Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Avocado

I've removed the argument that avocado is a good source of protein. First, it was not sourced to a reliable source directly relating the discussion to the topic.

Second, avocados are not good protein sources. In addition to being incomplete protein, there is far to much fat. One medium avocado has 18g fat and ~4g protein.[1] to reach the 46-56g protein recommended daily (see Protein_in_nutrition#Dietary_requirements) that's 11.5-14 avocados, which is 207 to 242 grams of fat (against recommendations of under 65 to under 80 grams daily). More to the point, the article lists nuts as a good source. 100 grams of soy nuts provide 40g protein and 22g fat.[2] So 46-56g protein from soy nuts brings less than 31g fat. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please revert your removal. I agree that there is much fat in it, but it is one of the only fruitarian protein source and its also one of the only source you can grow (eg in self-sufficiency food systems).

KVDP (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

the avocado is a rich source of amino acids..the building blocks of protein. as a result, humans can literally live on avocados. this point is contested by science, yet many fruitarians (including fruitarian athletes) have proved this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.129.144 (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that while avocados appear to be rich in all the essential amino acids, both omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, and several vitamins and minerals, one cannot literally live on just avocados (at least, not in the long term). They are highly nutritious, but not a "perfect food" (there is none). Several vitamins and minerals are missing or insufficient, especially Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, and Selenium. (source). I seriously doubt the fruitarians you mention actually lived solely on avocados. And if they did, I doubt they did it for very long. Meals would get boring really fast, if nothing else. -kotra (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bedouin and desert nomads live on dates, goats milk/camel milk and water, and don't get bored. You are projecting Kotra, because you are not familiar with and/or against mono diets. Zanze123 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now off topic. Please discuss improving this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article could be improved by Kotra and summerphd reading the book 'The Golden Seven Plus One' by Dr Corwyn Samuel West, which provides the cytological, lymphatic, biochemical and physiological basis for the fruitarian diet, before making any other dramatic changes. Zanze123 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That would not help. If I were somehow convinced by this book and became fruitarian (unlikely as I'm turned off by its religious/divinely inspired themes), would I then become tolerant of insufficiently sourced contentious statements in this article? No. I'm perfectly happy to do promotion and activism off-wiki, but I fully understand how it harms my cause (whatever that may be) to push it on-wiki, especially in ways that resemble bias. And allowing such statements to be presented as facts with nothing reliable to back them up would certainly resemble bias. -kotra (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are mixing chalk and cheese. I suggested you read a book. I never said you had to change your mind about anything. Since you also choose to see what you already belief, there is no point discussing this aricle or contributing to it. Zanze123 (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Zanzel123, since you choose to see what you already believe, is there any point to you discussing this article or contributing to it? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed quotations which are both for and against fruitarianism, thanks. Zanze123 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not too much fat. The fat avocado contains is monounsaturated, so contains HDLs, which lower cholesterol. The maximum recommendations you quote are for saturated fat, which contains LDLs. - Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.136.128 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You will find that monounsaturates do not "contain" HDL (and saturated fat does not "contain" LDL). Instead, within limits, consumption of monounsaturated fats are thought to raise blood concentrations of HDL. However, this does not mean that absurd amounts of fat (such as an all avocado diet would provide) is healthy. As a result, there are recommendations for both total fat (as I have quoted) and saturated fat. Too much fat in avocado, even if it is mostly monounsaturated. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

vitamins b12

i read on the internet that Dr. james halsted was working with persian iranian vegans who did not get b12 deficiency and discovered they were using humanure to grow there food.Username 1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also seen studies showing that eating food contaminated with shit may contain B12. However, I have not seen a reliable source indicating that fruitarians specifically may meet their B12 requirements in this way. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

note that the b12 is not left over from the food remains of non-vegans, but from the bacteria in the large intestines in vegans before it is excreted. Vitamin B12 cannot be made by plants or animals as only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. Also on the internet i found a study in which scientist cured vitamin b12 def. in vegans by giving them concentrated doses of b12 from there own fecal matter, which proves there is enough b12 in the feces but that perhaps only barely enough b12 survives the second time through. I found this as well:

"Studies have shown that those eating an omnivorous diet require more vitamin B-12 than vegans. This is because the typical diet leads to digestive atrophy. Because vitamin B-12 is peptide bound in animal products and must be enzymatically cleaved from the peptide bonds to be absorbed, a weakening of all gastric acid and gastric enzyme secretions (due to a cooked food diet) causes an inability to efficiently extract vitamin B-12 from external food." Username 1 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk shall continue on veganism

Username 1 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wigmore, Kulvinskas, Jose Sierra Casado (authors) all show B12 is in or on grasses, weeds, roots, leaves, fungi, moss, algae, dirt, wild fruits and sprouts, as well as being in the air, on dirty hands, in water, in the mouth after eating, and stored in the body. See the book by Casado on B12. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)]

Reliable sources cited in the article show that the relevant academic communities agree that B12 for humans is available only from animal food sources. Where other sources state there is B12 is irrelevant unless a reliable source shows consensus that human beings can obtain sufficient B12 from such sources as you have outlined. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

'Kulvinskas book Survival, which includes the B12 issue, has more than 400 scientific citations. Relevant academic communities' believe there is no cure for cancer because it is expedient for them to do so, even when cures and preventative cures are known already, because knowing a cure is not the same as knowing a cause - although in fact, such academica know for neither. so in reality, relevant academic communities are exactly that ACADEMIC, and hence irrelevant. define 'sufficient'. Please continue with your paleodiet theories. If the criteria for what can be in a Wiki article is flawed, then Wiki articles shall be flawed. Nothing could be more so, than in the case of this article. Continue to see what you believe.[[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]

Having scientific citations does not make it a reliable source.

Your beliefs about academic sources are moot. This is a fringe topic. Wikipedia requires citations from relevant academic communities.

If you have difficulties with Wikipedia's criteria, you have several options: 1) follow them anyway 2) ignore them and likely end up being blocked from editing 3) try to change those criteria. The core criterion you seem to have a problem with is "reliable sources". Please take any problems with this policy to the talk page of the policy. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Having citations does make it a reliable source if the source cited is reliable and relates to the issue. Read the sections on B12 in Kulvinskas book before you yet again dismiss point blank. Why not contribute something yourself, instead of just denegrating others' efforts. A reliable soure does not have to show whether B12 found in non animal sources is a reliable source of B12, because healthy fruitarians, even if not famous or having wrote books, are a more reliable source. It is unfortunate you accept unreliable 'academic' sources as inherrently reliable and indeed objective when they are necessarily far from it. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)]

You are mistaken. "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

Given the high quality of the sources asserting that B12 is available only from animal food sources, claims to the contrary are exceptional claims. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Until recently, there was high quality in sources asserting that there was no correlation between lung and smoking, while the information showing there was a correlation was known since the 1970s, but not publicized. Lol. Zanze123 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not technically correct, but yes, if Wikipedia existed before the 50s, it might not have drawn a link between cigarettes and lung cancer. Wikipedia is not Truth, it's knowledge. If the fallibility of knowledge bothers you, Wikipedia - and all other encyclopedias, books, etc - are not for you. -kotra (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely. Knowledge of the raw and fruit diets is available, but if it is not widely published in the peer-reviewed journals of the academic 'community' it is regarded as 'unscientific'. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, yet those same sources can be fallible. Zanze123 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Reliable sources are fallible? Yes. Still, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Real?

