Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Modern 2 Examples of successful Fruitarians 3 Criticisms 4 Motivation 5 Food Yield 6 Energy 7 Pauling 8 Weight Loss 9 Energy flow 10 Least toxins 11 Dick Gregory 12 So-called biblical references 13 B12 not limited to animal foods 14 Sources 15 "Fruits, Fingers, and Fermentation: The Sensory Cues Available to Foraging Primates" 16 "("Ferment in the family tree: Does a frugivorous dietary heritage influence contemporary patterns of human ethanol use?" 17 "Ethanol, Fruit Ripening, and the Historical Origins of Human Alcoholism in Primate Frugivory" 18 Famous fruitarians 19 sources for this page 20 "Evolutionary origins of human alcoholism in primate frugivory." 21 Dr. Marvin Katz 22 Francisco Martín 23 Johanna Brandt 24 original research tag 25 RfC 25.1 Biographical 25.2 Indirect references 26 alchoholism, knuckle-draggin &c 27 Paragraphs about Karen Kellock's views 28 Steve Jobs and fruitarianism 29 Frugivore vs Fruitatian/Fructarian 30 Ghandi fruitarianism 31 Leonardo da Vinci 32 Henry David Thoreau 33 Henry Anderson 34 Irene Alexander 35 Other questionables 36 Woody Harrelson 37 Arne Wingqvist 38 Herbert M. Shelton 39 Ben Klassen? 40 citation for 'return to eden like paradise'

Modern

I removed the questionable material. Reasons are outlined below. Wekee 18 December 2006

• Mahatma Gandhi briefly followed a diet similar to fruitarianism. He and his followers repeatedly discontinued these diets as in the long term they proved unsustainable.[1]

The listed reference is a self-published source. "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources

• Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple Computer, Inc.) for a period in the 1970s.[2]

Incorrect reference (check it).

• Walter Siegmeister a noted Hollow Earth theorist, under the pen name "Dr. Raymond Bernard", promoted fruitarianism as part of his plan for a "super race".[3]

The reference listed does not mention fruitarianism and the sentence fails as a source under WP:OR.

• Johnny Lovewisdom, author of The Buddhist Essene Gospel of Jesus, suffered from numerous health problems attributed to fruitarianism.

The reference listed does not mention fruitarianism as the source of numerous health problems and the sentence fails as a source under WP:OR.

To Mdsummermsw: Note additionally that failing to uphold standards that one demands from others, while removing information relevant to the article and inserting questionable material of the type above at the same time, can be seen as being bias. Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Wekee 19 December 2006

Examples of successful Fruitarians

This section seemed like a criticism of fruitarianism, rather than the informative list of examples of fruitarians. I made appropriate changes. There are numerous well-known (amongst raw foodists and fruitarians) examples of (successful) fruitarians. I included only several, please add more. Examples of non-fruitarians and failed experiments with fruitarianism may be suitable to the Criticisms section, provided that they are well-referenced. I leave this job to others. Wekee 11 December 2006

This section was originally something along the lines of "Famous fruitarians". The newish title includes "successful" for know meaningful reason. I propose one of the following:

1) Add a section "Examples of failed fruitarians" -or-

2) Changing the title back to "Famous fruitarians" and adding back those who failed.

Option 2 seems more reasonable. Leaving only examples where something worked would require gutting thousands of articles on wikipedia and seems rather POV. Mdsummermsw 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples of non-fruitarians and failed experiments with fruitarianism do not fall in the category of "examples of fruitarians" even if those failed experimentators were very famous. Examples of, even if not as famous, notable people who actually are fruitarians, do. Therefore, it is appropriate to include these.Wekee 03:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I returned criticisms that were deleted without comment or an unsourced claim. All criticisms were/are properly sourced. Mdsummermsw 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted several unreferenced claims. Wekee 8 December 2006

I deleted several unreferenced claims. Wekee 14 December 2006

Criticism about sister vs. girlfriend in Notting Hill was removed because it was wrong (see the IMDB Quotes page). The character who was a fruitarian was actually just one in a series of fix-ups (dates) named Keziah; the sister was Honey. This is all getting off topic. Peter (Cactus Pete) 17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Motivation

I am unable to find any support for the idea that Bose was knighted for "his laboratory proof of plant sentience or consciousness". In fact, he seems to have not held this particular belief at all: "He insisted that not only could no line be drawn between plants and animals but that his researches had shown there was no line between living and nonliving matter." (http://www.bookrags.com/Jagdish_Chandra_Bose) More to the point, the article states that this is a reason some people adopt a fruitarian diet, I am unable to find substantiation for this. Mdsummermsw 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find a source citing Isaiah 11:6-9 as a motivation for Fruitarianism, nor one which cites it as a system to return to an Eden-like paradise, nor a call for holistic living. Mdsummermsw 13:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following: "Besides all the intelectual arguments above, many raw foodists spontaneously progress to fruit-based diet ([4]). This phenomenon is seen as the evidence of frugivorous (see [5] and [6]) nature of humans."

The first source is not a says nothing about "many raw foodists spontaneously progress(ing) to (sic) fruit-based diet". (WP:OR)

The second source makes the unsourced, exceptional claim that humans naturally eat a fruit based diet. The website is not a reliable source on its own. "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources." Additionally, it is essentially one person's website: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources)

The third source is an unsigned PDF. Not a reliable source.

None of the sources cited are reliable. "Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public." (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)

Mdsummermsw 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed unreferenced claims and a sentence unrelated to the topic of the section. Wekee December 2006

I removed the claim "Paranthropus became extinct due to a limited diet or competition from further evolved pre-human ancestors.[7]" as the source cited does not prove that at all ("'It COUDLD WELL HAVE BEEN direct competition with Homo")! Irrelevant claims about omnivorous diet have been removed appropriately. Inserting questionable material of the type above can be seen as being bias. Wekee 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Shelton is famous for being a founder of Natural Hygiene. Him practicing medicine without a license can be discussed in more details at a page about him, where it can be explained why he did so in detail. Hence, appropriate change. Inserting such remarks can be seen as being bias and wanting to discredit any positive remarks about fruitarianism. Wekee 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To Mdsummermsw: Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wekee 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Food Yield

I am removing this section as a possible copyright violation.

