Talk:Fruitarianism/Archive 3

Three suggestions for criticisms

There are three additional criticisms of the fruitarian worldview I can offer: 1) Modern agriculture is a form of mutualism between plants and humans, just as is seed dispersal by eating fruit, so eating any part of the plant should be acceptable on that basis (and the same goes for meat, especially from factory farms, if we are appealing to mutualism). 2) Plants are not sentient, so worrying about hurting them is just plain silly. 3) Much of the logic here seems to be appealing to what's natural, which anyone who isn't clueless about ethics knows to be appeal to nature or the naturalistic fallacy. I haven't got any references for these, and I'm doubtful anyone has ever bothered to refute this nonsense in print, but they might have. Sorry if I'm offending any fruitarians here... maybe I'm just not 'holistic' enough, whatever that's supposed to mean. Richard001 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As for 1): How can modern agriculture be a form of mutualism between plants and humans? Somebody might answer, that as a result of agriculture, many, if not most plants that are grown, live at least that long as they do, before they're harvested, while otherwise they wouldn't have lived at all. There maybe something in that, but it doesn't weigh up to the fact, that in the fruitarian way of agriculture all plants, that are grown to get their fruits, can live their complete life, which means that they're not killed, at a moment, that they naturlly still have weeks, months, or one or more years to go.--Natubico (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All of this is moot. Unless there is a reliable source that presents either side, directly relating it to fruitarianism, it does not belong in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As for 2): "Plants are not sentient, so worrying about hurting them is just plain silly".

Some fruitarians and some, (if not all), plantists (people who respect life and wellbeing of plants not just in the field of food, but in general) in this respect argue, that indeed it has not been prooved, that plants are sentient, but as it has not been prooved either, that they're not, they don't take the risk, of doing something terrible to these creatures and refuse to eat them, resp. to treat them in a way, that obviously is no good for their health, or otherwise that unnaturally, that it might be a way of treating them rudely. (For instance they wouldn't mow this down: [1]).

Maybe there are no reliable sources of this available yet, but maybe somebody knows some, or will find some later on; that's why this kind of things are mentioned on this discussion page.--Natubico (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, all of this is moot. It seems you want to express opinions under the guise of "maybe someone will find a reliable source". It hasn't been proven that plants (lacking anything remotely like a brain, the location of all known "sense") are not sentient? It hasn't been proven that plants are not an alien invasion force plotting to destroy all life on Earth who are only held in check by eating them. It hasn't been proven that plants do not want to be eaten. Lots of absurd theories can be bandied about here, none of them verifiable. Rather than spouting a whole bunch of stuff we cannot use here, better to look for reliable sources we can use. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the topic of this article: it is a most relevant fact, that this kind of (according to some) "absurdicies" are reasons for people, to turn to Fruitarianism. So they are very much worth being mentioned on this page. Besides, it was somebody else (evidently non fruitarian), who started this item and even insulted fruitarians by using words like "silly". When a fruitarian reacts on this, it is not done, to comment on this reaction by saying, that these are "just opinions, that are off topic". These opinions are most relevant in this context. Indeed, citations in reliable sources may not be available yet, but as Wp is a cooperational project, it is very well thinkable, that one contributor mentions relevant facts on the talk page, while others try to find sources, so that those facts then can be added to the article as yet.

"It hasn't been proven, that plants (lacking anything remotely like a brain, the location of all known "sense") are not sentient?"

"of all KNOWN sence". "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." How many things, are there still in nature, that haven't been discovered yet by man? Every day scientists find new things, about which humanity didn't know yet, or about which its existing theories turn out to have been incorrect. How did all the world laugh about Galileo, when he stated, that Earth is not flat at all? Is it really that hard, to imagine, that there's some kind of sentience in this: [[2]]? Aren't what might be the 'nerves' clearly visible?--Natubico (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic of the article is fruitarianism. Improvements to the article will require reliable sources. The topic of this talk page is improving the article. Throwing around theories without even a hint of a source will not result in improving the article. Speculating that plants have brains, want to not be eaten (but don't mind if their fruit is eaten), etc. will not improve the article. Thus, such speculation is off-topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

