Talk:Raw veganism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Dmusheye.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

too heavily focused on the consequences - i.e. this page is biased!

These are not important pieces of information. What is important is the 118F and how some people believe in not cooking at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7780:E47:251C:639E:B0F7:409C (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes - I fixed that. I added the 118F and believe I added about the not cooking at all too. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

" raw vegan diet one of the "top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018", is opinion, shouldn't be in the article Hawaiisunfun (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It is reliable source from the British Dietetic Association. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Tag added: Page needs MEDRS

This page concerns health and dietary issues and therefore falls under WP:MEDRS, a heightened set of standards for the reliability of sources. It appears that the sources in this article do not meet the standards of MEDRS.

For example, as evidence of duckweed's B12 content, the article cites an industry website regarding testing results for Parabel's water lentils: Although the website states that it is citing the results of independent reports that Parabel commissioned, such independent reports are primary sources and have not been summarized and filtered via non-industry meta-analyses. (So they are low-quality per WP:MEDASSESS) These results also do not show that all duckweed contains B12, since they only pertain to Parabel's specific product and do not indicate that the same B12 content will be available in other products farmed using different methods.

Similarly, the citation of Carlo Alvaro, a moral philosopher, is not sufficient to meet MEDRS. (Edit: I removed the Alvaro citation because I think it's sufficiently uncontroversial to do so)

Also, the section on contamination may violate WP:SYNTH as it cites several sources regarding the health risks of raw food, but the sources are not specifically about raw veganism.

Edit: more importantly than the quality of the sources, the article lacks the MEDRS sources needed to make it a substantive article. We need more information on raw veganism's risks and benefits from MEDRS sources.

I hope a Wikipedian with more experience in medical topics can help find better sources to fix up the article. Jancarcu (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - I see what you mean - I just put something to write down what I could and then had to go back and find the primary sources, which I did. Thanks for not deleting my work while I was in the middle of progress and just marked it instead. It's fixed now and I removed the mark. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

For the health risks of raw food - I didn't originally put in the health risks, someone else did. Out of fear of the article getting too big that it gets deleted for notability, I condensed what was written before about it into something small - as it's not truly important as the other facts - as you said - specifics about raw veganism. However, I don't believe that the links have to be specifically about raw veganism, as raw vegan food is a part of it. Would you like to help me understand that? I'm trying @jancarcu. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Why was everything about this deleted?Hawaiisunfun (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Need to add back in cooking equipment

It shouldn't be taken out due to a lack of sourcing, as people should look into sourcing it rather than outright removal - it's supposed to be there, as it's part of the article! Now the article formatting looks bad. @zefr Hawaiisunfun (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an oxymoron to suggest 'equipment' for 'raw veganism'; WP:PLUG and WP:OR apply. There won't be credible WP:RS sources. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This article should be redirected to raw foodism. Is there any way we can make that happen? We already have a section there [1], we can just merge any content there. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy - I would support a merge, WP:MERGE, of this article to raw foodism. Requires a merge proposal and vote. Zefr (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will propose this shortly. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not an oxymoron - raw veganism involves cooking at low temperatures. Where's the merge? There's nothing in the raw foodism that shows anything about dehydrators - which is specific to raw veganism. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If you cook food at low temperatures then that is still cooking and the food is no longer raw. Raw veganism is a vegan diet with no cooking at all and hardly anyone in history has ever practiced this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

- that is not the definition of it, and is unsupported. The official temperature used by the medical field is 118F, so there's a cutoff between what is cooked and what isn't, as otherwise just being at room temperature insinuates that it's being cooked. The Maillard reaction can occur in the body, so technically our body 'cooks' food. This is just the definition used, so a temperature needs to go into the article. Otherwise anything can be considered 'cooked'.Hawaiisunfun (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You are unfamiliar with the history of raw foodism. The very definition of raw foodism is simple. It is a diet consisting of uncooked foods, no cooking at all. There is no "official temperature used by the medical field" you are talking nonsense. There has never been a universal agreed definition of cooked food temperature although above 60°C and the bacteria start to die. All foods are different and cook different. Only crackpot raw food websites talk about not heating food beyond 118F (48°C) because they claim it destroys enzymes in food. This idea is already mentioned on the raw foodism article in the "claims" section. But this idea to cook food not beyond 118F is a later idea, the earliest advocates of raw foodism never proposed this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

How is the NIH a 'crackpot raw food website'? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3635096/. That's what I use, if not univerisities: http://www.tcmjmed.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=276129#ref3. Even they use 118F. If early advocates never proposed this, why not add that in? We can't have conflicting information, but you don't take out something that's true out of opinion - just add your info and not delete mine. If you feel that what I wrote is true, then please add it back in and also write in yours. I'm tired of writing and having my stuff deleted unjustifiably. It's an ad hominem that just because it's on crackpot websites doesn't make it incorrect.

