Timeline for Can we clarify questions that mention nutrition...again?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 2020 at 15:53 | comment | added | Cascabel Mod | I think the primary intent of the question carries a lot of weight, as does the scope of health/nutrition information required for an answer, and the scale of controversy. Historical questions like this aren't primarily about nutrition, they don't require in-depth information that gets down into the really bad minefields, and there's really no controversy about the existence of literal deficiency diseases. (Your example fails on all three of those counts.) It's also totally feasible for us to apply case by case judgement here; we don't need perfect rules that make everything trivial. | |
| Aug 12, 2020 at 13:06 | comment | added | rumtscho Mod | hi Cascabel, thank you for sharing this view. What would your position be on a historical question such as "How did Dr. Hay's diet prevent diabetes"? Is it also acceptable under your interpretation? If not, how we draw the line between acceptable and inacceptable quesitons? | |
| Aug 10, 2020 at 18:53 | history | edited | CascabelMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Aug 10, 2020 at 18:36 | history | answered | CascabelMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |