Talk:Monotrophic diet

Owsley
I added material on Owsley Stanley, likely the best-known advocate of a carnivorous diet, and User:Psychologist Guy deleted it all with the edit comment "none of those sources are reliable". This strikes me as absurd; if quoting the man's own writing is not a reliable indicator of his views, what would be?

If you must have secondary sources, try Rolling Stone Owsley Stanley: The King of LSD or the Atlantic 'King of LSD' Owsley Stanley's Colorful Legacy. Both discuss his views on diet, but that is not the focus of either article so I used more direct references.

I want to restore the material, but am seeking comment first. Pashley (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You are adding unreliable sources, for example you added a carnivore wordpress website "zerocarbzen" (you also added eatmeatdrinkwater.files.wordpress) operated by a deranged person . Those are not reliable sources for Wikipedia and that is bad editing to be adding this kind of material. The Owsley Stanley Wikipedia article also has a line about his diet. If such material is to be mentioned here than a reliable source must be added. I have no objection to well sourced content. But c'mon adding carnivore diet blogs is a clear no. Any experienced user will tell you that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have restored the paragraph, replacing the links and quotes you objected to with ones from Owsley's own website; I hope that fixes your objection.
 * I am an experienced user & consider adding links to the man's own writings, wherever they may be stored, entirely legitimate. In my opinion, the link to his collected forum posts and some of the quotes from it should be restored. Pashley (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Carnivore diet RS?
Is there a reliable source saying that "the carnivore diet" is monotrophic? I looked at the existing sources, and none of them mentioned monotrophy (and on the face of it, "all animal food" is obviously no more monotrophic than "all plant food").

If there isn't a suitable RS, then we cannot include "carnivore diet" here. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There are no sources that describe fruitarianism or the carnivore as "monotrophic". These diets were never originally on this article but were added later. If we are strict about the guidelines then I would agree that the content should be removed per our original research guidelines. The carnivore diet should have its own Wikipedia article as the diet does have some history. Unfortunately a few sock-puppets and troll accounts have been messing around on Wikipedia and obsessing over that topic going back a few years (even on this talk-page). The carnivore thing, it seems to be a magnet for attracting idiots and POV warriors but there are enough reliable sources to establish an article. I wouldn't mind starting the article but I can't create it until a few days because I am busy. So in summary I would recommend keeping the content for now and moving it in a few days. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether "carnivore diet" deserves its own article, the section cannot remain here without a reliable source describing "the carnivore diet" as monotrophic. The same goes for fruitarianism if that's the case. &mdash;Ashley Y 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair play, I agree that the content should be removed. I am not a fan of original research, I don't think we should makes exceptions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

could you please provide reliable sources for carnivore diet and fruitarianism being monotrophic? Otherwise we cannot have the sections in the article. &mdash;Ashley Y 22:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure about fruit, but back in the day it was decided that carnivore diet would be WP:BLARed here. If the content were then blanked my concern is that it would be a kind of stealth deletion storing up future trouble. Perhaps we could think of a broader title for this article or widen its scope with a hatnote? ("this article is about monotrophic diets and diets restricted to single food types"?) BTW, Healthline is a reasonable source which lists these diets as variations of the mono diet. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, that just raises more questions... What counts as a "food type" or "food group"? And does "the carnivore diet" include eggs and milk, or is it strictly meat? Also, why was it BLARed here and not to, say, low-carbohydrate diet? The Healthline article is also vague about whether "the mono diet" means one type of food for the whole diet, or one type of food per day, or one type of food per meal.


 * What does the Guthrie source say? Google Books was no help when I searched it. &mdash;Ashley Y 14:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Also... I'm looking at Healthline and this does not look like a reliable source to me. &mdash;Ashley Y 17:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends what for. MEDRS it ain't, but this diet category claim is mundane. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not even regular RS, and it's a mess of an article. This isn't enough to keep the carnivore diet and fruitarianism here. And "we needed to put deleted content from carnivore diet somewhere" also isn't a good justification for inclusion. Why not just move it to low-carbohydrate diet? It'd fit quite neatly next to the "ketogenic diet" section. Probably we can find a suitable place for fruitarianism too. &mdash;Ashley Y 18:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They're types of monotrophic diet. It's not like anything in this space has superdecent sourcing, since we're in la-la land anyway. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have reliable sourcing for that rather dubious claim. But if you think the subject matter as a whole lacks sourcing, we should put the article up for AfD, right? &mdash;Ashley Y 19:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to try. Sourcing is probably just good enough to keep something. Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe enough to keep the rest of it, but can we at least move "carnivore diet" to low-carbohydrate diet? Not sure what to do with fruitarianism tbh. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that would be completely inappropriate. We have several superdecent sources describing what a low-carb diet is (within a range of views), and they don't say it's just eating meat. Bon courage (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The carnivore diet is an example of a low-carbohydrate diet, just like Atkins diet, ketogenic diet etc., which that article already mentions. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of things can be forced into categories via novel editorial thought. Wikipedia follows mainstream definitions as found in RS. Bon courage (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly! There are plenty of reliable sources saying that the carnivore diet is low-carb, e.g. BBC Science Focus, National Post, and that's just a few minutes of googling. There aren't any reliable sources saying that it's monotrophic. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There was Healthline, with is fine for saying the carnivore diet is a mono one. And none of those sources you list wrt the LC diet can counter the MEDRS we're using (precisely on the topic of definition) at the LC article. I suggest you need to think quite what you want to achieve and propose some course of action in a RfC or something. I don't have anything more to add. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Healthline is a dubious source, as explained in Healthline, and the article is vague about what "the carnivore diet" means and what "monotrophic" means. My two proposals are simply to remove "the carnivore diet" and "fruitarianism" from this article, given that neither have reliable sourcing to be here. Whether carnivore diet material gets added to low-carbohydrate diet, or put in its own article as Psychologist Guy suggested, or left out entirely, is a separate matter. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand you're going ahead with a separate article, is that correct? This would solve the sourcing issue here. &mdash;Ashley Y 20:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I will create the separate article on Saturday so hopefully it will solve issues here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)