Umf. Is this really an article? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:37, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

It seems like a useful travel topic, but I don't like the name -- (WT-en) Mark 08:40, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Perhaps this should be called something like Travel tips for those with special dietary requirements. It could cover a wide range of dietary requirements from those who are Vegetarians and Vegans as a lifestyle choice, to Kosher and Hal-Al etc. for religious reasons, all the way through to medical or health diets, such as salt free, gluten free, or allergic reactions to nuts or other foods. -- (WT-en) Huttite 09:34, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Hmm, I agree (as a semi-veg myself) that this could be useful, but I'm not sure how to package it. So far we have been adding veggie information to the Eat sections of countries/regions and specific veggie-friendly restaurants to city articles. I'm just wondering how different diet issue when traveling than, say, going out when at home or eatting at someone elses house. Everything I can think of is going to be country/region/city-specific anyway, so maybe it's just best delt with on destination pages? I just hate to see place-specific info get clumped together away from the place articles... (WT-en) Majnoona 11:44, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I also want to say I already disagree with the text-- the UK is not what comes to mind when thinking of veggie-friendly places. Southeast Asia, southern India, most of the US (certainly the West Coast)... and even most of Europe is pretty easy these days... Anyway, just more to the point that it's going to be hard to sum up general travel/diet tips that aren't destination-specific... 11:46, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I would actually disagree with the comments immediatly above. In the UK many restaurants mark vegetarian food as being such with a Green 'V'. I've never seen that in Europe. I've also had to resort to specifically vegetarian restaurants in Madrid for example (at least in order to eat anything more appitizing than cheese on toast. I'd agree that possibly special dietary requirements is a more appropriate name, I didn't really think about Hal-al etc. Also in response to another comment - I'd say diet whilst travelling is different as there's a language barrier and different cultures to deal with aswell. I do however agree that this shouldn't contain country specific information so maybe this isn't the best place for it - (WV-en) sjeapes

I concur. The UK is very Vegi-friendly esp. compared with Spain (though Barcelona has had a bit of a vegi-friendly renaissance in the last few years.) Sometimes it seems to me that a lot of folks like to talk about UK dining based on some old pre-conceptions which were probably true as recently as the 80s but definitly are not any longer. -- (WT-en) Mark 06:38, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

This article survived a vfd, and I'm not sure why that thread is not here, but wasn't there some degree of consensus to retitle it "Travel as a vegetarian"? Would everyone support such a name change, given that this is not merely about food but about eating as part of travelling? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will plunge forward and make the change. If anyone objects, please speak up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

>>Suggestions for vegetarian restaurants abroad websites??

I try to cover the topic as best I can for all of the places I visit (and thus can write about). I'd like to encourage my fellow Wikivoyagers to put a tiny amount of effort into it, even those of you who are not yourselves vegi. -- (WT-en) Mark 06:38, 14 July 2006 (EDT)

I rolled back the addition of the suggestion that you should make a "vow" regarding your eating habits. I don't think this suggestion is really travel-related and Project:The traveller comes first around here. Please feel free to discuss, of course. (WT-en) Maj 23:33, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Why does the link to the vegetarian restaurant finder keep on being deleted? I'd say it's equally, if not more, important to be able to find vegan/vegetarian as to know phrases to use for telling that you're a vegan. If I keep adding it wrong, please, could you add it for me, or at least tell me what I'm doing wrong? --78.102.107.177 01:13, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Have a look at Project:External links. We don't want wikivoyage to link to information and other guides, because we want that information here. Please feel free to add any vegetarian/vegan restaurants and information to the destination guides. --(WT-en) inas 01:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I wonder why this link is here, despite our extlinks policy?

Another source of very brief listings of what vegans eat/don't eat, in many different languages, is available from the International Vegetarian Union's list of phrases.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:21, 12 December 2010 (EST)

What do we think about this? Should we keep this link as an exception to our external links policy, in the interest of vegetarian travelers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

They could be added to our phrasebooks in each language, but as the sentences that are presented are not the same for each language, they are just written in Latin script and some languages like Chinese would benefit of some pronunciation advice it would mean additional work or adding inconstancies. Probably the best solution is to just keep the link. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no objection to that. Any other views? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

What do you think would need to be added or changed in order to turn this article into a Guide? Information about more parts of the world would be a good start. Anyone want to write about vegetable dishes in various Latin American countries, Sub-Saharan Africa and some European countries not specifically mentioned, for example? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

