreds of edits to the article, a large proportion of them being reverts. Reminding you of WP:BRD and WP:OWN feels silly, a kind of giant version of "don't template the regulars", but it looks to me as though you should think carefully about them.

As for the disputed article content, it is now clear that it is both unsourced and highly inaccurate. There is also unambiguous consensus here that it is inappropriate for the article. I have therefore removed it. JBW (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced this referenced definition because it's used in more than a dozen places in the article and caused referencing errors throughout. It's not clear to me if the problem was this single claim, or if the issue was that the source is impugned as completely unreliable. If the latter, then someone should carefully and thoroughly edit the article to remove all uses of the reference, not just zap a single spot and leave errors behind. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Meat has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the HISTORY > HUNTING AND FARMING section, change "Chicken were domesticated around 6000 BC in Southeast Asia," to "Chicken were domesticated around 6000 BCE in Southeast Asia," to make the year labelling consistent. 207.115.108.42 (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of the lede, "vegetarian" should be wiki-linked. 2A00:23C7:548F:C01:2929:9BFE:4E4B:D6CA (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Zifmer (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Cultured meat is being produced, has been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and is now being bought and sold.

I recommend that cultured meat be included as content in this page to reflect these recent developments. If agreed/supported, the lede might also be altered to reflect the development of cultured meat to something like, "This eventually led to their use in meat production on an industrial scale in slaughterhouses and to cultured meat." Any feedback or suggestions are welcome! Thanks. Zifmer (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, just curious: Meat still retains many of the more archaic or poetic meanings it once chiefly had in Middle English, especially retained in dialects and technical contexts. If superfluous prefaces should be deleted then why not remove that string from salt? Everyone assumes salt = table/dietary salt at first. Thank you. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page) I assume this is in reference to this? Generally speaking, the fact that one article uses a certain turn of phrase does not mean that all other articles must or should do the same. In the case of salt, the article presents the term as having two independent important meanings, table salt and rock salt (whether the article's editors are right about that I don't know). In the case of meat, there is only one primary meaning of the term (flesh of animals eaten as food), and the other "archaic or poetic meanings" of the term are of negligible importance, but at least they are not so important that they warrant mention in the very first sentence. See WP:FIRST:

"The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere."

Your wording ("In common usage, meat is ..:") confuses the reader because highlighting common usage implies that we will shortly tell the reader what the noncommon usage is, but then we don't. (Nor should we, for the reasons previously mentioned, do so in the lead.) Sandstein 09:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

According to the paragraph "Psychology" meat eating is correlated to support for social hierarchy. The source given, titled Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations does not conclude this as a result. Instead, it uses the attitude toward production of inexpensive meat and other animal grocery as one of several indicators for speciesism. The paper then goes on to analyze the relation of specieism and ethnic prejudice.

Meat eating is not synonymous with approval of maintaining animals 'in crowded conditions'. Similarly, social hierarchy is not the same as ethnic prejudice. So the cited paper does not quite support the assertion in our article. In addition, the participants of the study were exclusively undergraduate psychology students at a Canadian university. This screams selection bias. It would be quite a stretch to apply any result from this study to all of humanity. Yet, this is, what the statement in the article does. I propose to remove the statement. It may of course return with a properly fitting citation. ---<)kmk(>- (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)