User talk:Vorlon19

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]]  Introduction
 * 5     The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|23px]]  Tips
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app kedit.png|23px]]  Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps konquest.png|23px]]  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a request please
When you edit the article Raw_foodism would you please put more in the edit summary instead of just the word 'edit'? If you explain briefly what it is you are adding/subtracting it would help with understanding what it is you are doing. Very much appreciated, happy editing, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, when you respond to editors or add comments on the talk page, could you post your responses and comments in the proper sections, creating new sections when necessary. This makes it easier to sort through the lengthy discussions that are taking place. Also, when you respond to an editor, it is common practice to insert an extra space before the response, using a colon ":". Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Loki, when you reply to a comment, could you please put a space and a colon? If there were two colons in the comment you are replying to, put three for yours and so on. Also, try to make new sections in talk page for new talking points with the 'level two headline' (the big A above). -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help me write "Raw meat" section at Raw foodism
Hi Loki, I would like your input on writing the raw meat section I've just created. I think it's important to distinguish between the raw vegans and the raw meat eaters in the article. Thanks in advance! -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Aajonus Vonderplanitz
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aajonus Vonderplanitz, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Aajonus_Vonderplanitz. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Aajonus Vonderplanitz
A tag has been placed on Aajonus Vonderplanitz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. – Sadalmelik ☎ 13:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedies
It looks like things have been temporarily resolved at that article, but I think if I were you, I'd copy the article to my own computer just in case it gets deleted at AfD before you have time to properly expand it.

In the future, you might try starting such articles in your userspace (using a WP:Subpage). Then you can develop them more slowly, without someone trying to review the article for deletion before you get the references added. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice. I hadn't known about creating a stub on my userspace.Loki0115 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It can be very useful.  A lot of editors have a /Sandbox page for general playing-around with (checking formatting, for example).  If you write something that turns into a real article, then you can use the "Move" tab to move it to the main namespace.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced passages
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Paleolithic diet
Hi Loki, thank you for your contributions. Can you provide a reliable source for: "though some adherents choose to follow a raw version of the Palaeolithic Diet." I am not aware of any notable Paleolithic diet proponents who advocate the consumption of raw paleolithic foods over cooked ones. Cheers, Thermoproteus (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some forums catering for those specifically following a raw version of the Palaeolithic Diet:-

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rawpaleodiet/

http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/

Here's an article :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-raw-meat-diet-do-you-have-the-stomach-for-the-latest-celebrity-food-fad-493908.html

(I should add that rawpaleodieters also use the term "raw meat diet" or "raw animal food diet" to refer to their diet).

It can be a bit confusing as the term "Raw paleolithic diet" is also, occasionally, misused by a few people who eat a rawpalaeo diet but also consume raw dairy, but the above websites are for those following a non-dairy version.

Oh, and here's a websites' resume covering the issue:-

"Several of the primary advocates of the partially-cooked Paleolithic, Caveman, Neanderthin, and Paleothin diets, as well as the Atkins diet, have stated that one improvement which could be made to their systems would be to find high-quality meats and eat them raw rather than lightly cooked. It is becoming known in the raw-foods world that some followers of the Paleolithic, Atkins and Zone diets eat all-raw versions of those diets; such diets include raw animal products, but the "purist" Paleo diets exclude raw dairy, while the Zone diet and the Atkins diet include it." taken from:-

http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/rvaf-overview.html

Loki0115 (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Loki, the Independent article doesn't mention the "Paleolithic/Caveman/Stone Age/hunter-gatherer diet" and the other websites are self-published sources. You need a third-party reliable reference indicating that these sites are notable. --Thermoproteus (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point; "raw palaeolithic dieters" also refer to their diet by a number of different alternate terms(such as "raw meat diet", as mentioned specifically in the Independent on Sunday article). Loki0115 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the Independant article does not mention that "raw palaeolithic dieters" also refer to their diet by a number of different alternate terms, such as "raw meat diet". The standard in wikipedia is "verifiability" and "notability", which has not been established. --Thermoproteus (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the Independent article refers to raw, paleolithic dieters or as "raw meat dieters" - it's made clear on a number of rawpalaeo websites/forums that  the terms are used to describe the same group of people. The fact that the Independent choose to use only 1 of the types of official description doesn't change that as it's still referring to the same group of people. Besides, a rather obvious clue is given by the fact that the 1st paragraph refers to raw cavemen:- "Cavemen may have thought nothing of eating the raw flesh of a slaughtered animal, but things have progressed since." Since cavemen lived in the Palaeolithic, the article makes it clear that it's referring to raw, palaeolithic diets, ipso facto Loki0115 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Loki0115 is correct that editors do not need to turn off their brains. If A=definition C, and B=definition C, then sources referring to both terms can be used.  However, I think that we need a ref for these definitions that is substantially more reliable than e-mail lists and webforums.  Presumably they exist and can be found.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a previous discussion about what could be included on the raw foodism page, and it was stated by the one involved in 3rd-party abritration, that it wasn't necessary to be too precise about exact definitions(at the time someone had suggested that only info about raw foodism should be included in that article, with info on raw foods(general or specific) being excluded and given a different page - this was disagreed with as raw foods are relevant to raw foodism. As regards newspaper articles, there are some on raw, palaeolithic diets, however given that these are journalists who are not raw animal foodists, it's hardly surprising that they use terms which are more self-explanatory to to non-rawists such as "raw meat diet/raw meat diet for humans" rather than "raw, paleolithic diet".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if celebrities such as Uma Thurman and Mel Gibson follow a raw, paleolithic diet, as mentioned in that article(and others) then it's certainly notable enough to mention it, even if other alternative terms are used such as "raw meat diet" toi descirbe their diet. While there are several raw-animal-foodist websites which go into an explanation of the different terms used to describe the same bunch of raw animal foodists/raw paleolithic dieters, there are also some non-rawpalaeo info-sites which discuss the differences, such as this one:- http://www.newtreatments.org/diet.php

or general paleolithic diet resources, such as the archive-/info-website paleodiet.com which mentions that " A small subset of the people eating only raw foods are eating animal foods (RAF). And some of them have put up a resource page for Raw Paleolithic Diets."

I doubt that newspaper journalists are remotely interested in discussing the different terms used as their readers are overwhelmingly non-rawists and wouldn't be interested. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to accept the use of alternate terms which are, anyway, used by rawists and non-rawists alike. Here's one more extract(from a book about meat) which makes it clear that what is being reffered to is a "raw, palaeolithic diet":-

"The main idea behind the Paleo diet is the notion that although we are people of the twenty-first century, genetically we remain citizens of the Paleolithic era. Up until five hundred generations ago, humankind hunted and foraged. We lived on lean protein, wild plants and fruits. But with the agricultural revolution that began some ten thousand years ago, we took an unnatural dietary detour—one consisting of root vegetables, grains and meat from domesticated animals—for which millions of years of evolution hadn’t prepared us. The mismatch between our modern diet and our Paleolithic genes, these scientists argued, sowed the seeds for modern illnesses and chronic disease. Their prescription for health? A return to the cave and a realignment of diet with our ancient genome.

That’s where Vonderplanitz and the Paleo diet types part ways. Ac-cording to Vonderplanitz, not only did we take the wrong turn with invention of the plow and the hoe, but with the taming of fire. "Heating food destroys many health-giving properties and produces disease-causing toxins that accelerate bodily deterioration associated with ag-ing processes," he writes in The Recipe for Living without Disease. "Cooking protein-foods, including all meat, above 104 degrees F pro-duces toxins. Higher cooking temperatures create more dangerous toxins … that have proved to be carcinogenic in laboratory animals." taken from:-

http://meatalovestory.com/excerpt.html


 * Loki, as established by the link above, Aajonus Vonderplanitz is indeed a notable raw foodist and advocate of a dietary system that resembles and is based on the Paleolithic diet (although he alows raw milk). As such, I think it would be appropriate to briefly mention him in the Paleolithic diet section, as well as Joseph Mercola and Ray Mears (author). However, his diet is not striktly speaking "paleo" (re: raw milk) and as such does not constitute an example of a "raw paleolithic diet". The sources presented here fall short of establishing the notability of such a diet. Cheers, Thermoproteus (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The term "raw paleolothic diet", while nearly always used to describe those who follow a raw version of the Paleolithic diet, is also used, on occasion, to refer to the Primal Diet as it is virtually the same, with the sole exception being the raw dairy.

But that's all besides the point. The fact is that plenty of people are following a raw version of the Palaeolithic Diet, celebrities such as Mel Gibson/Uma Thurman etc., so that is most certainly notable. The articles in question may refer to alternate terms such as "raw meat diet", "raw meat diet for humans",but that's fine as rawpaleodieters also use those alternate terms all the time(as evidenced by those websites I mentioned). Expecting a newspaper article to discuss the difference in terminology is too extreme as it's too vague a subject for a newspaper to deal with(especially since its target audeince are non-rawists). Plus, the actual add-on to that sentence is simply a statement of fact, not needing more than a few references to general rawpalaeodiet info-sites, there are no claims re health or whatever. Anyway, I'll discuss this with a more experienced wikipedian than myself and see what his contribution is on this issue.Loki0115 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please read WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:SPS. Cheers, Thermoproteus (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thermoproteus, is it, in your opinion, possible for a person to follow a diet plan that is both paleo and raw? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. --Thermoproteus (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the article Paleolithic diet is actually harmed by mentioning (but not dwelling on) this possibility? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Adherents are free to restrict themselves to 100% raw food if they like, but the diet does not establish such a restriction. That was already made clear in the article. Speaking of a "raw version of the diet" is unnecessary and potentially misleading as it suggests that a variant of the Paleodiet establishes such a restriction. The notability of such a dietary system remains unverified. --Thermoproteus (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that WP:Notability does not restrict the contents of an article? Individual, undisputed facts do not have to prove their notability to comply with Wikipedia's policies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources.... if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. (WP:SPS) --Thermoproteus (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but you have selectively quoted the policy to emphasize your point, and ignored the fundamental point of the policy, which applies to facts that might reasonably be disputed. In this case, nobody seems to challenge the accuracy of the information.  In fact, it's so obvious that there may be no need to provide a source at all:   it's sort of like saying that "Some people who eat animals eat birds."  So leave aside the question of how to prove this non-contentious fact:  proof is not actually needed for undisputed and unchallenged facts.
 * The policy that you need to be arguing from is WP:DUE: From the perspective of Paleolithic diet (not from the perspective of Raw food diet), how important is the overlap between paleo diets with raw food diets?
 * I suspect that the answer is "not very". (Note that "not very" is different from "not at all".)  Does that sound about right to you?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year. I see a difference between:
 * (1) stating that people can eat a raw, paleolithic diet—this is fine, and I can make that clearer in the article if necessary;
 * (2) affirming that some people do eat a raw diet that is based on paleolithic food groups, for whatever reasons, e.g. culture, personal preference, etc.—I believe that this falls in the WP:DUE category as you describe;
 * (3) asserting that some people follow a version of the Paleolithic diet that calls for the restriction of cooked foods, i.e. a seperate dietary system advocated for its supposed superior health benefits or for other well defined reasons—this requires proper verification by at least one non-self-published source.
 * "though some adherents choose to follow a raw version of the diet" implies (2) and strongly suggests (3). That is why I believe this statement should be removed. --Thermoproteus (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you construct an acceptable (to you) sentence (or half of a sentence) that simply acknowledges that some people eat a raw-only or raw-primarily paleo diet, with a link to raw food diet and without details? (I agree that details such as perceived health benefits require a reliable source.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe it's worth mentioning that "some people who eat an Atkins diet eat a raw, Atkins diet" in an article on the Atkins diet? If you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find Atkins adherents who eat their diet all raw. Has Atkins ever stressed that his diet should not be eaten raw? I don't think so. Is a raw food diet compatible with the Atkins diet then? Most probably. But has Atkins ever written about raw food diets, their health benefits or their disadvantages, or about a raw atkins diet? Suppose he hasn't? Do you still think it's relevant to mention that some Atkins adherents eat a raw food diet, whithout having at least one non-self-published source establishing the noteworthiness of such a raw diet? I can assure you that the situation is indentical for the Paleolithic diet. Cheers, Thermoproteus (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) The existence of sources is not really the problem, but since you seem hung up on it, here are quotations from three books: "Some people make a sincere effort to duplicate the raw Paleolithic diet, but it requires a level of dedication few of us will ever have." (ISBN 9780944501153 p. 31) "However, some things that are allowed on your Basic Low-Carb Diet are not allowed on a Paleo Diet, because they wouldn't have been available to cavemen. Ray Audette gives a simple guideline: if you couldn't gather it with a sharp stick and a rock, and eat it raw, it's not on the diet." (ISBN 9781592330409 p. 122) "Our Paleolithic ancestors ate a great variety of natural raw foods..." (ISBN 9781570672040 p.123)

Now can we get past the issue of finding the perfect source to connect a Paleolithic diet with raw foods, and talk about how to briefly acknowledge the occasional intersection of the two diets? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources provided above are self-published. I googled the first book "Everything I Know about Nutrition..." and found no reliable third-party sources that mention the book, only online book stores. Also, it's not clear whether the authors are referring to the ancestral raw Paleolithic diet or to a modern dietary regimen akin to this ancient diet. Regarding the second source, Ray Audette is a notable Paleolithic diet proponent and he does not advocate a raw food diet. In his book "Neanderthin" (ISBN 0312975910), he states that foods must be edible raw, but can be eaten cooked. With regard to the third book, it is true that our Paleolithic ancestors ate a raw food diet before they mastered cooking around 250,000 years ago (maybe earlier), in the Upper Paleolithic. However, the subject-matter of the "Paleolithic diet" article is not ancestral hunter-gatherer dietary patterns, rather the topic of the article is a modern dietary program designed based on past and present hunter-gatherer diets. Furthermore, apart from cautioning against certain cooking methods (microwaving, high-heat frying, etc.), notable proponents of Paleolithic-type diets do not restrict cooked foods. To use an analogy, the Atkins diet may, for example, be inspired by the traditional inuit diet (partially raw diet), but that doesn't mean it's worth mentioning that some adherents eat a raw Atkins diet. For that, you need a reliable source establishing the noteworthiness of such a diet. Again, if necessary, I can make it a bit clearer that the Paleolithic diet does not prohibit the consumption of an all-raw diet, but I believe that it is not worth mentioning that "some adherents choose to follow a raw version of the diet", without proper sourcing, just as the fact that "Some people who eat animals eat birds" is not noteworthy in an article on "animal foods" unless there is something noteworthy about birds (established by proper sourcing) that makes them worthy of mention in that article. Addendum: This source provided by Loki refers to a "raw meat diet", but it's not clear whether it's a "raw paleolithic diet" since the article does not mention whether such a diet also includes raw dairy products and raw grain and legume sprouts and plant oils. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your rejection of the sources is irrelevant. WP:V requires sources solely for quotations and those facts that are challenged or likely to be challenged.  None of those apply.  Wikipedia's policies do not actually require any source at all for this undisputed fact.
 * Your rejection of the information as not being noteworthy is unimportant. We do not have to comply with WP:N's criteria for every single half-sentence in an article.
 * As for your comparison, nobody seems to actually follow a "raw Atkins diet". The term is used occasionally as a (usually degoratory) description (e.g., "That's basically a raw Atkins diet"), and I've found a few sources that talk about animal (cat) foods that way, but when you strip animal references and nonsense pages, Google finds less than twenty pages using that phrase.  By contrast, an otherwise identical searches for "raw paleo diet" and "raw paleolithic diet" find more than twelve thousand (unique) pages.  Raw food diets deserve a (passing) mention in Paleolithic diet simply because it's done and discussed; they do not in Atkins diet because that is not done (or at least not discussed).
 * I'm not at all convinced that the existing sentence is the right one to include. I might suggest something that emphasizes the normality of cooking food on this diet, using raw food diets by way of contrast.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't count webpages with similar content, google turns up 174 pages for "raw paleo diet", and 106 pages for "raw paleolithic diet". I looked at those pages and was unable to find one newspaper or magazine article referring to these terms, only forums, blogs, personal websites, youtube, etc. In fact, 67 of the "raw paleo diet" webpages and 18 of the "raw paleolithic diet" webpages are download pages for a Raw Paleo Diet Forum navigator toolbar . If you don't take these pages into account, that's roughly 100 relevant results for "raw paleo diet" or "raw paleolithic diet". Based on these statistics, I would say that no more than 500 people follow this diet. The "raw paleo diet" does not seem to be much more noteworthy than the "raw Atkins diet". Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to answer Phenylaline's point re raw meat diets. Actually, the very first sentence of that article contains a very clear reference to cavemen eating raw flesh, so it's obvious that it's referring to a "raw, palaeolithic diet". Secondly, Phenylalaline is quite wrong in stating that the Palaeolithic Diet refers, vaguely, to a copying of past and present hunter-gather societies(as that is, actually, what the Weston-Price Diet is all about - I'm sure there's a wikipedia entry on that, somewhere). In fact, the Palaeolithic Diet is a specific reference to the practising of diets followed in the Palaeolithic era(between 2.5 million years ago to 10,000 years ago), before the start of the Neolithic when non-Palaeo foods were introduced. And since cooking was only invented in the tail-end(c.last 10%) of the Palaeolithic era(c.250,000 years ago), some proponents of the Palaeolithic Diet advocate eating raw rather than cooked. So, since a raw,palaeolithic diet also fits in with the definition of what a Palaeolithic Diet is, given the above points, it needs to be mentioned.
 * Loki, I do not think that it is obvious that the reference to cavemen eating raw flesh implies that the diet they are referring to restricts raw milk and raw cereal and legume sprouts. Your other point I addressed above. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Ray Audette stated once that ideally meats could be eaten raw, but that one should avoid raw supermarket meats like the plague. I have his book at home, so will cull the book for relevant quotations, for tomorrow.Loki0115 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While it's only anecdotal, it's been pointed out on some rawpalaeo forums that Dr Atkins once stated that his diet would be healthiest followed in raw form. Dr Atkins also added a positive review/blurb of the raw meat guru Vonderplanitz's book "We Want To Live":- ""Revolutionary! This is an exciting book. An important book." - Dr. Robert Atkins, M.D., author of The Atkins Diet New York City"

I agree, though, that raw, palaeolithic diets should only be mentioned in passing as most people following the Paleolithic Diet do so from a cooked perspective. I would be willing to accept a rewording of that half-sentence, though, personally, I find it already rather minimalist and unobtrusive in tone. I certainly don't think it would be appropriate for health-benefits or much greater details re extra paragraphs to be added, just the fact that there is an alternative (raw) interpretation of the Palaeolithic Diet, nothing more - it is, after all, included within the general Palaeolithic Diet definition.Loki0115 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are the relevant paragraphs in which Ray Audette, the Palaeo guru, mentions the possibility of eating raw meats:-

"According to your theory, shouldn't I eat all my meat raw?" (Audette's reply:- <"In a perfect world, yes>. But modern farming and food processing techniques preclude this practice. Meats, poultry, eggs, and seafood are prone to contamination by bacteria(salmoneall, e coil, etc.) and parasites(trichinosis, tapeworms etc.) and should be cooked or dried enough to sterilize them. When available, irradiated foods will eliminate this risk, and make steak tartare and raw eggs much more possible. Fruit and vegetables in the diet can compensate for the slight loss of vitamins and nutrients caused by light cooking, but these shouldbe washed throughly to remove bacteria, germs and pesticide residue."

and:- "Should I eat meat raw?" Although all meat is edible raw, you shouldn't eat supermarket meat raw. Proper care must be taken to cook or dry commercial meat to eliminate all bacterial contamination, which can cause food-poisoning. Any of the vitamins destroyed by the cooking or drying process are easily replaced by eating fruits and vegetables."

followed below by:-

" many aboriginal North Americans and European explorers ate an exclusively raw meat diet in the form of pemmican"(actually, pemmican is raw meat mixed with heated fats, so Audette is partially wrong, here).

Anyway, it's clear that a logical interpretation of Audette's generalised definition of the Palaeolithic Diet(consisting of all those foods which are edible raw without needing to undergo a technological process(such as cooking/chemicals etc.) in order to become edible) would presume the consumption of raw meat as cooking requires technology in the form of fire, which is the only reason why he would have to go in for such an explanation. Note that his main concern is the consumption of raw supermarket meats. In other words, the implication is that if one is eating raw, wild meats(such as the Inuit do, who are also mentioned in Audette's work as a prime example), then everything is OK. Plus, he goes on to describe how the Inuit and Native Americans would eat raw(ie wild) meats with no issues. So, other than the issue of there being a community of rawpaleodieters out there, there is the problem that the main definition of what a Palaeolithic Diet is, also includes the possibility of raw-meat-consumption, given the above points.Loki0115 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I messed up PH's post, as I didn't expect him to write there? Also, does anyone know how I can underline important points when discussing on wikipedia? Thanks Loki0115 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth mentioning Audette's views on cooking in the Paleodiet article as he is a notable advocate of the diet: Something like "According to Ray Audette, meat and vegetables are slightly less nutritious when cooked, but supermarket meats should not be eaten raw, unless they have been irradiated, since they are prone to contamination by bacteria and parasites." Note: I agree that excessive cooking may lead to nutrient loss, but I believe that lightly cooking certain vegetables does increase nutrient availability. With regard to meat, cooking seems to have different effects on different nutrients.. So, Audette's blanket statement that meat and vegetables are slightly less nutritious when cooked is not totally accurate. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Loki, can I move this discussion to the Paleolithic diet talk page? --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I copied this discussion to the Paleolithic diet talk page, where discussion should be continued. I will remove this page from my watch list. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine.Loki0115 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nancy Everhard


The article Nancy Everhard has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Yoenit (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. — Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN
I have started a thread concerning your editing practices at WP:NPOVN located at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 20:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Control of fire by early humans
Stop removing content that you disagree with. All of the content concerning the wear patterns on teeth are relevant and reliably sourced. If you continue to modify the article by removing important statements concerning cooking I will report you to the proper channels once more.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 19:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources that show that cooked meat is less digestible, provide them instead of mentioning them anectdotally.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now provided the relevant refs which back up my previous points, apologies for not doing so earlier. Now that I have provided data which openly disputes the relevant sentences, kindly delete them. The issue re teeth was quite irrelevant since the relevant wording of those sentences did not even mention cooking. I mean, one would expect sentences about wear on teeth to have at least something to do with fire or cooking, right, if they are to be included in the article.Loki0115 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When you add comments, do not put two random equals signs to divide things. You can make separate sections, though.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 23:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, when you respond to comments, it is common practice to use colons to indent your comment.— Ryūlóng  (竜龙 ) 00:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please indent your comments. Usually, starting comments on a new line without indents indicates a new sub-discussion.— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 07:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Raw Veganism
Hallo Loki, I answer to your message on my talk page but could you please answer on the talk page of the article. I copied there your message on my talk page as well, so that if other editors wont can follow the discussion. I hope that is fine with you. --Dia^ (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Raw foodism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)