User talk:Wikieditor1377

September 2020
Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Martian (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I forgot to add the summary of changes to that specific edit but since then I've added an edit with the summary of changes. Many thanks. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Raw foodism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''You appear to be soapboxing (WP:SOAP) and edit warring (WP:WAR) to establish your own opinion, without citing reliable scientific sources or gaining consensus on the talk page - see WP:CON. Raw foodism is related to diet and nutrition, so is a topic bordering on human health, which requires the strongest possible medical references, WP:MEDRS.'' Zefr (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Thanks. I basically used harvard food source link backed by numerous book references within, other reference was from oxford university. That is definitely a reliable scientific source, much more reliable actually than most of the ones currently being used on that page. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On my user page, you said:

''I've seen your edit on raw foodism page. Actually the effect of cooking or exposure to heat is the primary idea behind raw foodism so they are clearly within the topic. Loss or destruction of water soluble vitamins, specially vitamin C, is a widely known effect cooking has on food and it's missing from the page. There are known carcinogens missing from the page as well.''

As a fad diet, raw foodism is probably not chosen on scientific evidence of nutrient loss - its' a fad: people jump on the bandwagon to follow unscientific beliefs. It's impossible to define in an encyclopedic way why people choose this diet. Some users believe food enzyme destruction by cooking is a primary motivation, one that ignores the natural destruction of food protein (some enzymes) in the acid and digestive enzyme environment of the stomach. No WP:MEDRS reviews exist to prove reasons for the practice, or its possible health effects. Your comment above is about cooking, which is not a primary element of raw foodism practice. We don't offer advice about cooking effects, WP:NOTADVICE, and we don't use Healthline as an authority source for the encyclopedia (its topics may be written by non-experts). As the cancer.gov source says, it's "high-temperature" cooking that may produce carcinogens, but that effect can't be precisely measured from person to person or cooking method to method. No reliable review exists to warrant going into depth in the article about cooking or carcinogens. Again, your edits and comments indicate you are soapboxing against cooked food; see WP:SOAP. You could edit the Cooking article, as long as statements are supported by high-quality sources. Zefr (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Raw foodism was practiced by the entire human race for millions of years and is practiced by almost 100% of other species on the planet. Not cooking, roasting or using other means of exposing nutrients to heat is actually the main element of raw foodism, hence the word "raw" there. I've used references from Harvard and Oxford University, World Health Organization, Genome Project as well besides Healthline. Since you are on the subject, the page currently uses a reference from Fitzgerald's book numerous times. If healthline, a huge website provider of health information does not apply to your standards, certainly that book won't either otherwise that would be blatant double standard. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As for a respectable review about cooking and carcinogens, there is a recent study published on Genome Project, World Health Organization and other venues about acrylamide, a component found on starch based foods after exposure to heat, that states that "Experimental and pan-cancer genome analyses reveal widespread contribution of acrylamide exposure to carcinogenesis in humans". [1]. It shows the involvement of acrylamide in one third of 1600 tumor genomes corresponding to 19 human tumor types from 14 organs through a unique signature mutation imprinted by acrylamide through the effects of its reactive metabolite glycidamide. It further states that "The highest enrichment of the glycidamide signature was observed in the cancers of the lung (88% of the interrogated tumors), liver (73%), kidney (>70%), bile duct (57%), cervix (50%), and, to a lesser extent, additional cancer types. Overall, our study reveals an unexpectedly extensive contribution of acrylamide-associated mutagenesis to human cancer". There has been numerous tests and researches done on both consumption and exposure to acrylamide via other means and there are a number of regulations already in place such as the ones that limit the ammount of acrylamide that they add to public water, in the manufacturing of cosmetics and numerous other materials. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

1) There are no reliable sources supporting its use "millions (or even hundreds) of years ago"; find a WP:SCIRS review for its history; 2) no one editor is responsible for article content and sources - if a source is weak (Fitzgerald?), then you should replace it with a better one; 3) fyi: this is not Oxford University, but a publication of Oxford University Press (separate from the university), and is peer-reviewed; Harvard and WHO might be acceptable refs, but I don't see any of their content relevant to raw foodism; the Genome Project (?) and Healthline do not have extensive coverage of raw foodism. Read WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS to understand better the quality of sources needed for nutrition and health topics. Again, and for the last time, you are "on a soapbox" against cooking, and may be able to improve the "cooking" article, so apply yourself there. Zefr (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Genome Project findings were published on the International Agency for Research on Cancer from the World Health Organization as well. See link below for the publishing of its study on the IARC (WHO) site. Humans obviously lived on a raw diet before they've started to cook food, and that's millions of years according to scientists. The Oxford University Press is actually a department of Oxford University. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fyi, humans have existed for only about 100,000 years. Zefr (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Homo Habilis is thought to have lived from 2.4m to 1.5m years ago. Homo Naledi between 2.8 and 2.5m. Previous ancestors which are classified as apes and not humans are thought to have lived as far as 6 to 7 million years ago. Those estimatives vary according to different studies. They lived on a raw food diet alongside the rest of the species on the planet. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Homo Habilis are archaic humans they are not anatomically modern humans. Homo Habilis may have cooked their food, there has been claims about this going back ten years but the research is not that clear, and more recently , maybe they boiled their food in hot springs. But all this is irrelevant to the raw foodism article. We have articles on this, for example Control of fire by early humans. The Raw foodism article is about the modern fad diet. If you are interested in the history of cooking and evolution you should edit other articles. The content you are suggesting is not appropriate for the raw foodism article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said they were modern humans. I was referring to human ancestors. I agree, we are off topic. I never suggested adding that to the article, it came on this talk page. By fad you mean a diet currently practiced by near 100% of species on the planet and that was practiced by human ancestors and their ape ancestors as well for million of years. But I understand you disagree on the subject and that's ok. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically you are employing the appeal to nature fallacy. If you really want to go down that route then maybe you should give up wearing clothes and come off Wikipedia because for millions of years there were no clothes or computers. Right? But seriously, we have evolved to eat cooked foods and you can easily look all this up and see how it has changed our digestive system. Our bodies and brains have changed significantly due to cooking. We have come a long way from our ancestors.
 * The consensus is that raw foodism is a fad diet and you can get a hint about this, no civilization has practiced an entirely raw food diet because they all cooked their foods to some degree. Even modern raw foodists contradict themselves and actually cook many of their foods, just not over 120 degrees F. So some element of cooking is involved even amongst raw foodists which is contradictory. I have been reading literature on fad diets for over 20 years, and not just that I have tried many of them myself, they don't work. The classic fad diets are the Atkins diet, paleolithic diet and the raw food diet. We get a new fad diet every year but these three always remain popular in different forms and new users always show up here at Wikipedia and try and sell them. Raw foodism is not accepted by most of those in the medical or nutritional world apart from fringe proponents. I have never come across a decent peer-reviewed scientific paper recommending an entirely raw diet. I am afraid you will not overturn Wikipedia policy on this. Raw foodism is considered nonsense and pseudoscience by dieticians and we are very much in the realm of fringe here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I never employed any appeal to nature at all. The reason I brought the fact that the raw food diet is practiced by the overwhelming majority of creatures on the planet and also on earlier human populations and that of their ancestors for millions of years is that it contraries one widely used element to describe fad diets which is popularity over a short period of time. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)