Jump to content

Talk:Inedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.130.69.181 (talk) at 08:07, 8 December 2013 (Edit semi-protected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes. It's just as I expected. Same bunch of people, same story. -- Nazar (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. See you next year. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
If there are no other complaints about NPOV I'm going to remove the tag.Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The word "generally" applies to how often the techniques are revealed "on payment of a substantial sum". The word "generally" is being used in exactly the same way as "sometimes" or "more often than not". It definitely does not mean "all the time". The point still stands. Some claimants will reveal the techniques, most of the time, on payment of a substantial sum. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Theories Noticeboard

FYI, I have raised queries about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Maor: Cardiologist "baffled"?

Regarding this material, It may have a place in the Popular culture section because of the subject's connection to Inedia, but a TV show is not exactly a reliable source for medical claims that are squarely within WP:REDFLAG territory. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This event might well be worthy of inclusion, but shouldn't be used to imply anything "scientific" about human health. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the medical claims in the show are coming from a reputable physician from a reputable medical center in israel. This show was not pro Inedia in any way of fashion . It deserves to be where it is in the article79.177.97.189 (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medical claims should conform to WP:MEDRS; this doesn't. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Maor doesn't seem any different to the majority of the other claimants here. Bomjon was merely "chronicled by the Discovery Channel", Jasmuheen was only "monitored closely by the Australian television program 60 Minutes" and Brooks' claims have never been examined and only seems to be listed on the strength of some newspapers finding it amusing that he was caught eating junk food. If we want to split the claimants into "TV investigations" and "examined by scientists", let's do that. --McGeddon (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
McGeddon, you will not get an answer to this very evident fact from the skeptoids here.
Maor was in the "practitioners" section in the first place. the person is notable in Israel, the investigative show - legitimate. that's where he should naturally be. If he had failed the test he would be there with no controversy here whatsoever .
The Skeptoids here don't like that a successful test be in the article, but they can't totally dismiss it , so to show their disdain they put it next to "In 1977, Jay Kinney drew an underground comics strip in which the breatharians take over. Also in the comic, McDonald’s and all other restaurants all have scratch and sniff menus, with no actual food".
There is really nothing more to it for them insisting he be put the in the In popular culture section along with Jay Kinney109.65.11.204 (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith of other editors rather than calling them names and announcing what you've decided their motives to be.
Wiley Brooks is in the practitioners section despite the only sourced evidence for his ability being the negative "somebody saw him eating a hot dog", I don't see any harm in grouping all of these people together - perhaps heading it with the "Few breatharians have submitted themselves to medical testing..." paragraph from the previous section to clarify that none of them have been the subject of rigorous peer-reviewed studies. --McGeddon (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological powers

This should go under Category:Mythological powers. 108.218.12.104 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for citation

This quote in the Jasmuheen subsection of the Practitioners section: "I can go for months and months without having anything at all other than a cup of tea. My body runs on a different kind of nourishment." ...can be found on page 63 of this book: 

@book{keith2009vegetarian,
  title={The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability},
  author={Keith, L.},
  isbn={9781604861822},
  url={http://books.google.com/books?id=\_KGWcPH41qYC},
  year={2009},
  publisher={PM Press}
}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inedia&oldid=585098058"