Is this real or a joke article/joke diet? I mean it can't be real. How can you live off such a thing, or is it only used sparodically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.186.37 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a real diet followed by a vanishingly small group of people. If you read the section on famous fruitarians, you will see that there are no verified cases of anyone maintaining health for any prolonged period on such a restrictive diet. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

SUMMER PHD wrote: "It is a real diet followed by a vanishingly small group of people." Where is your sourced reference for this 'vanishingly small group of people'? Ghandi was a fruitarian for 5 years. You can say 'prolonged period' to justify any length of time you feel like. What a farce. Zanze123 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article. The basic logic is as follows: fruitarianism is a subset of raw veganism is a subset of veganism is a subset of vegetarianism. Therefore, there are fewer fruitarians than raw vegans, fewer raw vegans than vegans, etc. In the US, roughly 2.5%-8% of the adult population is vegetarian, much lower in children (the high figure includes those who eat fish and or chicken, but not red meat or pork). In India it may be as high as 40%. In any event, it is less than a majority of the population. Worldwide, the vegetarian restaurants I have been to have generally served eggs and or milk in the majority of their dishes. Let's be outragiously generous and say 1/4 of the population is vegetarian, 1/4 of vegetarians are vegans and so on. This absurdly high number gives us 1/4^4 of the population is fruitarian, roughly 1 person in 256 or 0.4% of the population. I know a whole lot of vegetarians, a dozen or so vegans and a couple who tried raw veganism for about a month. If you have something that indicates there are huge numbers of fruitarians out there, I'd be interested to read it. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I never asked you about the numbers in relation to other diets, I asked you how you knew that the number of fruitarians was 'vanishing'. You failed to provide any explanation, reference, source, citation, or reason, - and how could you - unless you know the individuals diets of every person on Earth, and who will be on Earth. So because you know a couple of people who tried raw veganism for a month, there are few raw vegans on Earth. This shows your lack of knowledge about the raw vegan movement, raw vegans and raw veganism is a factor in your editing, and therefore this article is not objective. The fruitarian needs another editor who can demonstrate neutrality.Zanze123 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not say the number of fruitarians was "vanishing", I said it was "vanishingly small". Let's try a rewording: "It is a real diet followed by an immeasurably small percentage of the population." This is a deduction on my part, based on the ever smaller numbers of people in each of the categories above fruitarinaism. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is not relevant to improving the article. SummerPhD voiced an opinion back in August on the talk page, not the article. If Summer's statement was in the article, it would certainly need a reliable source, but it's just someone's viewpoint here. This would be a good time to agree to disagree and move on. -kotra (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kotra, the entire article has a negative slant. Summerphd has edited pro steak articles lol. If fruitarianism is not practiced by a large group of people, negatively slanted articles with wording such as 'Claimed scientific basis' do not help. As for Summerphd saying 'ever small numbers of people' to suggest that numbers are decreasing would make no sense on a planet whose population is expanding, and where interest in rawfoodism and fruitarianism increases expoentially by the day. This article needs to be balanced showing both sides, but instead, everything is edited to show that the diet can't work, isn't healthy and nobody is practicing it, which may not necessarily be true, and more importantly, there are aspects which exist outside the realm of citation, and the worldviews with which you are imbued. For example, the B12, and protein metabolism, concepts, are entire self-referencing theories, like belief in vaccines and or homeopathy. For an entire system of thought which can 'prove' that they are valid or not valid, an entire parallel system exists to prove the opposite, but which cannot always explained in terms of the alternate system. This is also true for the scientific worldview in general. So by confining this article to an anti-fruitarian bias, and confining it to 1 system of thought (citation, scientific thought, academic community), this prejudices the overall topic of the article as a whole, which exists beyond those strictures. Fruitarianism is not just a dietary practice anymore than veganism is, and covers a huge range of issues, which are not addressed anywhere in this article, and slanted editing, such as just saying 'not relevant', prevents the balanced development of the article. Currently the article is like an apple tree, which is being deprived of soil, water, organic matter and sun, and being told to stand as an apple tree and thrive. Zanze123 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I've edited Joshua Blahyi. Does this mean I support murderers, human sacrificers, and cannibals? It is sort of strange to say that since a person has edited a particular article, they must support the subject matter. Secondly, you have identified a limitation of Wikipedia: since we are constrained by WP:reliable sources, we often do not cover fringe and controversial topics well (this topic is both). This is not limited to fringe science, naturopathic diets, or minority ideologies. I have seen this in many places of this nature. However, whenever we abandon reliable sources to allow contentious, poorly sourced content in the search of more comprehensiveness, the same scenario always happens: personal opinions become presented as fact, edit wars break out, and Wikipedia's credibility goes down another notch. This is why we don't cover these topics as completely as would be best. If you can find more reliable sources to expand the article with, however, by all means do. -kotra (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"As for Summerphd saying 'ever small numbers of people'" - I said no such thing. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In this section: I did not say the number of fruitarians was "vanishing", I said it was "vanishingly small". Let's try a rewording: "It is a real diet followed by an immeasurably small percentage of the population." This is a deduction on my part, based on the ever smaller numbers of people in each of the categories above fruitarinaism. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) are the words 'based on the ever small numbers of people in each of the categories above fruitarianism'. Summer PHD believes those adopting plant based diets are an ever smaller number of people, when there are tens of millions of vegetarians worldwide with the number increasing by the day. Kotra writes 'personal opinions become presented as fact'. Indeed. And goes to show how this article is slanted and not objective. Zanze123 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said, "ever small numbers of people". As for saying "ever smaller numbers of people", you took it out of context. From vegetarian to vegan to raw vegan to vegetarian there are ever smaller numbers of people: there are fewer vegans than vegetarians, fewer raw vegans than vegans and fewer fruitarians than raw vegans. "Personal opinions presented as fact"? Are you claiming there are more vegans than vegetarians? More raw vegans than vegans? More fruitarians than raw vegans?

Here is a personal opinion stated as fact: "...there are tens of millions of vegetarians worldwide with the number increasing by the day." - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK ther are not tens of millions of vegetarians worldwide, with numbers increasing by the day. Zanze123 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Claim about Krok

Moved to section below.

Secondary evidence.

(Note: Several sections of the following text were edited after they had been responded to. [3]) - SummerPhD (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) This article claims that Morris Krok promoted a fruit diet then later retracted his statement. The referenced source is a claim by Tom Billings. Would it not be more accurate to say that 'Tom Billings ALLEGES that Krok later retracted his belief in the fruit diet'. Can the Editors of this article, please resolve this issue, so as not to mislead. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)]

(This discussion was on my own talk page, but as it is clearly an article content discussion, I have moved it here.  Chzz  ►  06:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism#Criticisms Morris Krok is cited with reference 22, and this is treated as a secondary source and thus acceptable, but in reality, it is really Tom Billings opinion on what he believes or wishes to maintain Morris Krok actually told him. It's 3rd party evidence. He can say that Krok said anything that he likes. How can Wikipedia be a reliable source when sources cited and accepted as secondary are really third party? [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC) ]

If Krok is the primary source, and Billings is the third party, who is the intermediate party?  Chzz  ►  18:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is the intermediate party? And maybe one of the editors of that article is Mr Billings? [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)]

Without evidence to the contrary, we assume good faith on the part of Mr. Billings and the truthfulness of his recollections. If there is evidence that contradicts his statements, then that is another matter - and such evidence could either be in the form of a similarly reliable-looking source, or in the form of an article discussing the disparate views on the subject. In this case, we must maintain balance - and my favorite essay covers this topic very nicely, so please read WP:TIGER. Hope it helps, cheers!  Chzz  ►  02:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming and assuming good faith is hardly the basis for an accurate listing in an encyclopedia. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)]

The word 'allegedly' has been added which is a better representation of Billings claim. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)]

Famous fruitarians

As repeatedly discussed, famous fruitarians must be fruitarians AND famous. If we are going to list non-famous fruitarians as "famous fruitarians", we might as well list famous non-fruitarians as "famous fruitarians". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Define 'famous'. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]

We generally use notability as a stand in. If someone is notable enough for a stand-alone article, I will accept that they are "famous" enough to count as a "famous fruitarian" (if reliable sources identify them as a fruitarian, of course). - SummerPhD (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a Wiki article on fruitarian August Engelhardt and elsewhere ( I cited a New York Times article), but you deleted all the information on the 'Fruitarian' listing about him. It's so obvious you are anti-fruitarian and that's why this article is warped and Wikipedia is a joke. Zanze123 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You said, "There is a Wiki article on fruitarian August Engelhardt and elsewhere ( I cited a New York Times article), but you deleted all the information on the 'Fruitarian' listing about him. It's so obvious you are anti-fruitarian and that's why this article is warped and Wikipedia is a joke."

You cannot take info from another article as a source for information in this article. Engelhardt's placement in this article was unsourced. If it was sourced in the other article (that he was a fruitarian), verify the source and cite it here. Again, please limit your discussion to the subject at hand. Comment on content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted all the information on Engelhardt, so now I cannot add the citation to the information about Engelhardt without adding it all again. This is the problem SummerPHD. You delete everything before giving anyone else a chance to add to what has been contributed. Again, this shows your real intention which is to dominate the definition of Fruitarian given at this so-called 'free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. In fact, nobody can edit, because you override any edits to this article that you disagree with. Obviously editors influence content, so it is impossible to refer to content without reference to editors. Wiki says one must not comment on editors? What a joke. Zanze123 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Comment on content, not editors.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." - WP:V - —Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 October 2009

It was not possible SUMMER PHD, to provide a citation, because before I got a chance, you had deleted my content. You are also now failing to fix your signature hoping that I won't know it's you who is the one providing these latest comments. Another joke. Zanze123 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If, at any time, an editor forgets or neglects to sign a comment on a talk page, feel free to view the info on who made the edit on the history tab. You may then add a signature, as I have above, with the "unsigned" template.

Any material claiming anyone is or was a fruitarian is likely to be controversial. Please include a citation when you add the content. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my content before I had a chance to reference it. That is not editing. Put it back where it was. Zanze123 (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a citation to a reliable source, feel free to restore the material with a cite. I will not add or restore material without a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You want me to add a reference to a piece of text which is not there and which you will not put back even though you deleted it before giving me a chance to add the reference. And top of that, what have you yourself ever contributed to this article in terms of textual content, other than deleting other people's contributions? Even if there are fruitarians, historical or alive today, you would not let them into this article. That is why this article is a waste of space. Zanze123 (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I put info in on Essie Honiball and her book I Live On Fruit, and before I had a chance to reference it you deleted it. When will you cease deleting, deconstructing and destroying other people's contributions to this article without ever adding anything of substance yourself? Zanze123 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The unsourced text you added, which I removed, is available in the article's history. If you can source it, feel free to return it to the article with a source. All of my edits to the article are available there as well. Comment on content, not editors. - 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to readd the content which you deleted without giving a chance for references to be added, and you refused. Where does it say in the Wikipedia guidelines that you can delete content without giving contributors the chance to add references, and then not readd it, despite being requested to do so by contributors. Zanze123 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" [[WP:V]- SummerPhD (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It lacked a reliable source because you removed it before I had a chance to add the reliable source. You refuse to put back the content, yet again showing your sabotage of this article. Zanze123 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is preventing you from citing the reliable source in the same edit as you add the content. If you do not know how to do this, you're also welcome to use a sandbox, or build the content/citation here on the talk page until it's ready to be moved into the article. -kotra (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What - to have the content deleted again and my time wasted by an editor who disagrees with the subject matter. Kotra, what are the qualifications (in relation to the subject matter, not in terms of ability to use Wiki), for an editor to edit an article, and who decides which articles shall be edited by which editor? Or can an expert editor who is a complete novice on a particular subject matter be elected?Zanze123 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no elections to be editors. Anyone who edits Wikipedia (you, me, everyone who has made a single edit) is an editor. "Editor" is just our word for anyone who edits Wikipedia; there is no formal editorial board like a conventional encyclopedia or newspaper. Instead, we work by consensus (which does not mean unanimosity), and the views of individual editors are trumped by the much greater consensus represented by our community-written, community-vetted, and community-maintained policies and guidelines (including, notably, Ignore All Rules). This is the simplest summary I can give, although it is in actuality much more complicated. But to answer your question more directly, basically anyone may add content, and anyone may remove or change it, but we have policies and structures in place that attempt to prevent tendentious editing and bias. One of the ways in which we attempt to maintain a collegial working atmosphere (instead of vindictive editing wars) is to assume good faith. I, for one, am glad to edit alongside people with opposing views (monocultures are suicide), but when editors try to create a divisive, combative, us-vs-them atmosphere with other editors, editing constructively becomes impossible. -kotra (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing is futile when entire sections are deleted without giving reasons (vandalism).Zanze123 (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

According to www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Frugiferous frugiferous means: 1.producing fruit; fruitful; fructiferous. According to encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861673527/fructiferous.html fructiferous means a tree [that bears fruit] or other plant that bears fruit. Therefore when Darwin said that judging from analogy, man subsisted on the frugi-ferous diet, he referred to the fructiferous diet, which means a diet from trees or plants which bear fruit. Therefore the full Darwin quote should be added to the Fruitarian article: “At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted.” Chapter VI - On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, in Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, page 150, NuVision Publications, LLC, 2007, 1595478868, 9781595478863, 560pp.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanze123 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 31 October 2009

Well, at least this time you have the Darwin quote correct, instead of copying the misquote from numerous fruitarian sites.

The sources you give say "frugiferous" means "Producing fruit; fruitful; fructiferous." Ignoring the first part, you tell us fructiferous menas "bearing fruit: describes a tree or other plant that bears fruit." So, per Darwin, pre-humans, by analogy, may have subsisted on a diet of trees or plants which bear fruit. Unfortunately, this article is not about subsisting on trees or plants to bear fruit. This is about living on a diet of fruits.

Darwin said "frugi-ferous". Not "frugiferous" which can mean "fructiferous" which might mean something similar to "fruitarian". What else did he say on the subject? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just being obtuse. Whatever it may or may not mean, it warrants discussion and or incorporation into this article.

1 'Frugi-ferous. ad. Bearing, or bringing forth, fruit.', A New Dictionary Of The English Language by Charles Richardson: Bell & Daldy, 1856, page 328. Sourced from Harvard University digital scan August 4, 2005, at googlebooks.

2. ‘Frugi'ferous - producing fruit or corn; fruitful’, - Dictionary Of Geology And Mineralogy, by William Humble.

3. Frugi'ferous - 'producing fruit'’, - A Dictionary Of The English Language by Samuel Johnson.

4. ‘Frugi-ferous - to bear fruit - A Grammatical Analyzer by By William Jewett Tenney.

5. 'Frugi'ferous (L. fruges, fruit; fero, I bear). Producing fruit or corn.’ - The Medical Vocabulary, by Robert Fowler - Edition: 2 - 1875 - 80 pages.

- Bearing, bringing forth, producing fruit.

Therefore when Darwin said that judging from analogy, man subsisted on the frugi-ferous diet, he referred to a diet which brings forth, bears and produces, fruit, not cheesesteak, and Charles Darwin's original and important quotation from Descent Of Man should now be added to the Fruitarian article.

Darwin wrote a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted. - a circumstance favourable for the fruit bearing, fruit producing diet, on which, judging from analogy, he susbsisted. So when Summer phd says 'this article is not about subsisting on trees or plants to bear fruit. This is about living on a diet of fruits.', Darwin referred to living on a diet of fruits, because he referred to * a circumstance favourable for the fruit bearing, fruit producing diet, on which, judging from analogy, he susbsisted * - that man subsisted on the fruit bearing, fruit producing diet. If this quote is again deleted, the matter should go to the Disputes process. Zanze123 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to take it there. Darwin spoke of pre-humans, "judging from analogy", subsisting on a diet producing fruit or corn. This has been placed in an article about people living on a diet of fruit alone. If Darwin meant humans he could have said "humans", not "proto-humans". If he meant they did live on a diet, he could have said "they did live", not "judging by analogy, (they) subsisted". If he meant an all-fruit diet he could have said, "an all-fruit diet", not a "frugi-ferous diet". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed an article about the all fruit diet, and therefore, any references to the all fruit diet such as this are relevant. What constitutes an all fruit diet is open to discussion within the article itself. The fact that it could also mean corn is not a reason to not include the quote. The fact that Darwin wrote in the way that he did can be just as much to do with his general writing style and style of the time. We don't even know if frugi-ferous is what he really put, without seeing the original manuscript. None of this means that the quote should not be included as an important point of reference. Furthermore, corn often is included as part of an all fruit diet, and it all depends upon what is meant by a fruit diet. Even currently, the article accepts that this can vary. So unless you can justify fairly why this quote should not be included, it's because you are against the diet. That is not a basis for editing this article. Zanze123 (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously reaching. After correcting the Darwin quote to match Darwin (instead of the site or sites you copied it from), you've removed a dash in the middle of the term he used, found a definition of the new word that included another term that you've found a definition for, telling us it means "fruit or corn bearing". You then interpret that to mean "all fruit". (Incidentally, if you think pre-humans ate corn, you clearly are out of your depth.) - SummerPhD (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not copy the quote from any site, thanks. I did not remove a dash. I listed what I could find. I did not find a definition of a new word - fructiferous, frugiferous, frugi-ferous, and frugi'ferous are in the dictionary, including fruit or corn bearing. I do not interpret the dictionary. The dictionary speaks for itself. And nor do I believe pre-humans ate corn. Gravitating towards a solution does not constitute 'seriously reaching'. So in fact, it's you who is seriously reaching and you who is out of your depth, and all because you are so obviously anti-fruitarian. You have provided no case for not including the quote (other than your prejudice against the fruitarian diet). Zanze123 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment on this issue. I do not have a strong opinion on the inclusion or exclusion of the statement, as it could be relevant or not, depending on how it is interpreted. The problem is interpretation. It does seem odd to me that Darwin would use "frugi-ferous" or "frugiferous", which refers to trees and plants that produce fruit, not the fruits themselves, and not "frugivorous", which is the term that actually means "fruit-eating", and was in use since long before his time. We can assume Darwin just confused the terms, but it does weaken the quote. Also, Darwin was at the forefront of even the idea that man was descended from other apes, and when he was speculating on the diet of proto-humans, he had very little data to make this conclusion; he had only "analogy" to base it upon, likely analogy from other apes and monkeys that are fruit-eating. This is not a good logical basis for a conclusion, so my conclusion is that if this single sentence is all he wrote on the subject, I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion. If he wrote more on it, however, it may very well be worth noting. -kotra (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Constructive criticism from Kotra, instead of the destructive criticism of Summer PHD. About the idea the word means trees or plants that produce fruit, it actually means bearing or bringing forth fruit. It also means fructiferous, a tree that bears fruit. What is odd about saying 'a circumstance favourable for the trees/plants that produce/bear fruit diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted.' People, especially 'educated', in Darwin's era, spoke and wrote in a wooden way, not the way we might wish they had done so. Since both trees and plants bear fruit, in this sense, corn can be classified as a fruit. As for corn not being around in pre-human times, this depends how you define pre-human, and pre-human times. Also terms like proto-humans, pre-human - vary depending on which archaeology book you read. Since human footprints have been discovered 250 million years old, the idea that corn was not around makes no sense. It also depends where the cradle of humankind really was, which again will vary, especially when all factors are considered e.g. changing of earth's axis, lost civilizations. Kotra thinks this quote is odd - indeed - and perhaps the original manuscript would provide a clue to what word was actually used. So the question really is, where is the original manuscript for The Descent of Man? As Kotra points out, the quote could be relevant or not, depending on how it is interpreted, rather than Summer PHD's flagrant refusal to accept any value in this quote whatsoever, and without any discussion either. So what we can learn again here is Summer PHD's prejudice against fruitarianism, and hence, not the basis for neutrally editing this article. Zanze123 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

While I'm glad you've seen some of what I've said as constructive criticism, I feel I must again ask you to refrain from commenting on the contributor. Perhaps it may help to acknowledge that we all have biases and opinions, but when it comes to editing, SummerPhD has been only using arguments supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and has never once actually expressed ridicule or contempt for the diet. Regardless. Concerning the meaning of "frugi-ferous", using your meaning does not exactly make sense in context either: "a circumstance favourable for the fruit-bearing diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted". A plant or tree can be fruit-bearing, but a diet can't really "bear" or "bring forth" fruit... "frugiferous" is a botanical term characterizing a plant (just as "coniferous" means cone-bearing), not for diets (-vorous). That is why I consider his choice of word to be odd if not incorrect and detracts slightly from the quote-worthiness of it, although this is a minor point. My main concern is that if this was just one quick sentence buried in an immensely larger work, it would probably not be a notable enough quote for inclusion in this article. He said he came to the "frugi-ferous" conclusion "by analogy", so I would not consider it even worth mentioning if it was just this one sentence. Looking at the passages directly surrounding that particular quote, that appears to be the case: there doesn't seem to be any further exploration of the idea. If there are other writings of his that do explore the idea in greater detail, however, I would probably support some sort of mention in this article. As for the "corn" thing, I don't think it's worth debating, since it's highly doubtful Darwin was talking about corn when he wrote "frugi-ferous" (for one thing, other apes and monkeys do not typically eat corn, although they certainly do eat fruit). For the record, however, no plant had begun to be domesticated into what we now understand as grain (including both the British and American meanings of "corn") until about 10,000 years ago, of course long after humans originally appeared. Anyway, if we want to confidently add anything interprative to this article, we cannot use our own interpretations; reliable secondary sources should be doing analysis, not us. -kotra (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He does not have to say it. It is implicit. Summer PHD believes it is a diet being practiced by a vanishingly small number of people. What a joke. A diet can't really "bear" or "bring forth" fruit. Again, the style of writing of the time - he meant a fruit diet. Finally, the very fact he put this odd sentence is why the quotation is so important. On top of that I ask both you and summer phd, what then if he was not talking about fruit, could he possibly have been talking about? Was he talking about cheesesteak? It madness to say since he wasn't talking about fruit, (in your views), therefore he could not have been talking about anything relevant, or important. Let us be clear - that frugi is the same frugi which appears in frugivore. The fact that he put ferous instead of ivorous is significant, and therefore, the entire quotation should not just simply be dismissed - because he did say frugi and not omni or carni, and the fact that he used ferous, may have something to do with the fact that fruit grows on trees, and comes from plants, whereas you cannot say carni-ferous, because animal flesh does not derive from plants. So it is absurd to suggest that just because he used ferous rather than ivorous, this automatically means he was not talking about the fruit diet or anything remotely connected with it, and therefore the quote has no relevance. Zanze123 (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I agree that he was talking about a fruit diet and probably meant "frugivorous". I only said that since he made an odd/incorrect word choice, the quote is more awkward and less quoteworthy; like I said though, it's a minor point and isn't a good reason by itself to exclude the quote. My main reason, again, is because he only mentioned it in passing, not as a notable topic of discussion. That is what I mean about the quote having less relevance: it's one sentence, mere speculation on his part, never explored in greater detail. As it appears in the book with no greater context, it's simply not notable enough for inclusion in this article. You are welcome to get a third opinion, though, if you disagree. If, however, we can find more discussion by Darwin of the topic, I would probably support its inclusion.

As for SummerPhD's "vanishingly small" comment; she has explained it several times. It does not mean anything insulting to the diet, unless you feel that having a very small number of followers is insulting. -kotra (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kotra, how do you know summer PHD is a she? Please don't reply with 'how do you know it's a he' I don't. You maintain that stating that having a vanishingly small number is not derrogatory, but you cannot show that it is not. The fact is, if it is not derrogatory then there would be no need to use the word vanishingly - something which cannot be verified, and where the reverse must necessarily be true given the explosion of interest in raw diets. The fact that darwin made an odd/incorrect word choice, does not make this more awkward and less quoteworthy, but to the contrary: more interesting and thus more quoteworthy. You also say that since he only mentioned it in passing, it is not a notable topic of discussion. Whether he mentioned it in passing or not, it it still noteable for discussion and quotation within the context of the article Fruitarianism by virtue of who it was who was stating it: Darwin, and by virtue of the fact that he used frugi-ferous not frugivorous. Further, the fact that he mentioned it only in passing, makes it all the more noteable and noteworthy, given who Darwin was, not less noteable and less noteworthy - as it gives us one of the few insights to what he really thought on the subject. You are correct 'he was talking about a fruit diet and probably meant "frugivorous" ' - and this is what is noteable - the fact that he was talking about a fruit diet and thus that he probably meant frugivorous, within the context of the paragraph and book in general, and given the meaning of the word frugi-ferous, or at least, that is what the quote suggests. Therefore, this again is why it should be included in this Fruitarian listing, to reflect that. In this light, anyone who was against including it, would clearly be against it because of the quote itself. How many '3rd party' opinions do I have to get before it can be added without deletion? Zanze123 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's relevant here, but I assume SummerPhD prefers "she" because her user page uses "she". If I am wrong to assume this, I apologize.

In any case, SummerPhD has described how "vanishingly" is being used to mean the number of fruitarians is "vanishingly small" as one goes from the already small group of vegetarians to the smaller subgroup of vegans to the even smaller sub-subgroup of raw vegans to the even smaller still sub-sub-subgroup of fruitarians. The meaning is not that the number of fruitarians is vanishing over time. I can see how, at first glance, "vanishingly small" sounds like the latter meaning, but it has been explained as having the former meaning.

As for the relevance and notability of the quote, it's obvious we currently disagree on this, and will likely continue to disagree if we continue the current line of discussion. That is why, if you wish to add it, I suggest using the third opinion process. Of the dispute resolution processes, 3O is a particularly easy, casual way to get a third opinion from a neutral, uninvolved editor. I am willing to be convinced to add the quote, but the arguments raised so far have not convinced me, and perhaps a third opinion would be helpful for coming to a consensus about it (either for adding it or not adding it). It is not a question of "how many", it's a question of everyone neutrally and openly considering all views raised and building a consensus. -kotra (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not exist unless people participate which they may not do. So relying on consensus to arrive at truth is nebulous. 'The meaning is not that the number of fruitarians is vanishing over time.' - this is open to interpretation and another reason to avoid the word 'vanishingly'. In any case, thanks for being more reasonable than SummerpHD Zanze123 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We are working to build a consensus. If you feel this cannot be attained, you are on the wrong project. Wikipedia:Consensus

Your misunderstanding of "vanishingly small" is contrary to the generally accepted use of this phrase[4][5][6][7][8][etc.] In any event, it's a Talk page. WP:LETGO

Your opinions of me are off-topic and inappropriate. WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are on the wrong project because you are against including the quotation of Darwin. There is no misunderstanding about the expression vanishingly small. There is no such thing as 'generally accepted', and your choice of words is symbolic. It is a talk page, and content does not exist in a vacuum. Editors edit content, content does not edit itself. Zanze123 (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Darwin: Get over it.

