Talk:Inedia

nutritionists? no, it's dietitians.

"Nutritionists say that carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are the body's only sources of energy.[34][35][36]"

"Dietitian" is the correct term for people with actual training and "official" authoritative knowledge. You have to go to school to be a dietitian.

"Nutritionist" is a term anyone can use; there is no training required to be a "nutritionist", and it has no "official" validity.

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

I have informed the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard about the synthesis being introduced into the article. I suggest the edit-warring stop until the noticeboard decides on the merits of the case. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Can the following analysis be included in the Inedia article unsupported by a reliable source?

Sanal Edamaruku uses a video montage as the main argument, supposedly showing the 'loopholes' in CCTV coverage. The video is constructed mostly from Sanal Edamaruku's own appearances in Indian news channels and talk shows, and fails to show the few second long 'doubtful' episodes from the angles directly exposing the supposed deception, it also includes 2003 Polish video clips of Prahlad Jani bathing as a proof of his 2010 bathing being not sufficiently monitored.

Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I read that the doctors who participated to back up the claims of the somewhat dubious lead doctor, were purposely selected by the Indian armed forces medical supervisory panel, and are openly admitted secular humanists and agnostic. I think your puny little rationalist friend will be considered an unreliable source when compared to the power of the mighty Indian armed forces doctor's report that will be released. cheers, P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked through the sources carefully, and it seems that the video recordings from 2010 tests haven't been published yet at all. The biggest joke would be if it came out that not only the bathing procedures, but actually also the rest of Sanal Edamaruku's much hyped 'proofs of deception' is constructed from clips of single camera low quality CCTV coverage from 2003 tests. haha :) -- Nazar (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also checked [Edamaruku's blogspot]. The crowd is cheering in wild spree over the demise of a 'village fraud', flinging derogatory statements at PJ and the involved researchers... hmmm... Successful rationalists vigorously boasting their own 'educatedness'... It kind of reminds me of trials and burning on the stake of Giordano Bruno and Galileo, with the main difference that the role of inquisition is currently being taken by the 'scientifically minded' rabble... "Science became the religion of the poor in the XX-th century" is what comes to my mind... -- Nazar (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember that article talk pages are not a forum. If (per your comments in the "Synthesis" section) you agree that the article shouldn't include this analysis of the videotape, let us know and we can close this RFC. The content in question has already been removed, either way. --McGeddon (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I stated explicitly enough that in my opinion the inclusion of the overview of the video plot is essential to the NPOV rendering of the Edamaruku's criticism. In my opinion, the NPOV is more important than some artificially bended rules speculating about the supposed synthesis and/or absence of the appropriate policies in order to include that video description. However, I also respect the current Status Quo of the development of Wikipedia policies and the consensus of the majority of the editors of this project. I understand its limitations. Therefore, though I'd like to include the video overview into the article (if Edamaruku's criticism is used there at all), I'll wait for more editors to express their opinions, and, if the final consensus would be not in favor of such an inclusion, I'll submit to it. So far there were not enough opinions expressed in this regard, as per my evaluation. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There's one more update to the case. At the time I posted my last message here (20th of June), I also posted a request on [Edamaruku's blogspot] politely asking Edamaruku himself of someone else from his knowledgeable rationalist colleagues to join the discussion here and clear the doubts about the failures of the video and other flaws present in the critical analysis of the recent PJ case, provided by Edamaruku. I herewith inform you that my polite and gentle invitation message wasn't allowed to be published in the comments section of [Edamaruku's blogspot] and, as you can also see, none of the rationalists joined the discussion here or provided any proofs/reasoning to refute the exposed failures. Thanks! -- Nazar (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiley Brooks

This section is largely sourced to the subject's website, and is at this point the last paragraph is basically advertising his workshops. This seems inappropriate, and I'd like to cut it back a good bit. Any objections? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello, Nuujinn!

Thank you for your judicious and relevant comments!

Of course, feel absolutely free to update all of my writings, so that the textual insertions would fit the wikipedian "terms and conditions", in the best possible way!

Furthermore, as my English has a bit fallen into disuse (due to a crucial lack of practice), I’d be more than happy if you could kindly accept to correct any potential inaccuracies, regarding some specific semantic units or any other linguistic elements, which would drastically need to be improved under the guidance of your gracious and celestial majesty, thanks to your precious addenda and/or inserts.

This said, I am sorry if my last symbolic written contribution could have been potentially interpreted as sort of indirect advertising for this seminar, given that this apparent aim would be dramatically located at the extreme opposite side of any virtual intention of mine.

On the contrary, by exposing the "phenomenal" fee amount which is required, as an initial deposit (aimed to pay the access right), together with the unexpected specific requirements, which are supposedly due to remit the whole preliminary fee, I simply wanted to underline the possible contrast, which seems to apparently exude between the following paradoxical dichotomies:

1. The so-called notions of simplicity, poverty, destitution, relinquishment, abstinence, abandonment and/or detachment of any venal or materialistic foundation, which are allegedly linked (as a common cliché) to the notion of bretharianism, respirianism, inedia and so on.

And (as an unexpected contrast):

2. The unreachable – or, shall I say: "hallucinating"? – fee amount, which seems to be required, as a basic preliminary deposit... including the... remaining remittance... which sees the first initial deposit to be multiplied by an even more staggering and utopist coefficient.

Especially if one considers the "non refundable" aspect (the remittance is even less ever refundable, considering that any sort of subsidiary payment (via credit card or other secured mode of payment) is ostentatiously banished.

Please, make yourself at home! My idealistic aspiration consists in working all together, for the best possible result, each one of us being utterly in position to enrich, improve and/or correct each former or forthcoming contribution, tinged with the final noble scope of making an all-together common and mutual creation, as a conclusive oblation.

Kindest regards!

Yours truly!

euphonie ^breviary
00:20, 22 November 2010.

Time to shake it up a bit :)

The ability to fast is not "alleged" or "pseudo-scientific". Time limits and effects thereof are disputed. Undue emphasis is currently given to the Wiley Brooks case, which looks more like a joke. The refs are given to his personal web-site, which I'm not sure would be a good example of reliable references. Elucidation of the issue in the article from different points of view is repeatedly suppressed by a number of editors, who seem to have set it their aim to make this article look as ridiculous and defying any likely/unlikely facts of Inedia, as only possible... I've had a generally bad community support for improving the issues here as of last year. Just checking if some fresh people have emerged to support the neutrality of this rendering this year (with no much hope, frankly)... Thanks... -- Nazar (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We can look at that, but currently I am more concerned with the section on Ram Bahadur Bomjon. I checked the main article, and found no sources characterizing his fasting as Inedia, which is the ability to live without food. Fasting is not the same thing. What references support characterization of his fasting as inedia? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I wrote somewhere before (maybe last year) that "Inedia" is a Western World coined word. I don't really know who and why called this article "Inedia". "Breatharianism" is a Western word of recent origin too. While the topic of the article (which I believe is the information on extended fasting, possibly without water, for longer periods of time) is closely related to fasting. The difference is only that here we speak about people who claim to fast for longer time without impairing (or with slightly impairing) effects to health condition. Any of ancient ascetics, starting from Buddha and old Yogis (who could reportedly remain in still meditation for days and weeks), through Christian, Muslim and other saints, can be included here. And there are dozens of them, to name only the most notable. Prahlad Jani also never claimed to be either a "breatharian" or a practitioner of "Inedia". Western press called him that. The word "Inedia" is not even included into most academic dictionaries or encyclopedias. -- Nazar (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, so use of western terms is to be expected. And I disagree with your assertion that we can just include anyone we think fits, we are required to rely on reliable sources. What sources can you bring to bear on this issue? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn. I would also like to note that the statement Elucidation of the issue in the article from different points of view is repeatedly suppressed by a number of editors, who seem to have set it their aim to make this article look as ridiculous and defying any likely/unlikely facts of Inedia, as only possible... is untrue as there have been numerous discussions on various noticeboards all of which resulted in supporting the mainstream and policy-compliant positions. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's just as I expected. Same bunch of people, same story. -- Nazar (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. See you next year. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nazar, I am perfectly willing to discuss this matters if you can bring sources to support your position. The points of view we can bring to bear are those documented in verifiable and reliable sources. Wiley Brooks does seem to be a con artist, and not a good one at that, but we are only using his web sites to document claims he has made--if there were not also significant coverage of him in reliable sources, we wouldn't have a section on him. I'll look for some sources for Ram Bahadur Bomjon, I'm sure there are some, but we cannot rely on user posted videos and web sites devoted to him. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of where the word was coined, this article is named, and therefore is about Inedia, not fasting generally. And please remember WP:AGF, which some of your comments violate. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A balanced viewpoint.

The statement quoted below, follows the statement that the scientific community's consensus is that inedia is a pseudoscience.

The words: "...some promote the practices of breatharianism as a skill which can be learned through specific techniques, which are generally revealed on payment of a substantial sum of money to the claimant."

The facts are that generally its cheap to get information on these techneques. (eg AU$ 5.55 Food of the Gods e-book.Jasmuheen). Free information on techniques seems to be available on the internet (eg Hira Ratan Manek's website). Wiley Brooks appears to expect a substantial sum of money. This is not generally the case with the rest of the claiments. The paragraph makes them appear as greedy opportunists.

The third paragraph appears unbalanced. That it requires a "substantial sum of money" is not "generally" the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.24.120 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You're ignoring the word "some". It doesn't say that all of them ask for substantial sums of money just that some of them do. Is it false that "some" of them ask for substantial sums of money? Even you agree that Wiley Brooks does. I would classify him as "some". If something is factual it is not NPOV. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are no other complaints about NPOV I'm going to remove the tag.Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK since no one could come up with any other NPOV problems I'm removing the tag. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The person you responded to did not ignore the word "some", but you did ignore the word "generally", even though it was twice referred to. It's the wrong word unless nearly all of the "some" people who promote specific techniques require a substantial amount of money to obtain them. (Perhaps they do, but that's not the argument you made.) -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)