Talk:Macrobiotics

Philosophy, not just a diet![edit]

There seem to be people who insist Macrobiotics is only a diet. This is of course wrong, as will testify the many organisations and individuals who follow the Chinese philosophy and way of life on which macrobiotics is based. Thanks to the recent editor who prompted me to revise the links and definitions of macrobiotics. However, reducing Macrobiotics to 'a diet' is a travesty, so please do not replace the redirect again! There are many organisations that observe macrobiotics as a philosophy (meaning "love wisdom" in Greek!). I am a long time (part-time!) practitioner with many wise friends who support the view that it is a WAY OF LIFE, so I request users to realise they are causing offence by insisting it is only a diet. Thanks! TruthIan (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, please look at WP:GNG for the notability requirements. Until these are fulfilled, the {{Notability}} WP:hatnote shall stay. Some examples can be found in WP:SIGCOV. Викидим (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Wikidemus! I'm sure you are a kind and thoughtful person, and clearly very used to the Wikipedia rules. I try to be the former but I am not the latter. See my page for info that I am neither a fanatic nor stupid.

Or perhaps this comes from Wikipedia itself.

Here is a link to Encyclopedia Britannica. Does that satisfy the rules? [1]https://www.britannica.com/topic/macrobiotics TruthIan (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is a good source definitely. But it covers the Macrobiotic diet article, where this one should be redirected IMHO. Викидим (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the notability page of Wikipedia:

"Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."

In that light ... if you do a simple google search you will find endless testimonials to Macrobiotics being a way of life, not just a diet. I am composing a list of websites that have sufficient credibility for you to resist my attempts to get an honest picture of Macrobiotics into the public domain, as opposed to a misleading one (fad diet!!! - that is a personal opinion of someone, for sure!).

For instance, Clearspring is an independent commercial supplier of foods, and has no direct affiliation with Macrobiotics as such, nor any need to promote it; its products will sell themselves without needing to describe a dubious or dangerous market for them: https://www.clearspring.co.uk/collections/macrobiotic-essentials

Likewise, please google this phrase: "bbc good food macrobiotics" and see the result. Or check this link direct to the BBC Good Food page on Macrobiotics reviewed by an independent qualified nutritionist and read the whole article:

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-macrobiotic-diet

Both of the above specifically describe Macrobiotics as a way of life. The BBC offers a balanced report into both the practices and the dangers of misuse. I propose to rewrite the introduction in the light of Macrobiotics being based on an intuitive sense of unscientific notions such as Yin and Yang. My own degree is in Physics. Clearly, benefits of such cannot be determined by scientific measurement as there is nothing specific to measure; Macrobiotics is guidance, not rules. But that does not make Macrobiotics unhelpful as a way of life that countless people attest to as beneficial. You could apply that argument to Christianity, for instance - but I am sure you are not considering a notability block on that subject! Any faith or belief system lays itself open to those who become radical and fanatical about the concepts and do themselves and others harm as a result. The words faith and belief by definition place such systems beyond the range of scientific verifiability as there is nothing substantial to measure. But to decide they do not make a useful contribution to human thought and do not deserve a place on Wikipedia is too draconian. This page, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh is about someone who told his followers to wear orange; his Wikipedia page stands though the benefits of his opinions cannot possibly be verified! Likewise, Macrobiotics is considered a way of life, not just a diet, by countless thousands worldwide, and has no less a right to representation here.

I am compiling a list of suitable sites to satisfy you. Please let me know if the above, for instance, are sufficient; however I 'have a life' and cannot spend hours every day on Wikipedia editing! But I am keen to get this one right since I have started. So I shall work on this again later.

I am grateful for your help to a newcomer to editing. I request you to help me get this page right, not to justify wiping it off the system! TruthIan (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]