![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are three additional criticisms of the fruitarian worldview I can offer: 1) Modern agriculture is a form of mutualism between plants and humans, just as is seed dispersal by eating fruit, so eating any part of the plant should be acceptable on that basis (and the same goes for meat, especially from factory farms, if we are appealing to mutualism). 2) Plants are not sentient, so worrying about hurting them is just plain silly. 3) Much of the logic here seems to be appealing to what's natural, which anyone who isn't clueless about ethics knows to be appeal to nature or the naturalistic fallacy. I haven't got any references for these, and I'm doubtful anyone has ever bothered to refute this nonsense in print, but they might have. Sorry if I'm offending any fruitarians here... maybe I'm just not 'holistic' enough, whatever that's supposed to mean. Richard001 ( talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Behind the sentence: "Several children have died as the result of being fed fruitarian diets.[14]" could be added, that "On the other hand many, many more children have died, even at very young age already, as a result of so called Sudden infant death syndrome, among other things as a result of prenatal food and other habits of their mostly non fruitarian parents. [ [3]] -- Natubico ( talk) 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing a sentence: "Others believe they should eat only plants that spread seeds when the plant is eaten." If anyone knows what the author is actually trying to say here, please feel free to add an appropriate sentence. DanTheShrew ( talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read up on Vitarianism and Ahisma Fruitarianism. ( Zanze123 ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)).
I have just removed this text;
However, according to the Vegan Society of the United Kingdom, B12 is available from plant sources (though not in high quantities) [1]. This is also evidenced by tha fact that there are products labelled as 'vegan' that contain vitamin B12, such as some brands of "soya milk". Other organisations, more respected than U.S. organisations, have also proved the U.S. National Institute of Health's claims to be false.
Everything after the cite is original research. The bit before the cite is contradicted by the source cited, which says, in part, "The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements." and "B12 is the only vitamin that is not recognised as being reliably supplied from a varied wholefood, plant-based diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, together with exposure to sun." and "...some vegans to suggest that B12 was an issue requiring no special attention, or even an elaborate hoax. Others have proposed specific foods...as suitable non-animal sources of B12. Such claims have not stood the test of time." and "In over 60 years of vegan experimentation only B12 fortified foods and B12 supplements have proven themselves as reliable sources of B12..." etc. If there is anything in the source even suggesting that "B12 is available from plant sources", I was unable to find it. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article that the biosphere 2 diet was also a fruitarian-type diet, composed of home-produced fruit and legumes. Add in article KVDP ( talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As you can see here- http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c2203.html yeast does not contain B12. I'm removing the part of this article that says that B12 is in yeast. Also, being an aspiring fruitarian myself, I must say that this article is very biased. This is all based on FDA claims about the importance of certain nutrients (i.e., B12, protein, etc) and since the FDA has an entire Wikipedia article focused on their criticism, I think that it is unfair to use just their claims. There are many, many arguments in the support of fruitarianism for its health benefits. If I find some that would be adequate for use in this article, should I implement them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.148.174 ( talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please reinclude following links:
This as they conatin much information about how to become a fruitarian and how the diet is composed (no info is available in article on this yet.
KVDP ( talk) 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is often used to make extraordinary claims. Frequently, these are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;" or "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them." WP:REDFLAG Some material has been taken from unreliable sources (self-published websites, forums, blogs, etc., see WP:RS). Some material has been drawn from sources that say nothing about the subject directly (such as the claim that a well-known artist/scientist was a fruitarian because his journal does not mention any foods other than fruits and pasta). This is synthesis WP:SYN and/or original research: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research" Wikipedia:OR#Reliable_sources Fruitarianism is a fringe theory, it presents "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view". Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories This is shown by frequent claims that humans are "meant" to eat only "fruit" (various definitions are used), humans are "meant" to eat only raw foods, vitamin B12 is not necessary, dietary intake of B12 is not necessary, various fruits produce B12, protein is toxic, etc. Surprisingly, there are a few reliable sources that mention fruitarianism. I'm going to add them in to give some solid basis for this article existing. The size of this article, however, is not supported by the highly limited coverage the topic has received in reliable sources. I'll be working on that as well. The claims not supported directly and explicitly by reliable sources, such as the claim that Ghandi was a fruitarian (a word he did not use), will disappear. The groups promoting fruitarianism will have their say, but everything will be descriptive and non-controversial. I'm hoping to find third-party sources that have already pulled and pooled this material to make some broad statements as each fruitarian group gives its own definitions that disagree with those used by others. In short, I think we can come up with a wp:verifiable, neutral article free of original research. Wish me luck. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The Annual Review of Nutrition is a peer reviewed journal. Yes, the doi link in the cite would require a subscription. However, that is a convenience link only. The ARN continues to publish its deadtree (paper) version, available through any decent library. Citing the Review is akin to citing a major newspaper that does not make its archive freely available online (except that the ARN is a peer reviewed, scientific journal and a major newspaper is just a fish wrapper). - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There were some content removals recently, which I reverted and explained in my edit summaries why. The content has since been removed again, so I'm explaining in more detail here. These issues should be discussed here instead of engaging in a reversion war.
1. Go Ask Alice! is Columbia University. It is part of the Health Promotion Program at Columbia University. This is verifiable by noticing the top right corner of the Ask Alice page, which says "health services at columbia" and "Columbia University's Health Q&A Internet Service". It is also verifiable by visiting the Go Ask Alice! FAQ page.
2. An entire, mostly well-referenced paragraph about several things was removed, ostensibly because the first sentence was questioned. Putting aside for a moment the issue with the first sentence, entire paragraphs should not be removed because one part of it is questioned. Only that part should be removed. As for the sentence in question, it is referenced properly, though I have not been able to verify the reference yet. I am working on it though (see the section above this one). Until then, if you doubt its veracity, ask Mdsummermsw for clarification of the source, as she is the one who added it.
3. If you can find a reliable source that claims that green leafy vegetables or algae are sufficient sources for B12, by all means add it. However, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community seems to be that all plant sources of B12 are insufficient or unreliable. I have included a reference to the National Institutes of Health to back up the claim. This is a reliable source. If you disagree with NIH's conclusions, remember that Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth.
These issues should be discussed here. If I do not hear any objections within a few days, I will revert the removals again. - kotra ( talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have just removed Jobs. The source used was far from reliable and was contradicted by a reliable source giving a very different source for the Apple name. [4] - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous user added Larry Flynt to the list of notable fruitarians. In their edit summary, the following explanation was given: U.S. News: Hustler Owner Shot." Facts On File World News Digest 17 Mar. 1978.
If anyone is able to verify this source (World News Digest, March 17, 1978), that would be helpful. Until then, I have removed the mention of Larry Flynt, since it is highly suspicious. A Google search for "Larry Flynt" and "fruitarian" turned up nothing relevant. - kotra ( talk) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just removed a portion of the "Rebuttal" section dealing with B12. In in, [7] was cited as evidence that humans need not consume B12 as it is produced in the human ileum. Several problems: 1) The site in question, living-foods.com is not a reliable source. 2) The monograph presented does NOT discuss fruitarianism. 3) B12 produced in the human ileum is produced far below where it would be absorbed. The paper dismisses this out of hand as "outdated", though on-going research repeatedly confirms this. A reasonable summary can be found in "Vitamin B12: Are You Getting It?" at Vegan Outreach [8], and copied elsewhere. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This section at the moment contains the following sentence: "This may pose a health risk for strict fruitarians, as the B12 in fortified foods and supplements is derived from bacteria, not fruits".
It's not quite clear to everybody, why the fact that artificially produced B12 is derived from bacteria, might pose a health risk to fruitarians. And moreover no sources of this statement have been mentioned. -- Natubico ( talk) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So B12 can very well be a product coming from animals and still find itself upon plant products like fruit. It even is very well thinkable, that from there those vitamines move into the fruits. But of course, if no or hardly any insects have the opportunity, to stay a while on fruits, because before they get the chance for that, they are poisoned by sprayed insecticides, or eaten by spiders ( used in organic fruitgrowing), than there will be no B12 upon and inside those fruits, as a result of which scientist, who examine them, will conclude, that no plants and fruits contain any B12 vitamines.-- Natubico ( talk) 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about it Natubico, just because some people appear to have severe mental issues with the concept doesn't mean the whole world will come to an end (at least not for a while...). Equating fruitarianism with breathanarism, what a joke.
Clearly people are out intent to destroy the credibility this diet has because of their own bad eating happens that are going to end up killing them.
Anonywiki ( talk) 01:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Firstly it must be pointed out here, that "Anonywiki" definitely is NOT a name, that is used by Natubico. So hopefully no other contributors will impute things like that (any more), although in itself it's understandable, that they count with that possibility. (In this context it may be usefull, to remind of what has been discussed here: [ [9]] ).
Secondly it must be said, that in itself it's quite correct, that SummerPhD keeps reminding of the necessity to ad references about what is posed in the article and on this page. But this should also be done in relation to parts of the text, that are negative to Fruitarianism (for instance the sentence about B12 and bacteria), as well as in relation to contribubutions of SummerPhD herself ("The closest I have found is a study......" (What study, please?) ).
Anyway the part of the literature study, in which the presence of B12 in the upper layer of the ground is mentioned, is this one: [10].-- Natubico ( talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The lack of neutrality for this article is ridiculous. You'd swear that fruitarianism was some kind of cult diet that noone in their right mind would undergo. Anonywiki ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by your post. "Reliable", as it says in link you so generously offered, is very much open to point of view.
As such it is a very poor argument to use for taking down an edit.
As for being verifiable? Those changes are verifiable. Are you trying to say maybe the author of the site is lying about his motives? Why would he lie about such a thing? Anonywiki ( talk) 01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh great, I pressed the wrong button and Internet Explorer brought the browser backwards and deleted everything I had written.
I'll just say again that fruit is the food of choice for all primates, it composes 65% to 90% of the diets of the Great Apes (humans closest relatives. Given a choice, primates will nearly always go for the fruit. There are absolutely no nutritional requirements that you can't get when you eat fruit (that has had bacteria or insect residues on it).
Maybe "perfectly evolved" is a bit of a misnomer, however the point was that you can live in good health on fruit, you are "perfectly equippped to, (in my view you'll have perfect health, but that's just my view so I didn't add it to the article), unlike say... ohhh... refined grains and candy bars. The way this article is now it seems like it was something for crazy people and you'd DIE or something living on fruit alone and nothing could be furthur from the truth. Anonywiki ( talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
"Others believe they should eat only plants that spread seeds when the plant is eaten.[7]"
This sentence indeed is also on that raw-food site, but it is incorrect. No Fruitarians believe they should eat any plants at-- Natubico ( talk) 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC) all.
Presumably this is what was meant to be said: "Others believe they should eat only the fruits of plants, that spread seeds, when its fruits are eaten". -- Natubico ( talk) 17:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
spread their seeds through being consumed."
This is the cited text in question:
"Fruitarians. An offshoot of the raw-food diet, and even more of aniche, Haspel says. Like rawists, fruitarians eat only fruits andvegetables that are botanically considered fruits, such as green peppers and tomatoes. "Fruitarians believe you should only eat plants that spread their seeds through being consumed." For example, digging up a root vegetable violates the plant's integrity. "To eat an apple, however, scattering the seeds far from the tree, is to make a contribution to the plant's ecology."
So in a way the source isn't USA Today either, but that cookbook author Haspel. The USA Today article was only bringing, what she said. But is a cookbook author an authority in the field of alternative food principles? This one fur sure is not. As a matter of fact it won't be easy, to find a cookbook author, that is talking bigger nonsence (in the field in question), than this one:
1) Fruitarianism an offshoot of the raw-food diet? Where did she get that information?
2) Rawists do NOT "eat only fruits". They eat plants (like for instance spinach (whether or not in liquid form)) as well.
3) "Fruitarians believe you should only eat plants"???!!! Fruitarians believe you (or better they) should only eat fruits; and plants definitely are not the same things as fruits. Even an apple is not a plant, but a fruit and nothing more or less than that.
The only conclusion possible here is, that this source is very unreliable. Hopefully this nonsensical sentence will be definitely reomoved from the article soon. -- Natubico ( talk) 02:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the following information can be added to the article one way or another:
"As fruitarians eat much fruit, the chance that fruit flies will be their guests is pretty big, especially in warmer seasons. Because these insects are known to reproduce themselves rather fastly, to prevent, that within a few weeks the house is filled with many thousands of little flies, measures have to be taken. As most fruitarians apart from no plants, don't want to kill animals either, these measures mainly consist from keeping rotting fruit, fruit with rotting spots, fruit of which the peel (partly) has been removed, and pomace out of reach of the flies; (for instance by use of plastic bags)."-- Natubico ( talk) 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As it currently reads, (in this readers opinion) the concepts presented are disjointed and the article is frankly confusing.
Fruitarianism is a diet and lifestyle choice that seeks to restrict the intake of foods to those consisting only of fruit stuffs. The definition of these fruitstuffs, the rationale behind the decision and the flexibility exhibited within the diet vary widely amongst adherents.
To try to reduce this down to percentages in the opening paragraph, and then to proceed with what appears to be a rather superficial (and bizarrely referenced [do we really need a (poor)reference to justify the grouping of bell peppers in the already-vague category of 'fruit'!?]) approach to defining the various strains of the diet does not improve the encyclopedia.
The Criticisms section is by far and away the best section, however I do think it needs to be made clear where concerns are related to the long-term use of the diet, and where they are not.
Many people practice fruitarianism as simply an aspirational or philosophical aim, extending veganism (with a recognition of its practical / physical difficulties) or during short periods of spiritual, physical or emotional cleansing. The article seems to only talk about the diet in terms of a all-or-nothing long-term diet, which is only a single sub-set (and I'd suggest, fringe) element of the topic.
How do people feel about this? Do you support a re-write?
Everyunitone ( talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is biased towards those who are against a fruit diet. The citation (24) is a personal website for Tom Billings who makes a claim that Morris Krok, who wrote books on fruitarianism did not actually endorse the diet. This is just Billings claim and not a reliable source. The book Fruitarianism by Anne Osborne (Fruitgod 2009), states that the author has been a strict fruitarian for 17 years, and there will be many other examples, but not everyone has who is fruitarian is famous or has written a book. Therefore this article should be edited more fairly. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 12:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
SummerPhdD says that those who practice a particular diet and write about it need to have their arguments presented and sourced. Anne Osborne's argument is her book, and the source is herself. The book and source is already stated clearly. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
And which 2 sources were misquoted, you fail to say. What I want to know is, are you SummerPhD in reality, Tom Billings? Simply removing DaVinci, without explaining anywhere your reasons for doing so is unacceptable. Who are you accountable to at Wikipedia? If you 'do not care' what an author's argument (line of reason) is then why on Earth did you ask write 'These arguments need to be CLEARLY sourced.' - emphasis 'arguments'. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I know my sources. You may have explained in archives, but did not explain to me. I fully appreciate the Joe Schmoe issue. Just because Tom Billings website says that 'Krok told me he later retracted the diet', - is totally unreliable as Billings is against the fruitarian diet.Yet it has been accepted. . You say 'the marjority of fruitarians', and who are they? Differences will exist between 2 fruitarians who agree on the same principles, according to their individual tastes. As for pro-fruitarian websites, that is no different to an entry for a Republic politician being cited in a Republican-orientated newspaper, yet such citations are accepted at Wiki. Whether science is cited or not, has no bearing on anything. It is just 1 way of seeing. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It is clear you believe science it the arbiter of truth and therefore this article will never be edited objectively. A non-fruitarian source would be no more accurate, objective or neutral than a pro-fruitarian source. Every of every sentence in every article on Wikipedia, should really be citated, for listings to be accurate, yet this does not happen. So where is the accuracy in Wikipedia, never mind the fruitarian article. Answers on a postcard. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously Darwin, a close friend of Thomas Huxley, whose book Man's Place In Nature shows man is a frugivore, meant carnivorous, by using the word frugi-ferous. You prefer to delete contributions, rather tha build on theirs, or provide your own. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)].
This article will always be flawed, and, people who really are interested in the subject, will simply go elsewhere. Wikipedia is going to end up like conventional encyclopedias, full of voids. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
""By "independent" sources, we mean sources that are not directly connected to the subject."" Then you will say the sources are not connected to the subject and reject the sources.
""Pro-fruitarian sources are created and maintained by fruitarians. They are inherently biased. They are likely to claim well-regarded public figures (e.g., DaVinci) are fruitarians on scant evidence (e.g., "His notebooks never mention him eating vegetables or meat, so I guess he's a fruitarian!") while miligned public figures (e.g., Klassen) are omitted even when the evidence is clear (he self-identified as a fruitarian)."" Not if they provide citations e.g. books where this was mentioned.
The evidence is not clear about Klassen. He promoted a fruit, nut and vegetable diet. That is not fruitarian. You dont bother to define fruitarian, so that way you get to justify Klassen. Are you a supporter of white
"Yes, some peer-reviewed sources are flawed. Sources that are not peer-reviewed or subject to substantial verification processes are not reliable sources."
Since peer reviewed sources can be flawed they are not more reliable than un reviewed sources, and in fact, unreviewed sources may be more reliable. There is no objectivity. Every verification involves a new observation which is just as subjective as the original observation. That is why science is a joke, as is the peer review process.
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Since nothing can ever be verified (see above), the threshold for inclusion is a farce as are those who believe in it. Furthermore since verifiability does not constitute truth, this further makes the criteria a farce. Continue to derrogate (which you call editing) rather than contribute anything of substance yourself. Lol.{ Zanze123 ( talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)}
Summer PHD. I cut our long discussion to save space, now I know what you think. There is also no academic 'community' but a hugely divided and fragmented spectrum of thought. Consensus also results in the low common denominator. If Peer review journals are the 'gold standard', god help humanity. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines say I may edit my own comments. Zanze123 ( talk) 11:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As previously discussed, DaVinci mentions only eating fruits and pasta. This does not mean that he didn't eat anything else. The sources presented are not reliable sources for the controversial deduction presented. - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
As previously discussed, reliable sources indicate that Thoreau was "almost" a vegetarian, eating some meat. The unreliable sources presented here merely claimed he was a fruitarian, contrary to the reliably sourced claim presented in Henry David Thoreau. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is SummerPHD anti-fruitarian and is this why SummerPhD's editing has such an anti-fruitarian slant? Discuss.{{ Zanze123 ( talk) 12:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)|Zanze123|22:15, 21 October 2009}}
OK so contributors have no bearing on content. Lol. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are not Tom Billings, are you Stephen Barrett? You are clearly somebody with a grudge against fruitarianism - your edits on this page are the citation. Zanze123 ( talk) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Content is determined by Editors, therefore it impossible to refer to content without reference to the editors determining that content. Oh so you are Billings or a clone of. That would explain your anti-fruitarian editorial changes that make this article such a joke. Zanze123 ( talk) 22:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Your accusation that I have made accusation is unfounded. It was not an accusation. It was an open-ended suggestion (rhreotical), with the point being that your are clearly against the fruitarian diet and that is why you delete anything in this article, even with citations, which suggests that a fruitarian diet may be possible or is possible. That is why this article is a waste of time and space and Wikipedia is a joke. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I never asked for anyone's personal information. It was rhetorical and a point of irony to show how you are anti-fruitarian, as shown by your edits - including the deletion of material without giving contributors the chance to add references. Unfortunately, SummerPHD, due to the nature of text, you cannot hear tone, and therefore do not hear the rhetorical question. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have claimed you are nobody. I asked if you were somebody. Not expecting you to answer. It was a rhetorical question. I am not interested in who you are. What matters is that you delete people's content without giving them a chance to reference it, and then don't put it back when they ask you, so they can then add references. Provide the section in Wikipedia guidelines where this is permitted. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, you deleted content before allowing enough time for references to be added, and you refused to re-add the content which you deleted. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You will not restore the material so I can add a reference, because you are intent on sabotating this article. Otherwise you would restore the material as requested. Zanze123 ( talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You are just being obtuse. I asked you to restore the content so that I could add the reference. The burden is on you to restore what you deleted before giving a chance for a reference to be edited. Since an editor is free to edit as an editor pleases, there is no neutrality. Zanze123 ( talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have again removed unreliable sources making controversial claims. The closest any reliable source comes to claiming he was a fruitarian are those who read him as prohibiting all animal foods, which would make him a vegan or vegetarian. There is no historical evidence he was a fruitarian. See sources cited at Pythagoras#Pythagoreans. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed from "Fictional" Johnny Appleseed. 1) this was unsourced 2) he was a real person. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This series of edits clearly "substantially alter(ed) a comment after it has been replied to" WP:TALK. Henceforth, I will reply to the general tone of your comments and extensively quote anything I respond to. I see no reason for you to alter the overall content of your discussion without comment. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, the idea that content exists in a vacuum, even though it is being edited by editors, is nonsensical. How could content be discussed without reference to editors when it is editors who are determining the nature and substance of the content. Again, this shows what a joke Wikipedia really is. Zanze123 ( talk) 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What are your references for editing this article? Zanze123 ( talk) 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What? Only to have you reverse anything I add to the article. Do you really think I want to waste my time any more on your destructive editing due to your apparent grudge against the fruitarian diet. Lol. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Content was deleted and the 'editor' refuses to put it back so references can be added. This is not constructive editing, this is deconstructive editing, and most unhelpful, whnen trying to improve the encylopedia. If the editor was not against the subject matter of this article, the editor would put it back but refuses. You ask me to discuss the editors themselves. "If you have a problem with someone's edits, discuss the edits themselves." I already did but you did not ask the editor to put back the content on Honiball and Engelhardt, which is most unhelpful when trying to improve the listing. Zanze123 ( talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In the time that the repeater repeated, the repeater could have added the content back as requested. Kotra, I never knew editors were only capable of deleting and not able to reverse their deletions. The content was deleted before I had a chance to add a reference. If that is not impedement then find another word, but it amounts to the same thing. Zanze123 ( talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
John Doe was born in 1950.<ref>Doe, Jane (2009). ''A Biography of John Doe'', Random House.</ref>
Summerphd makes more work for contributors by deleting their content before giving them a chance to add references. You are assuming a reference shall added be added at the same second as the statement, instead of realizing this is an evolving process. He said he was sitting on it to give the quotations time to be reference but then deleted it without giving time for it to be referenced. Zanze123 ( talk) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Kotra, I added a paragraph about Tony Wright to the article, and it was promptly deleted by Summer PHD without any explanation, just a note to himself in the Edit Summary line that nobody else could understand. So it's not about improving the article, indeed. Zanze123 ( talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yet another flaw in Wikipedia. Many famous books were self-published. Wikipedia -itself- is also self-published. What a joke. Zanze123 ( talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you agree that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. For that reason, I can't see the point of the Articles at Wikipedia, when they are unreliable, even if with references. Zanze123 ( talk) 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The pro-fruitarian magazine claimed the author had "proven that proto-humans were exclusively fruitarians". The actual source (Boyce Rensberger, Boyce. 15 May 1979, New York Times, "Research Yields Surprises about Early Human Diets - Teeth Show Fruit Was the Staple") is far more cautious: "Preliminary studies... have led an anthropologist to the startling suggestion... appear to have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit." I have removed the claim. - SummerPhD ( talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Instead of adding the correct text which is still 100% relevant to this article, you remove it completely. This is the proof that you are only interested in deconstructing this article instead of adding anything constructive. It is another reason why this article is a waste of space as is the editorial process. Zanze123 ( talk) 17:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What Allan Walker originally said is not unsalvageable, it is unpalatable to anti-fruitarians, and that is why SummerPHD has failed to include it. So if more than 1 scientist says that the sky is green, then it's worth a mention. It is not the number of scientists which warrant whether something is worth a mention, but the topic itself and the scientist's position on it. It is not my negative view of Wikipedia, it is a fact that since it relies so heavily on references whcih themselves can be unreliable, the entire process is flawed. Hassling contributors by deleting content without giving a chance for content to be referenced, is not helping but hindering. The entire article is so editorially biased it is a joke. Zanze123 ( talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
When I say article, I refer to the New York Times article, not the Wikipedia article. You failed to quote what Allan Walker actually said in favour of fruitarianism in the New York Times article. Lovewisdom did not misquote Walker, he clarified what Walker said. Misquoting - all depends on how the word is defined, used and interpreted. Zanze123 ( talk) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
What Walker actually said was: "I don't want to make too much of this yet. But it is quite a surprise." However, what you quoted in the Fruitarian article was Dr. Walker said, "I don't want to make too much of this yet." I therefore addded the full quote to give balance to the quote within the context of the Fruitarian article. Zanze123 ( talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It does not stand. He actually said "I don't want to make too much of this yet. But it is quite a surprise." not "I don't want to make too much of this yet." as you tried to depict. There is a very big difference. Omitting "But it is quite a surprise" pooh-poohs the finding. Including it, suggests it is of significance and therefore gives credence to the finding which supports fruitarianism. So you are 100% wrong. Zanze123 ( talk) 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You left it in so your reply does not stand. If it was minor, you did not need to have left it out. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with editors who apply selectivity when quoting quotes, yes. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, here is a problem with editors who apply selectivity when quoting quotes, yes and then say 'whatever'. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ibid Zanze123 ( talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It does mean what it means and not what you think it doesn't mean. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Ahisma Fruitarianism in this listing? Zanze123 ( talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There was very little written about the celestial spheres and the world not being flat until Galileo (witch trial by fire) came along to refute Ptolemy. Just because vanishingly small amount of reliable people and or sources exist, does not invalidate a belief. In fact, the reverse is the case. The more something is believed (e.g. cigarettes don't cause cancer), the less it is likely to be true. On top of this many so-called 'reliable' sources are most unreliable, as is the scientific process itself. So presenting reliable sources in a world full of unreliable 'reliable' sources is heading for disaster. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't got time. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are three additional criticisms of the fruitarian worldview I can offer: 1) Modern agriculture is a form of mutualism between plants and humans, just as is seed dispersal by eating fruit, so eating any part of the plant should be acceptable on that basis (and the same goes for meat, especially from factory farms, if we are appealing to mutualism). 2) Plants are not sentient, so worrying about hurting them is just plain silly. 3) Much of the logic here seems to be appealing to what's natural, which anyone who isn't clueless about ethics knows to be appeal to nature or the naturalistic fallacy. I haven't got any references for these, and I'm doubtful anyone has ever bothered to refute this nonsense in print, but they might have. Sorry if I'm offending any fruitarians here... maybe I'm just not 'holistic' enough, whatever that's supposed to mean. Richard001 ( talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Behind the sentence: "Several children have died as the result of being fed fruitarian diets.[14]" could be added, that "On the other hand many, many more children have died, even at very young age already, as a result of so called Sudden infant death syndrome, among other things as a result of prenatal food and other habits of their mostly non fruitarian parents. [ [3]] -- Natubico ( talk) 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing a sentence: "Others believe they should eat only plants that spread seeds when the plant is eaten." If anyone knows what the author is actually trying to say here, please feel free to add an appropriate sentence. DanTheShrew ( talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read up on Vitarianism and Ahisma Fruitarianism. ( Zanze123 ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)).
I have just removed this text;
However, according to the Vegan Society of the United Kingdom, B12 is available from plant sources (though not in high quantities) [1]. This is also evidenced by tha fact that there are products labelled as 'vegan' that contain vitamin B12, such as some brands of "soya milk". Other organisations, more respected than U.S. organisations, have also proved the U.S. National Institute of Health's claims to be false.
Everything after the cite is original research. The bit before the cite is contradicted by the source cited, which says, in part, "The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements." and "B12 is the only vitamin that is not recognised as being reliably supplied from a varied wholefood, plant-based diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, together with exposure to sun." and "...some vegans to suggest that B12 was an issue requiring no special attention, or even an elaborate hoax. Others have proposed specific foods...as suitable non-animal sources of B12. Such claims have not stood the test of time." and "In over 60 years of vegan experimentation only B12 fortified foods and B12 supplements have proven themselves as reliable sources of B12..." etc. If there is anything in the source even suggesting that "B12 is available from plant sources", I was unable to find it. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article that the biosphere 2 diet was also a fruitarian-type diet, composed of home-produced fruit and legumes. Add in article KVDP ( talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As you can see here- http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c2203.html yeast does not contain B12. I'm removing the part of this article that says that B12 is in yeast. Also, being an aspiring fruitarian myself, I must say that this article is very biased. This is all based on FDA claims about the importance of certain nutrients (i.e., B12, protein, etc) and since the FDA has an entire Wikipedia article focused on their criticism, I think that it is unfair to use just their claims. There are many, many arguments in the support of fruitarianism for its health benefits. If I find some that would be adequate for use in this article, should I implement them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.148.174 ( talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please reinclude following links:
This as they conatin much information about how to become a fruitarian and how the diet is composed (no info is available in article on this yet.
KVDP ( talk) 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is often used to make extraordinary claims. Frequently, these are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;" or "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them." WP:REDFLAG Some material has been taken from unreliable sources (self-published websites, forums, blogs, etc., see WP:RS). Some material has been drawn from sources that say nothing about the subject directly (such as the claim that a well-known artist/scientist was a fruitarian because his journal does not mention any foods other than fruits and pasta). This is synthesis WP:SYN and/or original research: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research" Wikipedia:OR#Reliable_sources Fruitarianism is a fringe theory, it presents "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view". Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories This is shown by frequent claims that humans are "meant" to eat only "fruit" (various definitions are used), humans are "meant" to eat only raw foods, vitamin B12 is not necessary, dietary intake of B12 is not necessary, various fruits produce B12, protein is toxic, etc. Surprisingly, there are a few reliable sources that mention fruitarianism. I'm going to add them in to give some solid basis for this article existing. The size of this article, however, is not supported by the highly limited coverage the topic has received in reliable sources. I'll be working on that as well. The claims not supported directly and explicitly by reliable sources, such as the claim that Ghandi was a fruitarian (a word he did not use), will disappear. The groups promoting fruitarianism will have their say, but everything will be descriptive and non-controversial. I'm hoping to find third-party sources that have already pulled and pooled this material to make some broad statements as each fruitarian group gives its own definitions that disagree with those used by others. In short, I think we can come up with a wp:verifiable, neutral article free of original research. Wish me luck. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The Annual Review of Nutrition is a peer reviewed journal. Yes, the doi link in the cite would require a subscription. However, that is a convenience link only. The ARN continues to publish its deadtree (paper) version, available through any decent library. Citing the Review is akin to citing a major newspaper that does not make its archive freely available online (except that the ARN is a peer reviewed, scientific journal and a major newspaper is just a fish wrapper). - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There were some content removals recently, which I reverted and explained in my edit summaries why. The content has since been removed again, so I'm explaining in more detail here. These issues should be discussed here instead of engaging in a reversion war.
1. Go Ask Alice! is Columbia University. It is part of the Health Promotion Program at Columbia University. This is verifiable by noticing the top right corner of the Ask Alice page, which says "health services at columbia" and "Columbia University's Health Q&A Internet Service". It is also verifiable by visiting the Go Ask Alice! FAQ page.
2. An entire, mostly well-referenced paragraph about several things was removed, ostensibly because the first sentence was questioned. Putting aside for a moment the issue with the first sentence, entire paragraphs should not be removed because one part of it is questioned. Only that part should be removed. As for the sentence in question, it is referenced properly, though I have not been able to verify the reference yet. I am working on it though (see the section above this one). Until then, if you doubt its veracity, ask Mdsummermsw for clarification of the source, as she is the one who added it.
3. If you can find a reliable source that claims that green leafy vegetables or algae are sufficient sources for B12, by all means add it. However, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community seems to be that all plant sources of B12 are insufficient or unreliable. I have included a reference to the National Institutes of Health to back up the claim. This is a reliable source. If you disagree with NIH's conclusions, remember that Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth.
These issues should be discussed here. If I do not hear any objections within a few days, I will revert the removals again. - kotra ( talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have just removed Jobs. The source used was far from reliable and was contradicted by a reliable source giving a very different source for the Apple name. [4] - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous user added Larry Flynt to the list of notable fruitarians. In their edit summary, the following explanation was given: U.S. News: Hustler Owner Shot." Facts On File World News Digest 17 Mar. 1978.
If anyone is able to verify this source (World News Digest, March 17, 1978), that would be helpful. Until then, I have removed the mention of Larry Flynt, since it is highly suspicious. A Google search for "Larry Flynt" and "fruitarian" turned up nothing relevant. - kotra ( talk) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just removed a portion of the "Rebuttal" section dealing with B12. In in, [7] was cited as evidence that humans need not consume B12 as it is produced in the human ileum. Several problems: 1) The site in question, living-foods.com is not a reliable source. 2) The monograph presented does NOT discuss fruitarianism. 3) B12 produced in the human ileum is produced far below where it would be absorbed. The paper dismisses this out of hand as "outdated", though on-going research repeatedly confirms this. A reasonable summary can be found in "Vitamin B12: Are You Getting It?" at Vegan Outreach [8], and copied elsewhere. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This section at the moment contains the following sentence: "This may pose a health risk for strict fruitarians, as the B12 in fortified foods and supplements is derived from bacteria, not fruits".
It's not quite clear to everybody, why the fact that artificially produced B12 is derived from bacteria, might pose a health risk to fruitarians. And moreover no sources of this statement have been mentioned. -- Natubico ( talk) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So B12 can very well be a product coming from animals and still find itself upon plant products like fruit. It even is very well thinkable, that from there those vitamines move into the fruits. But of course, if no or hardly any insects have the opportunity, to stay a while on fruits, because before they get the chance for that, they are poisoned by sprayed insecticides, or eaten by spiders ( used in organic fruitgrowing), than there will be no B12 upon and inside those fruits, as a result of which scientist, who examine them, will conclude, that no plants and fruits contain any B12 vitamines.-- Natubico ( talk) 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about it Natubico, just because some people appear to have severe mental issues with the concept doesn't mean the whole world will come to an end (at least not for a while...). Equating fruitarianism with breathanarism, what a joke.
Clearly people are out intent to destroy the credibility this diet has because of their own bad eating happens that are going to end up killing them.
Anonywiki ( talk) 01:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Firstly it must be pointed out here, that "Anonywiki" definitely is NOT a name, that is used by Natubico. So hopefully no other contributors will impute things like that (any more), although in itself it's understandable, that they count with that possibility. (In this context it may be usefull, to remind of what has been discussed here: [ [9]] ).
Secondly it must be said, that in itself it's quite correct, that SummerPhD keeps reminding of the necessity to ad references about what is posed in the article and on this page. But this should also be done in relation to parts of the text, that are negative to Fruitarianism (for instance the sentence about B12 and bacteria), as well as in relation to contribubutions of SummerPhD herself ("The closest I have found is a study......" (What study, please?) ).
Anyway the part of the literature study, in which the presence of B12 in the upper layer of the ground is mentioned, is this one: [10].-- Natubico ( talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The lack of neutrality for this article is ridiculous. You'd swear that fruitarianism was some kind of cult diet that noone in their right mind would undergo. Anonywiki ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by your post. "Reliable", as it says in link you so generously offered, is very much open to point of view.
As such it is a very poor argument to use for taking down an edit.
As for being verifiable? Those changes are verifiable. Are you trying to say maybe the author of the site is lying about his motives? Why would he lie about such a thing? Anonywiki ( talk) 01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh great, I pressed the wrong button and Internet Explorer brought the browser backwards and deleted everything I had written.
I'll just say again that fruit is the food of choice for all primates, it composes 65% to 90% of the diets of the Great Apes (humans closest relatives. Given a choice, primates will nearly always go for the fruit. There are absolutely no nutritional requirements that you can't get when you eat fruit (that has had bacteria or insect residues on it).
Maybe "perfectly evolved" is a bit of a misnomer, however the point was that you can live in good health on fruit, you are "perfectly equippped to, (in my view you'll have perfect health, but that's just my view so I didn't add it to the article), unlike say... ohhh... refined grains and candy bars. The way this article is now it seems like it was something for crazy people and you'd DIE or something living on fruit alone and nothing could be furthur from the truth. Anonywiki ( talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
"Others believe they should eat only plants that spread seeds when the plant is eaten.[7]"
This sentence indeed is also on that raw-food site, but it is incorrect. No Fruitarians believe they should eat any plants at-- Natubico ( talk) 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC) all.
Presumably this is what was meant to be said: "Others believe they should eat only the fruits of plants, that spread seeds, when its fruits are eaten". -- Natubico ( talk) 17:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
spread their seeds through being consumed."
This is the cited text in question:
"Fruitarians. An offshoot of the raw-food diet, and even more of aniche, Haspel says. Like rawists, fruitarians eat only fruits andvegetables that are botanically considered fruits, such as green peppers and tomatoes. "Fruitarians believe you should only eat plants that spread their seeds through being consumed." For example, digging up a root vegetable violates the plant's integrity. "To eat an apple, however, scattering the seeds far from the tree, is to make a contribution to the plant's ecology."
So in a way the source isn't USA Today either, but that cookbook author Haspel. The USA Today article was only bringing, what she said. But is a cookbook author an authority in the field of alternative food principles? This one fur sure is not. As a matter of fact it won't be easy, to find a cookbook author, that is talking bigger nonsence (in the field in question), than this one:
1) Fruitarianism an offshoot of the raw-food diet? Where did she get that information?
2) Rawists do NOT "eat only fruits". They eat plants (like for instance spinach (whether or not in liquid form)) as well.
3) "Fruitarians believe you should only eat plants"???!!! Fruitarians believe you (or better they) should only eat fruits; and plants definitely are not the same things as fruits. Even an apple is not a plant, but a fruit and nothing more or less than that.
The only conclusion possible here is, that this source is very unreliable. Hopefully this nonsensical sentence will be definitely reomoved from the article soon. -- Natubico ( talk) 02:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the following information can be added to the article one way or another:
"As fruitarians eat much fruit, the chance that fruit flies will be their guests is pretty big, especially in warmer seasons. Because these insects are known to reproduce themselves rather fastly, to prevent, that within a few weeks the house is filled with many thousands of little flies, measures have to be taken. As most fruitarians apart from no plants, don't want to kill animals either, these measures mainly consist from keeping rotting fruit, fruit with rotting spots, fruit of which the peel (partly) has been removed, and pomace out of reach of the flies; (for instance by use of plastic bags)."-- Natubico ( talk) 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As it currently reads, (in this readers opinion) the concepts presented are disjointed and the article is frankly confusing.
Fruitarianism is a diet and lifestyle choice that seeks to restrict the intake of foods to those consisting only of fruit stuffs. The definition of these fruitstuffs, the rationale behind the decision and the flexibility exhibited within the diet vary widely amongst adherents.
To try to reduce this down to percentages in the opening paragraph, and then to proceed with what appears to be a rather superficial (and bizarrely referenced [do we really need a (poor)reference to justify the grouping of bell peppers in the already-vague category of 'fruit'!?]) approach to defining the various strains of the diet does not improve the encyclopedia.
The Criticisms section is by far and away the best section, however I do think it needs to be made clear where concerns are related to the long-term use of the diet, and where they are not.
Many people practice fruitarianism as simply an aspirational or philosophical aim, extending veganism (with a recognition of its practical / physical difficulties) or during short periods of spiritual, physical or emotional cleansing. The article seems to only talk about the diet in terms of a all-or-nothing long-term diet, which is only a single sub-set (and I'd suggest, fringe) element of the topic.
How do people feel about this? Do you support a re-write?
Everyunitone ( talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is biased towards those who are against a fruit diet. The citation (24) is a personal website for Tom Billings who makes a claim that Morris Krok, who wrote books on fruitarianism did not actually endorse the diet. This is just Billings claim and not a reliable source. The book Fruitarianism by Anne Osborne (Fruitgod 2009), states that the author has been a strict fruitarian for 17 years, and there will be many other examples, but not everyone has who is fruitarian is famous or has written a book. Therefore this article should be edited more fairly. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 12:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
SummerPhdD says that those who practice a particular diet and write about it need to have their arguments presented and sourced. Anne Osborne's argument is her book, and the source is herself. The book and source is already stated clearly. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
And which 2 sources were misquoted, you fail to say. What I want to know is, are you SummerPhD in reality, Tom Billings? Simply removing DaVinci, without explaining anywhere your reasons for doing so is unacceptable. Who are you accountable to at Wikipedia? If you 'do not care' what an author's argument (line of reason) is then why on Earth did you ask write 'These arguments need to be CLEARLY sourced.' - emphasis 'arguments'. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I know my sources. You may have explained in archives, but did not explain to me. I fully appreciate the Joe Schmoe issue. Just because Tom Billings website says that 'Krok told me he later retracted the diet', - is totally unreliable as Billings is against the fruitarian diet.Yet it has been accepted. . You say 'the marjority of fruitarians', and who are they? Differences will exist between 2 fruitarians who agree on the same principles, according to their individual tastes. As for pro-fruitarian websites, that is no different to an entry for a Republic politician being cited in a Republican-orientated newspaper, yet such citations are accepted at Wiki. Whether science is cited or not, has no bearing on anything. It is just 1 way of seeing. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It is clear you believe science it the arbiter of truth and therefore this article will never be edited objectively. A non-fruitarian source would be no more accurate, objective or neutral than a pro-fruitarian source. Every of every sentence in every article on Wikipedia, should really be citated, for listings to be accurate, yet this does not happen. So where is the accuracy in Wikipedia, never mind the fruitarian article. Answers on a postcard. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously Darwin, a close friend of Thomas Huxley, whose book Man's Place In Nature shows man is a frugivore, meant carnivorous, by using the word frugi-ferous. You prefer to delete contributions, rather tha build on theirs, or provide your own. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)].
This article will always be flawed, and, people who really are interested in the subject, will simply go elsewhere. Wikipedia is going to end up like conventional encyclopedias, full of voids. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
""By "independent" sources, we mean sources that are not directly connected to the subject."" Then you will say the sources are not connected to the subject and reject the sources.
""Pro-fruitarian sources are created and maintained by fruitarians. They are inherently biased. They are likely to claim well-regarded public figures (e.g., DaVinci) are fruitarians on scant evidence (e.g., "His notebooks never mention him eating vegetables or meat, so I guess he's a fruitarian!") while miligned public figures (e.g., Klassen) are omitted even when the evidence is clear (he self-identified as a fruitarian)."" Not if they provide citations e.g. books where this was mentioned.
The evidence is not clear about Klassen. He promoted a fruit, nut and vegetable diet. That is not fruitarian. You dont bother to define fruitarian, so that way you get to justify Klassen. Are you a supporter of white
"Yes, some peer-reviewed sources are flawed. Sources that are not peer-reviewed or subject to substantial verification processes are not reliable sources."
Since peer reviewed sources can be flawed they are not more reliable than un reviewed sources, and in fact, unreviewed sources may be more reliable. There is no objectivity. Every verification involves a new observation which is just as subjective as the original observation. That is why science is a joke, as is the peer review process.
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Since nothing can ever be verified (see above), the threshold for inclusion is a farce as are those who believe in it. Furthermore since verifiability does not constitute truth, this further makes the criteria a farce. Continue to derrogate (which you call editing) rather than contribute anything of substance yourself. Lol.{ Zanze123 ( talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)}
Summer PHD. I cut our long discussion to save space, now I know what you think. There is also no academic 'community' but a hugely divided and fragmented spectrum of thought. Consensus also results in the low common denominator. If Peer review journals are the 'gold standard', god help humanity. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines say I may edit my own comments. Zanze123 ( talk) 11:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As previously discussed, DaVinci mentions only eating fruits and pasta. This does not mean that he didn't eat anything else. The sources presented are not reliable sources for the controversial deduction presented. - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
As previously discussed, reliable sources indicate that Thoreau was "almost" a vegetarian, eating some meat. The unreliable sources presented here merely claimed he was a fruitarian, contrary to the reliably sourced claim presented in Henry David Thoreau. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is SummerPHD anti-fruitarian and is this why SummerPhD's editing has such an anti-fruitarian slant? Discuss.{{ Zanze123 ( talk) 12:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)|Zanze123|22:15, 21 October 2009}}
OK so contributors have no bearing on content. Lol. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] ( talk) 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are not Tom Billings, are you Stephen Barrett? You are clearly somebody with a grudge against fruitarianism - your edits on this page are the citation. Zanze123 ( talk) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Content is determined by Editors, therefore it impossible to refer to content without reference to the editors determining that content. Oh so you are Billings or a clone of. That would explain your anti-fruitarian editorial changes that make this article such a joke. Zanze123 ( talk) 22:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Your accusation that I have made accusation is unfounded. It was not an accusation. It was an open-ended suggestion (rhreotical), with the point being that your are clearly against the fruitarian diet and that is why you delete anything in this article, even with citations, which suggests that a fruitarian diet may be possible or is possible. That is why this article is a waste of time and space and Wikipedia is a joke. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I never asked for anyone's personal information. It was rhetorical and a point of irony to show how you are anti-fruitarian, as shown by your edits - including the deletion of material without giving contributors the chance to add references. Unfortunately, SummerPHD, due to the nature of text, you cannot hear tone, and therefore do not hear the rhetorical question. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have claimed you are nobody. I asked if you were somebody. Not expecting you to answer. It was a rhetorical question. I am not interested in who you are. What matters is that you delete people's content without giving them a chance to reference it, and then don't put it back when they ask you, so they can then add references. Provide the section in Wikipedia guidelines where this is permitted. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, you deleted content before allowing enough time for references to be added, and you refused to re-add the content which you deleted. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You will not restore the material so I can add a reference, because you are intent on sabotating this article. Otherwise you would restore the material as requested. Zanze123 ( talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You are just being obtuse. I asked you to restore the content so that I could add the reference. The burden is on you to restore what you deleted before giving a chance for a reference to be edited. Since an editor is free to edit as an editor pleases, there is no neutrality. Zanze123 ( talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have again removed unreliable sources making controversial claims. The closest any reliable source comes to claiming he was a fruitarian are those who read him as prohibiting all animal foods, which would make him a vegan or vegetarian. There is no historical evidence he was a fruitarian. See sources cited at Pythagoras#Pythagoreans. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed from "Fictional" Johnny Appleseed. 1) this was unsourced 2) he was a real person. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This series of edits clearly "substantially alter(ed) a comment after it has been replied to" WP:TALK. Henceforth, I will reply to the general tone of your comments and extensively quote anything I respond to. I see no reason for you to alter the overall content of your discussion without comment. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, the idea that content exists in a vacuum, even though it is being edited by editors, is nonsensical. How could content be discussed without reference to editors when it is editors who are determining the nature and substance of the content. Again, this shows what a joke Wikipedia really is. Zanze123 ( talk) 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What are your references for editing this article? Zanze123 ( talk) 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What? Only to have you reverse anything I add to the article. Do you really think I want to waste my time any more on your destructive editing due to your apparent grudge against the fruitarian diet. Lol. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Content was deleted and the 'editor' refuses to put it back so references can be added. This is not constructive editing, this is deconstructive editing, and most unhelpful, whnen trying to improve the encylopedia. If the editor was not against the subject matter of this article, the editor would put it back but refuses. You ask me to discuss the editors themselves. "If you have a problem with someone's edits, discuss the edits themselves." I already did but you did not ask the editor to put back the content on Honiball and Engelhardt, which is most unhelpful when trying to improve the listing. Zanze123 ( talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In the time that the repeater repeated, the repeater could have added the content back as requested. Kotra, I never knew editors were only capable of deleting and not able to reverse their deletions. The content was deleted before I had a chance to add a reference. If that is not impedement then find another word, but it amounts to the same thing. Zanze123 ( talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
John Doe was born in 1950.<ref>Doe, Jane (2009). ''A Biography of John Doe'', Random House.</ref>
Summerphd makes more work for contributors by deleting their content before giving them a chance to add references. You are assuming a reference shall added be added at the same second as the statement, instead of realizing this is an evolving process. He said he was sitting on it to give the quotations time to be reference but then deleted it without giving time for it to be referenced. Zanze123 ( talk) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Kotra, I added a paragraph about Tony Wright to the article, and it was promptly deleted by Summer PHD without any explanation, just a note to himself in the Edit Summary line that nobody else could understand. So it's not about improving the article, indeed. Zanze123 ( talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yet another flaw in Wikipedia. Many famous books were self-published. Wikipedia -itself- is also self-published. What a joke. Zanze123 ( talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you agree that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. For that reason, I can't see the point of the Articles at Wikipedia, when they are unreliable, even if with references. Zanze123 ( talk) 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The pro-fruitarian magazine claimed the author had "proven that proto-humans were exclusively fruitarians". The actual source (Boyce Rensberger, Boyce. 15 May 1979, New York Times, "Research Yields Surprises about Early Human Diets - Teeth Show Fruit Was the Staple") is far more cautious: "Preliminary studies... have led an anthropologist to the startling suggestion... appear to have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit." I have removed the claim. - SummerPhD ( talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Instead of adding the correct text which is still 100% relevant to this article, you remove it completely. This is the proof that you are only interested in deconstructing this article instead of adding anything constructive. It is another reason why this article is a waste of space as is the editorial process. Zanze123 ( talk) 17:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What Allan Walker originally said is not unsalvageable, it is unpalatable to anti-fruitarians, and that is why SummerPHD has failed to include it. So if more than 1 scientist says that the sky is green, then it's worth a mention. It is not the number of scientists which warrant whether something is worth a mention, but the topic itself and the scientist's position on it. It is not my negative view of Wikipedia, it is a fact that since it relies so heavily on references whcih themselves can be unreliable, the entire process is flawed. Hassling contributors by deleting content without giving a chance for content to be referenced, is not helping but hindering. The entire article is so editorially biased it is a joke. Zanze123 ( talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
When I say article, I refer to the New York Times article, not the Wikipedia article. You failed to quote what Allan Walker actually said in favour of fruitarianism in the New York Times article. Lovewisdom did not misquote Walker, he clarified what Walker said. Misquoting - all depends on how the word is defined, used and interpreted. Zanze123 ( talk) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
What Walker actually said was: "I don't want to make too much of this yet. But it is quite a surprise." However, what you quoted in the Fruitarian article was Dr. Walker said, "I don't want to make too much of this yet." I therefore addded the full quote to give balance to the quote within the context of the Fruitarian article. Zanze123 ( talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It does not stand. He actually said "I don't want to make too much of this yet. But it is quite a surprise." not "I don't want to make too much of this yet." as you tried to depict. There is a very big difference. Omitting "But it is quite a surprise" pooh-poohs the finding. Including it, suggests it is of significance and therefore gives credence to the finding which supports fruitarianism. So you are 100% wrong. Zanze123 ( talk) 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You left it in so your reply does not stand. If it was minor, you did not need to have left it out. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with editors who apply selectivity when quoting quotes, yes. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, here is a problem with editors who apply selectivity when quoting quotes, yes and then say 'whatever'. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ibid Zanze123 ( talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It does mean what it means and not what you think it doesn't mean. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Ahisma Fruitarianism in this listing? Zanze123 ( talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There was very little written about the celestial spheres and the world not being flat until Galileo (witch trial by fire) came along to refute Ptolemy. Just because vanishingly small amount of reliable people and or sources exist, does not invalidate a belief. In fact, the reverse is the case. The more something is believed (e.g. cigarettes don't cause cancer), the less it is likely to be true. On top of this many so-called 'reliable' sources are most unreliable, as is the scientific process itself. So presenting reliable sources in a world full of unreliable 'reliable' sources is heading for disaster. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't got time. Zanze123 ( talk) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |