This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, is there a reason for removing "due to the small amount of animal products consumed" from Rwandan cuisine? --BelovedFreak 23:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
To say that a lack of protein in their diet was the result of low levels of animal consumption is a logical fallacy. So I removed it.WildlifeAnalysis (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Do you mind explaining how it's a logical fallacy? The article was written using secondary sources. To quote from the particular source used: "Due to a diet low in meat consumption, they were deficient in certain proteins and minerals usually provided in animal products." Do you have another source that says that's a logical fallacy? If so, we can include both. We're supposed to write about what has already been written in secondary sources, not what we believe to be true or logical.--BelovedFreak 09:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, your quoted sentence makes a different point than the paraphrasing which I erased was making. What I erased was a claim that their lack in protein was the exclusive result of low levels of animal consumption. This is obviously false logic, as there is no nutritional benefit, protein included, which consumption of animals offers uniquely. The quote that you present here, however, makes the different point that their lack in animal protein specifically, was due to low levels of animal consumption. Although it's a weird statement, it's certainly true (to the point of being self-evident), so if you wanted to put that whole phrase up it would be accurate. In any event, I don't engage in wikipedia pissing contests, so I won't be responding to any more messages. Change it back if you like. Or change it to say that Rwandans can all fly, for that matter. I really don't care. WildlifeAnalysis (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation; the fault then, seems to lie with my writing, which is no surprise to me. I'm not the best writer in the world. I'm genuinely sorry if you see this as a pissing contest, that's certainly not how I see it or how I intended to come across. If you could help me out with rewording it to better reflect the source, that would be great. If not, no problem.--BelovedFreak 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reinstated the sentence with an extra word which hopefully makes it clearer.--BelovedFreak 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
