Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive 5

Bonobo , Gorilla and chimpanzee

I believe we should add that our cousins (Gorillas and Chimpanzees are fruitarians)Adanna78 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the voluntary human diet. You are looking for frugivore. Even there, you'll have problems. While vegetarian, vegan and fruitarian sites like to claim some primates (especially mountain gorillas) as following their chosen diets, it doesn't hold up. More reliable sources have corrected earlier studies. Chimps, for instance, are often celebrated for their tool use: primarily using sticks to get tasty (to them) ants out of trees. Can't be a fruitarian while eating ants (which are animals). Mountain gorillas get as much protein from insects as you would find in two McDonald's hamburgers. In addition to insects, eggs are a favorite, when they can get them. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

From Gorilla#Food_and_foraging "Gorillas are herbivores,[17] eating fruits, leaves, and shoots. Further, they are classified as folivores. Much like other animals that feed on plants and shoots, they sometimes ingest small insects as well (however, there has been video proof that gorillas do eat ants and termites much in the same way as chimpanzees.)[18] Gorillas spend most of the day eating. Their large sagittal crest and long canines allow them to crush hard plants like bamboo. Lowland gorillas feed mainly on fruit while Mountain gorillas feed mostly on herbs, stems and roots.[14]" - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I really wish that people who advocate a fruitarian diet and use our ape cousins as an argument for it would consider the small amount of DNA that IS different between us and them. I doubt that we would have evolved such large brains without a large source of protein in our evolutionary history, but besides that, we are still different creatures and have evolved differently... even if (in evolutionary terms) it's fairly recent. groovygower (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Your statement completely ignores other species , as well as habit destruction and interference by man . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The original question suggested two species that eat animals. They are omnivores. If you have reliable sources which state that fruitarianism is a healthy and/or "natural" diet for humans because some other species of animal eats a similar diet, please provide that source. Without such a source, there is nothing to discuss here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what you state repeatedly , having firm objections with the scientific classification of the word frugivor . That this diet does not fit that classification based on your idea it is an all or nothing diet, as well as in a completely and exclusively modern sense . This exclusionary belief of yours or commercial interest groups also excludes accidental insect ingestion , bacterial life forms etc . Your comments belong in a subsection of the article and need to be referenced beside your statement . I have made this clear in the objections i sent to you . What am i to make of your arguments that do not even address the fundamentals of wikipedia standard's , the bare minimum of wikipedia standard.

As for title of this talk . Bononbo's but there is many species of frugivor monkey's . How many references would you like , because there is pretty much nothing but . Would you like national geographic , BBC , what sources would please you and in what lay out , documentary , investigative reports , interviews with scientists , research reports , another wikipedia article with all of them . The last is what i would suggest , as it is more efficient , logical and hence less wasteful of resources . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. If you would like to add material to the article, you will need reliable sources that directly discuss fruitarianism, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am changing the title to include the bobobo as it is proved to be closest to us genetically . Reveals that bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA with human's , however, they found that a small bit of our DNA, about 1.6%, is shared with only the bonobo . http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

Sociology issue - The difference between chimp and bonobo . One is prone to violence , killing lone males , female rape and killing the other male's children , the other is not . PBS - Evolution Chimps vs. Bonobos . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_izpq0Ar-Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. If you would like to add material to the article, you will need reliable sources that directly discuss fruitarianism, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 - you forget " conflict resolution " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are disputing. I am saying this page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you disagree, please review WP:TALK. I have also said that we need reliable sources directly discussing fruitarianism to add material to this article. If you disagree, please review WP:NOR. If you feel that either of these policies does not apply here for some reason, you are certainly free to explore various dispute resolution options. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution outlines various approaches you can try. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Human : The terms ‘hominid’ and ‘hominin’ are frequently used in human evolution. Hominid – the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes . Hominin – the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors. ‘Hominid’ has now been assigned a broader meaning and now refers to all Great Ape's and their ancestor's. Only two families are recognised with all the Great Ape's (including humans) placed into the same family . At the tribe level, gorillas etc and humans separate in to different branches of the evolutionary tree with human's in the Hominini or hominin branch. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Disputes and improvements go hand in hand . They are one and the same thing .

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. If you would like to add material to the article, you will need reliable sources that directly discuss fruitarianism, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Deleted text on "Sustainability" protein concern

References do not relate to text - first one does not mention hypoproteinemia or kwashiorkor, second one relates to vegetarianism, not fruitarianism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

B12 claims, again and again...

Numerous claims re B12 have been discussed to death previously:Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_4#vitamins_b12, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_3#B12_again, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_3#B12_is_not_in_yeast, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_3#Rebuttal_-_B12, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_2#B12_not_limited_to_animal_foods, Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_4#vitamins_b12, etc. Whatever your source may claim (or whatever you may think it is claiming) is likely discussed there -- more than a little and more than once. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Chapter "4.10.4 Conclusie" of this page [1] of this literature study [2] includes the sentence:

"Goed gewassen veganistisch voedsel bevat geen B12", which means: "Vegan food that has been well washed, contains no B12".

This raises the question, whether also already the fact has been discussed here, that insects (in case they're not eliminated by insecticides), together with their excretion products, that (also according to the conclusions of this study) are contending it, put down a conciderable quantity of B12 on fruits, so that fruitarians don't have to eat animal food to get their portion of natural B12, but just have to eat sufficiently organic (or even better: wild grown) fruits, without before washing or peeling them. VKing (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Two problems:

• Your conclusion is original research and, as a result, of no use in this article.
• Insects (and their shit) are animals. Yes, eating fruit covered with animals and animal shit might contain B12. What's your point? The fruit does not contain B12, the animals and animal excrement contain B12. (Dead insects and cow/pig/chicken shit are not limited to organic fruit either.) Heck, skip the fruit, kill and eat insects or dig into some animal excrement. Plenty of B12... and perhaps more than a little bacteria. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny indeed, apart from meat, milk and eggs, one more animal food product is their excrement. But certainly animal friendly persons like vegans and fruitarians have no principal objections against eating this kind of animal food, (at least as far as it comes from free living animals, like insects).

But not only animal excrement contains B12; human does as well. Why do you think astronauts don't have to use any B12-pills? Indeed, they drink their own urine. Vegans and fruitarians can easily do the same. "Another cup of piss tea, maybe?" (B12 seems hardly or not to be harmed by cooking). "Or what about a shit-burger?"

This is nót animal food, so if your reliable sources keep stating, that "only animal food contains B12", then they're not as reliable as you keep saying !? VKing (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In my world, shit is not food, comes from animals and is not fruit.

If "vegans and fruitarians have no principal objections against eating this kind of animal food", we'll need reliable sources for that. As it stands, the reliable sources say that fruitarians eat "fruit", not "fruit and shit". Oh, and shit is not food.

Yes, human excrement contains B12. Human urine, however, does not. Astronauts don't need B12 pills? It's not from eating their own shit! A quick glance at Space_food lists a whole lot of foods from animals: puréed meat, beef tongue, caviar, shrimp, chicken, corned beef, processed meat products, ice cream, beef jerky, yuxiang pork, sushi, jellied pike perch, borsch with meat, rice and meat, dried beef, moose jerky, beef steak, etc. The space agencies of the world, you see, want to make sure their astronauts maintain normal brain function. They think it's kind of a big deal. (Incidentally, you cannot replace a substantial part of the water in your diet with urine. Indeed, astronauts do not drink their own urine, they drink water which is, in part, reprocessed from their urine.)

No, shit is not a ""natural food sources of vitamin B12". It is NOT FOOD, IT'S SHIT! To the extent that you wish to argue that shit is a food ... wow, just wow ... it certainly does come from animals. As the article and the reliable sources state, "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals." - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, now you're gonna say that humans also are animals, no ?.

Oké, then it's time that scientists find out, in how far the B12-vitamins, that are put on fruits by insects, don't just stay there, but also move into those fruits. If that turns out to be the case, then (in your vision) there's also plant food, that contains animal food !?

But then we could say that the excrement of (certain) insects is nothing else than what's left of their digested plant food and so in fact purely plant food. VKing (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientists have "found out". As the reliable sources say. "Vitamin B12...is not found in any fruits....natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals....fruitarians need to include a B12 supplement in their diet or risk vitamin B12 deficiency." Unless you have reliable sources to the contrary, there is nothing further to discuss here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But those sources don't say that ALL KINDS of fruits have been researched. And more in special they don't say that also organic fruits have been researched. Very unlikely even is, that also wild ( = naturally) grown fruits were used in any examinations.

This, whereas especcially on these fruits insects have the opportunity to leave the natural portion of B12 behind, so that people who eat them in the natural way, so unwashed and unpeeled, in this way can get their dayly portion of the relevant vitamin, without using any animal food.

And what's more, sources say that "B12 has not been found IN any fruits", but not that B12 has not been found "UPON" any fruits. VKing (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just so bizarre. Essential fatty acids and B-12 are essential for human brain health (which many take as indirect evidence that our brains were able to become so large relative to our herbivore and entomaphagist cousins). If you really want to go on a vegan/vegetarian/fruititarian diet, then it is essential to take supplements since none of these diets are complete diets for human health. The idea that fruitarians are particularly at risk of developing Vitamin D deficiency is misleading. Everyone is, as it's something that cannot really be derived in large quantities from any kind of diet, but must be made in our skin by the sun. Lastly, a fruitarian diet is especially bad for those who have been diagnosed with cancer. Cancer cells' abnormal metabolism means that they produce energy primarily via the fermentation of sugar (glucose, fructose) in their cytoplasm. Most fruits are high in sugar. --Eve789 (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we need more reliable sources here. Essentially, we have numerous fruitarian sources stating what fruitarians believe (which is pretty much all those sources can be used for). All other sources briefly address fruitarianism. Depending on why they are mentioning it at all, they say pretty much one of two things: 1) person X demonstrated this diet is insufficient by dying or 2) the diet you asked about is crazy because it completely lacks vitamin B12. If you can find reliable sources discussing necessary nutrients as they directly relate to fruitarianism, we can certainly use them. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to voice my concern. Vitamin B12 deficiency sounds fatal and foolish to ignore. I understand this is the tone of many reliable sources in regards to this subject. Other vitamins have their diseases; vitamin C has scurvy, vitamin D has rickets, vitamin B has beriberi. They had food that would cure their disease; fresh fruit, milk or sun light, eating more than white rice. Well B12 has its disease in pernicious anemia. But the population who suffered this condition were not sailors on a restricted diet, they were elderly people. The "food" that Dr. Newcastle gave this population that cured them was his gastric juices. Later Dr. Whipple found 1/2 lb of raw liver a day worked as a cure.

Knowing that this is what vitamin B12 deficiency entails, and that all other needs attributed to this vitamin are subject to dispute. I don't count the lack of gastric juices or raw liver in my diet on the same par as lack of fresh produce, lack of sunlight, or eating more than white rice; I no longer see it as foolish to ignore B12. It seems more a question of where is your proof that we should be so worked up about this "vitamin". Sure it is great for the elderly suffering from pernicious anemia that they can take gastric juices of their doctor or eat raw liver and be cured; or they can take out the fun and take the vitamin extract. But I see no substantiated evidence that the elderly suffering this disease represent the population who restrict their diet from animal sources. The tone and implication I thus find off the mark based on factual understanding of the information, even if it matches the tone and implied theories of other reliable sources. 66.81.120.94 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources state unequivocally that Vitamin B12 is a necessary nutrient, that there are no natural non-animal food sources of B12 and that deficiency -- often due to insufficient intake -- can lead to irreversable neurological damage and death. Please take your opinions to the contrary to the talk page for Vitamin B12 deficiency.

Contrary to all reliable sources on the matter, vegans and fruitarians typically claim either that B12 is not a necessary nutrient or that various foods acceptable to their unnatural diets contain B12 (various algea, fungi, feces (actual shit) on unwashed food, sunlight, air, positive thinking, the will of a god(s)/magic, etc.). (Similarly, various people who hate the idea of income taxes claim they are somehow exempt from paying them, despite all evidence to the contrary.)

There are two ways to deal with the cognitive dissonance of needing to do something you don't want to do: 1) Do it anyway. 2) Don't do it and suffer the consequences.

There is only one way to deal with ideas you dislike being given space on Wikipedia: Present reliable sources to the contrary. Please note that this diet is a WP:FRINGE idea that makes extraordinary claims. Sources for such claims must conform to WP:MEDRS. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

SummerPhD I wish to thank you for taking the time to address the nebulous concern I expressed in regards to the tone expressed on B12 deficiency as it relates to fruitarians. It seems there was a study out of Tuffs University in 2001 involving 3,000 adults led by Katherine Tucker, PhD.

The deficiencies in B-12 did not correlate with meat, poulty and fish in the diet, even those these foods are the typical source of B-12. According to Dr. Tucker, "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed."

http://thyroid.about.com/cs/newsinfo/l/blb12anemia.htm

The tone of the study is not in any way pro-fruitarian. It might be said to be pro-vitamin B12 supplementation and check ups. But the extracted finding from the study I think presents how a balanced tone regarding B12 deficiency should be responsibly expressed. That it is possible to develop low B12 levels even eating meat, poultry and fish that meets dietary requirements of B12.

As for anemia. It does not strike me as a clearly defined disease. In historical contexts, in which B12 was discovered, it involved a green color to the skin. The symptoms for the disease has changed over the years and still seems somewhat of a catch all in the manner hysteria use to be considered a medical condition.

Feeling tired or weak

Pale appearance to the lining of lower eyelids

Palpitations, fast or irregular heart beat.

Faintness and breathlessness.

Hair loss

Bruising that occurs without reason

Dizziness

Long or unusually heavy menstrual periods

I would really like to see charts showing the correlation of B12 levels to anemia. I would also like to see correlation of vegetarianism to low B12 levels. As of yet I have been unable to find any charts based on any studies done by anyone to address these inferences being implied. What the 2001 study does report that is relevant to the tone expressed in B12 deficiency in Fruitarianism is that even those who do eat meat can still have B12 deficiency.

Again SummerPhD I thank you for your time.

66.81.120.204 (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Anemia is, in a way, a "catch all". It means nothing more than a relative lack of red blood cells. Really, it isn't a diagnosis: the diagnosis may be a inadequate intake of B12 (or folic acid) (which may be due to alcoholism, raw veganism/fruitarianism, etc.), poor absorption of B12, leukemia (CLL), etc. Heck, "leukemia" isn't a meaningful diagnosis.

As for insufficient B12 intake or absorption leading to a form of anemia, the jury is clearly in, as even the article you are citing makes clear.

The matter at point here is whether a fruitarian diet (a narrower form of a raw vegan diet) will result in a B12 deficiency, the reliable sources in the article clearly state that this is the case. Do we have double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of serum B12 levels in large populations of fruitarians? Hell, no. There is no such thing as a large population of fruitarians. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

off topic

That ("double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of serum B12 levels in large populations of fruitarians") would be very difficult to do - and even MORE diffilcut to get sponsored or funded. I'm all for what SummerPhD has said on this topic. I think that any advocacy needs to keep in mind (what we 'ethicists' might call) the "implied duties" toward those who (decide to) follow such diets. If they are worse off for (in all good faith) following those diets, is there not at least some (implied) culpability for those who had (carelessly, or without adequate evidence) advocated those diets. For one to say that there ARE evidence-based vegan diets, and I choose a *raw* vegan diet or a *fruitarian* diet, may (in itself) be factual (there are two parts to that: (a) one statement about the evidence, and (b) a second statement about one's personal choices). However, is it NOT illogical for one to suggest that (a) there ARE evidence-based vegan diets, (b) I choose a raw vegan diet or a fruitarian diet, therefore (c) a (my? every?) raw vegan diet or a fruitarian diet is evidence-based? That form of reasoning may invite another kind of illogical response, that one practice which can be described as 'a vegan practice' is problematic (logically, lacking sufficient evidence, or leading occasionally toward ill health) is reason to suspect all practices which can be described as 'a vegan practice' (when most of the people in the world who suffer ill health are on nonvegetarian and therefore non-vegan diets). With that rhetorical question posed, can we not maintain a little more (a) decorum AND (b) gracious respect for (not tolerance for, but respect for the higher capacity of) others who are reasoning here (enough to carefully reason out - in 'kinder' language - the steps for getting to where we think the discussion needs to be - or reach? MaynardClark (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Please restrict your discussion to efforts to improve the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Anemia -a condition in which there is reduced delivery of oxygen to the tissues; it is not actually a disease but rather a symptom of any of numerous different disorders and other conditions. The World Health Organization has defined anemia as a hemoglobin concentration below 7.5 mmol/L (12 g/dL) in women and below 8.1 mmol/L (13 g/dL) in men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliably sourced info regarding anemia and fruitarianism that you feel should be added to the article? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) is a dietary requirement for humans because it is an essential cofactor for two enzymes, methylmalonyl-CoA mutase and methionine synthase (METH). Within the algal kingdom, approximately half of all microalgal species need the vitamin as a growth supplement. Land plants and fungi neither synthesize or require cobalamin because they do not contain methylmalonyl-CoA mutase, and have an alternative B12-independent methionine synthase (METE). In both C. reinhardtii and the diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum, growth in the presence of cobalamin leads to repression of METE transcription, providing a mechanism for gene loss. Thus varying environmental conditions are likely to have been the reason for the multiple independent origins of B12 auxotrophy in these organisms. Because the ultimate source of cobalamin is from prokaryotes, the selective loss of METE in different algal lineages will have had important physiological and ecological consequences for these organisms in terms of their dependence on bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliably sourced info regarding B12 and fruitarianism that you feel should be added to the article? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

References

The current text makes no sense, since B12 is so important to other mammals as to us, so the current text suggests, that there are no living vegan mammals on this planet. On the one hand, many animals absorb B12 through dung they eat and on the other hand is it produced by bacteria directly on fruits, leaves and so on, which is washed off by the legally prescribed hygienic measures, as this is purely on the shell or outer skin of plants or fungis and is thus no longer available to the consumer through this purification process, so drastically formulated is a vegan B12 admission without supplements legally forbidden, at least as through commercial trade. Again and again it is forgotten that the nearly non-existence availability of B12 apart from supplements - which are also added eg to the animal food, milk and so on, is created by industrial agriculture and the hygienic standards applicable here. The mentioned bacteria use Cobalt for conversion, which is hardly present in industrially used soils. Cobalt is so essential for the production of B12 that its chemical concept is derived from it. And exactly this Cobalt is very rare today in our grounds, through their overexploitation for the past decades in mono culture systems. Earlier, the B12 synthesis in the human body has been detected, while only in the large intestine and other places, where a resorbation is not possible, since according to current knowledge means that the B12 can not go back into the small intestine, where it can get absorbed. Today we know 3 as assured valid bacterial strains, which are able to produce usable B12: Propionibacterium freudenreichii, Propionibacterium shermanii and Pseudomonas denitrificans S.A. Survase et al.: Production of Vitamins, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 44 (3) 381–396 (2006) ShalokShalom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing sourced improvements to the article, not for arguing that animal shit is fruit and/or food, your feelings about agriculture, theories about what may have been different in an imagined past, etc. If you have independent reliable sources discussing any of this in direct relation to "fruitarianism" please provide the sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary of recent revisions

Please forgive my previous lack of editing summaries. New to this and hopefully learning. As for my recent edits,Line 27: First sentence edits under "Nutritional deficiencies" are for steering article into a more unbiased and scientific stating of almost the exact same thing. The last sentence and it's reference have little to do with nutritional concerns, so was moved to "Growth and developement issues".

In the "Vitamin B12" section, the first sentence is edited because B12 is not limited to foods that come from animal sources, and the U.S. National Institute of Health publishes information on sources of B12 not from animals such as foods fortified with bacterial derived B12, and properly grown nutritional yeast. Perhaps I should of simply stated this in the edit, but I didn't want to be argumentative. So, instead I added the normal position of practicing fruitarians on the B12 position and added for balance that despite these beliefs vegans and fruitarians are often found to be more B12 deficient than vegetarians.

In the "Growth and developement issues" section, I changed language that claimed things as fact that are not proven as fact. I feel that this is extremely important in this section because although the vegan and fruitarian diet could quite possibly put a practitioner's child at risk, some fruitarians and vegans are able to follow their diets in a healthy and responsible manner. it is irresponsible to be anything but absolutely impartial and rigorously scientific in this section ... because situations where children are taken away from their parents from a lack of correct information is a very serious matter.

The "Notable adherents" section I put under a new section called "The culture of fruitarianism" because (1) I personally find the culture from which this practice comes facinating and wanted to share what I've learned about it, and (2) the "Notable adherents" section fits with the two other subsections more appropriately than being the section in which they fit. My intention currently is to find proper citation for this cultural section in the very soon future.

As to the removal of the citation to a statement I did not believe is correct, I was concerned that this edit would be controversial, however the U.S. National Institute of health does itself publish information contradictory to this statement, and the statement was attributed to the NIH itself.

Hopefully these explanations are for now satisfactory. I will do my best to include proper summaries of my edits from this point forward. Hopefully over time, I will learn all of the proper ettiquette in this.

Sincerely yours, DouglasIsai (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2011

A few problems:

• • "As a very extreme vegan diet" changed to "Just as in a vegan diet". Fruitarianism is to veganism as Neptune is to planets. Fruitarianism is a more restrictive form of veganism.
  • "The Health Promotion Program at Columbia University reports that a fruitarian diet can cause deficiencies" changed to "could possibly". Can vs. could is present tense verses past tense. As a current diet, "can" is appropriate. The source cited says, "Following this eating plan can cause your body to fall short on..." so "possibly" is an inappropriate apologetic.
  • The unsourced fruitarian claims re B12 in soil (actually, in fecal matter) and the unsourced correction of same, contradicts the reliably sourced claim that According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B₁₂ are limited to foods that come from animals."[3]. (Fortified foods are not "natural food sources" of B12, they are artificial sources of B12.)
  • "Like raw vegans who do not consume B₁₂-fortified foods" adding "(such as soy milk or nutritional yeast)," is a pointless list of example consumed in a different diet. Do fruitarians eat yeast? As it isn't a plant, it certainly is not "fruit". Vegans (being discussed in the section in question) also eat fortified breakfast cereals, nutritional supplements in pill form, fortified veggie burgers, etc. There is no logic to the limited selection of "fortified foods" here.
  • "In children, growth and development are quite possibly at risk". The source cited does not include the apologetic.
  • "Nutritional problems could include severe protein malnutrition, anaemia and a wide range of vitamin or mineral deficiencies." Again, "can" is appropriate. It should read as vitamin and mineral" as those who experience one are not necessarily clear of the other, kind of like "Shoes are available in a wide range of colors and styles."
  • "Several children have died as the result" changed to "A small number of cases have been documented in which children have died during a time period". We do not have sources giving these qualifications, see the next item.
  • "As a result, in some states children have been taken" (qualifier "in some states" added). We have nothing to base this restriction on. As always, we cannot assume we have all available data, such as articles wrongly claiming "There are no plans to release the film" when the editor really means that they, personally, do not know of any plans. As press coverage of individual child welfare cases is rare, we cannot assume this has occurred in "some" (as opposed to, say, "all" or "most") states. Instead, we state the simple, sourced fact that "As a result, children have been taken".
  • "The culture of fruitarianism" section is completely unsourced.

In short, there are a number of issues with the new version that were not present in the prior version, so I'm reverting the whole of it. I would ask that you take your edits more piecemeal: make more edits with smaller changes. In this way, your edit summaries can explain why you are changing what you are changing. Additionally, this will allow for reverting smaller chunks (with explanatory edit summaries) as needed. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've now made the revert I thought I did last night, while restoring the most recent edit of "Fruitarianism is even more restrictive than veganism or raw veganism, further increasing the chance for nutritional inadequacy." over the earlier version which seemed to stretch on the source. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs again

Prior discussion on Steve Jobs:

• Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_2#Steve_Jobs_and_fruitarianism
• Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive_3#Steve_Jobs

Anything new? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

...and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

...and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

...and again. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Summer doesn't like what we know about [Steve Jobs], so I'll post here under talk:

In the 3-hour video series, "Triumph of the Nerds: The Rise of Accidental Empires", the angel investor who first funded Steve Jobs, talked about how delightful he found this tall, quirky, very bright, barefooted technical genius "who ate only fruit." What references would be needed to establish this as supportive evidence that substantiates the personal claim that Jobs made that he was following: "Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson. "Finally Jobs proposed Apple Computer. 'I was on one of my fruitarian diets,' [Jobs] explained." page 120. "She just wanted him to be healthy, and [Jobs] would be making weird pronouncements like, 'I'm a fruitarian and I will only eat leaves picked by virgins in the moonlight.'”" page 68. Now, did Jobs die BECAUSE of a fruitarian diet? Medical Doctors have written about this topic and decided that the occupational hazards of working in the early computer industry are reason to suspect that environmental conditions contributed greatly to his condition. Let me dig those up if this discussion is challenged. But seriously, the way the Jobs lines in this article are written suggests that if B follows A, A causes B, which is illogical (Jobs followed - occasionally - a fruitarian diet; he subsequently died of pancreatic cancer; therefore ... ___ (left unsaid). Just not what should appear in a Wikipedia article. Again, who is inserting those lines? MaynardClark (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You are responding to a topic from 3 years ago. It is now in the article with a reliable source. Your new source does not discuss fruitarianism, the topic of this article. The rest of your comment is speculation completely unrelated to improving the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sri Yukteswar Giri

I am removing: * Sri Yukteswar Giri, in The Holy Science, the spiritual leader advocated a fruitarian diet, though his publishers later added a note that the diet he advocated included vegetables, nuts and grains.<ref>http://www.yogananda.net/ay/CHAPTER__42.htm Cited in ''Autobiography of A Yogi'', Paramhansa Yogananda, USA: Self Realization Fellowship, 1946, Chapter 42</ref>

For openers, the text says he wasn't a fruitarian, but a vegan. Further, in the autobiography cited, the only mention of fruitarianism is as follows: "Our next visit took us to a hermitage whose guru had observed for the past nine years the vows of silence and a strict fruitarian diet. On the central dais in the ashram hall sat a blind sadhu, Pragla Chakshu, profoundly learned in the shastras and highly revered by all sects."

Instead of saying that Sri Yukteswar Giri was a fruitarian, it says a guru at a hermitage was a fruitarian. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC) -

I agree with the removal of Giri, good find here.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Nutritional Concerns

I personally suspect that frutarianism does have nutritional concerns, yet I think the current section claiming so needs to be fleshed out. "Adults should not follow a fruitarian diet for too long and it is wholly unsuitable for children" hardly seems sufficient. For now, I put in a "citation needed" tag, but I think it really needs much more than a citation. I am sure there is much research showing just how unhealthy this diet is. It would be nice if someone could fill this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.214.34 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nutritional concerns" is the main section. This is followed by three subsections: "Nutritional deficiencies", "Vitamin B12" and "Growth and development issues". Those sections are well sourced and provide the basis for the sentence you've tagged for cites. If you would like, I can easily copy the relevant cites from those subsections to the summary description. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What kind of fruitarianism?

The opening sentence of this title had to be changed as there are (still (we're working on it)) several definitions of frutarianism and "many varieties of the diet", whereas the scientists in the cited sources didn't mention which one of them (and so which de facto feeding pattern) they were judging. (Probalbly they mostly are talking about the only-fleshy-fruits-diet).VKing (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"According to scientists, fruitarian diets should not be followed by adults for too long[25], they are not suitable for teens[26] and are they wholly unsuitable for children.[25]"

• "should not be followed by adults" source says: "They add that even adults need to be careful not to stick to a fruit-only diet for too long. " and "a fruitarian diet consisting of raw vegetables fruit and nuts." Well sourced (and certainly not "only-fleshy-fruits-diet").

• "they are not suitable for teens" source says: "fruitarian diets ...are not suitable for teens" and "fruitarian diets: they include all sweet fruits and vegetable fruits — tomato, cucumber, peppers, olives, avocadoes, and squash. Some fruitarians add grains, beans, nuts, and seeds to their eating plans." Well sourced (and certainly not "only-fleshy-fruits-diet").
• "they wholly unsuitable for children." source says: "a fruitarian, or fruit-only diet, is completely ill-advised for such a small child." and "a fruitarian diet consisting of raw vegetables fruit and nuts." Well sourced (and certainly not "only-fleshy-fruits-diet").

The weaselly "According to scientists", however, is problematic, running contrary to WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. The scientific consensus is, clearly, that a fruitarian diet should not be followed by adults for too long and is unsuitable for teens and children. This, then, should be presented without the "warning source". Claims to the contrary (by fruitarians) should be "presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field" (which is to say the fact that experts in the field (nutritionists, medical doctors, etc.) do not accept the claims. We also run up against the problem that "the views of tiny minorities need not be reported" (what one fruitarian or group of fruitarians claims (B12 isn't important, you can get B12 (magically) from fruit, protein creates phlegm which will kill you, etc.) is the view of a tiny minority). - SummerPhD (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(A member of) the mentioned tiny minority hereby has the honour to announce that soon the article will be made informing more completely through the addition of references to scientific reports like this one [4], in which among others this expertise occurs: "Professor Richet found that fruits and vegetables do not induce serum diseases (anaphylaxis), while flesh foods do and interprets his findings to mean that nature vetoes certain proteins, chiefly animal, as unsuitable. Certainly no meat, meat juice or eggs should ever be fed to a child under seven or eight years of age. It has no power to neutralize the poisons from these until this time." VKing (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly "wrong" with being part of a tiny minority. However, Wikipedia does not give much weight to the views of tiny minorities. Unfortunately, rawfoodexplained.com is not a reliable source for scientific opinions. Their unsourced reprint (a copyright violation?) of Shelton's article is problematic in several regards. Shelton's repeated legal problems certainly do not establish him as a reliable source for scientific claims. His reports on "Professor Richet"'s (presumably Charles Richet) findings are his interpretations of those findings, not Richet's. Outside of non-reliable pro-fruitarian sites, I can find no sources connecting Richet with fruitarianism. As Richet said nothing about fruitarianism, we certainly cannot add him here. Shelton's interpretation of Richet's work is immaterial. The unreliable website's copyright violation of Shelton's interpretation of Richet's study is nonsense on stilts. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is (an unsourced sentence of a) BBC-news (reporter) a reliable source for scientific opinions? In the article about the Armenian child, (that indeed may have missed the subtropical sun too much in temperate England, whereas for the same reason the mother's breastmilk may have been deficient), the sentence "They add that even adults need to be careful not to stick to a fruit-only diet for too long" is not sourced later on (nor before). Newspapers and broadcating organistations more than once have been ordered by judges to rectify (parts of) their statements, because of their incorrectness. VKing (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source for reporting what someone else said. Newspaper articles typically use the inverted pyramid in organizing an article. The article says "Nutritionists say...They add..." OK, so "They" = "Nutritionists". Who are these "nutritionists"? Well, it continues, "Catherine Collins, a spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association, (BDA) ...BDF paediatric dietician Nicole Dos Santos said...". So, "nutritionists" = the British Dietetic Association and BDF paediatric dietician Nicole Dos Santos.

Assuming we ignore the fact that the source you were discussing is a copyright violation (which we cannot), we are still left with Shelton's (repeatedly charged and convicted for practicing medicine without a license) interpretation of "Professor Richet"'s work. As rawfoodsexplained.com is not a reliable source, we cannot simply accept that whatever they publish is in anyway meaningful. If we go to Shelton's original work (whatever it is), we would need to show that he is a reliable source, which is clearly contraindicated by his extensive legal history.

Incidentally, your interpretation that the baby's vitamin D deficiency was the only problem misses several facts. (If you believe there are other nutrients available in sunlight, there is no point having this discussion.) Yes, the baby would have needed vitamin D, but also, ""The main problem for a nine-month old child is that they need a very high calorie to weight intake" and the child "died of a chest infection, brought on by malnutrition in July 2000 weighing just eleven and a half pounds, six pounds less than she should have....she was found to be markedly thin, dehydrated and to have severe pneumonia - all of which could be linked to malnutrition." "Without that, she said babies of that age - and younger - would not have the fuel they need for muscle growth, organ growth and brain development. They would miss out on proteins, iron, calcium, essential fatty acids and raw fibre, which will all affect their development.", "babies would also need the fat and nutrients they would receive from breast or bottle milk, and it was important babies received one or the other. She said a fruit-only diet was unsuitable for a child. 'This is not a diet a child should be put on.'"The baby died from an inadequate diet: fruitarianism. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Who are these "nutritionists"? Well, it continues, "Catherine Collins, a spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association, (BDA) ...BDF paediatric dietician Nicole Dos Santos said...". So, "nutritionists" = the British Dietetic Association and BDF paediatric dietician Nicole Dos Santos."

Did they really both add that "even adults need to be careful not to stick to a fruit-only diet for too long"? (Not one of them is cited virbally in this respect).

By the way, it may be seen as significent, that there is so much ado about one baby, that was fed in a fruitarian way, having died, while in the mean time hundreds of thousands, if not milions, of other babies, that were fed in the usual way, have died as well, (among other things as a result of starvation, in regions, where natural (fruit) food sources have been destroyed, in order to provide omnivore humans in 'whealthy' continents with plenty of (not too expensive) hamburgers and kindlike animal fastfood, as [[a result of which many of them die of the consequences of obesity on a relatively young age)? VKing (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to argue that the BBC is not a reliable source for what someone said, you will need to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

The baby in question died as the result of being fed a nutritionally inadequate diet. That diet was inadequate because it was a fruitarian diet. Your convoluted argument that various things that did not happen could have happened in various theoretical cases might have saved children by feeding them the same nutritionally inadequate diet is, of course, unsourced nonsense on stilts which hangs on the false dichotomy that one must either eat a B12-less, protein deficient fruitarian diet or eat nothing but McDonalds hamburgers. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Naturally a mother's breastmilk contains all (including B12-vitamins ?) a baby needs; after all it has no teeth yet, so it is not supposed to eat anything else.

In an exeptional case however it can happen that a mother's milk turns out not to contain, what it is supposed to contain.

This certainly is not allways the case, when the mother herself has a fruitarian feeding pattern; (otherwise all babies of fruitarian mothers would have died).

But in an as said exeptional case like this the big question is in how far the parents are thát principal, that they think they still haven't got the right to take the milk a cow needs for hér baby, so that they can give it as a suppletion to their human child.

It's their full right, to see it as God's wish in case the baby doesn't stay alive, no matter it is given the natural food, it is supposed to be given in the system of Creation.

This situation can be compared with the one of parents, that for religious reasons refuse to have their babies inoculated. If one of more of their children die(s) of a children's desease, this is accepted fully as God's wish.

In certain (semi-) scientifical circles it is accepted as a way not to frustrate Nature's correcting and selecting instruments.

Also in these circels the fact that every day numberless more grown-up persons die of deseases like cancer, heart failure, diabetes, etcetera, is concidered a logical and understandable punishment for their very nature-hostile non-fructarian (full of B12) 'McDonald's kind of feeding pattern'.VKing (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Your POV here is both faulty and moot. If you have anything to add that cites reliable sources about this unnatural fringe diet, feel free to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"Assuming we ignore the fact that the source you were discussing is a copyright violation (which we cannot), we are still left with Shelton's (repeatedly charged and convicted for practicing medicine without a license) interpretation of "Professor Richet"'s work. As rawfoodsexplained.com is not a reliable source, we cannot simply accept that whatever they publish is in anyway meaningful. If we go to Shelton's original work (whatever it is), we would need to show that he is a reliable source, which is clearly contraindicated by his extensive legal history."

Whether or not the relevant site contains text, that shouldn't be there like that because of copyright rules, (which is not decided in court, so not prooved, so not to be concidered an argument in this discussion), the fact remains, that one scientist has written it, whereas another scientist has commented it on his website, as a result of which there's little or nothing that can give reason (enough) not to accept this last mentioned site as a reliable source in the context of this article. The fact that the last mentioned scientist has committed some legal sins, cannot be seen as that relevant, that his site must be treaten as an unreliable source. For that fact doesn't say anything (or very much) about his qualities as a scientist and so his reliability in that field. When for instance a moviestar is condemned several times for tax-fraude, that doesn't say anything about his or her qualities as an actor and certainly doesn't make him or her a bad actor. VKing (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Side point: Wikipedia does NOT link to copyright violations. A website that reproduces Shelton's copyrighted text without a credible claim of holding the rights to the work is assumed to be a copyright violation. More to the point, a website that is not a reliable source (such as rawfoodexplained.com) reproducing another text (whatever that text may be) is not a usable source. Verify the text in the original text and cite the original text.

An actor convicted of tax evasion is still a good or bad actor based on their acting. A "doctor" repeatedly convicted of practicing medicine without a license, on the other hand, is not a doctor. Not all "scientists" are reliable sources. Nor are all sources who are reliable in one field necessarily reliable in another. (For instance, Linus Pauling, who won the Nobel Prize twice (for chemistry and peace), is not a reliable source for extraordinary claims about vitamin c.)

Shelton beliefs clearly do not "accurately reflect current medical knowledge". WP:MEDRS His interpretations of work done by "Professor Richet" do not bear extra weight because Charles Richet might have had something relevant to say (if this is the same Richet as Charles, who won the Nobel for Physiology or Medicine). If Charles Richet directly said something that is explicitly about fruitarianism, you might have something. Instead, we have some website quoting a book by a fraudulent doctor claiming that a Nobel laureate's work somehow proves something about a dangerous fringe diet. This is not mere nonsense, this is nonsense on stilts. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Knowing (both from own experience and from the many cases that are mentioned in relevant lecture) that turning to a raw-food and/or a fruitarian (or fructarian) diet can lead to results, that to the regular medical world are "ïmpossible" and so 'miracles', it's very likely that the mentioned "fraudulent doctor" has (illegally) healed several or maybe many patients, that turned to him, because regular (legally operating) doctors simply couldn't heal them one way or another. In that case, there's a very big justification of the formally illegal actions of Mr. Shelton.

By the way, in the Fruitarianism article finds itself this sentence:

According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals."[28]

Did you know, that human breastmilk contains a conciderable quantity of B12-vitamins? VKing (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your belief that fruitarian diets work magic are not found in reliable sources and do not belong in this article. Yes, so long as the woman in question has a reliable source of B12 in her diet, her milk will contain B12. Humans, you see, are animals. Human breast milk comes from humans/animals. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not very likely, that the U.S. National Institutes of Health uses the word "animals" in that sence. Nor is it very likely that vegans and fruitarians don't give their children breast feeding, because they don't want them to use that animal product. Further more with that use of the word "animal" the first senctence of this article ("Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet that includes fruits, nuts and seeds, without animal products, vegetables and grains"), would have to be changed, as fruitarians do give their children human (=animal) milk. VKing (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument, therefore, is that NIH cannot mean that humans (Kingdom: Animalia) are animals and therefore must be wrong about B12. Further, fruitarians must believe that human breast milk is a fruit, nut or seed... or something. Whatever. Reliable sources state, unequivocally, that natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals. Yes, fruitarians/vegans likely nurse. B12 deficiency can take years to manifest. A woman who became a fruitarian 2 years ago is likely not B12 deficient. A woman who is B12 deficient is likely to be unable to conceive. This is all off-topic, though.

What, if anything, are you suggesting be done to improve the article (keeping in mind that such improvements must be backed by reliable sources)? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again then: if also in the context of a Wp article like this one human milk is to be seen as animal milk, then the first sentence of this article has to be changed, because it says that fruitarians don't use any animal products. This namely would mean that fruitarian fed children would'nt be breastfed. According to reliable sources as well this definitely is not the case. VKing (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source discussing this? Right now, you are combining the content of two sources to make a point not discussed by either one. As it stands, we have reliable sources stating that B12 comes only from foods from animals and that people have died from this fringe diet. Unless you wish to demonstrate the sources are not reliable, that material stays. If you wish to add anything, you need reliable sources for it. If you simply want to dance around on the talk page, there is nothing further to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there already is a Wp rule according to which those who are discussing a subject on a discussing page are not allowed to react on a statement of one discussor by saying things that not at all concern the mentioned statement.

But the fact that somebody just did, together with other reasons in the same direction, to this user for now is reason enough to stop discussing with the mentioned "somebody" and instead use his time more sensefull by among other things translating the following site into English: [5]. VKing (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to translate the page, go right ahead. However, don't expect it to be of any help here. I see no indication that Nic. Pleumekers or the "Conservation Foundation" (de Stichting Natuurbescherming) are reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

At least they're not operating anonimously here, no matter that (legal) rules demand that the (last five) authors of open projects like this one are known by their real name.VKing (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but it does not seem to be related to improving this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There are also legal rules that say, that the publisher of a work (in this case the Wp foundation), when asked by a prosecutor, is obliged to mention the name(s) of the autor(s) of the published work. The Wp foundation will however not be able to do this, when it doesn't know itself who its authors are, because it allows them to wright (parts of) articles of this encyclopedia anonimously, or known with just a username, which is not the real name. It may be not "related to improving this article", to point on that omission that can cause serious problems for Wp, but it certainly is related to improving Wp's legal position; (for instance when some of its anonimously (some may say cowardly) operating authors have offenced other (not anonimously operating) users, by making rude remarks about their contributions.

And what's more: how can users judge what sources are reliable, when they themselves are so unreliable, that they constantly break the rules concerning making their real name known? VKing (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Those "legal rules" don't seem to have anything to do with improving this article. I would suggest you take your concerns to either the Wikimedia Foundation or an appropriate policy page on Wikipedia. (Depending on what your concern is, it may be helpful to know that Wikipedia is organized in the United States, so U.S. law typically applies.)

We judge sources as "reliable" using standards we have developed. The general guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As this article's topic concerns, in part, biomedical information, a further refinement of those guidelines often applies. That guideline is available at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

Finally, if you feel another editor (whether me or anyone else) has dealt improperly with you or anyone else, your first stop should probably be on that user's talk page. Try to work out the issue in a civil manner. Failing that, other dispute resolution options are explained at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wp may be organised in one country, but it is publishing in many countries. In every coutry it does, the laws of that country about publishing matters are applicable.

But it would be astonishing, if in the US not as well the real name of authors has to be known to the publisher of their work. For this would mean that authors couldn't be prosecuted, in case they have written something the law forbids to be written; (for instance something (too) pornographic, or so). VKing (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not your opinion of what country's laws apply or what you believe U.S. laws might exist. If you have concerns other than this article, they do not belong here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. VKing (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this one way or another might help improving the article: [6]. VKing (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If this were (1) a significant medical authority (2) speaking in hir field of expertise (3) receiving substantial coverage for hir opinion (4) in a reliable source (5) discussing fruitarianism, you might have something.

Instead, we have (1) a single researcher (2) speaking outside of his area (published on a cardiac procedure, discussing diet) (3) in one article (4) on a website of no demonstrated prominence (5) not discussing fruitarianism, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there is B12 in shit. However, there are problems with that:

• Shit is not food.
• Shit is not fruit (it's an animal product, you can look it up).
• Shit is full of pathogens that can fucking kill you.
• We don't have reliable sources saying, "Hey, you don't have to worry about not getting B12, just eat some shit!"
• Oh, yeah, and the reliable sources (the U.S. National Institutes of Health) do say, "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals."[28] - SummerPhD (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A few days ago the author of the B12 liturature study as mentioned above, answered positively on the question whether there's B12 in human urine: "0,04 microgram per ml, whereas one daily needs 2 microgram, which is in 50 ml urine." (50 ml is about a thimble full).

Urine officially is food, as it is used as such by (among others?) astronauts; there certainly are reliable sources that are stating this.

As far as one doesn't eat any animal food, ones urine cannot be animal either; it's plain (digested) plant food, and can be re-used in stead of, or together with water or another kind of liquor. Fruitarians can get their daily portion of B12, without using any animal food or pharmaceutics.

The question in how far human urine is to be concidered as natural food, indeed is a question. But urine of insects, finding itself in dried form upon fruits, undoubtedly is as natural as the fruits themselves. It definately is much less dangerous than for instance residues of insecticides. VKing (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You need reliable sources discussing this, specifically referring to fruitarianism. Urine is a bodily waste from animals, not a food (much less a fruit). Astronauts do not drink urine (and they eat a hell of a lot of meat). If urine from a vegetarian is vegetarian, so is milk (from cows). Oh, and did I mention that "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals"? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it turns out to be recycled urine, they drink. [7]. No idea whether the also chemical treatement in the recycling process leaves the B12 intact.

Cow milk may be vegetarian, but it's not fruitarian. It is meant and made for cow babies, like human milk is meant and made for human babies. Cow milk is not meant and made for human babies (who have just one stomach, while cow babies have four to digest their special foodstuff). But grown up humans (directly or indirectly) drinking cow milk that is meant and made for cow babies? If that's not ridiculous, then what is? VKing (talk) 02:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not "recycled urine", "recycled water".

...and apples are "meant" to grow into apple trees. The reason "cow babies" have four stomachs has nothing to do with milk or fruitarianism, the article you are supposed to be discussing improving on this talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the second sentence of the linked article say:"Space shuttle Endeavour is carrying two refrigerator-sized racks packed with a distiller and an assortment of filters designed to process astronauts’ urine and sweat into clean drinking water."?

Who was it again, that only a week ago started talking about cow-milk on this page with the sentence: "If urine from a vegetarian is vegetarian, so is milk (from cows). ?

If all apples were meant to grow into apple trees, all of the planet would be full of apple trees by now. But cow babies are meant to grow into cows; the male ones as well as the female. VKing (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely off topic. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles. This article is about fruitarianism, not whether water is urine or what apple seeds are "for". - SummerPhD (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence

At the moment the opening sentence is not in line with (reality and) what is said under "Definitions"; grains and certain kinds of vegetables namely in many, if not most cases also are eaten.

Therefor hereby the proposition to change that sentence in:

"Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet that includes fruits and all or some kinds of other plant products, such as nuts, seeds, grains, kernels and fruit vegetables, but without animal products." VKing (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what a "fruit vegetable" is. I am clear on varying definitions of "fruit": culinary (basically, those in the photo at the top of the article (minus the nuts)), botanical (adds nuts, seeds and various culinary vegetables that are technically fruits (tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, etc.)). The article's current version conforms with the reliable source cited. Your version is unclear and fails to exclude various vegetables (leaves, roots, sprouts, stems, flowers, etc.) that the cited sources exclude. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It conforms with that source yes, but not with the facts in practice, nor with what is posed further on in the article (under "Definitions").

So it's better to forget about the first mentioned source and adapt the opening sentence to the facts, as they are also mentioned in the cited reliable sources under "Definitions".

"Fruit vegetables" is an (indeed new) term, we try to make usual as a clear and efficient one for "various culinary vegetables that are technically fruits (tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, etc.))".

But as it isn't usual yet, the relevant plant products indeed will have to be described elsehow in the opening sentence;

which on second thought might go like this.:

"Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet without animal products and without plants, that includes fruits and other edible plant products such as nuts, seeds, grains, and vegetables that are not plants or parts of plants." VKing (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to still needing to follow what reliable sources say (which this doesn't), there is the problem that fruits, nuts, seeds, grains and all vegetables are, by definition, plants or parts of plants. See:

• fruit "a part of a flowering plant"
• nut (fruit) "a hard-shelled indehiscent fruit of some plants" (see fruit, above)
• seed "a small embryonic plant"
• food grain "small, hard, dry seeds" (see seed, above)
• vegetable "an edible plant or part of a plant" - SummerPhD (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When different reliable sources say different things about the same subject, one has to be chosen: the one that says what is most realistic.

"Fruitarianism involves the practice of following a diet without animal products and without vital parts of plants, that includes fruits and other edible plant products such as nuts, seeds, grains, and vegetables that are not plants or vital parts of plants."

And eh: Fruits not very often are eaten when they still are 'part of ' a plant. VKing (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not presented a reliable source saying what you claim fruitarianism is. Again, by definition fruits, nuts, seeds, grains and vegetables are parts of plants. The definition we have is clear, internally consistent and cites a reliable source. Your opinion cannot be used in place of that source. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

According to that definition fruitarians don't eat any vegetables nor grains. This would mean they don't eat no tomatoes, no cucumbers, no paprika's and no bakery products like bread. Do you really think there's more than one on hundred fruitarians, for whom especcially the first three mentioned fruits are not most essential parts of the diet? Fruitarians eat tomatoes, no matter they're catagorised as vegetables or as whatever. And there ARE reliable sources that state this (mentioned under Definitions). This should be found back in the definition, otherwise it is incomplete, no matter it is cited in a reliable source. Wp's intention in the first place is offering as complete as possible information and not blindly reproducing what generally spoken reliable sourses say, no matter that in a certain case even a child knows it is not reliable.

By the way, fruits, nuts, seeds and fruity vegetables (otherwise than leafy vegetables) are not parts of a plant any more, in their edible phase. And a seed is not "a small embryonic plant"; only when it started sprouting it is; before it's as little an embryo as a human seed in itself is.

Just to make clear, that there are still made very big mistakes in also scientifical sources in this field, no matter they are regarded as reliable. Personally I wouldn't dare to nevertheless blindly follow such an evident scientifical imperfection by reproducing c.q. maintaining it in a Wp article. O no ! VKing (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say is true, not what you believe is true. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Everybody (except evidently the editors of the cited 'reliable' source) knows that grains are seeds. VKing (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See? I'd have thought that everyone would've known that fruits, nuts, seeds, grains and vegetables are parts of plants. That's why we stick with what reliable sources say. If you have any reliable sources, you might have something to add to this article. Otherwise, you're wasting my time. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources are demanded, in case a contributor points out that an apple, that has fallen from a tree is not part of that tree (any more), than he must conclude that his effort to help making this article some more sensible, in the nowadays situation is largely a matter of wasting his time.

So for now he stops his effort and will see what he possibly can do later on. VKing (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to bring any reliable sources back to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Honey is not a fruit

Honey isn't a fruit. Don't you think this is worth pointing out? Isn't including it among things that are fruit or are fruit derived products (dried fruit, olive oil) kind of misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.169.251 (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified. The sources said that some fruitarians consume honey, olive oil, chocolate, etc. They may or may not consider them "fruit". - SummerPhD (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely a true fruitarian would not consume honey, just how a true vegan would not consume honey? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An apparently reliable source (Food, nutrition, and diet therapy: a textbook of nutritional care, Marie V. Krause, Saunders, 1984) says, "The fruitarian diet consists of only raw or dried fruits, nuts, honey and olive oil." Other sources give other lists. The "take home" message -- that various fruitarians define the diet in idiosyncratic ways -- seems to be reflected in the paragraph. You might want to hammer home that honey is not a "fruit" in most senses of the word. Others might want to hammer home that the diet is nutritionally insufficient. Or that the diet gives you super powers. Or that the diet means needing to stay within sprinting distance of a toilet at all times. Or... whatever. This is not a web forum. This is Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say about the subject. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Religious Section

I think this article should be amended to define Adam and Eve, Genesis and terms like "original diet" as part of a mythology or work of fiction rather than putting it in a form that makes it seem to be fact. "Some fruitarians believe fruitarianism was the original diet of mankind in the form of Adam and Eve based on Genesis 1:29.[15] They believe that a return to an Eden-like paradise will require simple living and a holistic approach to health and diet.[18] " - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.244.183 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 July 2012

The current text makes clearly factual statements about what some fruitarians believe. It does not say the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, completely false or anything in between. It speaks, as it should, only to what some fruitarians believe. To discuss this area any further in this article, we would need reliable sources discussing the veracity of the Adam and Eve story (and related details) in the context of fruitarianism. We are unlikely to find such coverage, IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The "a return to an Eden-like paradise" is not made clear that it's a belief. The way that it mentions "return" implies that there once was "an Eden-like paradise", not that "an Eden-like paradise" is part of their belief, as opposed to something which there is no evidence for. groovygower (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Berries

"However, there are other foods that are not typically considered to be fruits in a culinary sense but are botanically, such as berries, bell peppers, eggplant, tomatoes, cucumbers, nuts and grains"

According to the berries article tomatoes áre berries. - VKing (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, several kinds of berries áre sweet, so that they are considered to be "fruits in a culinary sense"; such as droves and strawberries. - VKing (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the point you are trying to make, strawberries are a bad choice. They aren't berries.

Anyone who knows that tomatoes are berries hardly needs to be schooled that they are fruits. (I haven't a clue what "droves" are.) In any case, it's probably worth yanking that one little word.

As far as I can tell, there aren't many people classifying something they consider to be a berry as being a vegetable. To me, the common use of "berries" would include blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, cranberries and such. (On that list, blackberries and strawberries are not berries.) Berries that people mostly consider fruits but don't consider berries (grapes, watermelon, bananas, etc.) are a moot point. Berries that are in a culinary sense vegetables -- tomatoes, avocados, pumpkins and such -- are the issue here. Including them through the botanical usage of "berries" is not helpful.

The current phrasing, "However, there are other foods that are not typically considered to be fruits in a culinary sense but are botanically, such as berries, bell peppers, eggplant, tomatoes, cucumbers, nuts and grains." works equally well without the "berries". The sense is not lost: The botanical term "fruit" includes things excluded from the culinary term "fruit".

I'm yanking the word. Anyone opposed is welcome to restore it and address the issue here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

After a bit more digging in that section ("Fruitarian definitions of fruit"), the whole thing is problematic. The first part is poorly sourced: It gives a sourced definition of fruit, but the source is not appropriate for this article as it does not discuss the material presented: that fruitarians use the definition. (This is discussed with appropriate cites in the following section, so it is no great loss). The second half, supposedly discussing what fruitarians consider to be "fruit" cites only what Shelton (who we haven't been able to source as ever being a fruitarian) considered to be "fruit". I'm yanking that section as original research. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If just the whole article isn't yanked.

A "drove" is a (too easy) translation of the word "druif", which (ah yes) in English is "grape". We've had that years ago with "Pinda's"; the American fruitarian just didn't know what that were; could it maybe be related to Pindo (tree)? But pinda's in English (ah yes) are "peanuts".

By the way, we're (now and then) working on this: [8]

VKing (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

VKing, I took a quick look at your site and seriously, I am worried for your health. Low fat IS NOT healthy. Plenty of dietitians will tell you that fat is a necessary and healthy part of the human diet, performing many functions such as hormone production for example. I used to believe in all sorts of alternative health theories before I understood the nature of scientific evidence. I made myself very ill following various wacky claims and 'true stories' about what to do to be healthy and avoided beneficial things because I thought they were 'unnatural'. But there's no evidence in any PEER REVIEWED findings that things are automatically bad for you just because they are artificial, ultimately anything natural or artificial that goes into our bodies is made of chemicals and guess what? WE are made of chemicals. Just because something is natural, it doesn't mean that nature is good. Rape is a natural psychological behaviour, and so is murder.

I'll say it again: PEER REVIEWED. Find out what this means - read the Wikipedia article on it, and I really recommend visiting BadScience.net which got me off these terrible beliefs and onto a sensible way of living and am much happier and HEALTHIER for it. In contrast, all of the places that you have got your information from make lots of claims but have NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE. Just a bunch of stories. I used to make the mistake of thinking that the people who made these kinds of websites and books were as credible as the scientific community; that they had done tests to actually qualify what they claim, but none of them do. NONE OF THEM. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Some of the 'information' they give can be dangerous, or just make your life unnecessarily diffcult.

If you have a real problem with killing a plant to eat it (which almost all herbivores and omnivore do) then maybe you need to think about what is good for you - a plant can't feel any pain and isn't alive. Hell, the shit from insects on fruit skin has bacteria in which are more alive than a plant! I would say that if eating a plant causes you to feel guilty, maybe you need some psychological help.

I know that you're probably thinking "He doesn't understand what I understand, I have been enlightened and he needs to learn the truth about the world", but think about it... I have been where you are, I have thought what you have thought (although not as extreme). Ask yourself: why do you believe what you believe? Where do your beliefs come from? I'm genuinely interested.

I'm sorry about this Wikipedians, I know this isn't meant to be a forum but this is someone's life we're talking about here and I'm genuinely concerned. And if you think about it, what I have said does relate to what has been discussed about fruitarianism. ;) groovygower (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

Fecal Therapy The idea of 'fecal therapy' is not IMO a 'fruitarian' idea. Fasting is more frequently discussed. Others might intuitively ponder, how long could I live on a simple diet. However, I read many years ago that an SDA hospital tried drying a B12-deficient ethical vegan patient's own fecal waste and processing it (in a way that didn't destroy the Vitamin B12) into a supplement for that patient, who refused other treatments. The patient recovered. Wikipedia articles on Vitamin B12 discuss the wholesale excretion of much or most of our Vitamin B12 into our urine and feces (and anatomical explanations of how that occurs). Germs for Good Health... The human gut also contains B12-synthesizing bacteria, living from the mouth to the anus.8 The presence of these bacteria is an important reason that disease from vitamin B12 deficiency occurs very rarely in people, even those who have been strict vegetarians (vegans) all of their lives. The colon contains the greatest number of bacteria (4 trillion/cc of feces), and here most of our intestinal B12 is produced. However, because B12 is absorbed in the ileum, which lies upstream of the colon, this plentiful source of B12 is not immediately available for absorption—unless people eat feces (don’t gasp). Feces of cows, chickens, sheep and people contain large amounts of active B12. Until recently most people lived in close contact with their farm animals, and all people consumed B12 left as residues by bacteria living on their un-sanitized vegetable foods. I do not advocate that. There oughta be better ways, but (gasp) in our species' long anthropological history (however that occurred, though shrouded in much mystery) there may have been (as has been suggested here) significant contribution from (lurking B12 embedded in bacteria in) unwashed produce. (gasp) MaynardClark (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their related articles, not for general discussion of the articles' topics. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This article looks like it almost entirely prepared by someone who has adopted this diet personally and cherry picked for studies that support their world view. The "science" section is the worst example of this. The whole article is pretty questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.175.203 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Not supported by source?

"According to nutritionists, adults must be careful not to follow a fruit-only diet for too long,^BBC a fruitarian diet is not suitable for teens,<ref name=alice/> and a fruitarian diet is wholly unsuitable for children.^BBC"

BBC = BBC News, 14 September 2001. "Baby death parents spared jail". Accessed 31 March 2011.

Per the source, "Nutritionists say a fruitarian, or fruit-only diet, is completely ill-advised for such a small child. They add that even adults need to be careful not to stick to a fruit-only diet for too long." - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Why not link to the original scientific source? How do babies grow up without much protein? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.247.215 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

We link to the secondary sources because Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). From what the sources say, children on fruitarian diets grow up malnourished or, in some cases, don't live long enough to grow up. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

anne osborne ...

this article mentions anne osborne but provides no further details. she not only claims to be fruitarian for many years but also claims to have brought up two children as fruitarians. this clearly contradicts many claims made in the article. the fact is that there are so few fruitarians, and even fewer that have been so from birth, that little of truly scientific value can be said of the diet. yet there is no mention of this either.

194.81.78.2 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any mention of "Anne Osborne" in the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

vegan/frugivore/etc.

Re this edit, changing "Fruitarianism is a subset of dietary veganism." to "Fruitarianism is a Frugivore diet." {edit summary: Removed " Fruitarianism is a subset of dietary veganism " . Unless the first life form on the planet was a meat eater , this is speculation . You are catergrorising it in a order of meat is first on the list and then vegtables oviousy and fruit las...)

No, the last universal ancestor did not eat meat. In all likelihood, it was the only living thing on the planet and didn't "eat". More to the point, this has nothing to do with how fuitarianism is categorized. Humans are neither carnivores nor frugivores. Humans are omnivores. If we take a domestic cat and feed it nothing but fruit, it is still an obligate carnivore. (Eventually, it will be a blind obligate carnivore, then a dead obligate carnivore, but still an obligate carnivore.)

Terms like "carnivore", "herbivore", "frugivore", "omnivore", etc. refer to the natural diet of a species. A guy chowing down on three Big Macs will likely have people calling him a "carnivore", but he is still an omnivore. This casual misuse does not change the scientific fact that Homo sapiens are omnivores.

"Vegetarian", "vegan", "fruitarian", etc. refer to individual human diets. Inuits observed to be living entirely on meat are not "carnivores". In the literature, there doesn't seem to be a term for a human diet consisting entirely or mostly of meat. The Inuit people are not carnivores. As Homo sapiens, they are omnivores.

I am not categorizing diets meat first, vegetables second and fruits last. The sources categorize various diets in various ways: low fat, low carb, high fiber, vegetarian, raw, liquid, fringe, fad, etc. Omnivorous diets are the big box of crayons. Take out the blues and it's vegetarian. Remove the purples and reds and it's vegan. Remove the oranges and yellows and it's fruitarian. The fruitarian is a subset of the vegan which is a subset of the vegetarian which is a subset of the omnivorous.

A vegetarian diet excludes meat. A vegan diet excludes all animal products. All vegans are vegetarians. All vegan foods are vegetarian foods. (Not all vegetarians are vegans, of course.) A fruitarian diet further reduces the menu to "fruits" (variously defined). All fruitarians are vegans (and vegetarians). The fruitarian diet is a more restrictive vegan diet. Where the diet came from, your beliefs and what a living thing several billion years ago "ate" are not relevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that fruitarianism is a more restrictive form of vegetarianism/veganism. We do not have reliable sources stating that this voluntary diet redefines H. sapiens as omnivores and/or frugivores. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The main body of this article states that fruitarianism is a more restrictive form of veganism and cites reliable sources for that statement. The information is verifiable.

The main body of this article states that fruitarianism generally excludes animal products and cites reliable sources for that statement. The information is verifiable.

The lede section (the first paragraph or so of the article), per our manual of style, should summarize the content of the article. There should not be material in the lede that is not in the rest of the article, such as the claim that fruitarianism is a "Frugivore diet". This claim is neither made nor sourced in the article. Material in the lede should be sourced in the main body of the article, not in the lede, per our manual of style.

The word "frugivore" is a noun, not an adjective. It refers to a type of animal, not a diet. Humans, as sourced above, are omnivores. If individual humans follow Inuit, vegetarian, vegan or fruitarian diets, they are still humans. Humans are omnivores, not carnivores, herbivores, saprotrophs, frugivores, etc. If you would like to add that some humans -- contrary to all reliable sources -- are frugivores, you will need a reliable source which makes this claim while directly discussing fruitarianism. If you would like to claim that fruitarianism -- despite basic grammar -- is a "Frugivore diet", you will need a reliable source which makes this claim while directly discussing fruitarianism. Please note that this article makes claims about biomedical information that conflict with the widely-held consensus. As a reusult, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS both apply here.

For the moment, I have removed the contentious section. Please note for the future, however, that when you make a change to an existing article and someone reverts that change, our guideline (WP:BRD) asks that you not restore your change until discussion of the issue has resolved the dispute. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I will quote from wikipedia it self " A frugivore /fruːdʒʉvɔr/ is a fruit eater. It can be any type of herbivore or omnivore where fruit is a preferred food type. ". 139.218.131.23 (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We can discuss what you feel is true for several weeks and get nowhere. Here, again, is the bottom line: If you would like to add that some humans are frugivores, you will need a reliable source which makes this claim while directly discussing fruitarianism. If you would like to claim that fruitarianism is a "Frugivore diet", you will need a reliable source which makes this claim while directly discussing fruitarianism. Per WP:NOR, one of our core policies:

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.

In general, the most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

SummerPhD^v2.0 14:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Unaddressed concerns

Protein toxicity. Protein types. Polysaccharide digestibility. Nutritional content . None of these issues are addressed . The system is supply and demand . Experts constantly tell people to eat more fruit , yet they are not , so that issues need to be addressed as well as to the reason's why . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We do not have reliable sources that claim protein is toxic. If we did, we would need that source to discuss that claim in the context of fruitarianism.

We do not have reliable sources that discuss these other topics in the context of fruitarianism.

Yes, various reliable sources can certainly be found saying people should eat more fruit. Those sources do not say to eat nothing but fruit. In fact, the recommend more vegetables, more whole grains, more low-fat dairy and more fish. This is, however, immaterial to this article as we do not have reliable sources discussing this claim in the context of fruitarianism, the topic of this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

These thing's are already on wikipedia . Lectin's , Rabbit starvation , protein poisoning .

Other Unaddressed concerns : epigenetic's , nutrigenomics , polygenism , Food addictions , Endocrine disruptors etc . 139.218.131.23 (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We can discuss how you feel these terms apply for several weeks and get nowhere. Here, again, is the bottom line: If you would like to add material about lectins, rabbit starvation/"protein poisoning", etc. you will need reliable sources which discuss them while directly discussing fruitarianism, per WP:NOR, one of our core policies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Fruitarianism is a Frugivore diet

" A frugivore /fruːdʒʉvɔr/ is a fruit eater. It can be any type of herbivore or omnivore where fruit is a preferred food type." . Source Wikipedia . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frugivore . " The word frugivore may also refer to the human lifestyle that endorses the exclusive consumption of fresh fruits and raw vegetables." . Source . Encyclopaedia Britannica . http://www.britannica.com/science/frugivore . " any chiefly fruit-eating organism " . Source Dictionary.com . http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frugivore . " An animal whose diet is mostly fruit " . Source Wiktionary . https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frugivore . " an animal that feeds primarily on fruit " . Source Collins dictionary . http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/frugivore . 139.218.131.23 (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We can discuss this for several weeks and get nowhere. Here, again, is the bottom line: If you would like to add that fruitarianism is a "frugivore diet" (using a noun to modify a noun?) you will need reliable sources which state this while directly discussing fruitarianism, per WP:NOR, one of our core policies. None of these sources discuss fruitarianism. (Wikipedia and Wiktionary are user-edited sites and are therefore not reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Synonym . ((noun) a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the same language .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk • contribs) 04:52, September 4, 2015

Synthesis: Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

We do not have a reliable source stating that fruitarianism is a "frugivore diet". Yes, various unreliable sources say that fruitarians are frugivores. Various unreliable sources say that tomatoes are vegetables, spiders are insects and the Moon landings were faked. When reliable sources discuss these claims so do we -- from the perspective of what the reliable sources say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition of the word : fruitarian = a person whose diet consists chiefly of fruit or a person exclusively of fruits or a person whose diet consists of fruit and nut's or whose diet includes raw fruits, seeds, and nuts but no vegetables, grains, or animal products. .

fruitarian's live principally on fruit and nuts . Page 8 of United States. Dept. of agriculture. Office of experiment stations. Bulletin . Further investigations among fruitarians at the California agricultural experiment station. 1901-1902

Your previous objections : 1. Synthesis: Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion . # I would say over killing . 2. We do not have a reliable source stating that fruitarianism is a "frugivore diet". # I do not think need one , it is so obvious , you do , fine . 3. We do not have a reliable source stating that fruitarianism is a "frugivore diet". # I will have to remember Encyclopaedia Britannica is not a reliable source " The word frugivore may also refer to the human lifestyle that endorses the exclusive consumption of fresh fruits and raw vegetables . " . I too disagree with that definition , specially the inclusion of vegetables and the word exclusive . So all articles entries on entire wikipedia who used it as a reference should be removed as both us agree agree it is an unreliable source . Your reason is not good enough of an explanation for an objection i would say , but what ever floats your boat .

Fruitarian-ism What is your definition of the word fruitarian and what source are you using for your judgement ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk • contribs)

I see no indication that enacademic.com is a reliable source. It seems to be an aggregation site, pulling material automatically from numerous sources (including Wikipedia and Wikitionary) and displaying it with multiple shifting ads and pop-ups. If you believe it is a reliable source, I would request that you take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The 1901 USDA source, while rather old, does not say fruitarianism is a "frugivore diet". The Encyclopedia Britannica is, so far as I know, generally accepted as a reliable source. It does not, however, directly discuss fruitarianism.

No original research is one of Wikipedia's core policies. It states, in part, "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." Sources which do not use the word "fuitarianism" do not directly discuss fruitarianism. Sources which do not directly state that "fruitarianism is a frugivore diet" cannot be cited to show that fruitarianism is a "frugivore diet".

Whether or not you or I agree with a source has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a reliable source. If a source meets our policies (WP:IRS and, in some cases, WP:MEDRS), we report what it says. If reliable sources stated that the Moon is made of cheese, Wikipedia would say that the Moon is made of cheese.

We do not have reliable sources which state that fruitarianism is a "frugivore diet". We have reliable source stating that fruitarianism:

• includes only or primarily fruits in the botanical sense
• sometimes includes nuts and seeds
• excludes animal products
• is a subset of dietary veganism
• uses varying definitions of "fruit", sometimes including "vegetable fruits", sometimes not, sometimes including nuts and seeds, sometimes not, sometimes including honey, olive oil, chocolate, etc.
• is followed for various reasons
• can cause deficiencies in calcium, protein, iron, zinc, vitamin D, most B vitamins (especially B12), and essential fatty acids
• may lead to hunger, cravings, food obsessions, social disruptions, and social isolation, etc.

Because we have reliable sources saying these things directly about fruitarianism, we say them about fruitarianism.

We do not have reliable sources stating that fruitarianism is a "frugivore diet", give you super powers, is completely unreasonable, means you will use five times as much toilet paper as the average person, etc. As a result, we do not say these things about fruitarianism. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You did not answer the qustion . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How I define "fruitarianism" is not relevant to improving the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Nutritional deficiencies & Growth and development issues

The B12 section is completely accurate, these other two sections I vote to be removed. These sections seem pointless and biased. There are fruitarian options for all these supposed deficiencies. Oranges & Almonds for calcium etc etc. ANY diet can lead to a deficiency if used incorrectly. This diet does not cause any deficiency if balanced (with the exception of B12). These sections are factually incorrect and have a derogatory tone. These were obviously opinions of these nutritionists and not empirical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.215.135 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is the applicable guideline here. "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." We do not have gold standard sources here as I am unaware of any systematic review journal articles dealing with this rare diet. As such, we're left with the few statements regarding the diet by "by experts in the relevant field", a.k.a. nutritionists. What they have said on this diet is in the article. If you feel the article is misrepresenting what they said or the the sources are not reliable sources, we can certainly discuss that. None of them, to my knowledge, say anything positive about this diet. Fruitarian sources in the article directly contract the relevant experts, making this a WP:FRINGE topic, to be handled as such. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets . It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of dietary adequacy essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk • contribs) 19:34, September 4, 2015

Please do not move old sections to the bottom of the page.

The American Dietetic Association source you quote above does not discuss fruitarianism. Yes, a well-planned, heavily-supplemented fruitarian can probably be nutritionally adequate. The sources, however state that fruitarian diets can cause various problems. The sources state that fruitarians tend to be deficient in several nutrients (a fruitarian who doesn't take supplements, for example, will eventually be deficient in B12). The sources state that people have died from this diet. This is why we limit ourselves to sources that directly discuss the article's topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Be polite . Assume good faith . Avoid personal attacks . For disputes, seek dispute resolution . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith and have made no personal attacks. I have outlined our core policies. If you have reliable sources calling fruitarianism a "frugivore diet", feel free to add them. Otherwise, I will be restoring the pre-existing summary to the lede section, as per our manual of style. If you disagree, you will need to explain how you feel it does not summarize the body of the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You will have to provide a reliable source . I have provided about 30 as well as solid logic . None of them are not impartial . You just keep making assumptions and personal attacks . If you change the definition , your previous comments are now hypocrite . Because of your word's and your source , not mine . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks and must insist that you either show where I have or stop claiming that I have.

Your sources do not directly discuss fruitarianism. What you refer to as "logic", we call synthesis. If you feel that you have material to add to the article, please state what you wish to add and cite reliable sources which directly discusses "fruitarianism", to topic of this article? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

References

What is a fruit

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk • contribs) 05:22, September 6, 2015

1) Please review your talk page. I have repeatedly asked you to sign your comments.

2) As previously discussed, this is not a reliable source.

3) As previously discussed, sources which do not directly discuss "fruitarianism" are off-topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit:

I was not adding a restrictive definition, I was restoring the one you have repeatedly removed in violation of WP:BRD.

You have cited sources. You have not cited a reliable soure that says otherwise.

The lede section of the article summarizes the rest of the article. The rest of the article currently supports the statement. In fact, the source (Foods & Nutrition Encyclopedia, Audrey H. Ensminger, CRC Press, 1993, which is clearly a reliable source) calls fruitarianism "(s)everely restrictive" rather than merely "more restrictive". Is that wording preferable to you? - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

1. I am disputing how reliable Audrey H. Ensminger of 1993 is .
2. Policy that anybody can check the source .
3. When there is conflicting sources , a "universal" encyclopedia can be referred to as a compendium of all human knowledge .
4. History : the first mention of the word Fruitarian in history i can locate is in a report from the department of agriculture research division around 1900 located in the congress archives and anybody can check the source .
5. As for your no original research comments , it does not apply to the talk page .

Wikipedia three core content policies

1. Neutral point of view . WP:NPOV
2. No original research . WP:NOR
3. Verifiable . Anyone can check that the information comes from a reliable source. WP:VERIFY

Wikipedia Fundamental 5 pillars .

1. Is an encyclopedia . WP:5P1
2. Neutral point of view . WP:5P2
3. Is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute .WP:5P3
4. Editors should treat each other with respect and civility . WP:5P4
5. No firm rules . If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:5P5
6. Be bold. Encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. MOS:BOLD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You say you are disputing whether Audrey H. Ensminger is a reliable source. The source in question is published by CRC Press, part of Taylor & Francis and Informa. If you have doubts that they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, please take the question to the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise, I can see no question as to the source's reliability.

Yes, of course you can "check the source". It is likely available through any library.

There are no conflicting sources here. You have not indicated any sources that conflict with this, other than sources which are unreliable and/or do not directly discuss the topic of this article.

Your research into the history of the word is immaterial here.

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Original research has nothing to do with improving the article and is not meaningful here.

Thanks for the recap on our core policies and pillars. What is your point?

As you boldly removed the material and I reverted you, the next step was discussion (see WP:BRD). The next step you took was to restore your preferred version. You removed a summary statement form the lede section of the article, but left the sourced claim it refers to in the article. Do you object to us summarizing sourced statements in the lede (see WP:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section)? If you are objecting to the statement itself, you will need to demonstrate that CRC Press is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

1. I have checked the libraries here and no Audrey H. Ensminger's book . You can just tell me what it says and how she reached that conclusion and i maybe able to locate the source(s) she is reviewing , so any body can see it .
2. WP:NOR , clearly states does not apply to talk pages .
3. "" Your research into the history of the word is immaterial here. "" . That is just a silly statement to make . It is not my research , it is a source .

1. Investigations Among Fruitarians In California . U.S Dept Agr.[[9]], Office of Experiment Stations Agricultural experiment station [[10]]

An investigation of the nutritive value of fruits, instituted by the Office of Experimental Stations, was undertaken at the university of California in 1900-1901, and dietries of five fruitarians . At the same time a digestion experiment was made in which fruit and nuts constitute the entire diet .

The purpose of the inquiry were in brief:

1. To make dietary studies and digestion experiments in which the diet should consist exclusively or largely of fruit and nuts .
2. To obtain information regarding the practicability of maintaining nitrogen equilibrium in the body with in the body with an exclusive fruit and nut diet, and
3. To collect data in the digestibility of fruit and nuts . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

On your talk page, there are roughly 16,000 requests that you sign your talk page comments. If you cannot figure out how to do that, please ask for help.

Your 114 year old source does not seem to have anything to say about fruitarianism being an extremely restrictive form of veganism, the basic fact you seem to be challenging.

I am sorry you are unable to locate the text. In the U.S., inter-library loans make finding such texts fairly easy. The cite in question quotes the text. CRC Press is reliable. A text from 114 years ago is going to be a hard sell for anything scientific. How did I arrive at this? As I suggested, the WP:Reliable sources/noticeboard handles such questions. Here they addressed both of those questions.

No, I am not saying your original research is prohibited on talk pages. I am saying it is not in any way helpful in improving the article. I could easily post extensive blatherings about the likelihood that a diet so high in fruit sugars likely leads to pancreatic problems (R.I.P. Steve Jobs), is completely unnatural (as it completely lacks B12, a necessary nutrient, leading to serious mental problems), means followers cannot eat meals with normal humans, means followers must stay near toilets at all times, etc. Then you would reply with claims that all of this isn't true, I'd say "afraid so", you'd say "no it's not", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't"... That is not what this talk page is for. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Your original research is not -- in any way -- helpful in that regard.

Bottom line: The reliably sourced statement that this WP:FRINGE diet is an extremely restrictive form of veganism is in the article. Our manual of style says the lede section should summarize the article. The statement belongs where it was. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Verifiable . Any one can check that the information comes from a reliable source. WP:VERIFY . I am an any one and i can not verify your source . You can ramble hysterically for ever , but it does not address the issue . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Who makes the objection does not matter . Regardless if it is you or some body else . So there is no point pestering editors , just to distract from an objection . Address the objection at hand . It is the improvement of wikipedia that is the objective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk • contribs) 10:01, September 13, 2015

Please learn to sign your posts. It's not that hard. If you cannot figure it out, please ask for help.

Please assume good faith. I am neither "rambling hysterically for ever" nor am I "pestering" anyone "just to distract from an objection". CRC Press is reliable, as has been repeatedly determined at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Please read further at WP:VERIFY before deciding what it means. "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." The source is reliable. If you disagree, please take the issue to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

You have repeatedly removed this statement from the lede, but not from the body of the article. The lede summarizes the rest of the article. Why have you removed the summary of the article from the lede? Please address the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As there has been no response for a week (and no explanation whatsoever as to why the lede should not summarize the article), I have restored the summary statement. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Link to your source and explain why the words definition has being changed or i will remove it . If it is a synonym , then state it . If it is a religious thing , then state it . Don't take her out of context . You are the worst wikipedia editor that there is . You care nothing for the encyclopedia entry and encouraging editors to work on it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.131.23 (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

As you have referred to the source several times, I am not sure what you mean when you ask me to link to the source. If you want a link to the whole text somewhere on the internet, I do not know that one is available. The cite in the article gives a full citation for the book and quotes the text. If you doubt that the book actually says that, you'll need to either get ahold of the book or find others who agree with you.

I did not change the word's definition. The source says it is a "(s)everely restrictive vegetarian diet".

It is not a synonym. The source says it is a "(s)everely restrictive vegetarian diet".

It is not a "religious thing". The source says it is a "(s)everely restrictive vegetarian diet".

It is not taken out of context. The source says it is a "(s)everely restrictive vegetarian diet".

Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

References

WTH?

How can one eat "only fruits that do not bear seeds"? The definition of a "fruit" is the seed-bearing portion of a plant. If it don't have no seeds, it AIN'T A FRUIT. Seriously. The closest you'd get is "seedless" fruits, which actually have seeds, and are only created by humans mucking-about with nature. I don't think you'd be saving any plants by promoting that. All "seedless" fruits are bred for one purpose: to be eaten by humans. In nature, bearing seeds is the sole purpose of a "fruit". Nuts are seeds. Peas are seeds. If you refuse to eat seeds, you cannot eat fruit, thus you'd be pretty dumb to call yourself a "fruitarian" (although you may be anyway)..45Colt 05:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought we might be misquoting a source, but I couldn't find what you are talking about in the article. In any case, 1) Perhaps they spit the seeds out? 2) This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

I deleted most of " (cur | prev) 14:04, 12 November 2015 Rebeccajune828 (talk | contribs) . . (32,973 bytes) (+7,078) . . (expanded on the definition of fruitarianism, added additional benefits, risks, and clinical studies) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)" edits because they have been against common sense and lacking of quality References. As im new to this i hope im not hurting any feelings. I suggest Fruitarianism gets locked for a long time, but i dont know how to flag it for getting locked. Dr.xdcCAT (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

But as long as you removed the poorly sourced content and warned the users suspected of poorly sourced content, this will sort the problem. Requests for page protection (what you say as "flag it... getting locked") in the case of poorly sourced content will only get accepted if an article has recent disruption and persistant disruptive editing. If you notice any more poorly sourced content, you may warn them. If you really want to ask for page protection, then click here. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles are not protected from editing unless considerable and ongoing disruption occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Proper nouns

Fruitarian, fruitarianism, vegan, vegetarian, omnivore, herbivorous, etc. are not proper nouns (hell, several of those are adjectives). How do we know this (other than by knowing what proper nouns are)? Let's start with the assumption that the Cleveland Clinic, NBC and Columbia University are aware of the concept and work from there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

avocados or avocadoes

Reliable sources spell it "avocados" (without the "e"). Yes, most nouns add "es" when they end in an "o" preceded by a consonant. Many exceptions are of Romance origin (e.g., "pros and cons", not "proes and cons"). When Wikipedia refers to more than one avocado, we should be spelling it "avocados".

That said, this is a fringe topic. Sometimes we need to quote some fairly dodgy sources to describe the fringe belief from the perspective of its believers. The Handbook of Sunfood Living: Resource Guide for Global Health is one such source. Taking the road less traveled by, they're spelling it "avocadoes". Maybe they don't have proof readers, maybe they don't have automatic spellcheck, maybe they're just sloppy. Whatever the case, when we quote them, if they spell it with a random "e" or five "k"s and a silent "q", we quote it, warts and all. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"some" nutritionists, "may" not be, etc.

The BBC says "Nutritionists say a fruitarian, or fruit-only diet, is completely ill-advised for such a small child. They add that even adults need to be careful not to stick to a fruit-only diet for too long." Wikipedia says "According to nutritionists, adults must be careful not to follow a fruit-only diet for too long." Apologists for the diet say "According to some nutritionists, adults should be careful about nutritional needs when following a Fruitarian diet."

Similarly, Wikipedia says "...a fruitarian diet is not suitable for teens, and a fruitarian diet is wholly unsuitable for children" not "...a Fruitarian diet may not be suitable for teens, and strict Fruitarian diets are unsuitable for children."

If, for whatever reason, you feel the need to soften "wholly unsuitable" (when the source says "completely ill-advised"), ask yourself why. You are certainly allowed to believe anything you want about anything. Wikipedia, however, reports what independent reliable sources have to say about a topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

New article: Banana island (diet)

Just letting you know in case anyone wants to edit it.

Banana island (diet)

Bk33725681 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fruitarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vegsoc.org/info/definitions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404033827/http://www.acorn.net/fruitarian/what.html to http://www.acorn.net/fruitarian/what.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3719/is_200607/ai_n16855770/pg_13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fruitarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717195159/http://www.vibranthealthandwealth.com/vibrance/articles/krok.html to http://www.vibranthealthandwealth.com/vibrance/articles/krok.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am editing this page as part of a WikiEdu project.

This page has a few problems that I think need to be tackled to improve it and make way for more editors to add information. There are a few WP:NPOV issues that I would like to fix. I also think that more sections should be made available to round the article out.

If anyone has any suggestions or comments about moving forward I will be working on the article here in this sandbox Lostxxjustina (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this is a fringe topic. While there are lots of sources out there saying lots of things about the topic, Wikipedia specifically limits our coverage of such topics to what independent reliable sources have to say about the topic. Additionally, any biomedical claims would fall under WP:MEDRS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I am looking forward to keeping those things in mind when editing this page. I am also not looking to add information, but restructure and reword the information that is already there.

I noticed that you've been an active member of this page for a long time. Do you know if there has previously been a separate Criticism section that wasn't included in the Nutritional concerns section? I tried backtracking in the Talk pages that are in archive, but I'm not sure if I overlooked. Lostxxjustina (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of there being a criticisms/concerns section separate from nutrition. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Brief descriptions of people?

Currently, some of the few people listed as having tried the diet have brief descriptions of who the people are/were ("Ugandan military dictator", "Indian political and spiritual leader", etc.) others do not.

In most articles where we list people associated with a topic, we give a brief identifier. One of my typical go to lists is List of people from New York City. Rather than having to guess or click through to see who Cecile Abish or Julia Brown were, they are identified as a "sculptor" or "madam and prostitute", respectively. In this case, some are more obvious than others, depending on your background and age. Further, the list is seemingly randomly split between "Notable adherents" and "Historical figures": August Engelhardt is a "Notable adherent" that I'm betting isn't as well know as Steve Jobs, a "Historical figure". The former died in 1919, the latter in 2011. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

For the notable adherents section/historical figures are you suggesting that those that have passed away be moved to the historical section? I see your point and it is random and I think that it may give the section clarity, even if Ashton Kutcher ends up being the only living person on the list. Lostxxjustina (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Much like the List of people from New York City, I think the living/dead split is not particularly helpful. I'd say add birth and death dates, add brief descriptions, merge and alphabetize. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Steve Jobs claim

@SummerPhDv2.0: I wanted to follow-up on the edit Here by @Lostxxjustina: on the Steve Jobs reference. As currently phrased, does this not represent a kind of subtle WP:OR and WP:MEDRS problem? The guardian article is reporting the relationship between Kutcher's diet and Job's death, but the way it's phrased in the Wiki article here it gives the implication that fruitinarism causes pancreas problems. However obvious the correlation, is this not an implied medical claim of the sort that Wikipedia wants to avoid? If this same kind of claim was made in reverse (e.g. if Kutcher had lived longer or something of that sort) we'd definitely notice it. Etherfire (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You outline several concerns. I'll take them one at a time and see where I wind up.

WP:OR concerns whether or not the material is attributable to a reliable source or if it is original thought. First things first: I have no question that the source is reliable for what Kutcher said happened and simple biographical facts about Jobs. Our article says, "Actor Ashton Kutcher was hospitalized and said that his pancreas levels went 'all out of whack' after following a fruitarian diet in preparation for his role playing Apple Inc. CEO and onetime fruitarian Steve Jobs, in the film Jobs. Jobs died of pancreatic cancer." The claims presented, then, are:

1) Kutcher was hospitalized.

2) He said his pancreas levels went "all out of whack".

3) He said this happened after following the diet (in prepping for the film).

4) In relation to all of this, Jobs was a onetime fruitarian.

5) In relation to all of this, Jobs died of pancreatic cancer.

The source says, "...not everyone is suited to unorthodox diets, as Ashton Kutcher discovered after adopting the late Steve Jobs's fruitarian regimen in preparation for a new biopic of the technology magnate. Speaking at the premiere of Jobs at the Sundance film festival on Friday night, Kutcher revealed that he went to hospital with pancreas problems after following a strict diet of fruit, nuts and seeds. Jobs, who was often reported to be a fruitarian, died of pancreatic cancer in October last year. 'First of all, the fruitarian diet can lead to, like, severe issues,' Kutcher told USA Today. 'I went to the hospital like two days before we started shooting the movie. I was like doubled over in pain. My pancreas levels were completely out of whack. It was really terrifying … considering everything.'"

Relating this to the claims:

1) "Kutcher revealed that he went to hospital".

2) "My pancreas levels were completely out of whack."

3) "...after following a strict diet of fruit, nuts and seeds....'...the fruitarian diet can lead to, like, severe issues,'".

4/5) "Jobs, who was often reported to be a fruitarian, died of pancreatic cancer."

I see the following discrepancies:

2) "all out of whack" vs. "completely out of whack". I've changed this.

4) "Jobs was a onetime fruitarian" vs. "was often reported to be". This is challenging. The source soft pedals it as something of a widely believed rumor, but we cite a quote from Jobs with him saying it with absolutely no equivocation: "I was on one of my fruitarian diets." I guess we could say he was reported to be, then go on to say he absolutely was, but that's rather odd.

As for WP:MEDRS, that would be a concern if Wikipedia were saying "Fruitarianism causes pancreatic problems/cancer" and cited the source here. The article does not say that. The article says Kutcher said his pancreatic levels went out of whack after the diet. As with the source, the article states -- in the context of discussing what Kutcher said -- that Jobs was a fruitarian and died of pancreatic cancer. While this does invite the inference connecting the two, the source presents it. It is not WP:SYN, it is an accurate reflection of the source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)