"Dr. Faust, former head of the fruit laboratories of the USDA, reported that centenarian apple trees can drop 2 tons each of fruit. ...fruit and nut trees, vines, and fruit bearing plants) can yield 450,000 pounds per acre as compared to 100 to 1000 pounds an acre for animal flesh. The orchard to slaughterhouse food ratio can be 450 to 1." (article) vs. "Animal flesh yields 100 to 1000 lbs an acre, ... Fruit (whether from vines, berry bushes, nut and fruit trees, or fruit bearing plants) can yield 450,000 lbs. an acre. Dr Faust, retired head of the USDA Fruit Labs ... has seen centenarian apple trees drop 2 tons each.... Orchard to slaughterhouse: 450 to 1....." (http://quotesland.com/view.php?do=view&quoteid=66376&curletter=N&PHPSESSID=1575c6aea30fc602d54)

Various forms of this quote exist. I am unable to find one that gives a source other than "Dr. Faust, former head of the fruit laboratories of the USDA" or "Dr. Faust, retired head of the USDA Fruit Labs." The closest I have come is one that refers to him having "recently" reported this to "Dr. Kissinger" in reference to China's egg production (which doesn't seem to be "recent", as Kissinger was relevent to China until 1977 and Dr. Faust is now dead). Mdsummermsw 15:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Energy

I am unable to find this sourced. I find one chunk of text copied verbatum on various pages that cites "1/80th" vs. the articles "81 times", but no source other than "Dr. Don Meyer" (and a few alternate spellings). In any event, this discusses meat vs. vegetable production, which may be relevent for Vegetarian, but is not specific to fruitarianism.

Pauling

Pauling supported HUGE doses of vitamin C -- 18,000 mg/day vs. FDA's 60. Is his work on vitamin C "still read today"? Yes, but only because of his other work; his vitamin C work is generally considered quackery [8]

In any event, Pauling got his C from pills and suggested that promotion of "natural source" C was a scam. [9]

So he recommended taking lots of synthetic vitamin pills. Not relevant to fruitarianism. Mdsummermsw 16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Weight Loss

Hardinge's 1963 "study" was actually quoting an earlier study. Fruitarians were not included in the study. Mdsummermsw 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Energy flow

I tried to find a source for this. Several problems: The article said: "The natural fructose in fruits has monosaccharides, disaccharides, and polysaccharides," Say what? Fructose does not "have" monosaccharides. Fructose IS a monosaccharide. And is does not "have", nor is it, disaccharides and polysaccharides.

In search of a reliable source, I came up with U C Berkeley's Wellness Letter (http://www.wellnessletter.com/html/fw/fwNut03Carbs.html) which says: "The sugar in most fruit is primarily fructose, which has few, if any, advantages over sucrose (the sugar in candy). So it doesn't matter, for instance, if your jam is sweetened with "sugar" or "fruit juice sweetener." Mdsummermsw 17:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Least toxins

There might be a source for this *idea* out there, but I couldn't find it.

The section as it existed was unsourced. I found several secondary sources that gave varying reports of this. - The numbers were different from one to the next. - Only one referenced the "root, stem and branch filtration" in any way, but said it was only *systemic* insecticides. - One claimed that the cow would have 21 times the insecticide level of fruit because a 1,000 pound cow would have eaten 21,000 pounds of fruit (grass is not a fruit).[10] - Another said it was 21 times vegetables because of the same idea. - All assumed that animals absorb and hold 100% of the insecticides in foods eaten. In short, I couldn't choose one version at the expense of the others without a primary source.

Dick Gregory

I am temporarily removing Gregory's section. It says: "Dick Gregory wrote the book Dick Gregory's Natural Diet for Folks Who Eat: Cookin' With Mother Nature! about his odyssey from lacto vegetarianism to fruitarianism. He ran 3000 miles across the US on fruit juice.[citation needed]"

Numerous sources I have found so far says he ran "900 miles from Chicago to D.C., subsisting entirely on a kelp-based liquid formula".

A pro-fruitarian website [11] says flatly "(Fruitarian Dick Gregory ran 3000 miles across the U.S.)" It does not say anything about "on fruit juice" nor does it give a source. Numerous other sites (e.g., [12]) copy this claim, verbatum, with no source.

A pro-vegetarian website [13] says "(In 1974 he ran 900 miles (1450 kilometers) exclusivelyon fruit juice..." Again, no source.

Other than blogs and forums, the closest I have found is from a breatharian site [14] saying: "He is also famous for having walked and run across the United States on several occasions. In April 1971, Dick vowed not to eat any solid food until the war in Vietnam ended, and for the next four years drank fruit juices only, three days a week. In 1984, he undertook a 70-day water fast, under strict medical observation in a New Orleans hospital. He is author of "Dick Gregory’s Natural Diet for Folks Who Eat - - Cookin’ with Mother Nature."

Gregory's site [15] says only this about his diet: "In 1973, the year he released his comedy album Caught in the Act, Gregory moved with his family to Plymouth, Massachusetts, where he developed an interest in vegetarianism and became a nutritional consultant. In 1984 he founded Health Enterprises, Inc., a company that distributed weight loss products. In 1987 Gregory introduced the Slim-Safe Bahamian Diet, a powdered diet mix, which was immensely profitable." Searching his website for "fruit" and "fruitarian" I find nothing else related to this.

The closest thing I can find in the book cited says: "The more I read, the more I talked to Dr. Fulton and the more I experimented with my own diet, the closer I came to the fruitarian point of view concerning nutrition. After my first fast, I adopted a diet that included only raw foods. I became convinced I should leave my "cookin'" to Mother Nature!" Mdsummermsw 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So-called biblical references

Following up on two references cited under the "possible biblical references to fruitarianism", I found one to have no backing in the detailed articles about the Jewish religious group mentioned that supposedly claims fruitarianism to be comanded by God. No Bible version gives information on this group either which could be seen as supporting their connection with fruitarianism. Another reference mentioned a so-called "lost gospel" which has only ever supposedly been seen (and quoted in a book for which the reference is missing) by one single author and does not exist anywhere in the public record. It is therefore likely that even the existence of such a manuscript is fictional, or that the reference in this article was intended to promote the book mentioning that mysterious "ancient manuscript". If I claimed the Bible was missing a "lost" section mentioning road traffic, it would be similarly ridiculous to add a subheader to the "road traffic" article titled "possible biblical references", and stating that a small minority of he world's population (= me) believes that there is a "lost" section of the Bible that does talk about road traffic rules. I therefore removed the two references which were lowering the quality of the article.

90.9.147.227 08:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Josh McCaughlen

While I also have found no non-fruitarians who claim that the Essenes followed such a diet and that the lost gospel was likely wholly the creation of its supposed discoverer, I disagree with removing them completely.

However weak these claims are, a number of fruitarian sites present them as rationals for the diet. Hopesully the new edits make it clear that the claims are not widely accepted outside of the fruitarian community.

You are certainly correct that labeling them "Biblical" is questionable at best (Essenes are not directly referred to in any Bible I've ever encountered). As such, I have removed that heading, leaving the list of fruitarians/purported fruitarians devided between Ancient and Modern.

Mdsummermsw 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

B12 not limited to animal foods

As stated on http://www.beyondveg.com/walsh-s/vitamin-b12/vegans-1.shtml (already a reference in the article) soy milk, other plant milks and bacteria and archaea also provide B12 B12 in animals is even synthesised by these bacteria in their digestive system, not by the animal. Teardrop onthefire 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the NIH, natural sources of B12 are limited to animal derived foods. Suplimented foods, such as some soy milks, cereals, etc. may contain B12.

Mdsummermsw 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also contained in unwashed greens, although I don't remember the sources I've read that many times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.246.187 (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

That you've read it many times does nothing to counter the NIH statement to the contrary. Further, the *amount* in unwashed produce is minimal, coming primarily from (gulp!) contamination with fecal material. I am uncertain that you will be able to find a reliable source that says eating unwashed produce is a viable source of B12 for fruitarians. The bacteria in human (&ct.) guts produce B12, but too far into the colon to be absorbed, so it passes out of the body. Manure, then, can be a great source of B12, when not washed off of produce. It's also a great source of E coli... Mdsummermsw 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "natural" or "artificial" sources of B12 (whatever the distinction between "natural"/"artificial" means), all B12 present "naturally" in plant foods (like through contamination with fecal matter as Mdsummermsw stated) comes from the same exact place as the B12 found in animal foods: it is produced by bacteria living in / on those organisms. Whether it is cultivated "in vitro" and sold as pills, or enriched in soy milk, etc, or found laying around the soil, or living in your intestin, it is the same thing. Live cultures of bacteria. By the way, soy milk does not have any active B12 (and not B12 analogs) like cyanocobalamin *unless* it has been fortified with, like any other vegan food which is measured to have reliable B12 (and not some spontaneous contamination with B12-producing bacterias. Furthermore, when you say "because the most common non-animal source of B12 supplements is yeast" this is not true, yeast is not a reliable source of active B12, but rather B12 analogs.

Cheekychico —Preceding Cheekychico comment added by 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure Marmite is very high in B12, and that the B12 in it is from yeast. I haven't written anything about it because I haven't found a good source on this since reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.237.75 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most marmite will give you 10% - 20% B12. Not from yeast, though. And marmite is certainly not a "fruit". Ingredients: "80% yeast, sugar, salt, mineral salt (508), wheat maltodextrin, caramel colour, herbs, spices, vitamins (niacin, riboflavin, thiamin, folate, B12), iron, and derivatives of barley, wheat and soy." Marmite#Manufacture

Per the NIH, natural sources of B12 are limited to animal derived foods. Suplimented foods, such as some soy milks, cereals, etc. may contain B12. (The NIH does not consider feces a "food".)

Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I have removed the transitioning/frugivorous nature section due to source problems. Please see WP:RS for information on determining reliable sources. The sources that had been included fail under Using online and self-published sources. Mdsummermsw 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just reverted changes citing several journal articles as justification for humans choosing fruitarianism because some primates may be frugivorous. Per WP:OR: "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

The articles cited say, directly or indirectly, that some primates were or might have been frugivors. HOWEVER, the article is about humans choosing fruitarianism as a diet. Unless you have and provide a reliable source saying that humans transition to a fruitarian diet because of this, you cannot add it to the article.

Not true. The articles listed mention humans and all primates having (definitely, not maybe) the fruigivorous origin! And, the only way you can find out that fruitarians stay fruitarians because they like the fruit is if you talk to them. It is unreasonable to request published papers to reference that! Obvious and well-known facts do not need scientific referencing, and there are many of those in the article anyway (without the referencing that you seem to be demanding here). Wekee

"Obvious and well-known facts do not need scientific referencing,". You may feel that this is true. However, Wikipedia standards are otherwise:

"That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F

"and there are many of those in the article anyway (without the referencing that you seem to be demanding here)." If there are any here that you wish to challenge, you are welcome and encouraged to do so. Otherwise, I might get to them eventually. At the moment, though, we are discussing your edits.

