Raw Foodism Wikipedia entry comments

[TylerDurden]

A long while back I tried to edit the Raw Foodism Wikipedia page because there were so many lies on that page, giving a bad rep to all rawists. I valiantly made several long-term attempts to correct things, but subsequently gave up because there were always 1 or fanatically anti-raw people who blithely dismissed my numerous points yet had the damned cheek of citing just  1 or 2 lousy sources and then claimed they were right. I just realised that I was spending far too much time on this business. Still, after looking at the Raw Foodism page today


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism

I noticed that it was still largely unchanged, thank god. I mean raw zero-carbers won't be pleased to find that someone removed my
mention that there are those who eat only raw animal foods and nothing else, plus there was some b*ll inserted in the advanced glycation end products reference , claiming that AGEs only occur when you add sugars or cook sugary foods. But it's not as bad as I feared.

[Nation]

BE RELENTLESS

[Guittarman03]

Not too bad until the end (and the lack of mention of zero carb as a variant of RPD).  It starts talking about how cooking makes more nutrients available and how a hunter-gatherer couldn't get enough calories on a raw diet, although that was under the "criticism" section. 

Otherwise it doesn't do a bad job of discussing RPD, except at times it's tough to distinguish when the article is talking about raw veganism or RAF or both. 

What should really be done is to take the separate article "Raw Animal Food Diets" and expound upon that.  The competition from those pesky vegitarians should go down some.  Also, I would recommend against the first thing in there being about those who eat rotting and fermented meat.  Maybe put that under a "variants" section. 

Maybe I'll register for Wikipedia and re-org that one.  Although I'm not so good on references and studies, I might need some help.

[TylerDurden]

The real problem is that in order to keep it going we need at least 1 Rawpalaeodieter checking the page once every few days, with several willing to add support in the discussions page of raw foodism, whenever necessary. Then it would be worth it  as we could then mostly block any anti-raw attempts and create an interesting info-site.But when I was the only one doing it, it was an uphill struggle and wasted many hours of my time. There's little point in my writing several paragraphs every few days in the discussions section merely to have it blindly dismissed simply because everyone else in the discussion is a SAD-dieter with an agenda.

[William]

I read that Wikipedia employed thousands of "editors" who were given an agenda to enforce, so they were doing "information management". Add the agressive crackpot vegetarians tinkering with the facts of raw fat meat, and it looks futile to try to present a fair view of raw paleo.
Wikipedia is corrupt, that's why I use it for stuff like ballistics of firearms ammunition.