Why was the question Can Type I diabetes be cured with a raw food diet and exercise? closed as not a real question, and not as a duplicate?

If it's not a duplicate because it asks about slightly different results than Simply Raw: Can you reverse diabetes in 30 days by eating raw food? I think that the question is fine (after all the un-neutral trash talk was edited out).

The reason why I ask for the reason, is that when a question is closed as a duplicate, a link to the duplicated question is put, so that people who find the new question but not the duplicated will still come to the "original" question. when a question is closed for a different reason, the OP gets negative feedback that they don't deserve, and the banner with the link is not present.

  • @Oddthinking ...
    – SIMEL
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 11:42
  • Yea the question itself was fine after the edits. Reason for close should be it being a duplicate. I would still edit the question a bit further, flesh out details about the claim, link to the forum X which supported the claim. If you close the question for not being a question you give the wrong feedback to the person asking the question IMO.
    – Wertilq
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 12:50

3 Answers 3


(Whoops. I somehow missed the notification for this. The edits I made to the question were not in response to this meta-question.)

I closed the question partly because the exact claim was unclear, but mostly because the link provided did NOT contain a reference to the claim, so there was no notability.

I searched further, and found a page where the author actually clearly made the claim (based on a single personal anecdote. sigh). As I half-expected, the claim was somewhat different to the original post. (For example, exercise was part of the claim.) I included a cite.

As for duplicates, I explicitly included links in the question. The OP had claimed this previous question was different: Simply Raw: Can you reverse diabetes in 30 days by eating raw food? because it was about Type 2 diabetes. I initially accepted that, and deleted the discussion about duplicates. BY the time I finished editing the question, I wasn't entirely sure. That question and the top answer are focussed on Type II diabetes, but not exclusively. I wasn't sure, so I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt.

If people think it should be closed as a duplicate, I encourage them to vote to close. (The close/edit/open cycle did eat up @Ilya's vote, sorry. Please vote again if you still think it deserves to be closed.)


Rather than address the question ("Why was this question closed as not a real question?"), I think a better question is should it have been closed as NARQ instead of duplicate. Accidents and mistakes happen, so rather than focus on whether a specific decision was right or wrong, I'd prefer to simply try to achieve a consensus as what should the prefered outcome be.

I believe the more recent question is a duplicate of the earlier question, and should be closed as such. The new question seems to me to be valid, albeit one that was in need of some editing. It is somewhat more specific than the older question, but that still falls within the definitions of what is considered duplicate from previous meta discussion (cover exactly the same ground/one generalises the other).

I propose that the newer question be reopened, and then closed as a duplicate of the more general version.

  • I totally support the solution you propose. Mistakes happens, better fix the problem, than dwell on it. And your solution would work fine.
    – Wertilq
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 14:57
  • I support this.
    – SIMEL
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 15:57

Is there a scientifically-recognised whereby...

In the English language an adjective like scientifically-recognised would need a noun following it. Whereby is not a noun but refers to a noun that should come earlier in the sentence. There no noun.

"scientifically-recognised" is a strange word. Science doesn't recognize. Scientists might recognize something but science itself is a process that's not an agent.

Scientific nutrition studies answer questions like: "What happens when you put an average Type 1 diabetes patient on a raw food diet?"

  • 3
    You're being picky with the details. People use terms like that wrong all the time, and while it's not really good, that by itself is not enough to warrant a close for not being a question IMO.
    – Wertilq
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 12:52
  • @Wertilq : Once you correct the question, it's a dublicate of the other question that already exists.
    – Christian
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 12:58
  • 5
    @Christian, if there are grammatical errors, then fix them, grammar and spelling is not a reason for closure. There is a valid question there.
    – SIMEL
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 14:02

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .