This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Seems like the article was written specifically to point out how bad ethical omnivorism is. As in, maybe 75% of the article is calling it a stupid concept and a pie-in-the-sky idea. I'm not really sure if this article can be neutralized without reducing it to the first two sentences.
Based on your reasoning you clearly do not understand what neutral means. If something is stupid by then the neutral thing is indeed to call it stupid and a "balanced" view would be heavily biased. For example regarding homeopathy it is neutral for the article to portray it as hogwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.229.18.81 (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Implying that ethnical omnivorism is indeed "stupid", which is a personal opinion. Of course vegans would disagree with it. It's as if we cited – only! – the opinion of conservatives about the Labour Party, or socialists about the Tories. But vegans have no monopoly on ethical living (more precisely: attempts to live ethically), regardless of how much they might insist that their way is the only way. Vegans (or their thought leaders) and the international community of scientists are two completely different groups. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I do think the way the article is now though, there's no content about the other sides. So I'd like more of that in there, as someone curious about this subject! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is a pretty small page. I think it would make sense for it to have inclusion of coverage of all angles, both in favor, and against, as well as those that are neutral. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
