Talk:Inedia/Archive 2

I removed the following section because it is synthesis WP:SYNTH

As per interviews with the researchers involved into the testing, during the study, a protocol of round-the-clock surveillance was followed with the help of several CCTV cameras and personal observation. Mataji (Prahlad Jani) was taken out for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography (USG), and X-ray examination and exposure to sun under continuous video recording.^[1]. The video montage provided by IRA to substantiate their criticism fails to show the few second long 'doubtful' episodes from the angles exposing the supposed deception, and shows 2003 Polish video clips of Prahlad Jani bathing as a proof of his 2010 bathing being not sufficiently monitored.

It is synthesis to compare sources and add conclusions as an editor. You must find a reliable source which does this for you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are my own conclusions? And how do you suppose to balance the unsubstantiated criticism of IRA, if you remove the direct citations of references which provide an alternative view? But we can also separate the quotes to avoid the synthesis, if that's what you prefer :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Who compared the videos and wrote:

provided by IRA to substantiate their criticism fails to show the few second long 'doubtful' episodes from the angles exposing the supposed deception, and shows 2003 Polish video clips of Prahlad Jani bathing as a proof of his 2010 bathing being not sufficiently monitored.

? Can you cite who wrote the above quote? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to balance the IRA criticism because there is more than enough praise from the Indian Department of Defence. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is correct to remove info directly showing the lack of substance of certain criticism included. I did not compare the video to something else, I just watched it (which I would strongly advise you to do as well, before further edit warring here). The plot of the video is provided as per WP:FILMPLOT. -- Nazar (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to compare films and write your own conclusions. You are edit-warring so as to add synthesis in the article. If you continue I will report this. This is not a movie to add plots and analyse them on our own. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You revert my edits faster than you reply to my messages on the talk page. haha. I could actually already have reported you as per WP:3RR. But I know it will be tough for me to make my stand here, as the info I provide is not in accordance with the fanatic rationalistic moods here. What you currently do is manipulating the information to make the article look they way you prefer to show it. Without even the short description of the video used as a main argument to back up the criticism, how are you supposed to objectively include such a criticism into an article? Please do remove my personal analysis and provide the pure description of the video, if you think I'm not being neutral enough :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference to impose on the article. My motivation is removing synthesis. From your reply you seem to understand what synthesis is. This is hopeful. Maybe, with time, you can come around and see my points. Until some source analyses these videos in the future and reaches the same conclusions as you, we can add the info in the article then; but we simply cannot analyse them at the present time on our own. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why have you removed this []. Please kindly elaborate. <PA redacted> We can continue the fun tomorrow :) And, there's no my own analysis in the video description. It is a direct rendering of the video plot. The number 2003 comes in text in the portion of the video about bathing, even if you don't understand what it says :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand what a copyvio is? Please read WP:COPYVIO and then reply to me. Aside from the fact that the passage is absolutely useless it is also copied directly from the pdf file. This is considered a copyright violation here. And please do me a favour and avoid personal comments and do not try to analyse my edits. Using ad-hominem arguments is considered a personal attack WP:NPA. So do not try to analyse me but try to improve your knowledge of our policies instead so I do not have to type a mile a minute before I repair the synthesis mistakes and copyright violations you are making. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what I removed from the article, per your question above:

The investigators intend to continue dialogue after these tests by periodic meeting among themselves with data processing as and when the data come through, to come out with some scientific conclusions which will take some time. The publication of the study in a scientific journal can only be considered thereafter at the discretion of principal investigator.

This is from www.sudhirneuro.org/files/press_release.pdf:

The investigators intend to carry on dialogue by periodic meeting among themselves with data processing as and when the data come through, to come out with some scientific conclusions which will take some time. The publication of the study in a scientific journal can only be considered thereafter at the discretion of principal investigator.

Do you see that these two passages are almost identical copies? This is the copyvio you inserted and I removed from the article. Also I wrote the explanation as to why I removed this copyvio in the edit summary so I do not understand why you are asking me again on this talkpage. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what a WP:COPYVIO is (I saw that in your edit summary and of course I understood what are your speaking about, <redact PA>, but the passage is copied from a press release, which is intended for further redistribution, the reference to the source is provided. The passage was provided in the article to explain the reason why there were no publications in scientific journals so far, and this seems important for Wikipedia readers, as the lack or peer reviewed scientific publications is often seen as a large drawback of the article. If direct citation from the intended press release is not appropriate (which I personally doubt) you may rephrase it, but the info itself must be kept, as it is vital for the balanced rendering of the case. Your removal is strongly biased in my opinion and continues your previously mentioned manipulation of the article content in favor of discarding the claims of PJ. If I may express this, your above personal suggestions and repeated removals of useful info I add are very clearly ad-hominem to me and are obviously a personal attack (please kindly study WP:NPA). However, as per my opinion, it's within the acceptable boundaries so far, and I can handle it without reporting you :) haha. <personal attack redacted> I always did my best to include and properly expose all the referenced critical info from the guys like you and all the other editors of the article... Maintaining NPOV is my highest priority here, that's why I try to add some info to balance the article. I may also add that personally I have rather strong doubts about some of the claims of PJ and I'm definitely not one of his followers. :) But your approach has too strong PoV issues (sorry, no offense, just my opinion about your removals) -- Nazar (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep referring to me personally despite the warning I gave you before. Please cease your personal attacks otherwise you will be reported. <Redact reply to PA> And don't presume to falsely accuse me of personal attacks against you. I only commented on the edits that you added, not on you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}

Aren't you referring personally to me above just now? Haven't you just now imperatively ordered me to do as you say and threatened me? Haven't you just now directly called my polite and article related question 'a dumb question'? If you haven't done all that, please do report me, <personal attack redacted>. haha. Otherwise please cool down and brace yourself (just a humble suggestion, no offense). I'm not going to report you yet. ;) Though your edits are strongly biased and ad-hominem, which I explained already. Your removal of video overview is against WP:FILMPLOT and very strongly biased in favor of unsubstantiated IRA claims. We can't exclude vital video material from the case just because there's no text reference to its content. There is a video reference as a main argument in IRA criticism, and it should be viewed as a reference material. All it takes is to neutrally render the video content in text (as text and not video is used in the article). Refusing to do so is obviously PoV. -- Nazar (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing else to tell to you except let's wait for some other opinions before we edit this article because obviously we are not going to agree. As far as your comments regarding my replies to you I obviously do not agree. Please do report me if you think I attacked you. Don't do me any favours. I am not going to discuss anything else with you until someone else renders an opinion on this dispute. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We should either quote a press release directly, or summarise it - we shouldn't copy-and-paste entire sentences across and present them as original encyclopaedia content. (Not least because, at least in this case, it isn't particularly well written.)

If your only concern with this content is that it's a copyvio, though, Dr K, it would have been more productive to simply rewrite it. --McGeddon (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed my comment above where I said: Aside from the fact that the passage is absolutely useless it is also copied directly from the pdf file. I therefore do not find it at all useful to include. If you think that it is useful please go ahead and rewrite it so that you include it. To me it just sounds like typical bureaucratic nonsense simply stating the obvious that if they get more data and if the paper gets accepted and if the chief investigator approves it then they will publish a paper. I thought I would spare the reader from this nonsense. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm for rewriting. The whole press release is not particularly well written, in my opinion. But I respect the effort of researchers to study the case and don't want to make prejudiced speculative claims (like Mr. Edamaruku does), moreover backing the criticism up by a manipulated video. Something should be written about that, if you choose to include Edamaruku's criticism at all (and I think it's very correct to include that criticism, because it's rationalistic in a positive way too, but it must be balanced and critically exposed to avoid witch hunting). Exposing the failures of the provided video is the best way to do that. There's no personal analysis or original research in that, just watch the video and convey it's pure plot in a most neutral way. -- Nazar (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You expose the video when you find a reliable source which exposes it. Doing it on your own is WP:SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not doing it on my own. The video is self-explanatory and needs no further personal analysis or synthesis. None of such is included into my edits. So please stop attacking me. -- Nazar (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some comments I've added above might have been touched by too much emotion on my side. Sorry for that, no offense was meant. I hope that doesn't thwart the evaluation of the raised article related issues. I also do understand that there may be no readily available suitable policy for neutral encyclopedic rendering of the video material related to the article, therefore it might be difficult to find a feasible justification for the inclusion of text description of the video plot to provide for NPOV of the case. I still think the current article rendering has strong intentional POV issues introduced by certain editors, but I understand that's probably the best Wikipedia can provide for as by now. Whatever the resolution of this dispute would be, I'm grateful to the participants for their time and constructive effort. In my opinion, the article won't look too bad in either case. Thanks! -- Nazar (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Medical claims should conform to WP:MEDRS; this doesn't. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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}
}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.69.181 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 8 December 2013‎

 Done. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"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.

This edit request to Inedia has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two noted Breatharians are Giri Bala and Therese Neumann. Paramahansa Yogananda, in his "Autobiography of a Yogi" (published by Self-Realization Fellowship), reports that he met Therese Neumann and that from 1923 until her death in 1962, she consumed no food other than The Holy Eucharist, and claimed to have drunk no water from 1926 until her death. In July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration.

Yogananda met Giri Bala when she was 68. At that time she had not eaten nor taken fluids for over 56 years and existed purely on Light. With Yogananda she shared how as a child she enjoyed a voracious appetite for which she was often chided and teased. At age nine she was betrothed and was soon ensconced in her husband's family abode. One day Giri suffered so greatly at her mother-in-law's teasing at her gluttony that she exclaimed "I shall soon prove to you that I shall never touch food again as long as I live". Teased further she then fled the village.

In great despair she cried from her very soul for God to send a Guru who could teach her to live by God's Light alone. At this time her Guru materialized in front of her and she was initiated into the art of a specific Kriya Yoga technique to free the body of the need for physical sustenance.

The Guru shared 'Dear little one, I am the guru sent here by God to fulfil your urgent prayer. He was deeply touched by its very unusual nature. From today you shall live by the astral light. Your bodily atoms shall be recharged by the infinite current."

Since that day she has neither eaten nor taken fluids and has no bodily excretions.

69.144.152.106 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - looks like this content is the reason this article was protected in the first place. You can check the edit history to see why six separate editors disagreed with its inclusion: it's lacking any reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was this proposed content that prompted me to request protection. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Inedia has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• • • Please ADD to "Breatharianism" on Wikipedia, thank you --

Two noted Breatharians are Giri Bala and Therese Neumann. Paramahansa Yogananda, in his "Autobiography of a Yogi" (published by Self-Realization Fellowship), reports that he met Therese Neumann and that from 1923 until her death in 1962, she consumed no food other than The Holy Eucharist, and claimed to have drunk no water from 1926 until her death. In July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration.

Yogananda met Giri Bala when she was 68. At that time she had not eaten nor taken fluids for over 56 years and existed purely on Light.

With Yogananda she shared how as a child she enjoyed a voracious appetite for which she was often chided and teased. At age nine she was betrothed and was soon ensconced in her husband's family abode. One day Giri suffered so greatly at her mother-in-law's teasing at her gluttony that she exclaimed "I shall soon prove to you that I shall never touch food again as long as I live". Teased further she then fled the village.

In great despair she cried from her very soul for God to send a Guru who could teach her to live by God's Light alone. At this time her Guru materialized in front of her and she was initiated into the art of a specific Kriya Yoga technique to free the body of the need for physical sustenance.

The Guru shared 'Dear little one, I am the guru sent here by God to fulfil your urgent prayer. He was deeply touched by its very unusual nature. From today you shall live by the astral light. Your bodily atoms shall be recharged by the infinite current."

Since that day she has neither eaten nor taken fluids and has no bodily excretions.

75.127.19.190 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done For exactly the same reasons as before. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}

I cut this section because the only sources for Manek's claims were WP:SELFPUB "exceptional claims", unreliable or dead sources and a piece by Sudhir Shah about cosmic energy in the Gujarat Medical Journal. It was reverted back in by User:Cpt.a.haddock who thought it could be "salvaged", but they made no changes to the sourcing. Is it salvageable? --McGeddon (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There are many pseudosciences, all more or less crazy. However many of them could conceivably be true. Not breathairianism. This idea is so crazy that I don't think that pseudoscience is the correct word for it. It is a mental illness, surely.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

firstly, I haven't done this before so I apologise if I have done it incorrectly.

I wanted to ask if it's possible someone could give a better title to the religious traditions section such as "similar religious traditions", or more detail in the section itself. Currently it's near meaningless except for the couple of paragraphs under hinduism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.197.5 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140627034125/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-8060648983626971848 to https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8060648983626971848

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As I read the lead, inedia/breatharianism is presented as either based on hinduism, or a life style. Now, "life style" may be a bit of a rubber term, but still, I don't think either of these two alternatives cover e.g. a case like Rosicrucianism mentioned further down in the article.--Nø (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The "citation needed" here is pretty hilarious. But in all seriousness, would it be appropriate here to cite a biology textbook, for example openstax biology 2e? https://openstax.org/details/books/biology-2e —Keenan Pepper 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know the answer to your question, but I have removed the stupid tag. You are welcome. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

We need to take a little more care in filtering out the crap that gets entered into wikipedia.Tgm1024 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a world full of nonsense masquerading as sense. While, IMO, this is a clear case of that, there are vague regions in the twilight between established fact and emerging research. Wikipedia is not in a position to evaluate and judge such cases. Instead, we report what reliable sources say: patent nonsense not worth investigating, marginally plausible but fails on closer examination, plausible but lacking confirmation, whatever. In the present case, "considered a lethal pseudoscience by scientists and medical professionals, and several adherents of these practices have died from starvation and dehydration" seems to about cover it. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There are some things that Wikipedia can judge. Fundamental physical facts. One is that no one can survive without food. Breatharianism is not "the belief", etc, but the "alleged belief". No one believes the claims of the movement are true.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If no one believed it, most likely no one would have died. Some pseudo sciences have enough merit that a sincere scientist should be open to the possibility it has elements that may one day come into the mainstream (acupuncture, e.g., if you consider that a pseudo science). Inedia is clearly has no such merit, but I think pseudo science is still the proper label for it. And/or belief.--Nø (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not nonsense. If it were, you could not understand what their claim is. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is nonsense, in fact, it is nonsense on toast. Also, why answer a question from two years ago? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Then how can we understand what they claim? Because it has a sense (and a reference), therefore it has meaning. What you mean is that the claim is false. But for it to be false, it has to have a meaning. I'm answering and old comment because it is important to understand the difference between falsehood and meaninglessness, and you immediately proved that the confusion still stands. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You are using a stricter definition of nonsense than the older contribution did. Just words. Nothing worth talking about much. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitions are very important to talk about, and usually the very first thing we should talk about. Also, we loose semantic amplitude and therefore thought amplitude if many words mean the same. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, so here's some definitions/word usages that I suggest work perfectly for nonsense: "foolish or unacceptable behavior." or "words or ideas that are foolish or untrue." or "behavior that is silly, annoying, or unkind" --73.189.105.229 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"...an Israeli breatharian appearing to survive for eight days on a television documentary" is unintentionally hilarious. It makes it sound like the person didn't need food or water to survive those eight days but did need the documentary. Tweaking this sentence is recommended but I'll leave that to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WavSlave (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There are claims in this article mentioning for example "96 hours". But it is generally accepted that you can survive for 7/8 days without drinking. So anything under that is not inedia. Let me know what you think, otherwise I'm removing cases of a few days. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you got a WP:MEDRS source that supports your claim of "7/8 days." Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Not right now, but any healthy person can spend four days without eating... I'm going to look for a reference. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important we do our best in separating fact from opinion in this article (especially on a topic as different to mainstream or scientific thought as this one!). Even if one dismisses the notion entirely we can still look at what is it that breatharians actually claim? And not just what do we think they claim. When we look closely we might might find there's a difference. With this in mind a brief bit of research on the topic shows that breatharians do not claim that food and water is not necessary for survival in such simple terms. Most appear to state it requires a process to be gone through in order for the body to require less or no food and water. It is important to provide proper context here and it would therefore be more accurate to say humans have the potential to live without food and water rather than whether humans simply can or can't. I compare this to saying humans can run a mile in under four minutes. Whilst it has some truth it is not entirely true. I can't run a mile under 4 minutes. And neither can anyone I know. But for some people, with training, it does appear to be possible doesn't it? And from what I have researched on the matter breatharians make the same claim in relation to living without food or water. It's not something everyone can do right now, but it is a potential for some people and it requires a process of transformation to enable it to happen. Here-For-The-Pizza (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is all WP:SYNTH and WP:OR please read my edsums, provide sources for your edits, and stop edit warring. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Using "inedia" in stead of "breatharianism" as synonyms is misleading. They are not synonyms. This page should be called "breatharianism". Inedia just means "loss of appetite" but this article poses it as synonym of breatharianism: the statement "Inedia (Latin for 'fasting') or breatharianism /brɛθˈɛəriənɪzəm/ is the claimed ability for a person to live without consuming food" is implying that "Inedia is the claimed ability for a person to live without consuming food", which is incorrect. Inedia simply means "loss of appetite" and is at most a medical condition. Please provide reference to who defined or used "inedia" as synonym of breatharianism, otherwise this page is an attempt to redefine what inedia means and should be corrected.

Psychologist Guy provided a reference to Riddle, Joseph Esmond. (1847). A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon, Founded on the German-Latin Dictionary of Dr. Charles Ernest Georges. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. p. 342. in support of the claim, but even in that source there is no connection between inedia and breatharianism; the source actually supports my claim. — Simone (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Inedia in Latin means "not eating" and "to subdue one's appetite". I would say the term to some pretty much equates to breatharianism which is not eating but to avoid confusion I would support changing the name of this article to breatharianism because the sources on the article all use the term breatharian or breatharianism.. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I still stand on my position. "Inedia" just means "not eating" or "loss of appetite"; the fact that it is a Latin word doesn't add anything to its meaning, nor it makes it more similar to breatharianism. "Breatharianism" could be a religion, a movement, or a belief: it refers to a group of individuals who decide to not eat becase they claim they can live without food. Saying that the "term to some pretty much equates to breatharianism" is the same as saying that the terms pretty much equates to "fasting" because the word means "not eating". Just because one "fasts" we don't say that they "claim to live without consuming food"; it's a non sequitur. In the same way, just because one suffers "inedia", or suffer from a "loss of appetite", it doesn't imply that they are "claiming to live without consuming food" (inedia can be an eating disorder, and is associated with starvation, which is the opposite of what breatharianism claims). If the followers of breatharianism are "claiming to live without consuming food", then they are following or believing in "breatharianism". It's not a matter of confusion, it's a matter that using "inedia" is plain wrong.

You also claimed that it means "to subdue one's appetite": I believe you took that definition from the same source, but note that the source doesn't say that "to subdue one's appetite" is the definition of inedia. The source says that the translation of "to subdue one's appetite" is "se longis jejuniis domare" in latin. I invite you to read the source you provided again.

Please note people are already copying what Wikipedia says and are starting to use inedia improperly. This should be corrected as soon as possible.

— Simone (talk) Sun Nov 08 00:27 2020 UTC

Inedia is the alleged ability to live without food, for example see this . Breatharianism is basically a form of inedia, in fact the only form because its claimants say they get all their energy from air. But both inedia and breatharianism are equated with each other by most writers on this topic and used interchangeably. This website uses both terms. This is basically a semantics dispute. Inedia means not eating and so does breatharianism so I don't think many other editors will agree to rename the article. I retract my suggestion on that. I don't think this article is confusing people with the terms used. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In the photo of the purported 1669 report that accompanies this entry, why are the letters surrounded by white borders? Cpacker666 (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the entry could use the following information. I'll leave it to expert editors to decide.

First use of "Breatharianism" appears to have been in 1952 by George R Clements (d. 1970), an esotericist/mystic/pseudoscientific health writer: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Clement-3126 in book "Man's Higher Consciousness" (1962) under pseudonym Hilton Hotema https://www.google.com/books/edition/Man_s_Higher_Consciousness/RSdt-s6dqj0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22breatharianism%22&pg=RA1-PA39&printsec=frontcover Page 40 has typical prose. This book was a reissue of his 1952 book called "Man's Higher Consciousness" written under pseudonym Kenyon Klamonti and first (possibly) brought to public attention by Ormund Powers, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel on July 24, 1952 (p 1): http://newspapers.com/clip/72640206 Cpacker666 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

So, I'm supposed to assumed good faith. But thats beyond my understanding.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a report of whatever is seen, not understood by what maria, ou john thinks.

And if some ideia is reported in the information, it must have sources.

Now, that said, I'm really having a hard time trying to understand how one can simply undo changes based on the actual information, a true report, not a understanding of it, and I'm the one who needs to try to "talk".

Now, Why are you undoning the information about the HRM?! This is unbelievble.

Brainless F*** Piece of S***.

This is not your 4chan or your personal blog... but i guess i can't fight the masses. meh. Wikipedia sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrynh (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Pedrynh, See WP:PROFRINGE. Wikipedia is not a place to argue that maybe who somebody who went into a McDonalds and was seen by the employees eating, didn't actually eat anything and instead subsists on air and sunlight. We go by what independent sources say, and the Telegraph piece cited in the article is quite clear on this. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You're the king of lies. Congratulations.

So not only the reply i receivd from you is FALSE, cause the link is DEAD, there you didn't check the link to see if it's "clear", I can fairly assume you didn't check the source itself.

Not only that but my "talks" were erased, by a moderator or something.

Congratulations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrynh (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Pedrynh, the article is still available elsewhere, I assure you I did read it and it is consistent with the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read the archives to see where this article is coming from. It seems to me that the introduction has to be rewritten to say what inedia is, and to indicate that Breatharianism is one variety. Other options include the purported Catholic mystics who consume only the consecrated Host. The word 'ability' is ambiguous - for Breatharians it is something everyone can learn - the Catholic mystics treat it as a miracle, a special act of God. To call it a pseudoscience implies that there are quasi medical people who promote it, but Breatharians approach from a religious perspective. To say 'several adherents have died' implies that some have not died. etc. Perhaps a short summary article, with a separate article for Breatharianism or 'Inedia in the Vedic tradition' --142.163.195.5 (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)