User talk:Kotra/Archive 8

Darwin

I added info relating to the Darwin quote at 'Fruitarian'. Please confirm if you feel it is fair to include the quote. Zanze123 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Fruitarianism. -kotra (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In Descent Of Man (1871), Charles Darwin wrote: “At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted.” <Chapter VI - On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, in Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, page 150, NuVision Publications, LLC, 2007, 1595478868, 9781595478863, 560pp>. According to A New Dictionary Of The English Language (1856), 'frugi-ferous' is an adverb meaning 'bearing, or bringing forth, fruit'. <A New Dictionary Of The English Language by Charles Richardson: Bell & Daldy, 1856, page 328. Sourced from Harvard University digital scan August 4, 2005, at googlebooks.> Darwin thus wrote "a circumstance favourable for the fruit-bearing diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted". Darwin may have used the term "frugi-ferous" or "frugiferous", which refers to trees and plants that produce fruit, not the fruits themselves, instead of "frugivorous", which is the term that actually means "fruit-eating" since fruits grow on trees whereas non-fruits do not, or he may have confused the terms, nevertheless, the quote is a rare insight into Darwin's views of diet and fruit.

Zanze123 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is intriguing and merits further investigation (some of which I have done), but I do not agree that, by itself, it is notable enough for inclusion in Fruitarianism. Please review my comments on Talk:Fruitarianism. -kotra (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel it's not noteable when for supposition, many music groups at Wikipedia have sections called "Trivia" which include many highly unnoteable points. This quote from Darwin is far more notable than many of the unnotable points published at Wiki. Can you also explain to me why since the quote is unclear and hence controversial, this in itself makes highly interesting, highly noteable and highly worthy of inclusion in this listing. Zanze123 (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Fruitarianism for my explanations why I feel it is not notable enough. As for "trivia" sections, they are discouraged, and besides, Wikipedia is not consistent. There are many poor articles in Wikipedia, and if we had to maintain the exact same quality for all articles all the time, there would never be any progress (or change). In any case, I would prefer to keep our discussion at Talk:Fruitarianism, so any other interested parties can remain in the loop. -kotra (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I replied and wait for your reply. Zanze123 (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The added citation. Is it a reliable source? Zanze123 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which citation are you referring to? -kotra (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is beyondveg a reliable source for Krok? Zanze123 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is borderline. For the weak statement "allegedly recommended against the diet once they stopped", I think the reliability of the source is adequate. If "allegedly" were removed from the sentence, I might think again. Also if there were compelling verifiable evidence against Billings' statements, it would require much more explanation. Until then, I think it's reliable enough for how the statement is worded now. -kotra (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So why did you not question it, before I added 'allegedly'. Zanze123 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It simply had not occurred to me. There are improvements to be made to all 3 million, and I'm not able to fix them all at once. To be honest, I haven't even read the whole article. I split what little time I allot to Wikipedia among hundreds, if not thousands of articles. Inaction does not mean approval; it just means inaction. -kotra (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it depend on allegedly? The fact is beyondveg is vanity publishing, and according to Wiki's position on self-publishing, it should be removed. Tom Billings is not an M.D. It's not a reliable source. He is a paleodieter, and beyond veg, is as biased (and unreliable) as pro fruitarian websites. Krok wrote articles for LN magazine since 2000, but it does not depend on what they say. Beyond veg is self-published. If beyondveg is to be cited, then so can all self-published sources be too. Amen. Zanze123 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The "allegedly" is a very crucial word. We are presenting the view as an allegation, not a fact. The sentence is presented in a neutral manner that is verifiably correct: it is a verifiable fact that this allegation is made. If there is evidence to doubt Billings' word, I would support the sentence's removal, as it of course is not worth including every baseless opinion people have. However, without something concrete to base this doubt on, it remains a useful bit of context. -kotra (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page that which ever way it is considered, Darwin was referring to the fruit diet upon which humans subsisted either before they brought forth the fruit, or after, or both. This, plus the notability of Darwin make this an important source for citation. It doesn't depend on my interpretation. The words speak for themselves, and the possible ambiguity is anothe reason for inclusion. It is very relevant to this article due to Darwin's name.Zanze123 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You have made these arguments several times before. I continue to disagree, however, and have explained why (several times as well). I'm afraid we are not going to come to an agreement here unless new arguments are raised. -kotra (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made them, and so far I haven't read any primary reasons from you why A) self-published sources should be cited, and B) a quote by a famous person endorsing the fruit diet should not be cited at an article on Fruitarianism. Zanze123 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Briefly, A) I believe this particular self-published source is ok because it verifiably proves that particular allegation is made, and B) Darwin never "endorsed" fruitarianism, he merely made the casual claim (without any explained basis for it) that he thought proto-humans were frugivorous. -kotra (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intelligent answers. However where does it say in Wiki's rules that self-published sources are allowed. Secondly, since Darwin thought proto-humans were frugivorous, how does this not relate to the article, given that the article is about the fruitarian diet - the diet of frugivores. If Darwin thought humans were frugivorous, this gives credence to the fruitarian diet, and is therefore notable, not just for who said it but what was said. Also, did he in fact just make the casual claim that he thought proto-humans were frugivorous. On the surface, perhaps, but we don't know what is in the original manuscript, and he did not just talk about frugivorous design, but about subsisting on a particular diet. Again, the ambiguity makes it note-worthy. Also, since the book was about the descent of man, it is hardly a casual claim to reach such a conclusion. His peers, Haeckel, Huxley, Cuvier, Buchinger, Roehrig, Steinmann and Wiedersheim all made comparative anatomy studies along the same lines. It's not a casual claim, but *the* topic of the period, Victorian Europe - discussing dinosaurs and the origins of humans.Zanze123 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS explains some of the ways in which self-published sources may be used and may not be used. But also keep in mind that that section concentrates on the more common use of sources to cite facts, not allegations. As for Darwin's quote, fruitarianism is not the diet of frugivores. Fruitarianism is a human diet that is chosen, like vegetarianism or veganism. It is a social concept. Frugivory, separate from this, is a biological concept, and is a term typically reserved for non-humans. The same comparison exists between "veganism"/"vegetarianism" and "herbivory". Simply put, Darwin was referring to frugivory, not fruitarianism. Secondly, I fail to see how proto-humans (hundreds of thousands of years ago) being frugivorous gives credence to the fruitarian diet (in today's humanity). Unless you are proposing that some people just want to be like man "when he lost his hairy covering". I find this unlikely, as I do not know of any fruitarians who want to live out in the open air, naked, with only sticks and rocks as tools. As for the original manuscript, I'm not sure why you keep going back to this, since if we don't know what was in the original manuscript, we cannot use it as a basis for including or not including the quote. I hear you saying "ambiguity makes it notable". I, however, disagree, and have said as much it seems like a dozen times. You're not likely to convince me by simply stating the same thing repeatedly, you need to explain to me why ambiguity makes it notable in this situation. To me, even if Haeckel, Huxley, Cuvier, Buchinger, Roehrig, Steinmann and Wiedersheim also said proto-humans were frugivorous (though I don't think you're implying this), I have a hard time seeing how it's relevant to fruitarianism, the modern diet. These are two separate concepts; the only similarity is they are both diets in which fruit is primary. -kotra (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BeyondVeg is self-published. It is quoted to cite claims not facts. Fruitarianism is chosen. Frugivory is pre-ordained. Since man is biologically frugivorous, fruitarianism is also pre-ordained, and hence not just social but biological. I know people who live in the open naked eating just fruits. Being fruitarian does not mean one has to be a pre-cave man, nor does being frugivorous. We don't know what is in the manuscript. Ambiguity makes sense. At the same time, ambiguity makes the quote insubstantial. However, from what we know, he was talking about the frugivorous diet. Victorian biologists were not frugivores, but they realized humans are. Zanze123 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In Words of Wisdom from Morris Krok, From Living Nutrition Vol. 20, http://www.livingnutrition.com, he writes: "Man makes the greatest error when he thinks that the sun-ripened foods provided by nature can be improved by cooking and refining.". This was Volume was definitely published after 2000. If he did not believe in the fruit diet anymore, he had the opportunity to say so before he died, but never did. Zanze123 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. When was the claim ever made that man is frugivorous? Darwin only claimed, at best, that the man used to be frugivorous (or at least, the ancestors of man when they lost their "hairy covering"). That tells us nothing about modern humankind, or, by extension, fruitarianism. As for the naked/primitive tools/lack of shelter thing, I was taking your implication to its logical extreme. Unless I misunderstood, you were implying that since Darwin said these early proto-humans were frugivorous, some people would want to become fruitarian for that reason. I was questioning if imitation of proto-humans was a significant reason for becoming fruitarian, giving a couple other examples of how proto-humans lived to illustrate. I don't think more than a handful of people want to imitate proto-humans for its own sake. In any case, this is a topic better explored at Talk:Fruitarianism, where others may give their input.

Similarly, let's discuss this new Krok source at Talk:Fruitarianism. -kotra (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right that Darwin believed that man used to be frugivorous. Huxley on the other hand, in Man's Place In Nature realized man's eternal frugivorous design. Modern humankind diverged from a climate conducive for fruitarianism, and diverged from its natural diet. The fact that humans were once frugivorous and still possess the same frugivorous physiology, and anatomy, means humans are still frugivorous, and hence fruitarian. People won't become fruitarian because of Darwin but in spite of him. That doesn't detract from the importance of what he said. Regarding the handful of people who want to imitate proto-humans, I must know them all, if there are only a handful, and probably quite a few more though in California, Nimbin (Australia), Queensland, Spain, Costa Rica, Mexico, Argentina, France, Germany, elsewhere in the USA, Ecuador, et al. It may not appeal to everyone as you say and it's a lifestyle choice also. It's also not easy to achieve, and it depends how 'fruit' is defined, of course. Dawkins wrote a book to disprove God. Does not God not exist just because Dawkins presented a logical scientific rational humanist case? In the same way, is fruitarianism impossible just because science says so, even though healthy fruitarians have and do and may exist, even if they are rare, and even if fruitarianism fails many others.

In the Volume 20 article, Krok also wrote: “Man makes the greatest error when he thinks that the sun-ripened foods provided by nature can be improved by cooking and refining.” “Eating too many concentrated raw foods, such as avocados, nuts, dates, raisins and cereals, drains our energy. Concentrated raw foods, such as nuts and cereals, can result in the build-up of excessive uric acid in the system, contributing to stiff joints and achy muscles. Conversely, we have endless energy and no chronic pain when we live on a few glasses of water or juice and some fresh fruit.” He was still alive when this article was published. Why would he have authorized it if he was against the fruit diet. Zanze123 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no purpose in discussing Krok or anything else if everything I add is going to be reverted and deleted. Zanze123 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the slow response. I have been busy lately and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. Concerning Huxley, if a notable, published third-party source (it can be a prominent Fruitarian proponent) makes these same arguments (including that frugivory in humans = fruitarianism, an idea I would challenge if uncited), I would welcome its addition to the article.

As for whether the current mainstream science is right or not about fruitarianism, I'd rather not get into that. My own thoughts on the matter aren't relevant, rather we should restrict ourselves to discussing how to present what outside sources say.

The Volume 20 article, though I have not been able to read it, appears to be an obituary for Morris Krok. So I don't see how he could have been still alive when the article was published.

Again, I'm sorry for taking so long to respond. I will try to catch up on the developments at Talk:Fruitarianism now. -kotra (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(nevermind, there have been no new developments since last I checked; I have nothing to add there) -kotra (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

More

More here. Reply Zanze123 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Darwin continued. Not just Huxley, but Hesiod, Haeckel, Herodotus, Cuvier, Geraud and Plutarch. Rami, the first Hindu avatar, was also fruitarian. Fruitarianism is praised in the play 'Metamorphoses'. But these inclusions result in deletion. You were in favour of reversing the article to an earlier version thereby removing notable quotes by fruitarian advoates in history, yet say you are in favor of citing Huxley. Krok wrote articles for Living Nutrition since 2000. The Who Was Morris Krok in Volume 20 never said he retracted his belief in fruitarianism. Zanze123 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Frugivory, does not equal fruitarianism. Fruitarianism is the practice of frugivores. Humans are biologically frugivores, but biochemically transient omnivores due to their divergence from the fruit diet and fruit climes. That is also inherrent in what Darwin and others like Haeckel have said. Zanze123 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of reversing the article to an earlier version only because the article has been effectively rewritten in a very short timespan, without allowing much time for discussion of each individual change. I do admire your spirit here; it is exactly the sort of conscientiousness we need in Wikipedia; the way it was done was just too fast and with too little discussion or explanation. It became such that trying to figure out which changes were good and which changes were bad has been difficult at best; much easier to roll back all the changes and start reintroducing them one by one, allowing time to discuss before or after each significant change.

