Talk:Fruitarianism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lostxxjustina.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

dietary veganism

I see the dietary veganism link links directly to veganism & I wonder about this being placed right at the top. Before I even start looking for references, it is my opinion that fruitarianism has entirely separate roots from veganism, & is devoid of any animal rights/welfare element and that, historically, it was entirely a health thing perhaps with Biblical roots (e.g. the whole back to eden or fake Essene thing) or at least spiritual roots, e.g. the idea of prana.

Was there once a dietary vegan page? --Danny Mamby (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Veganism started as a diet, it only later became a philosophy. It's now defined by many modern activists as strictly a philosophy but this is irrelevant to this article. The veganism article states it is both a diet and a philosophy. So there is no problem in linking to dietary veganism which redirects there. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reference and date for that? --Danny Mamby (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of fad diet

Danny Mamby can you explain why you are removing the "fad diet" wording and category? This is obviously a POV because we have many reliable sources describing fruitarianism as a fad diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the reference does not say it is a fad diet (see update according to what it does say). Secondly, "fad" is not a scientific or academic valid term. It is obviously just a culturally bound NPOV slur in itself.

However, the reference given defines fad as “a scheme of eating that enjoys temporary and sometimes enthusiastic popularity. Usually created by one person or the product of a religious movement, these diets are meant to improve the practitioners’ health, vitality, and appearance" which raises two further problems with it. How long is a "temporary and sometimes enthusiastic popularity"?

Please allow me to state that I do not follow a fruitarian diet, so I am going to rebuff any accusation that I am being "POV", I just believe in a fair & objective representation which ramming "fad" at the top of an article does not allow.

The given source does not have a chapter on fruitarians, and so I suspect you are engaging in some original research or synthesis here (it does have a section on rawfoodism, but that is a difference topic). It does however mention it is practise is over 100 years ago and, indeed, we know from other sources that it goes way back in antiquity 1,000s of years, arguably until it was one of hominids' primary or seasonal diets. So how long does it take until something is not a fad?

Then, if you do a search on what it refers to as "fads" (that were once fads but became part of the mainstream), you'd have to be tagging half the food articles on the Wikipedia; Irish coffee, chipped beef, chaffing dish, terrapins, juice bars, chop sued, wine coolers, peanut butter etc.

Lastly, it's little more than just a cultural prejudice on two levels. Racial, e.g. eating sausages and bacon for breakfast might be "normal" where you live but to an Indian they would be a fad, and professional, e.g. on behalf of orthodox western medicine or nutrition, therefore we need to weigh up the various references and navigate a neutral path between them. --Danny Mamby (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong, firstly fad diet is just the name for a pseudoscientific diet, i.e. a diet which promotes unreasonable or pseudoscientific health claims. Others terms for fad diets include food cultism or nutritional quackery. Mainstream nutritional sources and food encyclopedias list fruitarianism as a fad diet. See for example, Ashraf, Hea-Ran L. Diets, Fad. In Andrew F. Smith. (2013). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, Volume 1. which has a paragraph on fruitarianism and is the very first source on the article. The whole idea of fruitarianism is eccentric, strange and quackery it is not a "normal" eating habit and yes some religious cults have adopted fruitarianism. People have died on the fruitarian diet including kids, it is bizarre that you want to characterise this as a normal regular diet and requesting for fad diet to be removed. Any qualified dietitian would tell you fruitarianism is straight up quackery. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

While I noted fruitarianism wasn't specifically called a fad in the reference, you didn't respond to my question about all the other foods and diets that are specifically called a fad in it.

It can't be "pseudoscientific" because it doesn't make any scientific claims. It also doesn't fit in with "fads" simply because it has lasted too long. It dates back 1,000s of years. It's a sort of fast or, as the references states, aceticism. When did I ever represent it as "a normal regular diet" whatever that might be (& to whom)?

Millions die through eating a Western pattern diet, does that make it a fad or quackery?

Look, it's really quite simple. For the most part, terms like "fad", "quackery" or "pseudoscience" are just a sort of priggish reactionaryism not just the unorthodox, but to anything outside of a narrow, Western cultural norm. As at term, it lacks an accurate meaning and is unnecessarily prejudicial. What undercuts the credibility of the source, and establishes its prejudicial nature, is where the authors refer to veganism as "an ascetic form of vegetarianism".

The reference given only defines a fad diet as “a scheme of eating that enjoys temporary sometimes enthusiastic popularity”, dating faddism to the 1830s and William Sylvester Graham.

What I've done is reflect what the reference actually says & which is also far more helpful and accurate. --Danny Mamby (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Danny Mamby - your discussion above and your edit warring in the article are reflections of your opinion which is not supported by WP:SCIRS sources or by other editors here. The talk page is for building consensus on a disputed fact or definition, WP:CON. Rather than edit warring, wait for the input and discussion by others. Zefr (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Zefr Your intervention would have a lot more credibility if it was not accompanied by complete reversion of obviously beneficial contributions with such an insulting summary. By all means, respond to what I have pointed out about what the actually reference gives says. To be quite frank, I don't believe anyone else has actually read it in its entirety. So perhaps you are the one who should stop edit warring and add something of benefit to the topic instead.

As far as I can see, you have added nothing of any benefit whatsoever. Thank you. --Danny Mamby (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy has presented a credible case and sources. You are defending a weak opinion with equally weak sources or blogs. The article before your edits was adequate to define this narrow fad diet. Zefr (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That is an absolutely dishonest statement. I have not included one blog source whatsoever. I am referring to and using precisely the same reference that Psychologist Guy is. Have you actually read it? I think not because if you had, you'd recognize the quote I am using from it.--Danny Mamby (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Zefr:, A gentle reminder not to use phrasing such as "poor writing" in edit summaries that could be construed as rude or uncivil. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. If you look closely at their reversions, you'll also see it is Zefr who is restoring incredibly poor quality blog references but yet accusing me for doing so in their summaries, when I actually removed them. I hope that is enough for others to see what is going on here. --Danny Mamby (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The page was locked for no reason and now I cannot get on to edit it, please unlock. Mamby Danny (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The page is protected because you are block-evading. Please consider working on one of the many other articles or topics on Wikipedia in need of help from editors. This particular dispute has settled with consensus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing content drying and minimal cooking

I've tried to clean up some of the content, and I think there are far more important improvements to be making than arguing over a single NPOV word. One element that I have seen and is missing is the adoption of drying, freeze drying, or sun cooking by some fruitarians. I don't know if it is the same as with raw fooders who permit cooking up to a specific temperature.

Does anyone care to find any references to it. --Danny Mamby (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I doubt there are any reliable references that mention this. But you are correct because in the primary literature I have seen fruitarians mention sun cooking. For example Arnold Ehret, Otto Abramowski and many fruitarians in the past practiced it as have some modern fruitarians like Douglas Graham but no reliable scholarly secondary sources have picked up on this so it is unlikely this sort of information will end up on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Leafy greens and vegetables missing

A fruitarain diet consists primarily of fruits, but leafy greens such as lettuce and celery are quite important in the diet for minerals, proteins and certain vitamins. Aviyaht (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Zhanna Samsonova

Zhanna Samsonova may have died because of her fruitarian diet. The official cause of death is not yet public, but I'll leave this as a note so someone can check back later. CarlFromVienna (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)