I'm adding the health benefits section, as it's not "POV" to delete, that's biased. If you have a legitimate reason, then you could delete. I'll remove the part about the enzymes, but the rest stays. The part about the chemicals, I'll add to raw foodism to compromise. If there's anything else, let me know. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's 'quack', then why is it on the raw foodism page? So it should be here to match.

history section

should have more info before 1918, as it didn't start then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaiisunfun (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There are examples of raw vegetarians but hardly any raw vegans from the past. Vera Richter's book Mrs. Richter's Cook-Less Book is a vegetarian book because on page 35 she talks about making a mayonnaise dressing with eggs and many of her recipes use honey. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

- if it's about honey and eggs, why is it in a raw vegan article? Hawaiisunfun (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is a cookbook that has non-vegan food in an article about raw veganism, yet info about raw veganism isn't? Yes - Australopithecus's diet was a seed/soft fruit based one. So it goes back for millions of years. Could we add that in?Hawaiisunfun (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the Australopithecus diet was not raw vegan it was a plant based diet with occasional meat i.e. small vertebrates, like lizards and insects [2]. It is very rare to find a raw vegan throughout history. Over the years I have found many historical examples of vegans but when you dig deeper they turn out to be vegetarian because they were consuming dairy, eggs or honey. Most of the raw foodists from the early 20th century like George J. Drews or Eugene Christian were not vegan. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The article linked is most definitely not a justification that the Australopithecenes ate animals, because it says 'probably' - so it's not 100% sure. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/97/25/13506.full.pdf is a scientific article. It says it couldn't eat animals, as it wasn't designed for that. They ate soft fruit, leaves, shoots, and flowers. "another tough pliant food they would have had difficulty processing is meat. In other words, the early hominids were not dentally preadapted to eat meat—they simply did not have the sharp, reciprocally concave shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods." Hawaiisunfun (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - it's true that most people who were supposedly raw vegans couldn't do it, and it's likely due to a lack of B12. I would say that it would be beneficial to add the attempts at it in the past, and its shortcomings - as it's part of the history of raw veganism - I just worry if we add that, then there are worries that it'll be removed for notability.Hawaiisunfun (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing on the rise of raw veganism as a health food trend?

Nothing about youtubers with raw veganism, how it worked and didn't? I'd assume that's what would give it notability.Hawaiisunfun (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

i'm removing 'Research on vegan diets' section

doesn't relate to raw veganism, but rather vegnism in genralHawaiisunfun (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

let's add a section on the raw vegan trends due to social media like yotube and its effects

should we add this? talk about rise of raw vegan youtubers, like rawvana and fullyraw to show how long people last in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaiisunfun (talk • contribs) 22:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

proposal for adding what foods are on a raw vegan diet.

it's realky confusing based on the article which foods are raw vegan and which are not. needs to talk about 118f and uncooked food and that it's plant-based food and even fungi, like nutritional yeast. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaiisunfun (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to create an article that is usable. Why are you trolling me instead of helping me out?Hawaiisunfun (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing a merge of this article to raw foodism. We already have a section on raw veganism on that article, we do not need two separate articles with the same content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. As a subcategory of raw foodism, raw veganism logically should be part of the larger category which is better sourced and a more complete article for the general user. Further, the raw veganism article is poorly sourced, with sparse WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS review literature available, indicating that it has little room to grow on its own. Zefr (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Would make better sense per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The sources for raw foodism in general are more plentiful than sources for raw veganism specifically. It would make the articles more manageable and also fit from a notability/due weight standpoint. Jancarcu (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Don't Support. it's already referenced there and has enough information to be its own article. If it's an issue about being referenced in two different places, maybe just remove the reference in the raw foodism article and just place it at the end, like 'see raw veganism'. I also updated the raw veganism article, to add more information. I just believe too many people took too much useful info out of it and kept really poor information with not useful references, and I worry it's to justify the merger rather it be an objective move. I just worry if people look for raw veganism, it's not going to be there, which makes it kind of disappear from the site. Who's really going to look at the raw foodism article for it? So the issues are really with the poor management of this article, rather than the real need for it to be moved. Let's get that right and then think about moving. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I agree that the target article is more complete (for instance this one doesn't mention that cooking can reduce the toxicity of some common foods). —PaleoNeonate – 21:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at the raw foodism article and placing raw veganism within it is going to be confusing, due to the sections here being in two different places (like the history section and health effects).2600:6C51:7780:E47:4CF3:5548:952B:2063 (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

why were all my revisions pulled?

They had medical articles and are legitimate. What's put back is info that isn't really useful. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not improving the article. You have been told about WP:MEDRS but you ignore it. Adding primary papers like this [3] are not reliable for medical content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I added from the introduction section, so that part's a secondary source. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "In some fields, a secondary source may include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of a scientific paper" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source. Please don't remove it unless it's legitimate. I keep saying that - and when you do, it seems you're doing so out of bias.

The "secondary" parts of primary sources are best avoided, as they almost invariably serve up a novel context to make the research look good. If there's not a proper MEDRS for any non-trivial medical claim, it should not be included, as we are meant to be summarizing accepted knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

thanks for providing an answer. I'm not 'spamming' the talk page, but asking questions that don't get answers, which only leads to more questions. If it says people can use "secondary" parts of primary sources, then why does WP says to do it? Since I'm not getting this right, what's an example of what to use?Hawaiisunfun (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Find the WP:BESTSOURCES and summarize. For health content, as MEDRS says: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies.". Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)