` :::: ``the interpretation does exist out there in the world, perhaps only or primarily among pescetarians and non-vegetarians.``-Angr - That there is a group of people misusing a term does not make their use of it valid, or reflect a meaningful contribution to what constitutes ``vegetarian``. Evolution does not mention in its lead-in that it is considered an evil plot by atheist scientists to deny creationism, and that this view has equal weight as that of biologists. I do not believe NPOV necessitates taking a middle ground between a correct and a wrong interpretation. Vegetarianism has an established meaning: specifically, a diet that excludes all animal flesh. As a linguistic shorthand, some view vegetarianism as being additive, being ``a lot of plant food``, which then easily leads to the conclusion that eating lots of fruits and vegetables and fish means one is a ``vegetarian plus fish-eater``. However, vegetarianism in its intent and most common usage is exclusionary: it's the deliberate choice not to eat meat. By all means, pescetarianism should be listed as a semi-vegetarian diet, and there may certainly be room in the article below to discuss how the word vegetarian is at times misunderstood because of this. But the demonstrably erroneous use of ``vegetarian`` as ``may eat fish`` is a clear misuse of the term and it does readers a disservice to promote and perpetuate it in the article. It's not a matter of it being a majority vs minority opinion. It's a matter of it being the correct usage. If vegetarian is to mean ``eats however much meat they like``, then it is meaningless, because its only reason to exist as a word is to distinguish those who eat meat from those who don't. ``Some people think vegetarians eat fish`` does not mean some vegetarians eat fish, or fish can be part of a vegetarian diet; it means some people don't understand what ``vegetarian`` means. NPOV would be asserting that fish-eating or meat-eating is bad, a view many vegetarians would support. Stating that vegetarians don't eat fish is not NPOV, it's simply accurate; not a value-judgement about fish-eating. So there is no need or justification to conflate readers' understanding by lending any credence to a misuse of the word by including it in the article header, anymore than the article on Energy needs to discuss New-Age concepts of personal energy fields. It's a minor side-issue and should be treated as such; the article currently addresses it well enough along with the other semi-veg diets.   `