At least well known vegetarian dishes around the world and issues you can run into if you are bringing your own food (e.g. this is a sure way to get a fine in Australia even before leaving the airport, and I think it's true for many other countries too). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

As for Nicaragua I know of two things: First "No como carne" (Literally: I don't eat meat) will get you an offer of chicken, as "carne" is understood to mean pork (chancho/puerco) or beef (res) but not chicken (pollo) which for some reason is considered "something else". Saying "soy vegetariano" on the other hand might get you blank stares, especially outside of Granada, León, Managua and the more touristy places like San Juan del Sur. If however you find yourself in e.g. the Rio San Juan region and have successfully communicated your desire to avoid meat, you will most likely have a choice of rice and beans or gallo pinto (rice and beans fried together). Plantains and fruits are also a common option, as are dairy products (though "yellow cheese" is not all that common). Another problem is that the fat stuff is fried in may or may not be of plant origin and it may or may not have been used to fry other things in it before... However, there are some ok veggie places in León (student hotbed) Granada (expat city) Managua (capital, city of more than a million) or the more expensive touristy places like SJDS or some resorts and mybe even Estelí Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are we sure that VJML meals are vegan? Jains do consume milk products. They just stay away from egg, mushroom and root vegetables. — Ravikiran (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we should remove vegan, as the meals may contain dairy products. Danapit (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Probably depends on the airline. In the US, you'd probably be lucky to get some plain steamed vegetables. But yeah, we don't want to give people the wrong idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article is currently written for a vegetarian who is hell-bent on maintaining their diet regardless of how much they may inconvenience or offend others, even to the point of making up fake diseases, but I think a section about what a vegetarian will miss out on, more serious talks about offending locals and being a royal pain to restaurant employees, the fact that you may NOT be accommodated, etc. and the consideration of perhaps leaving your vegetarianism at home is worth adding to the article. Sure, staunch vegetarians will say they "cannot" do such a thing however, there are many vegetarians that do this when they travel. It allows them to appreciate the local food culture and cuisine to the fullest, it makes friendships and relations easier in cultures or situations where you are going to be invited into people's homes (it's particularly good advice in host family situations where vegetarians are often extreme burdens), and just makes traveling less stressful when you don't have to interrogate restaurant staff or wander around trying to figure out where you can eat. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

While I understand your point, we should be careful about phrasing. Anyone who easily considers to "leave their vegetarianism at home" is perhaps more a flexitarian than a vegetarian to start with - at least to most vegetarians. Now I don't care about semantics, but we need to take into account that for large parts of the target group of this article, these things are important. If we'd just plainly add the information you suggest, I imagine many vegetarians will feel the article doesn't really understand the topic it's talking about, and might loose relevance. Most vegetarians have had plenty of thought about their dietary choices. We should avoid advice from Captain Obvious. They e.g.know that they cannot indulge in all parts of local cuisine. That is also true at home. Of course, this can all be cured with careful wording, I just want to point out that it requires some thought. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Further to what JuliasTravels says, my take on this is that people who are vegetarians for basic reasons of personal ethics or religion are not going to appreciate a suggestion for them to go against those deeply-held principles or beliefs, just because it would somehow be more convenient for them to eat the products of killed animals during a trip. Would you also suggest that Orthodox Jews should chuck kashrut during a trip and not worry about some lard or shrimp paste getting into their food? I hope not. The fact that people might not accommodate a visitor's diet restrictions, however, is a completely valid and important point, and if it can be stated with greater clarity, please go ahead and do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really talking about religious reasons. I find that people who have religious dietary restrictions tend to be more aware of the fact that their diet is their own responsibility and that not everyone understands it, while people who are vegetarians for other reasons often seem to think that saying "I'm vegetarian" should always be enough, refusing food on those grounds should not be an issue for other parties even in a home setting where the foreigner (the vegetarian) is the guest, become indignant when staff seem unable to accommodate or understand why they're "so picky", etc. In the end one's vegetarianism, regardless of reason, is their OWN responsibility, so if it's important to them, they should do their research to AVOID some of the situations that this article suggests are either possibly difficult (like the home setting) or not really a problem even though it often is (like having a pow wow with restaurant staff just to figure out what you can eat).

Of course wording is important, and if the idea of hiatus is brought up, it should be said with something regarding personal consideration of what it would mean to you to "leave it at home" rather than a firm suggestion and perhaps insert any appropriate terms for this kind of person if they fit, as you suggested. Still, I find that a lot of vegetarian writings, including this page, tend to focus a lot on ME, ME, ME and what everyone else can do for me with not enough focus on how difficult, frustrating, and offensive they really can be for those they interact with. An Australian woman in Vietnam getting indignant with staff because the food they recommended was not vegetarian even after she "explained" it to them, even to the point of using the silly phrase, "It's not a choice! It's a lifestyle!" (it happened) is extremely rude and ignorant. I have seen similar behavior in Japan. Meanwhile, staff are trying their best to understand the customer as they're getting yelled at and insulted. Host family situations are probably out-of-scope, but a lot of vegetarians who do homestays in Japan report that their families were accommodating and they leave with good memories but would probably be quite sad to learn how much the families complained about them to everyone including the exchange organization and were very happy to see them leave. Of course they don't let the student know, but it's one of the most common complaints from host families.

In many places, the option of being vegetarian would only be possible for the privileged, which is why most non-religious vegetarians are found in wealthy countries and vegetarianism is relatively (or completely) unheard of in many developing countries. It's something that I think the traveler ought to give some thought to prior to fussing and throwing tantrums abroad and acting like places that cannot accommodate them are "backwards" or "discriminatory". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining further. A lot of what you're describing reminds me of the complaints friends of mine in the food industry have about people who have no good health reason to avoid gluten but make a lot of trouble for restaurant staff because they've decided to selectively, sometimes avoid gluten for no good reason (and then eat some of the bread in the bread basket or order pasta). But what it really amounts to is bad behavior, and I seriously doubt anything we put in an article is going to cause assholes to behave like nice, considerate people. I get your point, though: If you're vegetarian not because of a firmly held religious or ethical belief, nor on the advice of a doctor that any amount of animal products would threaten your health, then yes, you should consider relaxing your usual dietary restrictions while you're in situations in which strict vegetarianism would be difficult. So go ahead and write something that's carefully phrased to deal with people whose vegetarian diet is not really fundamental to their identity but just a preference. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

To your more general points: I think it's bad if our articles ignore the difficulties of hosts while concentrating only on the convenience of the visitor. Please discuss this with some specifics in the talk pages of other articles where you find this to be a problem, or if there are too many such articles, start a thread in the Pub with links to all the articles where you think that's a problem. We should be encouraging responsible tourism, not assholery or inconsideration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I took a stab at altering the previous tone in certain sections to try and emphasize some of the feelings I and you have listed above however, I'm unsure about exactly where or how to add the information about the "hiatus". It kind of relates to the cultural but kind of feels like it should get its own section. As another note, veganism should be a separate heading, because advice to vegans should be strong regarding how they can expect cultural interactions to go. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought you did a good job, so I'd say, keep going with whatever else (within reason, of course) you would like to say. If it gets too long or too pointed, it can always be edited. If you'd rather do some further work in your sandbox or by putting proposed new text here for discussion, those are options open to you, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I DO like the additions by ChubbyWimbus a lot. They make complete sense and bring more balance to the article. Being confronted with a situation when one has to decide between breaking "own inner rules / standards" and possibly hurting or offending guests is a frequent moment in a life of a vegetarian. Sometimes choosing a less self-centered approach and relax a bit in own dietary requirements is a great recommendation. Danapit (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

(indent) Okay, I've added the suggestion of taking a break with some of what I've seen/heard from vegetarians who have done it as well as some of my own thoughts. Please let me know what you think and any suggestions for improving/altering it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I appreciate your doing this. I'm content to think about your remarks without jumping to any quick conclusions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Check later: http://www.ridiculouslyextraordinary.com/how-to-travel-as-a-vegan/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another one: https://www.fluentin3months.com/travelling-vegetarian/ —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so the text below this image in the article says they are green and red, but to me they look green and brown. Is it me not wearing my glasses or what's the issue here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Hobbitschuster: It's pretty brown to me and I don't have color blindness. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Brown :) Danapit (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another travel guide has Mapped: The most vegetarian-friendly countries in the world. I think they are dead wrong on some of it (for example Pakistan has lots of vegetarian food but they rate it in the lowest category), but can some of their data be used to improve our article? Pashley (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe for inspiration. I agree that the metrics are a bit suspect but it's a good idea to hi-lite vegetarianism globally with a visual. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I also think they're wrong about Malaysia. There may be a fair number of vegetarians there, so you can get vegetarian home cooking if you know some of them, I suppose, but it's likely to be quite hard to find vegetarian food outside of cities that have South Indian restaurants, as Malay food typically includes belacan or little dried shrimps in vegetable dishes, and the little shrimps are common in Chinese restaurants, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why is Melbourne in the In the West section? We are not a western country and I don't think we would be anytime soon. SHB2000 (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is Melbourne in a high income secular/Christian country that was on the US's side during the Cold War? If yes, then it is in one very common definition of "The West" Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

That was a long time ago, the only city that I'd consider in Australia as "western" is Adelaide. SHB2000 (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not Perth? ;-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe w:Gina Rinehart ;) SHB2000 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Chinese character 齋 (zhāi), identified on the page as the most common sign at vegetarian restaurants in Taiwan, is incorrect. While the translation is accurate, the most commonly used signage by far is 素食 (sùshí) or simply 素 (sù). Additionally, these signs are typically green, although this is not always the case. —The preceding comment was added by 119.2.104.123 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end, and if you know something is wrong, please edit accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The error is a picture file. I don't know how to change it. 119.2.104.123 17:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I understand. But you can change the caption on it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

But, it's not the caption that is incorrect, but the Chinese character. 119.2.104.123 17:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's not what you posted above. Are you saying it would be better to delete the thumbnail than to say that this is one way to identify vegetarian restaurants but not the most common one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is best to change the character in the thumbnail as the one presently shown, while not in accurate, is probably displayed in no more than 1 or 2% or vegetarian restaurants. Apologies if my explanation was unclear. 119.2.104.123 ~ 119.2.104.123 17:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Got it. OK, let's see what some other people think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Thank you. 119.2.104.123 17:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Both 齋 and 素 are used to indicate vegetarian restaurants. 素 is indeed more common in modern standard Mandarin, but 齋 is still standard and widely understood. Alternatively, it's also common for Chinese vegetarian restaurants to use Swastikas in their branding because they're essentially showing that their food conforms to Buddhist philosophy and is suitable for monks and nuns. The dog2 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

So was there a consensus reached? Do we leave the correct, but rarely used character 齋 on the page, or change it to the much more common 素? 119.2.104.123 15:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

齋 is not rare, especially in writing. It's just less common than 素. But that said, in some southern Chinese dialects like Cantonese, 齋 is still the default term for referring to vegetarian food. Even in Mandarin, although less common than 吃素, people will understand you if you say 吃齋. If you want to change it to an image of a shop signboard with 素 though, I have no objections. The dog2 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are already too many pictures, so deleting this image and listing both characters in the written part would seem to solve this problem and help to cut down on the photo wall. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's a sensible suggestion. I'm not so sure there are too many images, though, as much as that they are poorly distributed. I don't have the energy to work on that tonight, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That.s true, but I think the contributor was referring to the character as a visual not as a spoken word. In this respect, 素 is displayed in 99% of vegetarian restaurants. For ease of travelers looking for vegetarian restaurants, I support changing the character currently shown on the page. SingyeDzong (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Sorry, this reply was to .The dog.Reply

On restaurant signage, I think 素 is (much) more common in mainland China and 齋 is more common in Southeast Asia. I can't remember which one I saw more in Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau. For vegetarian travellers in Southeast Asia, I think it's useful to be able to recognize 齋, but that doesn't necessarily mean we need an image of it in this article. ChubbyWimbus's suggestion seems reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In Taiwan, 素 is universally used as signage.. As vegetarianism as a practice and culture only exists in Taiwan and China, there is unlikely to be a standard sign for vegetarian restaurants, in SE Asia, but, as in west, each restaurant will have their own individual signs to indicate that the restaurant is veggie. I’m also ok with deleting the image and including the two Chinese characters in the article, but leaving it as it is not the best option for the traveler seeking out veggie restaurants. SingyeDzong (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm happy to delete the image as well and just list both characters in the text. 素 is common in Singapore too. But in any case, any restaurant that displays either 素 or 齋 is very likely to be a vegetarian restaurant, so both characters are useful for vegetarian tourists to recognise. The dog2 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