As for Krok, simply because Living Nutrition did not mention any renunciation on his part, doesn't mean he hadn't. Often, supporters of a viewpoint ignore (or are simply unaware of) a famous figure's move away from their chosen viewpoint late in life, a prime example being Benjamin Franklin's vegetarianism. Nor is, in any truly defensible way, a lack of evidence the same as evidence against. So I do not think that particular article helps. But if there is one written by Krok himself after 2000 that explicitly shows he hadn't deviated from the fruitarian diet, that would be enough. -kotra (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can 'work', so I'll try not to contribute. The map is not the territory, and the word is not the world. Zanze123 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. -kotra (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Things: two of them

1. Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! has the wrong title, I think. The title is in quotes: "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!" I think the latter should be the article's title and the former should be a redirect. Perhaps you could move the article, if you feel like it, and if it's okay to do that.
2. A lot of the articles for characters from The Wire have the official picture for the character, but the actor's page has no picture: for example, Kima Greggs vs. Sonja Sohn. It seems like the character pictures could be used for the actors' pages, with a caption like "Sonja Sohn as Kima Greggs on The Wire". I can't think of a reason not to do this, but the fact that no one has done it suggests that there is a reason for it. Would it be a problem if I put these pictures on the actors' pages?

--Teiladnam (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Adnam.

1. Some special characters don't work in titles for technical reasons, but this section (and the page linked at the top of it) seems to say nothing about normal quotation marks ("). I can only assume that means normal quotation marks are technically ok for the wiki software. In terms of naming standards, I don't know. I haven't seen any other books on Wikipedia titled with quotation marks (and I have looked) so I can't say for sure that it would be accepted, even if that's the accurate title. However, it might be even difficult to convince everyone it's the accurate title; most of the external links in that article, including Nader's own editorial, don't use quotation marks. On the other hand, Amazon.com uses quotation marks, as does the book itself, consistently. Anyway, it looks like the article used to be at your suggested, quoteful version but someone moved it, and they seem to think quotation marks are wrong here. If I were you, I'd leave a note on that person's talk page asking to clarify why they thought that; maybe you can figure it out between you two. Or you can just "be bold" and go ahead and move it (by clicking the "move" button/tab at the top), leave an explanation for the move on the talk page, and if someone doesn't like it they can just move it back and strike up a discussion on the talk page. Or if you're feeling more cautious, you can just try to strike up a discussion on the talk page and wait a few days for people to object, and then move if there are no significant objections. All appropriate options.
2. There actually is a good reason for this. The character photos are "non-free" images; screen captures of copyrighted material, so they can only be used to illustrate things where no free illustration would work. A picture used to illustrate an actual living person, however, can be replaced with a free equivalent (any random person with a camera can take a picture of them and upload it to flickr under a creative commons attribution-sharealike license, for example). Since Wikipedia's a free encyclopedia, everything in it is supposed to be free to use and copy legally... "non-free" images like copyrighted screen captures are tolerated as an exception to this rule only when deemed necessary and when there is no other option.

My answers are long and unnecessary. Thank you for reading if your brain has not exploded yet. -kotra (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, mister!--Teiladnam (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hungry now..

It's all your fault. I either want to buy a Cupcake CNC or have lunch. tedder (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not do both! High-density polyethylene pellets make for a great lunch. Delicious, with zero trans fats. -kotra (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop restoring content on my talk page.

The policy you cited (WP:BLANKING) states the following:

Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect) [emphasis added]

Since the block has expired, I can remove the unblock request. ----J4\/4 <talk> 21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong. I was actually in the process of adding a comment to this effect when you added your comment here and blanked your userpage again, so I'll just add it here instead:

My bad, you are right; your block is over so there is technically no proscription in written policy for blanking the declined unblock request now. There may be other reasons another editor reverted your blanking, so I will ask them on their talk page if that is the case, but barring a good reason from them, I won't revert you again on this. -kotra (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

The Revision History of Wikipedia:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have given my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Mentorship. Be advised, though, that as Wikipedia:Mentorship is just an essay (not a policy or guideline), citing it carries no particular weight. At most it should only be used to explain detailed concepts that would be impractical to explain directly. -kotra (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. As a gesture of appreciation, please allow me to share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?"

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page.--Tenmei (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cattle in religion

Good call there. Most of them are blogs except last one (Yahoo HK news). I have made comments at Talk:Cattle in religion#In East Asia OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. And actually I saw it before, because it was introduced by myself! (Go to WP:BS and search for translation barnstar) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I know; just a silly joke! Hope you don't mind, I've added functionality to it for messages as that seemed to be the original intention. -kotra (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chupacabra

I have it on my watchlist, but keeping it clean seems unlikely. Since the protection was lifted, two pages of anon edits have made it into the article and some obvious vandalism has survived. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to check it out right now, but if you think it needs reprotection (which it sounds like from your description), I won't object. -kotra (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)