Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Raw veganism redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Raw veganism page were merged into Raw foodism#Raw veganism on August 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
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)
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)
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: [1] 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)
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 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)
- 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)
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.
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)
- 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)
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 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)
doesn't relate to raw veganism, but rather vegnism in genral Hawaiisunfun ( talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Raw veganism redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Raw veganism page were merged into Raw foodism#Raw veganism on August 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
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)
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)
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: [1] 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)
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 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)
- 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)
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.
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)
- 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)
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 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)
doesn't relate to raw veganism, but rather vegnism in genral Hawaiisunfun ( talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)