We say that "Among countries in which vegetarianism and veganism is not the norm, those in the West tend to be the most accommodating". Is that impression because of our writing this article from a Western perspective? Are there things in the Western vegetarian meals that wouldn't accommodate some Eastern vegetarians or vegans, say a Buddhist monk? –LPfi (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Buddhist monks in the Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese (and historically Japanese) traditions also can't eat the "five fetid vegetables" because they are said to have aphrodisiac effects that limit one's ability to think clearly. In India, there is this religious group called Jains who cannot consume any root vegetables. So even some Western vegan dishes will not be suitable for them. The dog2 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I added a note on those issues. –LPfi (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should conflate the Buddhist or Jain diets with "vegetarian". The reason the Buddhist diet was mentioned in the first place was because all Buddhist food can be eaten by vegetarians not because the Buddhist diet is actually the same as the vegetarian diet. It's a separate diet that is unrelated to how accommodating anyplace (in this case, the West) is for vegetarians. This article is not meant to help Buddhists or Jains; it is for vegetarians. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In Singapore, restaurants selling Mahayana Buddhist cuisine are advertised as "vegetarian". Also, the meaning of the term differs between the West and some Asian countries. In the West, "vegetarian" by default means ovo-lacto vegetarian (i.e. eggs and dairy products permitted), but in India eggs are considered non-vegetarian. The dog2 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, just that it's best to keep the article focused on the broader and secular "vegetarian" given that it's an overview article and most of the readership will likely understand "vegetarian" in those terms. The article is not titled "Travel as a Buddhist", so we should be mindful to avoid shifting focus or perspective to such a specific type of traveler when the article is not meant to be so exclusive and most of our readers will not likely come with the belief that vegetarian=Buddhist. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Of course they won't. But as long as we don't have the Buddhist article, I think this is a good way to help travellers who follow a Buddhist diet (I suppose that some Western vegetarians actually do that), or who invite somebody who does. When it can be done in just a few sentences, I don't see it shifting the article's focus. –LPfi (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Also, to add some nuance here, not all Buddhists are vegetarians. Vegetarianism (and avoidance of the "five fetid vegetables") is only required for monks and nuns in the Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and historically Japanese traditions (though this was abolished in Japan during the Meiji Period). There's no specific dietary laws that lay Buddhists are mandated to follow, unlike in say, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or Jainism, although some lay followers follow the monastic dietary rules as a matter of personal choice, and it is encouraged by religious leaders. Others may adopt the monastic vegetarian diet for specific festivals such as Vesak Day of Guan Yin's birthday. In Theravada Buddhism, monks are required to eat whatever is offered to them during their alms rounds, and they're not allowed to touch money, so there is no vegetarian requirement for them. Tibetan Buddhist monks also eat meat because the harsh climate makes vegetarianism impossible.

Also, people who follow the Chinese Buddhist monastic diet typically just describe themselves as vegetarians. At least in Singapore and Malaysia, if you go to a Chinese vegetarian restaurant or food stall, the expectation is that it will only sell food that is suitable for Chinese Buddhist monks to consume. An Indian vegetarian restaurant will be suitable for Hindu vegetarians, which means no eggs, but may not be suitable for Chinese Buddhist monks, and that's something that is generally understood by us locals, though tourists might not. Not all Hindus are vegetarian, but if an Indian tells you that he is a vegetarian, you should by default assume that he does not eat eggs. The dog2 (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

As somewhat of a reply to User:ChubbyWimbus: There are at least tens if not hundreds of millions of Hindu vegetarians, many of whom read English, so I think this article absolutely should do its best to accommodate them and not just "secular vegetarian" people. If there are large numbers of English-reading Buddhist vegetarians, we should do our best to accommodate them, too.

I'd draw the line for now at trying to fully accommodate strict Jains, though, as I doubt we will be able to cover the availability of their diet around the world very well. Though if some person or people are experts and can serve Jain travelers effectively, super! Kosher-observant Jews are not a very large minority on a worldwide basis, but kosher-observant travelers are a niche that I'm very happy we are starting to help more, due to recent edits to the Kashrut article by a couple of knowledgeable people, and if some folks ultimately arise to serve Jain travelers in a similar way, that would only be beneficial for the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The number of Hindus, Jains, or Jews is irrelevant to the point that this is a vegetarian article. Overlap doesn't make them the same. You present the Kashrut article as if anything I said suggests I would oppose it. On the contrary, that's the kind of article we SHOULD have if we are serious about serving travelers who are religious Jews. Would you want the Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and other religious diets to be given focus in the Kashrut article because "they're all religious diets"? I doubt it, because that would cloud or shift the focus of the article. Just like all religious diets shouldn't be mashed into the Kashrut article nor should all diets with animal consumption restrictions be mashed into the vegetarian article. The Kashrut article is focused on the diet that the title states. It would be easy for someone with knowledge about eating Kosher to contribute to the article, and a traveler who follows this diet would likely feel more comfortable knowing this article is written directly with them in mind. I don't see why the vegetarian article should not be treated the same.