Mdsummermsw 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: : Not true. The articles listed mention humans and all primates having (definitely, not maybe) the fruigivorous origin! Read the articles, please. Wekee

I repeat: "...the article is about humans choosing fruitarianism as a diet. Unless you have and provide a reliable source saying that humans transition to a fruitarian diet because of this, you cannot add it to the article." The sources provided say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the topic of this article: fruitarianism (a diet selected by humans). If you wish, you could include those sources for an article about the diets of pre-human ancestors. However, the text added continues to say that this is the REASON that humans choose a fruitarian diet, a concept NOT mentioned in the source. Mdsummermsw 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, please review Wikipedia's style guide for information on how to properly cite sources. Mdsummermsw 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So, why there is a number of self-published websites listed as references here? Wekee

Because they have not yet been challenged. If there are any here that you wish to challenge, you are welcome and encouraged to do so.

Mdsummermsw 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several sentences in the article that are unreferenced or referenced by questionable sources, but have been included because they are well-known facts. Anyone who has lived a fruitarian lifestyle is acutely aware that the main reasons fruitarians stay fruitarians is because fruit is the most appealing type of foods. Without this statement, this article is only a colleciton of old-fashioned beliefs about fruitarianism by those who have little understanding of it. Instead of deleting a paragraph that actually brings some light to the article, find a way to improve it. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by private (talk)

while your statement may well be true, it is important to remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such must try to reference statements as much as possible. i know sometimes it may seem like Mdsummermsw is only attempting to discredit fruitarianism with his cite tags and all but, ultimately, the drive to find and include quality references will only make wikipedia and this article stronger! frymaster 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Although harshly worded, the following applies:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

"Any edit lacking a source may be removed..."

"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence

Mdsummermsw 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, half of this article should be removed. This article has serious flaws. The references here are self-published websites. I pointed out only a few places where references are required to validate the claims made. Enjoy! Wekee

If there are any here that you wish to challenge, you are welcome and encouraged to do so.

Mdsummermsw 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell me something I don't know! :) Wekee 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Fruits, Fingers, and Fermentation: The Sensory Cues Available to Foraging Primates"

The source above[16] does NOT reference fruitarianism as a human diet choice, the subject of this article. As explained above, the article fails as a source for this article, per WP:OR. Mdsummermsw 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The ONLY reference in this article to anything remotely like the claim is the following: "A widespread occurrence of ethanol in fruits indicates a sustained historical exposure of frugivores to this compound."[17] The article does NOT mention humans ever being frugivores or choosing fruitarianism as a diet. Mdsummermsw 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"("Ferment in the family tree: Does a frugivorous dietary heritage influence contemporary patterns of human ethanol use?"

Article cited[18] does not refer to fruitarianism as a human diet. Fails as a source under WP:OR. Mdsummermsw 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, this article AVOIDS saying humans are/were fruitarians/frugivores/etc. Rather, it discusses "pre-human frugivorous dietary heritage" and "pre-human, fruit-eating ancestors".[19] Once again, it does NOT discuss fruitarianism as a human dietary choice. Mdsummermsw 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ethanol, Fruit Ripening, and the Historical Origins of Human Alcoholism in Primate Frugivory"

Article cited[20] does not mention the subject of this article and fails as a source under WP:OR. Mdsummermsw 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All above challenges are invalid. All the references listed do mention humans having frugivorous origin, and therefore are relevant to the article: "Fruitarians (frugivores or fructarians)". Wekee 18 December 2006

The references listed state that pre-human ancestors had a primarily frugivorous diet. This is immaterial. As i have repeatedly stated, the source does NOT say anything about this topic. This article is NOT about "The diets of pre-human ancestors" or "animals that may have been primarily frugivorous". This article is about humans choosing to eat just fruit. This is NOT the same thing. Mdsummermsw 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. This article is about humans choosing to eat mostly or only fruit: "Fruitarians (frugivores or fructarians) eat mostly or only the fruit of plants." The mention of frugivorous diet of the human ancestors is interesting and highly relevant here. Owoce 08:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, "Owoce". Since you are "new" to wikipedia... you perhaps did not understand. Per Wikipedia's Original Research policy: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." The article is about humans. The "source" is about pre-human ancestors, so its inclusion here violates WP:OR. It may or may not be "interesting" or, in your opinion "highly relevant", but the fact is it does not follow policy to include this discussion. The source says that pre-humans ancestors were primarily frugivorous. This would be a valid addition to an article on pre-human ancestors or frugivorous animals. This article is about humans who choose a fruitarian diet, not frugivorous pre-human ancestors. Mdsummermsw 13:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

??? No such violation here at all. Humans are derived from frugivorous ancestors. Fruitarians are motivated by such findings. All well referenced, relevant and appropriate.Owoce 07:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To Mdsummermsw: {Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Wekee 18 December 2006

Incorrect. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia....Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." I have NOT done anything to deliberatly attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. You and I have a dispute over the validity of sources. This is not vandalism. Please see my talk page for an update on warnings you incorrectly placed there. Mdsummermsw 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This source does NOT discuss fruitarianism as a human diet. It speaks of "the hominoid lineages ancestral to modern humans".[21] Mdsummermsw 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous fruitarians

Some fruitarians contend [citation needed] that Jesus was an Essene who practiced a mainly fruitarian diet, although this contradicts the mainline Bible (Matthew 15:34-37) and virtually all scholarship on the Essenes.[26]

Wasn't he a fisherman? Maybe he was eating 'fruit of the sea' all day. Fruitarians use to be very naturefriendly people, who don't deserve the punishment, to end up in a way like that. Anyway, facts that "some fruitarians contend" especcially, when no names and prooves are added are not to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Propose to remove this part.Natubico 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The source for these ideas (Jesus was an Essene, Essenes were fruitarians) is a "lost" Gospel, and NO OTHER SOURCE. The source for the supposed gospel is a supposedly ancient manuscript that has only been seen by the person who published the "translation". Most scholars dismiss this "text" as the creation of the "translator". However, some fruitarians do cite this as a source for their belief. The source of the belief has been added to this article several times, along with the fact that scholars dismiss it. Sometimes the whole section is removed, other times, just the sourcing. I'll yank it again and see how long it stays gone this time. Mdsummermsw 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another fact, that makes it most unlikely, that this, according to many, hero-in-a-novel was fruitarian, is, that according to that "novel", he once multipliced one bread and one fish to that many, that a hole crowd had enough to eat. If he was really fruitarian, he certainly would have told them not to eat bread and fish and magically made some juicy fruits for each one of them. Natubico 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

sources for this page

oaky, i've been plugging the {{fact}} tags around here for some time, and i've come to notice something: there's a lot of inserting {{fact}} tags, complaining about sources, linking to WP:OR going on here... and not a heck of a lot of actually finding sources. secondly, this article now has 30 references. for an article of it's length, this is a tremendous number (Gravity, which is about the same length, has only 2). so, this afternoon at 4pm mst, i will be remove the 'citations' banner at the top of the article. any further source work can be indicated inline... or better yet, just get done. -- frymaster 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "2 sources" for the gravitation article are 5 sources. The two footnoted ones are for minor points. The three remaining sources are textbooks that discuss gravitation at length. While I agree the banner can go (at the moment), it is worth noting that the sources cited in this article differ substantially from the gravitation sources in a number of significant ways:

- There are very few Reliable Sources on fruitarianism and, to my knowledge, zero in-depth textbook treatments. As a result, the few reliable sources available, short as they are, are mined for every available detail. Everything else, if relatively uncontroversial ("Some fruitarians will only eat culinary fruits...", say) must be qualified to eliminate unsourced claims ("...because eating root vegetables is unhealthy.").

- Some of the content being added to this article is controversial and sourced to websites from individual fruitarian advocates. Using this approach, we could "prove" that the Earth is hollow, George W Bush is a giant lizard, etc.

- The content of the gravity article is (mostly) broadly accepted concensous. Fruitarianism and its claims are, at best, accepted by a small minority of people (vegans are a fraction of a percent of the population, raw vegans a fraction of that, fruitarian a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If we added a controversial claim to the gravitation article, citing a proponant of that claim ("Gravity is controled by the space god Xenu."), the source would rightly be challenged.

I repeatedly link to WP:OR because of the large number of claims being created here through improper sourcing. We could do similar things with the gravitation page. Saying "Above all, "fruits are also appealing to man's visual, olfactory and gustatory senses" (Dr. Shelton, "Hygienic Review", June 1976)." Is clearly presenting an argument that, given proper citations that we could actually check, would be shown to have had NOTHING to do with fruitarianism, until the editor used it to introduce "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments". Mdsummermsw 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "USAToday" source is NOT sourced to USAToday, it is (currently) sourced to "http://www.living-foods.com/". Further, it is not stating facts, it is stating what the author of a newsletter said. If this were for something more controversial that why fruitarians say they are fruitarians, it would have to go. That a pro-raw/fruitarian website says that a reputable (I agree: ugh!) newspaper says that an author of a newsletter says... (whatever...) supports little. That it is on a pro- website, however, supports that "some fruitarians" believe this. Mdsummermsw 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

okay, i have to admit that this whole process has been rather frustrating. quite frankly, i don't give a fig about fruitarianism in general and the amount of time and effort required to bring this article out of the dungeon has been far too much already... there are well-written, yet dramatically unsourced articles out there i would rather be investing time in. Yerba Mate and Worker-owned Cooperative leap to mind. now, having said all that: the issue here is one of fact vs. belief. there are fruitarians out there and they do things and believe things. documenting this succinctly and accurately should be the goal of this article. what should not be here, obviously, are contentious factual claims about nutrition or biology or similar topics. so... we should be striving to say things like (to make an example up) "some believe bananas cure cancer" rather than, simply "bananas cure cancer". in the former case, a source to one or more notable fruitarians making the claim is sufficient to back up the "some believe" qualifier. to illustrate, there are numerous articles in wikipedia about neo-nazis. these people believe all sorts of things that dramatically undocumented, yet those beliefs are included in articles as beliefs to illustrate the nature of these groups, people and ideologies. as a further illustration, if a reliable source was required on the veracity of the existence of god before the article on Christianity could be completed, the lead would never even be started! now, getting sources for 'some believe' or similar statements usually does necessitate going to sites and journals that are blatant advocacy. while such sources wouldn't be good for citing factual stuff, the do a more than adequate job for belief citations. my only objective here is to get this article into some sort of reasonable shape. currently it is a complete embarassment: it's virtually illegible and is only a fraction of the size of the Hollow Earth article! i have no desire to make this an FA or even a GA... i only want this to be a well-written and reasonably-sourced piece on the topic. sigh. -- frymaster 17:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is neither about fact nor belief. This is about verifiability. Mdsummermsw 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Evolutionary origins of human alcoholism in primate frugivory."

This is another source that does NOT discuss the topic of this article. This article is about humans choosing to eat nothing but fruit.

Incorrect. This article is about humans choosing to eat mostly fruit.Wekee 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The source discusses "frugivorous primates, including hominoids and the lineage leading to modern humans", NOT humans.[22] As such, the source is not appropriate for this topic. Mdsummermsw 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Marvin Katz

This was under "Successful fruitarians":

"Dr. Marvin Katz, fruitarian ethics professor, philosophy lecturer at the University of Akron."

A google search for: +"Marvin Katz" +professor +"University of Akron" gives few results. First, we get the wikipedia article, and copies of it at other websites. Next, we get an anonymous poem with no explanation (and a copy of it on a blog). Finally, we get the source listed and other sites that either copy it verbatum or copied it from the same source. Several problems: - If "Dr. Marvin Katz" is a living person, we are making a controversial claim about him with very poor sourcing. Erring on the side of caution, it must be removed. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons for details. - Given the search results, "Dr. Marvin Katz" is not notable under wikipedia guidelines. Listing information about non-notable people is inappropriate. - The category, and inclusion of non-notable individuals, invites a battle with the addition of a lengthy list of non-notable individuals who were "Unsuccessful fruitarians". - The University of Akron website finds no one with that name. Given the few results and the very narrow scope of them, "Dr. Marvin Katz" is not verifiable as existing, let along being "notable". Mdsummermsw 14:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Francisco Martín

The article said:

"Francisco Martin, President of the Vegan Society of Spain, fruitarian since 1987."

His bio on the ivu website[23] (he's on the board) says he's a vegan. A 2004 article there[24] says he's been a vegan for "over three decades". This is a controversial claim about a living person. We need a reliable source, other than the 1997 article cited. A 2002 article[25] in the same magazine, by the same author, calls him simply a "long-time raw-foodist". See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Mdsummermsw 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Johanna Brandt

I removed the section discussing Brandt's "Grape Cure". For starters, the source did NOT state she was a fruitarian. In fact, her "Grape Cure" diet included several phases, many of which are not fruitarian, some are even omnivorous: - Fasting for two or three days - Then a diet of only grapes - Then fruits, tomatoes, & sour milk or cottage cheese are added - Then any desired raw foods - Finally, a "mixed diet": fruit for breakfast, a cooked lunch, and dinner is a salad She did not advocate a fulltime fruitarian diet. Calling her a fruitarian is as accurate as calling her a breathairian. Either is less accurate than calling her an omnivore. A summary of this [is available|http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/grape.html], including Brandt's resulting legal problems. Mdsummermsw 16:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I inserted relevant and well sourced material, incorrectly removed. A person's inability to search the net cannot be used as a reason to delete relevant and well sourced material. For example, do google search using "Marvin-Katz fruitarian" to find multiple reliable sources verifying not only the existence of the person mentioned but also the fact that they are notable. Further, fruitarianism as defined on this Wikipedia page is not defined as eating fruit exclusively. Note that even eating dairy is mentioned here. So it is entirely appropriate to include the material that you have removed. Also, being vegan/vegetarian/raw foodist/fruitarian are not mutually exclusive terms. One can be a raw foodist and fruitarian and even vegan and vegetarian at the same time. Wekee 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

original research tag

Mdsummermsw, if you are going to insert an original research tag then you need to indicate explicitly what you regard as being 'original research', otherwise it will be left to the people here to spend excessive time trying to guess what you are referring to. the objective of our activity here should be to build the best article possible, so if you have difficulty with a particular source then i would encourage you to go and do some citation hunting and help make a better wikipedia. until you compile your list, i have removed the tag. -- frymaster 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_law,_and_sex for more information.

This article has several points of contention, which generally fall into the following categories:

Biographical

Whether or not to reference cases of "Successful Fruitarians" who are non-notable individuals. The inclusion of biographical information in individuals who may or may not be living, contested because the citations may be dated or read as conflicting and individuals where sources are read as implying a fruitarian diet, while not stating it. [26][27][28][29][30]

Indirect references

Inclusion of references to the diet of pre-human ancestors and/or various aspects of fruit, without directly citing "fruitarianism".[31][32]Mdsummermsw 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the link Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_law%2C_and_sex leads a disambiguation page. can you please provide the correct link? -- frymaster 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The references used here are appropriate. This article is about fruitarians/frugivores/fructarians (synonyms) eating mostly fruit (a fruitarian diet). The references listed talk about FRUGIVOROUS origin of humans. Entirely appropriate and most relevant to the article. The frutarians listed are well referenced. I question the bias attitude of a user (Mdsummermsw) who consistenly deletes useful information and then inserts questionable material, violating rules such as WP:OR (see above), in an effort to discredit any positive statements about fruitarianism.Wekee 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

okay, i have not read any of the sources in question due to immediate unavailability. if inferences are made in this article based on premises presented in the source then that would certainly be or. however, regardless of the validity of the material and sources, we shouldn't go accusing anyone here of bias. as a gernal rule, it's best to assume that everyone has the best interest of the project at heart -- at least until compelling evidence to the contrary arises.

I think that there is considerable amount of such evidence and have addressed that.Wekee 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

as i see it, at this point there are only three options available to move this article forward:

1. reword the material to accurately represent the sources
2. find more appropriate sources to cite the material
3. resort to arbitration from an admin (who, in all likelihood, will be no more or less capable of assessing the situation than those of us here)

regardless, the current state of reverting should not continue and i would expect all parties, once an option is chosen, to commit to following it through to a successful conclusion... for the sake of my sanity if not the encyclopedia! -- frymaster 06:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia reuirement that references used must be available on-line. Reviewed papers published in recognized journals or books are legitimate references, more so than un-reviewed articles on some on-line pages. Nevertheless, to address any doubts, I included more references, which are easy to check (they are available on-line).Wekee 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the argument that the word "frutarianism" must be used in all cited sources is false. For example, B12 topic is relevant to the article and mentioning that it is believed that only animal sources provide B12, while quoting a source that does not mention "frutarianism" or even its synonym per se, is entirely appropriate.Wekee 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

er, i never said that the sources needed to be available online. i said that i have not yet read the sources because they were not available online. furthermore, i have never called a source inappropriate for not using the word 'fruitarian' in it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frymaster (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

The above statement starting "Also note.." was not directed at you! :) Wekee 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

alchoholism, knuckle-draggin &c

okay, the sources in question are, in fact, available online! in the future a link in the ref would be nice, i was dangerously close to having to go the library (horror of horrors!). all of the articles i audited specify explicitly that they are talking about hominini which includes humans, but also chimpanzees and other pre-homo primates. while it is certainly fact that humans evolved from earlier primates and are members of hominin genus (or is it tribe? i can never keep that stuff straight) the sources in no way posit that humans are frugivorous. it could be taken that the sources state that the direct evolutionary ancestors of humans were frugivorous, but evolution being what it is, that does not mean the humans themselves are. making the leap of that assumption would definitely be or and would probably require some exciting cladistics (all outside the scope of the article). now, i also went and looked for a reasonably legit source for an advocate arguing fruitarianism based on an interpretation of the abovementioned sources (or anything similar) to potentially support a "some claim..." qualifier and found zilch. now, it could potentially be included that primates in the direct evolutionary line of homo were frugivores and that could probably be cited nicely... but i would question the point of it, if a direct connection to humans could not be made (and at this point it can't). so... i'm going to delete the paragraphs in question and suggest that we move onto firming up the remaining, sourcable parts of the article. also, deleted the citation sourcing the statement that fruitarian essene position "contradicts... virtually all scholarship". the source led to the msn groups default page. gah! threw a fact tag in in its place because that seems to be a popular thing to do here. -- frymaster 07:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A direct connection to the humans has been made. I included a number of references and statements that explain that.Wekee 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

okay, i'll look over the sources. however, it is important to note that the nature of evolution means that because an ancestor of humans is frugivorous does not, by extension, imply humans are too. evolution is about change after all :) -- frymaster 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No claim has been made that modern humans are frugivorous. The claim is that humans have frugivorous ancestry and that is being used by frutarians to claim that fruit is their original and natural diet.Wekee 23:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples of successful frugivorians is at present just the list of exponents of the practice and should be so named--though I am not sure if the 3rd one is notable enough even for this use. Other mentions belong only in the bios of the people and a category.DGG 01:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article suffers from being a melange of various meanings of the term,DGG 01:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Some may think that defining fruitarianism as eating fruit only is the true and correct definition, but it is not the only one. Hence the melange.Owoce 08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

i get your point that human ancestors were frugivorous. i furthermore understand that fruitarians may use this as a reason for their selected regimen. however, what's needed is not a source saying that some hominini are/were frugivores, but a source of a notable fruitarian making the claim that this situation is a reason for fruitarianism. i went looking for such a source and came up with nothing. mind you, i only looked for 20 or so minutes (i do have other pots on the stove, after all). so... find that source, do some wording with 'claim' or 'posit' or some other qualifier, add a small (sourced!) rebuttal either to criticisms or directly after the new material and we might have a passable entry. whew! -- frymaster 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deal. Thanks for the helpful suggestions. Actually, it is already there (Shelton). But give me plenty of time (I too have other duties) and I will add more references as I find them. (Dr. Henry Anderson is another good source to look for).Wekee 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs about Karen Kellock's views

User:Karenkellock has added two paragraphs giving her views on fruitarianism. I believe she does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability and these paragraphs should be deleted. Thoughts? Rosemary Amey 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

well, i removed it immediatley. it's definitely WP:OR, and unsourced. given the tremendous amount of effort here recently to make sure that all material in this article is adequately sourced and the conflict about sourcing i think deleting un-cited material is appropriate. now that we're close to being compliant with WP:V we should be dilligent not to backtrack!-- frymaster 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to help user KarenKellock understand but I think it may be like trying to through oxygen at a fire. She's put her name on several articles trying to get her name out and use WIkipedia as a marketing tool. She just recently edited the article again, starting out with great information, sourced correctly, then added her name, yet again. She is not notable except for in her mind, calling herself a World Leader, and a Genius, etc. I think we may be dealing with someone that is not quite all there. I think she would be perfect for a "The Daily Show" interview but she's not famous enough. :) BrianZ^(talk) 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

i understand your frustration. it's difficult to WP:AGF when your only interaction with someone is through article edits and the occasional talk page appearance. i suppose the only course of action is to keep rv-ing to maintain WP:OR and WP:V. -- frymaster 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve Jobs and fruitarianism

HighInBC removed the Steve Jobs factoid. I have no idea on whether it should be restored or not, but, with regards to the accompanying edit summary, I did find this reference for example, and thought I'd post it here. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, if you have a source, then you can add it back. We should always source quotes by living people. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Frugivore vs Fruitatian/Fructarian

Shouldn't these articles be combined? If not, there should be some disambiguation between the introductory paragraphs.

Ghandi fruitarianism

I see a fact tag with Ghandi being a fruitarian, he did in fact experiment with this diet for the purpose of Brahmacharya. He discovered the best diet in the light of ahimsa for a Brahmacharya was fruit and nuts, he did however see the need to drink milk. Wich would no longer make him a fruitarian.

Six years of experiment have showed me that the brahmachari's ideal food is fresh fruit and nuts. The immunity from passion that I enjoyed when I lived on this food was unknown to me after I changed that diet. Brahmacharya needed no effort on my part in South Africa when I lived on fruits and nuts alone. It has been a matter of very great effort ever since I began to take milk. How I had to go back to milk from a fruit diet will be considered in its proper place. It is enough to observe here that I have not the least doubt that milk diet makes the brahmacharya vow difficult to observe. Let no one deduce from this that all brahmacharis must give up milk. The effect on brahmacharya of different kinds of food can be determined only after numerous experiments. I have yet to find a fruit substitute for milk which is an equally good muscle-builder and easily digestible. The doctors, vaidyas and hakims have alike failed to enlighten me. Therefore, though I know milk to be partly a stimulant, I cannot, for the time being, advise anyone to give it up

• Brahmacharya I
• Brahmacharya II

Leonardo da Vinci

I have removed:

• Leonardo da Vinci, (as indicated in his notebooks), painter, inventor.^{[citation needed]}

daVinci is widely claimed by fruitarians, citing "his notebooks". However, this is a claim of "absense of evidence is evidence of absense." True, the only foods daVinci mentions eating are fruits and pasta (a fruit? certainly not raw...). However, that he does not mention eating pork, fish, carrots, etc. does not mean that he did not eat them. He also never mentions burping, putting on shoes, etc. Mdsummermsw 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry David Thoreau

I have removed:

• Henry David Thoreau Author of "Walden" / "The Life in the Forest".

The wikipedia article on Thoreau states: "Although not a strict vegetarian, Thoreau ate relatively little meat and advocated vegetarianism as a means of self-improvement." Mdsummermsw 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catches. Even if he ate no meat, that wouldn't make him a fruitarian. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Anderson

Removed: "* Dr. Henry Anderson, founder of the City University of Los Angeles, the Minister of Education for the Wasitaw Nation, the "oldest Indigenous People on Earth", and Attorney General of the Pembina Nation of North Dakota,^[1] the author of the book "The Nature and Purpose of Disease: Definitive Guide of Peoples with Melanin". Publishers in Nigeria, Japan, Germany, India and the United States expect this book to be nominated for a Nobel Prize.^[2][3]"

The text is a copyvio. Anderson is not notable. That anonymous "publishers" here, there and everywhere expect his book to be nominated for a Nobel Prize is not on topic, a book cannot be nominated for a Nobel Prize and tens of thousands of people (including me) can nominate people for Nobel Prizes, though the list of nominations is not released. Mdsummermsw 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Irene Alexander

I have removed: "* Irene Alexandra, Author, Filmmaker, Illustrator, Painter, Entrepreneur, Athlete, Model, Actress. ^[4]"

Because, in addition to being not-at-all notable, this "Author, Filmmaker, Illustrator, Painter, Entrepreneur, Athlete, Model, Actress" is looking for a job, anywhere, as a "concept artist, critic, director, illustrator, photographer, script writer, sculptor". [33].

"Irene Alexander, 2007 BFA (expected), autodidact, unemployed twenty-something"? Mdsummermsw 18:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Other questionables

• Bryan Adams calls himself a vegetarian, not a fruitarian: http://www.peta.org.uk/feat/feat-bryanadams.asp
• Woody Harrelson also is a vegetarian http://www.naturalchoice.net/articles/woodyharrelson.htm
• Ben Klassen also is a vegetarian http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Eternal-Religion-Ben-Klassen/dp/0963609424

Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Woody Harrelson

If he's a fruitarian, he isn't telling anyone -- and beer and herbs are fruits. I couldn't find a reliable source saying he was anything but a semi-raw vegan who loves his beer and sucks at poker.

• (UK Daily Record, 16 January 2006 [34]) "a passionate vegan who avoids wheat, cheese and milk" and drinks beer.
• (Details mag, 1999, quoted by ivu et al. [35]) "He became a vegetarian." "a panoply of herbal elixirs (and) vegan “living” foods".
• (eatveg.com excerpting Premiere mag, no date given [36]) "beyond vegan to an "80 percent-living-diet"- no enzyme inhibitors, nothing dead"
• (New York mag, 22 November 2004 [37]) "a new vegan hero".
• (New York may, May 2007 [38]) "raw foodist".

Mdsummermsw 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Arne Wingqvist

He did NOT say he was a fruitarian and makes a point of pushing raw vegetables. In the first source (which is also the second source), the speaker introducing him said he was a fruitarian. Wingqvist almost immediately says "It is very important to eat the salads - if you're a vegetarian or a meat eater - when you start a meal you should have a fresh raw salad first. You should not have it in the middle of the meal, to have potatoes or rice first but you should take the fresh raw vegetables first." He repeatedly refers to himself as a vegetarian (though his exclusion of milk and eggs moves him toward vegan). Further, on the same site, he says: (in the "third" source, that's really only the second source)[39] "All since 1931 I have been a strict vegetarian/vegan, always having had a minimum of 50% of fresh, uncooked, vegetables at the meals, until I stopped destroying the food by cooking, and eating everything fresh and unadulterated instead." "Since about 1985 I eat mostly fresh fruit, nuts, seeds and fresh uncooked vegetables, mostly green leafy ones, veganic-organic." "My 67 years of experience of healthy living and healthy eating have taught me that uncooked food is the best for me. Fruit and vegetables, if possible veganic-organic, come ready from Nature, contain all we need, take a minimum of time to prepare, and a minimum of time for washing up after the meal." Mdsummermsw 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Herbert M. Shelton

I removed:

• Herbert M. Shelton, the founder of Natural Hygiene. Fruitarianism is a sub-category of the holistic health doctrine of Natural Hygiene.^[5]

The source cited does not say he was a fruitarian. It doesn't even imply it.

The only references I can find to his diet list a wide array of fruits and vegetables as "good" foods, if you follow his complicated system of what to eat when and with what else.

There's plenty about his being against all vaccines and serums, because they are "evil", virtually "no one" ever died of smallpox, syphilis is a "myth", you can live on nothing but water for several months (calories are merely a "theory"), drugs cannot have any impact on the body because they have no intelligence (we only think they effect the body), etc. [40], et al. In short, he was pitching just about every alternative to medicine except fruitarianism. And "spine punchers" (chiropractors) -- they were evil too. Mdsummermsw 20:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben Klassen?

His "Salubrious Living" certainly makes a sustained pitch for fruitarianism. At this point, we know he is NOT a vegetarian, vegan, fruitarian, or omnivore. He's dead.

The link under "other Questionables" above, doesn't convince me of much. It's just someone's posting a review of the book. Looking at the actual book makes it seem almost inescapable that he was a fruitarian [41]. However, I couldn't deal with it long enough to find a smoking-gun "I" statement.

Anyone?

Mdsummermsw 20:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My ref was definitely not a reliable one, but as I didn't see any reliable refs saying that he was a fruitarian, it seemed to make sense to remove him from the list. Living or dead, if indeed he is a fruitarian (and notable enough), then of course he belongs in the list. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From his article, he certainly seems notable enough. I've added a note to the talk page on that article to see if anyone there has the exact cite to nail this one down.

Mdsummermsw 21:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good strategy. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and read the @#$%ing chapter. Found needed cites. -Mdsummermsw 20:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

citation for 'return to eden like paradise'

this is a longish article, but the relevant component is: "German émigré raw foodists were latter day Adamites, who were animated by an almost religious zeal to recreate the conditions of the Garden of Eden. This meant living as Adam had lived: going unclothed, living embedded in and worshipping nature and living on a fruitarian diet." -- frymaster 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.