If you would like to have an in-depth discussion re "vanishingly small", "generally accepted" and the symbolic content of my choice of words, I am sorry that I simply don't have the time or patience. If, on the other hand, you'd like to actually discuss the article, I might put off some of my grading. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't have the time to discuss "vanishingly small" but found time to reference the term several times. Why don't you Get over it and contribute something of substance to the Fruitarian article. Zanze123 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kotra, I propose the following paragraph for the article. If you object, it can go to third party or disputes.

In Descent Of Man (1871), Charles Darwin wrote: “At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted.” <Chapter VI - On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, in Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, page 150, NuVision Publications, LLC, 2007, 1595478868, 9781595478863, 560pp>. According to A New Dictionary Of The English Language (1856), 'frugi-ferous' is an adverb meaning 'bearing, or bringing forth, fruit'. <A New Dictionary Of The English Language by Charles Richardson: Bell & Daldy, 1856, page 328. Sourced from Harvard University digital scan August 4, 2005, at googlebooks.> Darwin thus wrote "a circumstance favourable for the fruit-bearing diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted". Darwin may have used the term "frugi-ferous" or "frugiferous", which refers to trees and plants that produce fruit, not the fruits themselves, instead of "frugivorous", which is the term that actually means "fruit-eating" since fruits grow on trees whereas non-fruits do not, or he may have confused the terms, nevertheless, the quote is a rare insight into Darwin's views of diet and fruit.

Zanze123 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to make this neutral, and you have partly succeeded, but there are still several problems with this. 1. the interpretation of two separate sources to support a third, unsourced conclusion, is textbook synthesis, which is not permitted. We have to find a reliable source that actually says "Darwin meant such-and-such". While I think your conclusion that he meant "fruit-bearing" is probably valid, this is only my (and your) opinion, and our opinions cannot be presented as fact. 2. "a rare insight" is subjective opinion. 3. "frugi-ferous" is being used as an adjective here, not an adverb as your dictionary defines it. 4. it still wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion here, as I have explained above (it is an isolated quote of his, never explored in any more detail; we can consider it an offhand "assumption" or "guess" on his part and nothing more without further writings of his on the subject (my preliminary searches of which have turned up nothing). -kotra (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating my efforts. It's nice that somebody does. About having 2 sources to support a third. This happens each time a person uses a dictionary to understand a sentence, i.e. different dictionaries give different meanings/interpretations/nuances. So it is not unusual. The objective is not to synthesise, guess or speculate or suggest what Darwin meant or did not mean. The objective is to highlight the quote and to show the problems with it, thereby highlighting its relevance. There may be no academic or scholarly interpretation, and we still do not know what was in Darwin's handwriting in the original manuscript. It is not about giving opinions. I do not know if it said adverb or adjective. It said ad. which may mean either. It did not say adv. It was an offhand comment on the subject, but not really, when we consider the entire nature of that book, and that of his colleague Thomas Huxley (Man's Place In Nature) and also writings of their peer, Haeckel. It is also odd that Darwin, who wrote Origin Of Species and Descent of Man, wrote nothing about human diet, fruit, or the diet of primates, except for 1 sentence. Combined, this again shows why this quotation is so noteable. To not include it, would be to propose that Darwin never said anything about this subject when he did. Zanze123 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't understand how the meaning being in question makes it more appropriate for inclusion, unless there are reliable sources devoted to exploring that, and in how it relates to fruitarianism. However, we do not have any reliably sourced commentary about the "problems" with the quote, how it relates to fruitarianism, or even about the quote at all. Without such commentaries bringing the relationship of the quote to fruitarianism into focus, it simply cannot be comply with our policies of no original research and verifiability. I also continue to not understand how the isolation of the sentence somehow makes its inclusion here more useful. If Karl Marx wrote, buried in the Communist Manifesto, "Ancient Sumerians were likely communist, judging by analogy," with nothing else to back it up or explain, we would not include it in Sumer; it's such an uncertain, unexplained sentence to be not worth mentioning, even though the person saying it is certainly important. I don't think we'll agree on this, though, judging by how this conversation has transpired. -kotra (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you've added the passage to the article. I feel there are still problems with it; WP:SYN, WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE being the main concerns. I have therefore removed it until a consensus for adding it exists. I am still open to gaining a third opinion if you are. -kotra (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I published since you did not respond to my latest response above. Now I see your new comments. I don't see any synthesis. It is a presentation of facts. What you postulate is that he wasn't talking about diet or fruits, which is clearly not the case. He was. That alone makes it highly noteable given who he himself is a noteable figure. It is noteable by virtue of the fact that's all he wrote on the subject. It's ambiguity is precisely what makes it noteable. To suggest something isn't noteable because it's not clear, makes no sense. We don't know the origin of the universe. If a famous figure came up with a theory which sounded obscure, it would be noteable for those very reasons. Somebody as scholarly as Darwin to say something so vague, raises many unanswered questions including what he really wrote in the manuscript. To not mention it is to implicate he never said anything about the subject when he did, and that the matter should be forgotten and not considered further. That is not the role of an encylopedia. Encylopedias are full of answered questions. If they never included the thoughts of those through the ages, those ideas could never be developed further. Imagine if Da Vinci's drawings of modern machines were deemed too fantastical, or obscure, and therefore never to be mentioned again. I took the time to do the research. I don't know how to do third opinions. Perhaps you could take the time to do that, since Wiki is supposed to be a collective affair.Zanze123 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

It was the weekend, and I was fairly busy. Most editors, in my experience, take more than a day to respond at times. No harm done, though.

I was not postulating that Darwin wasn't talking about diet or fruits. I was postulating that your use of two unrelated sources (Darwin's book and an obscure dictionary) to conclude Darwin meant a particular thing not directly stated by either source, is exactly what "synthesis" means in Wikipedia jargon. While I personally agree Darwin probably was referring to a diet of fruit, my personal opinion (or yours) does not trump the need for reliable sources for any literary interpretations made. As for your other arguments, I have addressed most of them already, and I continue to disagree on the same grounds... I don't want to repeat myself.

I did not address your claim that not including it here is the equivalent of saying Darwin never said anything on the subject, because I don't understand how you could have arrived at that view. Wikipedia plainly does not present itself as the entire sum of all human knowledge, and a topic not being here (Darwin's love of apple pie, for example) does not mean it doesn't exist. It simply means it is not reliably sourced, relevant, or otherwise appropriate. Perhaps this quote would be well worth exploring in an academic thesis, or a biography of Darwin, or a book on Fruitarianism. But not here, unless someone else (in the form of one of these three media, for example, if they meet our criteria for reliable sources) publishes it first. It's not within our scope to publish original thought. I'm not sure what drawings of modern machines you are referring to (maybe you're thinking of Da Vinci?), but it has never been the responsibility of encyclopedias to publish original research or the opinions of its authors (well, good encyclopedias anyway). That is the responsibility of the media, the academic community, the scientists, the experts, respected authors, etc. It always surprises people when they realize how anti-populist Wikipedia is in what it presents as facts: our content, while contributed and edited by anyone, should originally come from reliable sources. We do not come to a consensus on the truth (an impossible task), we come to a consensus on how to present already published facts.

Concerning requesting a third opinion, I have no interest in it myself. If the third opinion ends up being against including the quote, I don't want to be accused of somehow "rigging" it, as seems likely given the pattern. I am merely making your options clear to you if you still believe the quote is important to include. The process is not difficult if you read the page (linked again: WP:3O); you just add a single line of text to a section in that page. -kotra (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You say I use Darwin and an obscure dictionary. I provided for your reference, 4 dictionary definitions and all say the same thing. Furthermore, in fact this Fruitarian listing uses an obscure dictionary for the definition of fruitarianism. So where is your objectivity in all this. You or another editor could ask the third party, if you were serious about editing this listing properly. If it's as easy as you say, you do it. You write: "I did not address your claim that not including it here is the equivalent of saying Darwin never said anything on the subject, because I don't understand how you could have arrived at that view." I arrive at the view that Darwin said something about fruit and diet, and there is nothing else known that he said. Therefore to not include it in an article about Fruitarianism makes no sense. Sorry you couldn't understand this basic logic. It is reliably sourced, relevant, and appropriate, and you have failed to prove otherwise. "It's not within our scope to publish original thought." Really, so an author can never be quoted as endorsing fruitarianism even though this listing is full of such quotes. I was referring to DaVinci's drawings of machines, yes. Darwin never drew machines. "we come to a consensus on how to present already published facts." The quote from Darwin is published and it is a fact. Oh so 3rd opinion is not reliable because it is vulnerable to "rigging". So what would be the point of utilising that option, exactly, in the cause of a reliable source? Zanze123 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Amended Darwin quote re-added:

• In 1871, Charles Darwin provided a rare insight into his views on the human diet in relation to fruit in Descent Of Man: “At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted.” . According to A New Dictionary Of The English Language (1856), 'frugi-ferous' is an adverb meaning 'bearing, or bringing forth, fruit'.

Please allow me to clear up a couple misunderstandings. Firstly, when I said "it's not within our scope to publish original thought", I was referring to original thought from our contributors (Wikipedia editors like you and me). Of course we publish the thoughts of published authors, experts, etc, whenever they are appropriate. Secondly, by "we come to a consensus on how to present already published facts" I meant where to publish them, with what wording, and if to publish them at all. Some published facts are obviously not worth including in Wikipedia ("Darwin used the word 'the' 14 times on page 123").

Anyway, regarding third opinions, I have already explained why I have no desire to request one myself. No, I was not saying 3O is vulnerable to rigging. I was saying that if I requested the 3O, you would probably accuse me of rigging it. Your continued jabs at my objectivity and neutrality make it clear that you do not trust me to do anything to improve the encyclopedia, and so I don't feel any desire to go out of my way to provide you with reasons, even baseless ones, for you to attack me. However, I will assume from your reluctance to request a 3O yourself that you are not interested either, so I'll drop it.

The other 4 dictionary definitions you provided are irrelevant, as you have not used them to cite your statement. You have only used "A New Dictionary of the English Language", which is, yes, an obscure dictionary. I suggest using an authoritative, mainstream dictionary from Darwin's time, like A Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson or early versions of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but the "basic logic" you describe here is not all that apparent to me: "Darwin said something about fruit and diet, and there is nothing else known that he said. Therefore to not include it in an article about Fruitarianism makes no sense." The premise seems valid to me, but the conclusion does not follow clearly. Why does Darwin saying something about fruit and diet automatically qualify it for being in an article about Fruitarianism? For example, what if he said "I had some canteloupe this morning, it was good, I think I'll make fruit a regular part of my diet," would it need to be included in an article about Fruitarianism? You will have to explain your thinking here in more detail if I am to understand it.

Concerning the amended quote, I wouldn't include the sentence about the definition, as its relevance (as an apparently non-authoritative dictionary definition) is questionable, and I would reword the first sentence to not include "a rare insight" as it is an unsourced value judgment. This would leave just the following:

In 1871, Charles Darwin wrote briefly on the human diet in relation to fruit in Descent Of Man: "At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted."

However, I still do not feel it is worth mentioning here, as its relevance to the overall subject of fruitarianism is borderline at best. -kotra (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There were no other dictionaries available. You too could look up the word. This topic is still in discussion. There are no jabs. Why is the dictionary obscure? Darwin talks about frugi-ferous diet as the original diet of humans which is wholly relevant. Melon isn't relevant to this topic. The quote says he subsisted on a frugi-ferous diet. A fruit bearing diet. A diet that produced fruit which he then subsisted on. So whether he started off eating bread until the fruit trees were producing fruits, ultimately he ended up subsisting on the fruit which he produced. It can also mean he subsisted on a diet which enabled him to bring forth fruits but then he didn't eat any fruits, but continued with the non-fruit diet. Either way, he was involved with producing fruits whether or not he ate them. If he did not subsist on the fruit that he was producing, whatever else he was eating Darwin has not mentioned, when he easily could have done. So by the context, he was talking about a fruit diet. The ambiguity is precisely why the quote warrants inclusion, according to your latest version of the paragraph.Zanze123 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What would be the point of the fruit producing/fruit bearing diet if it was not to eat the fruits. He either subsisted on the fruit producing diet, or he subsisted on the fruits of the fruit producing diet. In either case, it warrants inclusion precisely due to the ambiguity, the quotes' relevance to the topic, and the noteability of the author. Zanze123 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I offer a 3rd opinion.

• The word frugiferous is defined in multiple dictionaries as an adjective (not adverb). Webster's 1828 and 1913 dictonaries at the above link are particularly relevant because they bracket Darwin's authorship. I dismiss as imponderable any extra significance of the hyphen in frugi-ferous.
• Zanza123 makes a case for quoting Darwin in the article based on Zanza123's sincere understanding. That alone is not quite enough. I will support including the quotation on these 2 conditions

• A WP:RS must be provided for the notability of Darwin's words to Fruitarianism. I encourage Zanza123 to recall what brought the words to Z's attention. As we agree that Fruitarianism is a small movement I think that a lightweight source such as a website can be enough to show that D's words have currency in the F. movement.
• Complaints that D's mention was merely offhand, peripheral and not supported by other text will not go away. They must be respected by limiting the citation in the article to Darwin found it probable that early man subsisted on a frugi-ferous diet i.e. of fruit or corn. (include the reference).

• The quantification vanishingly small is seen as ambiguous. Replace it by very small. This is both correct and neutral towards Fruitarianism's ethos.

I think SummerPhD placed the Disputed tag on the article. Please SummerPhD consider removing that tag on viewing just the article content now, detached from criticisms that may continue on this Talk page. Zanze123 please do not assign personal motives or bias to editors. You can make good points without irritating comments such as "What a farce".

• For consistence with the articles on Vegetarianism and Veganism I propose this introductory sentence: Fruitarianism is the practice endorsed by a very small number of people called fruitarians or fructarians of following a diet that comprises fruits, nuts and seeds, without animal products. vegetables and grains.[1]
  Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I added "endorse" because I know of no fully practising fruitarians today. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC) As there was no objection I have edited the first sentence as proposed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent suggestions, rather than proposed blanket deletions which render the entire article biased against the subject matter. Zanze123 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Zanze123 this is not the time for you to imply that any editor or their proposal is biased against the subject matter. I have already asked you "please do not assign personal motives or bias to editors". If you are unable to proceed that way then I shall decide that you violate WP:AGF. Do not let me see yet another combative post from you because that will incur a complaint about your behaviour. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Advocates

The statement in Advocates: "Some notable advocates of fruitarianism in the past, including August Engelhardt, Arnold Ehret, Morris Krok,[24] who wrote the book Fruit: The Food & Medicine For Man, Johnny Lovewisdom, Walter Siegmeister/Raymond W. Bernard[25], Ross Horne and Viktoras Kulvinskas[26] did not adhere to a permanent fruitarian diet." is meaningless because only a person who ate fruit from the womb onwards could be said to "adhere to a permanent fruitarian diet". The quote as it currently stands enables virtually anyone who practiced or advocated a fruitarian diet in history to be said to have not adherred to a permanent fruitarian diet, even though in reality, they may have done so, i.e. permanently and for very long periods. The sentence is another example of how this article is misleading and biased against fruitarianism. Zanze123 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The intent would seem to be to indicate that the people each advocated fruitarianism but later gave up being fruitarians. How would you suggest wording that? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read nearly every book that Kulvinskas ever wrote, there is nothing to suggest he was ever a fruitarian, so he could not have given up being a fruitarian, although he did write about fruitarianism in his book, later removing the paragraph (it seems) in a later edition, - I couldn't find it. Therefore the phrasing of this section is inherrently wrong and misleading. Not all practiced what they advocated or wrote about. Just as many could have been fruitarian whilst not declaring it openly e.g. the Essenes. It is important to emphasise that those who advocated fruitarianism may or may not have been fruitarian, and if they were, may have sustained it for a considerable and noteable period, even if they never sustained it from birth to death. As I put in a previous quote which was deleted by you, many of these writers were experimenters in diet systems, and therefore could not have sustained a permanent fruitarian diet, by definition. Also, since nearly everyone is born into a non-fruitarian diet, just because of this does not mean one can say a person never sustained a permanent fruit diet, since they may have sustained a fruitarian diet for a very long time. Besides which it all depends on which definition of fruitarianism is being referred to - and unless this is qualified and contextualized every time i.e. for each person being referred to, the statement about sustaining a fruitarian diet is meaningless.Zanze123 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Non Reference

This reference leads to a dead link. Why is it being included in this article? Furthermore, the link has nothing to do with American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Zanze123 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what was happening there. It looks like the American Heritage Dictionary might have previously been part of bartleby.com, but I don't see it there now. I've fixed this by referring to an electronic copy of the dictionary and citing it. I cannot, unfortunately, find a reliable reference source available online that provides a definition of "fruitarian" or "fruitarianism". I have also corrected the text to match the new sourcing, someone whose "diet includes fruits, seeds, and nuts but no vegetables, grains, or animal products." - SummerPhD (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot find a reliable source, why then have you not deleted the citation here:

Some people whose diet is not 100% fruit consider themselves fruitarian if their diet is 75% or more fruit.

which is a pro-fruitarian website with an article by an anti-fruitarian.

There is no archetypal definition of the word fruitarianism, so to cite the American Heritage Dictionary as gospel is totally misleading. This listing must reflect the fact that there is no 1 definition, otherwise this listing is misleading. Zanze123 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad reference

The reference for the following section is living-foods.com a pro raw, living and fruitarian website. Since SummerPHD insisted that such sources were not acceptable, why has this reference been accepted?

Some people whose diet is not 100% fruit consider themselves fruitarian if their diet is 75% or more fruit.

Zanze123 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If Bob Smith says he was born on April 1, 1975 there's no problem citing him (unless reliable sources clearly state otherwise) because it is in no way controversial. If Bob Smith says his body runs on the power generated by uranium decaying in his gut, that's controversial. We can say that he says that, but we cannot say it's true.

If a fruitarian site says some people consider themselves to be fruitarians on 75% fruit, that is not controversial: clearly some people do consider themselves fruitarians on 75% fruit. If the site said that B12 is available in some fruits or B12 is not necessary for human life, that would be controversial. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What is controversial is to use as a definition an article about fruitarianism by an anti-fruitarian, in which the article does not include, for example Ahisma Fruitarianism, and other forms of fruitarianism. It is not an independent or balanced source, anymore than quoting 1 dictionary's definition can be an objective definition. Zanze123 (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Veg

Regarding this section:

and some fruitarians feel that it is improper for humans to eat seeds or nuts and seeds,

and this section:

while others, like Morris Krok, allegedly recommended against the diet once they stopped.

These references are for beyondveg.com, and anti-fruitarian website. Why should pro fruitarian references not be permitted at the Fruitarian listing, whilst anti-fruitarian references are permitted?

Zanze123 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Summer PHD says: If the site said that B12 is available in some fruits or B12 is not necessary for human life, that would be controversial. Therefore, since Morris Krok is quoted as being later against the fruitarian diet in an article by an anti-fruitarian on anti-fruitarian website (beyondveg), the citation must and shall now be removed.Zanze123 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I currently have no opinion about the first passage, but the second passage was well-cited. If Morris Krok was speaking out against Fruitarianism on Beyondveg, it seems reasonable to me to cite that when talking about how Morris Krok spoke out against Fruitarianism. This is the same principle as SummerPhD mentioned above. I have therefore re-added the citation in the second passage. -kotra (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the whole point Kotra, Morris Krok was not speaking out against Fruitarianism on Beyondveg. No quotes were provided. It is just an unquoted and unsourced allegation by Tom Billings, which he could have made up. If Krok was against the frutiarian diet, why was he publishing articles in favour of it in Living Nutrition magazine up until his death just a few years ago. Answers on a postcard. I am therefore deleting the citation in the second passage, because you have not done your research on this subject. I love the way that until I edited the section to make it more balanced, you never asked for any verifications. So when it was unbalanced (i.e. no verified), that was OK. LOl. Zanze123 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Verification needed" means someone (other than the person who added the citation) needs to verify that the source says what is claimed. It is impossible to ask for verification of sources that do not exist; that is why I did not ask for verification before. As for the Krok source, I see now that I misread it. I assumed it was written by Morris Krok, not Tom Billings. I made a mistake. This is why you should, again, assume good faith. To dull Hanlon's razor a bit: never attribute to bias what can be adequately explained by simple human error (yours or mine). -kotra (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Digging further, I see Krok died in 2005, and Billings' writings were from 2000. Did Krok write any articles in favor of fruitarianism after 2000? If so, can you provide more details on when, in what issues of Living Nutrition, and under what title? If Krok verifiably wrote in support of fruitarianism after 2000, the Billings source is certainly questionable and should be discarded, but until then I agree with Chzz that there is no reason to suspect Billings was lying. -kotra (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Krok emailed me in 2003 or 4 to tell me there was no better theory than Ehret's mucusless diet system (detoxing for fruitarianism) so why he would be against the fruit diet, when he wrote books on it makes no sense. If he was against it so much, where are his articles between 2000 and 20005 denouncing the fruitarian diet. He had every such opportunity to write such articles in Living Nutrition magazine, but never. Why is there no reason to doubt Billings' claim, given that Billings has stated he is against both fruitarianism and Ehretism, and given that Krok had every opportunity to state he did not believe in fruitarianism anymore. There are articles published in Living Nutrition by Krok, before, and I believe since 2000, and none of his articles ever renounced the fruitarian diet. But whether there are or are not, Billings has provided no documentary source for what Krok is supposed to have said. Billings could make the claim that Krok had been to other planets, but without a quote in a reliable source, from Krok himself, why should Billings be believed. Lol. Zanze123 (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Brandt and Krok verifications to be added later. 87.194.126.193 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As an independent, third-party published source, Billings' word is more reliable than yours (or mine, or any random Wikipedia editor's). I'll reserve judgment until I see the references, though. -kotra (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any progress on the references for Krok? Since a couple days have passed, I have re-added Billings' citation until one is made available. -kotra (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources

SummerpHD makes the claim in 'History' that there are "lots of self-published sources" at the section Writings supporting the fruitarian diet. Schlicksen is published by Holbrook and Company. Densmore is published by S. Sonnenschein & Co. Carrington is published by Kessinger Publishing. Ehret is published by ELPC. Brandt is published by ELPC. Horne is published by Harper Collins. Lovewisdom is published by Paradisian Publications. Bernard is published by Health Research Books. The Fortnightly is published by Chapman and Hall. So where exactly are the self-published sources, Summerphd does not say. There are none. Zanze123 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive

SummerPHD, is the section on this page you classified for archiving, to be archived or to stay on this page? 94.197.254.133 (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

These closed discussions could be put into archive to make the talk page shorter: Ahisma; Fringe source citing New York Times; Johnny Appleseed; Pythagoras; Famous fruitarians; DaVinci (again); Thoreau (again); Removed content; Editing your talk page discussions; Tone of Article. Zanze123 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have archived all sections except the most recent ones. -kotra (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

A sub-section 'Critics of fruitarianism has been added to the Criticism section.Zanze123 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Clinical language

Kotra, wrote The results suggest that, at least for the period covered by the experiment and under the prevailing conditions, the diet was adequate with respect to the parameters investigated, This kind of terminology could equally be applied to the sections under Nutritional concerns. Results suggest. At least for the period covered by the experiment. Under the prevailling conditions. Diet was inadequate with respect to the prevailing conditions. - Yet Kotra did not rephrase that section. Also to suggest claimed scientific basis, is moot. Everything is a claim. Zanze123 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are not my words. That is an exact quote from the study. I merely corrected the quote to match what the study authors said. -kotra (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was an exact quote, where is the quote? Even if you paraphrased it, the exact quote should still be in the reference for verification purposes. Zanze123 (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in the reference. A copy of the reference is linked to in the citation. Please read it if you have not already done so, and you will see it is the exact quote. I have now removed the incorrect quote you have added to the citation; I'm not sure where you got it from but it is inaccurate, as can be verified by reading the linked reference. -kotra (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Style

Scientific basis and Anthropological discoveries, - headings been removed. 2overO wants discussion for the basis of removal be here. What is your exact reason for removal? Zanze123 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki says "Titles should match the article contents and should not be over-narrow or over-broad." You removed the titles without any actual explanation. The section is about anthropological discoveries by a scientist. The scientist made an anthropological discovery about the origins of human diet based on hominoid tooth analysis. The titles therefore confrm to Wiki's requirements. By removing them, you have merged the section with another section which has nothing to do with anthropological discoveries with a scientific basis. So why have you removed the the titles? Zanze123 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What motivation could someone have for a designer diet besides scientific studies? The bit on paleolithic diet explains why some manner of fruitarian diet might be worth investigating ... a motivation. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of reasons exist for various diets. Weight loss for cosmetic reasons is not scientific (for health is), religious reasons (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.), personal convictions (against killing animals (vegetarian), using animals (vegan), killing anything (fruitarianism (sometimes))), etc. Yes, science -- or pseudo-science -- often enters into it. Long story short, we need reliable sources or we have nothing to say on the matter. - 22:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Revert to version of September 30?

In my opinion, which I believe is widely shared (see WP:FTN#Fruitarianism), this article has gone far astray over the last month and a half, becoming a melange of quote-farm and fringe advocacy. The only reasonable solution I see is to revert to an earlier version, and this one from Sept 30 looks like the best. Please indicate here whether you would support such a reversion, with brief justification if necessary. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors, and don't give lengthy justifications -- if a response or a lengthy exposition of your views is necessary, please start a new section for it. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support reversion as proposer. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Chronicling quotations from authors who wrote about this subject through modern history, both favourably and disfavourably, is highly noteable as are the other contributions citing advocates and critics of the subject matter. If you feel the only 'reasonable' solution is to revert the article, deleting all contributions by all editors since then, leave the article one-sided. Zanze123 (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support reversion as detailed above. Very little content from relevant academic communities (which is being used to unbalance the article infavor of this fringe theory). Additionally, I feel the intro section should state, in some way, that this is a fringe theory. We have a reliable source calling it an "extreme vegan diet", which clearly places the diet in its context. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The changes since then have not been positive. Summer, it's not so much an issue of academic sources (which, of course, are the gold standard) as much as sourcing fringe statements to some guy's website. I'd be happy to include sources like (for example) popular, nonspecialist books iff they are subject to editorial control. Self-published books and websites, which constitute the bulk of Zanze's "secondary sources", are wholly unacceptable. Skinwalker (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, after careful consideration. The rate at which changes (mostly detrimental) have been made to this article lately have been too much for me and other editors to address. I agree we should revert to that revision; afterwards, I propose changes to meaning or structure should be suggested, one at a time, on the talk page, discussed there, and if no significant objections have been raised within a few days, make the change. This will ensure the article will improve incrementally and thoughtfully, instead of any one editor taking charge over the article without prior discussion. -kotra (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I have compared the current version with the proposed version from Sept 30, and agree that the edits since that time have been too frequent and have introduced too many poorly-sourced statements for the current version to be used as the base. Johnuniq (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support reversion I too have done the comparison, this is becoming more of a laundry list of quotes than anything. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral. The challenge is to find which material is notable enough for inclusion in the article about an extreme movement. The question is how to handle quotations that may be specially interpreted by advocate(s) of the movement. Looie496 proposes a reversion that hardly solves anything but whose value IMHO is to demonstrate consensus working. I declare Neutral because the reversion satisfies the Hippocratic interdiction Primum non nocere. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly invited discussion at the talk page, yet only now there is discussion, since the topic is deletion of content relevant to this article which favours fruitarianism. You do not state which statements you believe are 'poorly-sourced', nor have you discussed these at the talk pages. References I added to support, not undermine the article, have been obtained from original sources including verifiable quotes. Zanze123 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is not the reliability of sources (although some are clearly weak), it is that the format of the article has become increasingly far from what an encyclopedia article should look like, and that the article gives undue weight to non-mainstream points of view. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So you believe none of the people quoted are notable, the history of thought on the subject matter is not relevant for quotation, the scientific sources added are 'not scientific' because they favour fruitarianism, and any additions to the article which favor fruitarianism or give further clarity to different fruitarian diets, are automatically not notable regardless of their notability. Further, pacifist Ghandi should be reverted to a failed fruitarian when quotes from his book show he wasn't, whilst supremacist Klassen should be reverted to being a successful fruitarian even though his Salubrious Living shows his fruitarian diet ideal included vegetables, which are not fruits. Fascinating. Wiki favors giving weight to mainstream views, and undue weight to non-mainstream views. How is that neutral? Mainstream views are important, but not when slanted as they have been with the sections on Klassen, Ghandi, Alan Walker, fruitarian diets etc. Looie496, makes his/her case. Writings should be deleted on the basis of preserving a general style. Regarding other sections, again, discuss at the talk page, all issues for revision or deletion, on a case by case basis. Zanze123 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from style, regarding quotes, please note verification for additional claims, was asked for by other editors, and was lacking in existing claims. Verification was provided. Sources were verified with relevant quotes. Then the response was the quote is not relevant, the source is not relevant, the person or topic is not notable, or the source is unreliable, so long as a quote is relevant, source is relevant, person or topic is notable, or source is reliable, where fruitarianism is favored. Therefore, again, please discuss any content on the talk page for clarification, revision and/or deletion, as appropriate. Zanze123 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kotra proposes reversion then changes being reviewed 1 by 1. The 'quote farm' is removed. Content and structure in the article as it now stands can be discussed on the talk page, for clarification, revision or deletion. Significant future changes to the article, should first be discussed on the talk pages for discussion and agreement. Zanze123 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources?

With regard to your unfounded claim above 'sourcing fringe statements to some guy's website', I have no website on any aspect of this article, so I could not have sourced any fringe statements. Regarding 'self-published' books and 'self-published' websites, please provide details of "the bulk" of my secondary sources, so these can be clarified or removed. I have wherever possible cited commercially published books and secondary sources. Academic sources are the gold standard, but are not the only sources permitted at Wikipedia. You say popular nonspecialist books should be included but you do not explain why popular specialist commercially published books should not be included, such as Survival In The 21st Century which sold over a million copies. Zanze123 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No one said you had a website, only that some items cited "some guy's website" as a source.

Unless there is some indication that a website meets the criteria under WP:RS, that website is not a reliable source. It is simple to create a website purporting absolutely anything. Citing a website of no particular reliability does not prove the absurd notions that George W. Bush is a lizardman, the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax or the Earth is hollow.

Unless there is some indication that a book ("commercially published" or not) meets the criteria under WP:RS, that book is not a reliable source. There are any number of publishers who print books with no fact-checking whatsoever stating that George W. Bush is a lizardman and other such absurdities.

The popularity of a source does not make it reliable. See WP:RS. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What " "some guy's website" " do you refer to? I included quotations from commercially published books, and articles from academic journals, and the media. I have not added any external links to the Fruitarian listing. As previously stated, vanity publishing is not relevant to articles.Zanze123 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Johanna Brandt, again

See Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_2#Johanna_Brandt. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Linda Goodman

I haven't learned how to add citations yet so I didn't add her to the article, but I'd like to suggest to the people editing this article to include best-selling author Linda Goodman, who advocated fruitarianism in her book "Star Signs", and over a fifteen year period became a fruitarian herself. She then promptly became diabetic and died of complications from diabetes. That seems noteworthy for this article to me. KVND 06:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same Linda Goodman that we have an article about? That article doesn't mention fruitarianism at all; perhaps it should. It just says that she died "from complications of diabetes". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"... promptly became diabetic ..." does not seem to be consistent with "... over a fifteen year period became a fruitarian ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same Linda Goodman, and you're right, that was slightly snarky wording. I forgot this isn't facebook for a moment, my apologies. KVND 20:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Page 56 of "Star Signs" (after explaining that it takes 15 years to become a "full time fruitarian, part time breatharian), Goodman says, "(I'm not quite there myself; I'm only in the second five-year period.)" From where I sit, that sounds like we need another source to say she ever was a fruitarian, though, clearly, she was trying to be a fruitarian. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, what counts as a reliable source? A quick scan on google reveals her fans seem to believe she was a part time fruitarian/part time breatharian by her death, and are still actively trying to mimic her diet, but I can't find anything other than "Star Signs" where she personally states that she was. These fan mentions of her as a fruitarian are all from message boards and astrology enthusiast sites. KVND 20:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fans talking would not be a reliable source. For something like this, we'd be looking for her saying she was a fruitarian or an article in a source that is subject to considerable fact checking. For more, please review the appropriate policy. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How can someone be a "part time breatharian"? Presumably that just means she fasted a few days a week. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Fasting" is simply not eating. I do that every night, until I break my fast with, um, breakfast. "Breatharianism" involves a belief that nutrients are either unnecessary or are available from the air, the sun or some such. Yeah, "part time breatharian" is kinda odd, but is it any odder than breatharianism itself? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is odder. As you point out there is a difference between the practice of not eating, and the belief that you don't need to eat. I can understand that someone can practise something part-time (which I suggest is just periodic fasting in this case), but I have trouble with the concept of believing part-time (regardless of the validity of the belief). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5