It would best serve a vegetarian to have a vegetarian article where vegetarians are the focus. The Hindu traveler would be best served by an article written for them that is mindful of their religious convictions and actually addresses their specific dietary needs and struggles. "Vegan" redirects here, but they are not actually given focus here either. A vegan would have to sift through a lot of irrelevant vegetarian information to try and glean anything from this article and their trust level in the usefulness of this article should be low given how the content is addressed to the titular vegetarians. To try and cover vegetarians and vegans and Buddhists and Hindus in one article sounds like an article without purpose or focus that is not likely to help any of them in any meaningful way. As someone mentioned, "one sentence doesn't change the focus", but one sentence also isn't a serious attempt to serve religious travelers with dietary restrictions. It's mostly just trivia for non-practitioners. If someone has genuine interest or experience that they can offer traveling on a Hindu diet, it would make a nice article, or if no one actually knows enough to create those articles, a Dietary restrictions article could be a place to link articles we have and incubate articles we'd like to have, such as Hindu/Buddhist/Halal/Vegan/etc (I'm surprised we don't have a Halal article), so that we could accumulate helpful information for those groups while keeping this article for secular vegetarians (aka: free of religious explanations, free of religious exceptions, and free of additional religious restrictions that go beyond the basic definition of "vegetarian". All of which would be necessary if we were serious about including religious diets). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is another procedure we use on this site, though, which is to start coverage of closely related topics as sections in the most relevant article and then spin them off. The only thing is, the articles on Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism might be the most relevant articles for what we're discussing, but that's by no means a slam dunk, considering the number and prevalence of vegetarians and high visibility of veg vs. non-veg food as categories in India, such that non-veg is a marked category there while "vegetarian" remains a marked category in Western countries I've been to. And the title of this article is Travel as a vegetarian, not "Travel as a Western, secular vegetarian whose diet is such only because of non-religious ethical or health reasons." You're assuming the cultural context and reasons for vegetarianism are the default for our readers, but I don't know if you're correct, and otherwise don't think that has to be the case or will be for all time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Like the Kashrut article, this article should have a perspective though, so that a reader knows who it is for and editors know who they are supposed to address and whether people like it or not, the perspective is already secular Western vegetarians. It developed organically with edits from many editors in a way that has consistently addressed secular vegetarians but not Hindus or Buddhists and passively mentions vegans a few times. That is not my opinion or my assumption; it may be of use to Hindus due to overlap but it is clearly not written for Hindus. If Hinduism or Buddhism (even veganism) were going to be incubated here, they should have their own subheadings separate from the main portion that is secular where actual religious restrictions with reasoning, like the Sattvic diet and guna, could be addressed in a way that isn't awkward or disruptive to the main article. At the moment, this entire conversation is hypothetical, because no one involved follows these diets and we've never had a Hindu, Buddhist, or even vegan make any attempts to add to or reform the article to make it address their diets specifically. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it's somewhat hypothetical; I'm just saying that the title of the article does not preclude it going in that direction, and furthermore, that that would be only good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that this article should include any sort of non-meat-eating diet that a traveler might have, no matter what their reason is. I literally don't care if they stopped eating meat because they got that tick-related alpha gal meat allergy, if their family is trying to pretend their way into higher social status in the Indian caste system, or because of their devoutly held personal philosophy, or anything else. If you don't eat meat, then IMO this article should say something relevant to you.

I don't think that we should say that "the West" is better at accommodating vegetarians. I don't think that's true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting this discussion back to the central issue. Yes, I think India (and probably Nepal, but I haven't been there, and Sri Lanka) is much easier for vegetarians - at least lacto-vegetarians - than the West. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

From the article: "However, in Vietnam, fish sauce is often served to the side rather than mixed into the dish, so you can easily avoid pouring it into your dish." User:Faster than Thunder and others: how sure are you that this isn't optional additional fish sauce, and that there wasn't already some fish sauce in the dish as a cooking ingredient? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

After checking with AI, I found that fish sauce is often served to the side or substituted if you order something vegetarian, but it may be wise to still ask. Faster than Thunder (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't trust AI on this. What we need to know is how common it is to use fish sauce as a basic ingredient in sauces and dishes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

AI is not a source, let alone a reliable one. //shb (t | c | m) 03:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any objection to reverting to the status quo ante unless we have firm confirmation from someone who really knows the answer? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply