Talk:Raw veganism

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 (article contribs).

too heavily focused on the consequences - i.e. this page is biased!

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)

Tag added: Page needs MEDRS

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: 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)

Need to add back in cooking equipment

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 an oxymoron to suggest 'equipment' for 'raw veganism'; WP:PLUG and WP:OR apply. There won't be credible WP:RS sources. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This article should be redirected to raw foodism. Is there any way we can make that happen? We already have a section there [1], we can just merge any content there. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy - I would support a merge, WP:MERGE, of this article to raw foodism. Requires a merge proposal and vote. Zefr (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will propose this shortly. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:41, 11 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)

If you cook food at low temperatures then that is still cooking and the food is no longer raw. Raw veganism is a vegan diet with no cooking at all and hardly anyone in history has ever practiced this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

history section

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)

There are examples of raw vegetarians but hardly any raw vegans from the past. Vera Richter's book Mrs. Richter's Cook-Less Book is a vegetarian book because on page 35 she talks about making a mayonnaise dressing with eggs and many of her recipes use honey. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:40, 11 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)

No, the Australopithecus diet was not raw vegan it was a plant based diet with occasional meat i.e. small vertebrates, like lizards and insects [2]. It is very rare to find a raw vegan throughout history. Over the years I have found many historical examples of vegans but when you dig deeper they turn out to be vegetarian because they were consuming dairy, eggs or honey. Most of the raw foodists from the early 20th century like George J. Drews or Eugene Christian were not vegan. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The article linked is most definitely not a justification that the Australopithecenes ate animals, because it says 'probably' - so it's not 100% sure. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/97/25/13506.full.pdf is a scientific article. It says it couldn't eat animals, as it wasn't designed for that. They ate soft fruit, leaves, shoots, and flowers. "another tough pliant food they would have had difficulty processing is meat. In other words, the early hominids were not dentally preadapted to eat meat—they simply did not have the sharp, reciprocally concave shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods." Hawaiisunfun (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing on the rise of raw veganism as a health food trend?

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)

Merger proposal

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)

• Support. As a subcategory of raw foodism, raw veganism logically should be part of the larger category which is better sourced and a more complete article for the general user. Further, the raw veganism article is poorly sourced, with sparse WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS review literature available, indicating that it has little room to grow on its own. Zefr (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Would make better sense per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The sources for raw foodism in general are more plentiful than sources for raw veganism specifically. It would make the articles more manageable and also fit from a notability/due weight standpoint. Jancarcu (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Don't Support. I feel all the people who wanted the merge proposed it so that they all agree and it happens and get their way - entirely unfair. Raw veganism is gaining popularity, and should have its own article. This article could work if it's rewritten to make sense, but it's been botched - which is what everyone did to make the excuse to merge. I suggest linking this article under raw foodism, and maybe write a little bit there, but then people can click and read this article - if it gets its act together. I really don't want to see this proposal go anywhere until the article is fixed!Hawaiisunfun (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

i'm removing 'Research on vegan diets' section

doesn't relate to raw veganism, but rather vegnism in genralHawaiisunfun (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)