One more suggestion

Behind the sentence: "Several children have died as the result of being fed fruitarian diets.[14]" could be added, that "On the other hand many, many more children have died, even at very young age already, as a result of so called Sudden infant death syndrome, among other things as a result of prenatal food and other habits of their mostly non fruitarian parents. [[3]] --Natubico (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources cite a fruitarian diet as causing the deaths. If you have a reliable source that shows that children on a fruitarian diet are somehow safe from SIDS, you might have something. Otherwise, your argument is inappropriate for this article. (The logical fallacy you are using ignores that the children who died from fruitarian diets would not have died if all other aspects of their lives remained unchanged and they had been fed a more diverse diet.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the source (not "the sources") several children have died from a fruitarian diet (and so not from SIDS). This implies, that the many thousands of children, who died from SIDS, were not fed in the fruitarian way, but in the let's say usual way. Maybe the percentage of died children was/is equally high in case of a fruitarian diet and in case of a usual one. (There are relatively very little fruitarian parents, and so there also are very little children, that are fed in the fruinarian way). The motive of the suggestion is, that Wp's principle of neutrality demands, that the fact, that the usual diet leads to at least a relatively equal number of died children, is also mentioned in the article, because otherwise it offers a limited and suggestive kind of information.

But what's more, the source, that poses, that several children have died from a fruitarian diet, is a book, written by a musician and evidently not a physician (Adam Gollner). Can this be regarded as a reliable source? In other words, isn't it very well possible, that it was not the fruitarian diet (alone), that caused the death of those children, but other circumstances (as well). Musicians, (who write columns for commercial periodicals, among which gastronomic ones), use to be not the most reliable experts, to judge this kind of things.--Natubico (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Children have died as the result of a fruitarian diet. This is verifiably cited to a reliable source.

Your argument re SIDS deaths is specious. In the end, unless you have a reliable source that says something specific about fruitarian children and SIDS, your argument has no place here. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense

I'm removing a sentence: "Others believe they should eat only plants that spread seeds when the plant is eaten." If anyone knows what the author is actually trying to say here, please feel free to add an appropriate sentence. DanTheShrew (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on Vitarianism and Ahisma Fruitarianism. (Zanze123 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)).

B12 again

I have just removed this text;

However, according to the Vegan Society of the United Kingdom, B12 is available from plant sources (though not in high quantities). This is also evidenced by tha fact that there are products labelled as 'vegan' that contain vitamin B12, such as some brands of "soya milk". Other organisations, more respected than U.S. organisations, have also proved the U.S. National Institute of Health's claims to be false.

Everything after the cite is original research. The bit before the cite is contradicted by the source cited, which says, in part, "The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements." and "B12 is the only vitamin that is not recognised as being reliably supplied from a varied wholefood, plant-based diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, together with exposure to sun." and "...some vegans to suggest that B12 was an issue requiring no special attention, or even an elaborate hoax. Others have proposed specific foods...as suitable non-animal sources of B12. Such claims have not stood the test of time." and "In over 60 years of vegan experimentation only B12 fortified foods and B12 supplements have proven themselves as reliable sources of B12..." etc. If there is anything in the source even suggesting that "B12 is available from plant sources", I was unable to find it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Biosphere 2-diet

It should be noted in the article that the biosphere 2 diet was also a fruitarian-type diet, composed of home-produced fruit and legumes. Add in article KVDP (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

B12 is not in yeast

As you can see here- http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c2203.html yeast does not contain B12. I'm removing the part of this article that says that B12 is in yeast. Also, being an aspiring fruitarian myself, I must say that this article is very biased. This is all based on FDA claims about the importance of certain nutrients (i.e., B12, protein, etc) and since the FDA has an entire Wikipedia article focused on their criticism, I think that it is unfair to use just their claims. There are many, many arguments in the support of fruitarianism for its health benefits. If I find some that would be adequate for use in this article, should I implement them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.148.174 (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeast - This was poorly worded. I think the original editor was probably referring to "nutritional yeast" which is usually fortified with B-12.

If you wish to argue that B-12, protein, etc. are not necessary nutrients, I would refer you to those articles. The statements about their importance can be sourced to the nutritional agencies of various governments and universities and large, reputable vegan and vegetarian groups. Currently, B-12 is sourced to the National Institutes of Health and protein to the American Dietetic Association. I don't actually see the FDA being used. (B-12, for instance, was just discussed (again) above, per the Vegan Society of the United Kingdom.)

If you find arguments in support of fruitarianism that you can cite to reliable sources, by all means add them. If they're sourced to self-published sources, blogs and forums, don't bother.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Some fifteen years ago in a (Dutch) periodical there was an article, acoording to which there are (very small) portions of B12 in hazelnuts and in banana's. The standard reaction of what in many cases seem to be 'anti-fruitarians' on this is, that "this may be so, but this kind of small pertions are not absorbed by the human body".

Maybe they are anyway, and maybe they even suffice (after all of B12 only very little portions are needed), be it on the very important condition, that no stuffs are consumed, that destroy vitamins, because only the least of them may kill too many, if not all, of the very tiny quantity of B12 present.

Such vitamins killing stuffs are amomng others alcohol and vinegar.--Natubico (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some fifteen years ago in a (Dutch) periodical" is not a verifiable source. All the restg is your speculation. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion about the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Links removed

Please reinclude following links:

• The original fruitarian guidebook
• Becoming a fruitarian -tips

This as they conatin much information about how to become a fruitarian and how the diet is composed (no info is available in article on this yet.

KVDP (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take them to dmoz. This article has frequently become a linkfarm. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Article problems

This article is often used to make extraordinary claims. Frequently, these are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;" or "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them." WP:REDFLAG Some material has been taken from unreliable sources (self-published websites, forums, blogs, etc., see WP:RS). Some material has been drawn from sources that say nothing about the subject directly (such as the claim that a well-known artist/scientist was a fruitarian because his journal does not mention any foods other than fruits and pasta). This is synthesis WP:SYN and/or original research: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research" Wikipedia:OR#Reliable_sources Fruitarianism is a fringe theory, it presents "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view". Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories This is shown by frequent claims that humans are "meant" to eat only "fruit" (various definitions are used), humans are "meant" to eat only raw foods, vitamin B12 is not necessary, dietary intake of B12 is not necessary, various fruits produce B12, protein is toxic, etc. Surprisingly, there are a few reliable sources that mention fruitarianism. I'm going to add them in to give some solid basis for this article existing. The size of this article, however, is not supported by the highly limited coverage the topic has received in reliable sources. I'll be working on that as well. The claims not supported directly and explicitly by reliable sources, such as the claim that Ghandi was a fruitarian (a word he did not use), will disappear. The groups promoting fruitarianism will have their say, but everything will be descriptive and non-controversial. I'm hoping to find third-party sources that have already pulled and pooled this material to make some broad statements as each fruitarian group gives its own definitions that disagree with those used by others. In short, I think we can come up with a wp:verifiable, neutral article free of original research. Wish me luck. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"unverifiable source"

The Annual Review of Nutrition is a peer reviewed journal. Yes, the doi link in the cite would require a subscription. However, that is a convenience link only. The ARN continues to publish its deadtree (paper) version, available through any decent library. Citing the Review is akin to citing a major newspaper that does not make its archive freely available online (except that the ARN is a peer reviewed, scientific journal and a major newspaper is just a fish wrapper). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I assumed the ARN was online-only from the way the citation was laid out. I will try to verify this source at my local library. My library has ARN's issues from only 1997 onward available online, so I'll have to find a print version. Though I admit I'm a bit skeptical of how relevant this citation is due to its age (from 1983). -kotra (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if the cite style was confusing, it's pretty standard for a journal. To realize it's a print source, note the date and page numbers.

If 1983 is "too old", we'll really have to lose a good number of the references, starting with "(HM Shelton; "Hygienic Review" June 1976)", which you might also want to try to find while you're at the library. The university I'm affiliated with said they could get it months ago, still no word. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the misunderstanding was due to my ignorance, not any actual problem with the citation style.

I don't know if 1983 is too old for this subject, I just was a bit skeptical. The claim the 1976 citation backs up will always be true, whereas the statement the 1983 citation backs up has the potential to become out-of-date. What is once considered quackery or a fad could eventually become a more mainstream diet that is more accepted by the scientific community, like vegetarianism has. I'm not claiming fruitarianism has or ever will (it still seems to be a fringe, potentially dangerous diet), but it gives me pause at least. If the "quackery" conclusion the article puts forth is based on outdated views, it might not be ok to include it here. But this is just hypothetical; probably it's still completely correct. I've requested a copy of the article from my local library (I couldn't get the actual complete journal unfortunately), so hopefully I'll be able to verify it. I doubt I could verify the 1976 source, though, since we don't have the article name or the page numbers. -kotra (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed content

There were some content removals recently, which I reverted and explained in my edit summaries why. The content has since been removed again, so I'm explaining in more detail here. These issues should be discussed here instead of engaging in a reversion war.

1. Go Ask Alice! is Columbia University. It is part of the Health Promotion Program at Columbia University. This is verifiable by noticing the top right corner of the Ask Alice page, which says "health services at columbia" and "Columbia University's Health Q&A Internet Service". It is also verifiable by visiting the Go Ask Alice! FAQ page.

2. An entire, mostly well-referenced paragraph about several things was removed, ostensibly because the first sentence was questioned. Putting aside for a moment the issue with the first sentence, entire paragraphs should not be removed because one part of it is questioned. Only that part should be removed. As for the sentence in question, it is referenced properly, though I have not been able to verify the reference yet. I am working on it though (see the section above this one). Until then, if you doubt its veracity, ask Mdsummermsw for clarification of the source, as she is the one who added it.

3. If you can find a reliable source that claims that green leafy vegetables or algae are sufficient sources for B12, by all means add it. However, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community seems to be that all plant sources of B12 are insufficient or unreliable. I have included a reference to the National Institutes of Health to back up the claim. This is a reliable source. If you disagree with NIH's conclusions, remember that Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth.

These issues should be discussed here. If I do not hear any objections within a few days, I will revert the removals again. -kotra (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I have reverted these edits again. -kotra (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

I have just removed Jobs. The source used was far from reliable and was contradicted by a reliable source giving a very different source for the Apple name.[4] - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Woz agrees.[5] - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fox News confirms.[6] - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

None of these three links says anything at all about fruitarianism or Steve Jobs' diet. I don't know what the unreliable source cited above was, but my source was the Guardian, a very respectable newspaper.59.33.105.245 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources above were used to claim that Jobs had been a fruitarian and that he named Apple corp. that because of his apples-only diet at the time. (Obviously, they don't support those claims.) Your source is not The Guardian, your source is a blog on the Guardian's website. That is to say, it was not in The Guardian. Assuming that info on their website's blog is vetted as strictly as that in their printed and/or online edition is something I would approach with great caution. As a blog, The Guardian does not assume the same legal responsibility for its content as they do for their paper. As such, I see nothing to support that a blog on their website is a reliable source, especially considering our strict standards under WP:BLP. Since it says Jobs was "famously" a fruitarian, I should think it would be relatively an easy matter to document in a reliable source. This has not proven to be the case. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

while i agree the content seriously overstepped the bounds of the source, the bio for the author of the source states "Charles Arthur is the editor of Technology Guardian. Prior to that he covered science, technology and health at the Independent for nine years." so, he is a legit journalist who is employed by the guardian group to create content.frymaster (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Arthur works as a journalist for a reliable source. That does not make him a reliable source. Compare Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations (i.e. The Guardian) to Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_sources (i.e. the author's blog). The final word, however, seems to be here: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." WP:SPS. With that, I'm removing Jobs until we have a solid source. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

point made. frymaster (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Larry Flynt

An anonymous user added Larry Flynt to the list of notable fruitarians. In their edit summary, the following explanation was given: U.S. News: Hustler Owner Shot." Facts On File World News Digest 17 Mar. 1978.

If anyone is able to verify this source (World News Digest, March 17, 1978), that would be helpful. Until then, I have removed the mention of Larry Flynt, since it is highly suspicious. A Google search for "Larry Flynt" and "fruitarian" turned up nothing relevant. -kotra (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal - B12

I have just removed a portion of the "Rebuttal" section dealing with B12. In in, [7] was cited as evidence that humans need not consume B12 as it is produced in the human ileum. Several problems: 1) The site in question, living-foods.com is not a reliable source. 2) The monograph presented does NOT discuss fruitarianism. 3) B12 produced in the human ileum is produced far below where it would be absorbed. The paper dismisses this out of hand as "outdated", though on-going research repeatedly confirms this. A reasonable summary can be found in "Vitamin B12: Are You Getting It?" at Vegan Outreach [8], and copied elsewhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

This section at the moment contains the following sentence: "This may pose a health risk for strict fruitarians, as the B12 in fortified foods and supplements is derived from bacteria, not fruits".

It's not quite clear to everybody, why the fact that artificially produced B12 is derived from bacteria, might pose a health risk to fruitarians. And moreover no sources of this statement have been mentioned. --Natubico (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that a strict fruitarian would eat only fruit, not bacterial products, like B12. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Natural B12 is also a bacterial product. So there can be no principal problems in this respect.

But what about the mentioned health risk? Maybe the author of this sentence wanted to say, that as using pills with some persons leads to adverse drug reactions, which in fact are health problems, this can be the case with users of vitamin pills as well. But he didn't say it. Maybe he happens to run a drugstore. Besides it's salways possible to choose for injection.

All by all it seems, that this sentence can hardly or not be maintained in this form.--Natubico (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all B12 is bacterial. That, I think, is the point. Someone who eats only fruit would not eat a bacterial product -- thus no B12. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like original research.

Nevertheless, all fruits are for a great part bacterial products! Many fruitarians know that. And so do some omnivores. --Natubico (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fruits are plant structures. If you would like to argue that point, the article in need of your attention is Fruit. B12, menawhile, is a bacterial product that is not found in any plant, as cited in this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware that bacteria range from harmful to beneficial. That is not the point that I think the editor was trying to make. The point seems to be that fruitarians who will eat only fruit (which would exclude bacteria and fungi) cannot get B12. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and mention that I'm looking at the discussion page right now because that sentence didn't make any sense. It sounds like "You can only get B12 from bacteria, and bacteria are scary". It should definitely just be removed. The entire part of the paragraph before this sentence is about how B12 isn't in any fruits, and vegans need to take a supplement. The sentence is just confusing. And in response to SummerPhd, not all bacteria are bad, and there's a bunch of bacteria in everything (bacteria makes milk into cheese or yogurt, cucumbers into some forms of pickles, etc.). The fact that a product is made with bacteria is completely meaningless as to whether or not it's dangerous. - Korin43 (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So what somebody is trying to pose here, is that real fruitarians wouldn't use any B12 suppletion, because this is a bacterial product and not fruit, whereas they only want to eat fruit.

When somebody else reacted on that, by saying, that fruits for a great part are bacterial products as well, this was directed to the article about fruit, which implies, that it wouldn't be relevant in this discussion?!

Well, in most, if not in all natural foodproducts there are many, many bacteria. And more than that, they are on as good as all objects, that find themselves on earth, so on all fruits as well.

Now, as fruitarians, according to some, only want to eat fruit, they cannot eat even that, because otherwise, they would eat also the microbes, that find themselves in and on these plantproducts?!

But of course the definition of fruitarianism could be changed thus, that it would say, that "fruitarians eat only fruit, plus the microbes, that find themselves upon it, plus the air, that enters their mouth, when they are eating"?!

By the way, maybe 'some' didn't know yet, that naturally upon fruits mostly there are also the excretions of insects and that these excretions content the daily needed portion of B12 for human beings. --Natubico (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So, your theory is that the bacteria on fruit are producing B12? No evidence of this, only the sourced statements saying that the only natural food sources of B12 are from animal sources. Your theory that unwashed fruits might contain insect feces in sufficient amounts and that the fecal matter might contain B12 has also yet to turn up in any sources. The closest I have found is a study showing that root vegetables grown in composed cow manure contained traces of B12 before washing. When properly prepared, to reduce risks of infectious disease from the cow shit, no traces of B12 remained. Note, of course, that root vegetables are not fruit by any stretch of the imagination. How fruitarians deal with the microbes they kill by the billions on a regular basis is an interesting point to meditate on. That meditation, however, is as off-topic as much of the rest of your conjecture. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody said here, that "the bacteria on fruit are producing B12". It was only pointed out, that on fruits as well there are many microbes, which implies, that fruitarians are not only eating fruits, but also bacteria. This conclusion shows, that it is most unlikely, that it makes sence to say, that as fruitarians are said to eat just fruit, they shouldn't 'eat' any B12-suppletion, because this is not fruit, but a bacterial product. In a way it could be said, that when they use vitamine pills, it cannot be said, that they don't eat "just fruit", that yes, but the fact that the B12 in those pills is a bacterial product is totally irrelevant. On the other hand this discussion shows, that it is always better, to say that fruitarians "in principle eat only fruit". For this not only leaves room for the unavoidable eating of also the bacteria that find themselves in and upon the fruits, but also for the often occurring necessity, to use vitamine-suppletion, as well as for the need to eat other food, than fruit, in situations, where there is no other way, because there is no fruit available.

• As for the "theory, that unwashed fruits might contain insect feces in sufficient amounts and that the fecal matter might contain B12", it is a big question, wether the scientists, who found, that root vegetables grown in composed cow manure contained traces of B12 before washing, and not any more after washing, concluded, that the B12 therefor must have found itself in the composed cow manure, and if they didn't, why they didn't.

• There is a literature study in Dutch, according to which it is a known fact, that the upper layer of the ground mostly contains lots of B12. The cause of this is said to be, that this stuff is produced by bacteria in the intestinal canal of worms, that use to live in that upper layer, and is excreted there. From here, it was not a big step, to the conclusion, that there must be B12 on naturally grown fruits as well, as it is a known fact, that naturally many worms and other insects use to stay a while on fruits and don't see any objections, to leave some of their B12 containing excretions behind there.

So B12 can very well be a product coming from animals and still find itself upon plant products like fruit. It even is very well thinkable, that from there those vitamines move into the fruits. But of course, if no or hardly any insects have the opportunity, to stay a while on fruits, because before they get the chance for that, they are poisoned by sprayed insecticides, or eaten by spiders ( used in organic fruitgrowing), than there will be no B12 upon and inside those fruits, as a result of which scientist, who examine them, will conclude, that no plants and fruits contain any B12 vitamines.--Natubico (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it Natubico, just because some people appear to have severe mental issues with the concept doesn't mean the whole world will come to an end (at least not for a while...). Equating fruitarianism with breathanarism, what a joke.

Clearly people are out intent to destroy the credibility this diet has because of their own bad eating happens that are going to end up killing them.

Anonywiki (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"a literature study in Dutch" is not a verifiable source.

"it was not a big step", "can very well be", "It even is very well thinkable", "than there will be no", "as a result of which", "will conclude" are all clear indications that you are offering your own conjecture.

"severe mental issues" and the rest of "Anonywiki"'s post is a personal attack.

Rather than saying what you think the sources may have gotten wrong, please supply reliable sources. Rather than attacking other editors, please supply reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly it must be pointed out here, that "Anonywiki" definitely is NOT a name, that is used by Natubico. So hopefully no other contributors will impute things like that (any more), although in itself it's understandable, that they count with that possibility. (In this context it may be usefull, to remind of what has been discussed here: [[9]] ).

Secondly it must be said, that in itself it's quite correct, that SummerPhD keeps reminding of the necessity to ad references about what is posed in the article and on this page. But this should also be done in relation to parts of the text, that are negative to Fruitarianism (for instance the sentence about B12 and bacteria), as well as in relation to contribubutions of SummerPhD herself ("The closest I have found is a study......" (What study, please?) ).

Anyway the part of the literature study, in which the presence of B12 in the upper layer of the ground is mentioned, is this one: [10].--Natubico (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply the two of you are the same person, I was merely replying to two posts at once. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused you.

If there are specific sections of the text that you feel need citations, feel free to add the {{cn}} ("cite needed") tag to them. Yes, I referred to a study. However, I was not citing a study as evidence of anything, merely as the closest thing to support for the opinion I was discrediting. The particulars of that study would not support either side of that specific point (or any other being discussed here) and is of no value to this discussion.

Re the specific link you provide: I do not read whatever language that is (I believe it's Dutch?). In any case, I see no indication whatsoever that hccnet.nl is an inherently reliable site. As such, we would need specifics on a publication for the monograph presented. Yes, it appears to cite reliable sources an may present a compelling argument that B12 may be found in the upper layer of soil. However, a compelling argument from a non-reliable source is of no help and the presence of B12 in soil is not evidence of fruit as a sufficient source of B12 for those eating only fruit. As such, I don't see that the source in question is any help in this regard. - 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The lack of neutrality for this article is ridiculous. You'd swear that fruitarianism was some kind of cult diet that noone in their right mind would undergo. Anonywiki (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have specific verifiable changes that you would like to suggest, sourced to reliable sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, a number of the reliable sources currently cited do call it a "cult diet". - SummerPhD (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by your post. "Reliable", as it says in link you so generously offered, is very much open to point of view.

As such it is a very poor argument to use for taking down an edit.

As for being verifiable? Those changes are verifiable. Are you trying to say maybe the author of the site is lying about his motives? Why would he lie about such a thing?Anonywiki (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment above in this section was related to any specific changes you might like to suggest relating to your claim of neutrality issues. I believe your new comment refers to this edit. My edit summary was "not a reliable source for extraordinary claims". This was related to the claims being made on (1) the general motivations of fruitarians, (2) that fruit is "the food of choice for all primates" and (3) that humans being "evolved to live on (fruit alone)".

For (1) we have numerous sites cited re the motivations of fruitarians and no evidence that this particular site trumps the others re the motivations of fruitarians in general.

(2) is an extraordinary claim about food preferences of primates contrary to established primate diets Primates#Diet_and_feeding citing reliable sources that are authoritative on that subject.

(3) similar to #2 Human#Diet.

If you wish to argue that www.fruitarian.com trumps the sources cited at Primates#Diet_and_feeding and Human#Diet, please clearly state so. Please note, however, that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship.

I refered you to WP:V because there have been numerous unverifiable claims made on this talk page, citing "Somebody might answer", "This implies" and such or "Some fifteen years ago in a (Dutch) periodical there was an article", "maybe 'some' didn't know yet" and other completely unverifiable (WP:V) nonsense. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, I pressed the wrong button and Internet Explorer brought the browser backwards and deleted everything I had written.

I'll just say again that fruit is the food of choice for all primates, it composes 65% to 90% of the diets of the Great Apes (humans closest relatives. Given a choice, primates will nearly always go for the fruit. There are absolutely no nutritional requirements that you can't get when you eat fruit (that has had bacteria or insect residues on it).

Maybe "perfectly evolved" is a bit of a misnomer, however the point was that you can live in good health on fruit, you are "perfectly equippped to, (in my view you'll have perfect health, but that's just my view so I didn't add it to the article), unlike say... ohhh... refined grains and candy bars. The way this article is now it seems like it was something for crazy people and you'd DIE or something living on fruit alone and nothing could be furthur from the truth. Anonywiki (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, "Do you have specific verifiable changes that you would like to suggest, sourced to reliable sources?"

Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, we have reliable sources stating that numerous primates do not specifically prefer fruit. In fact, some do not eat any fruit at all. Please review Primate#Diet_and_feeding, the reliably sourced info there does not in any way jibe with your claim that "fruit is the food of choice for all primates".

Your claim that people can live entirely on a diet of fruits does not match with the complete lack of any reliable source making this claim and numerous reliable sources saying this is not the case. Ditto your claim that B12 is available in any plant source, much less fruits (however you may chose to define "fruit"). Your "refined grains and candy bars" diet is a strawman argument, of no import here. In contrast to that, I offer the diet of the Inuit, often mostly or entirely devoid of fruit of any kind and always consisting of mostly meat and fish. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

"Others believe they should eat only plants that spread seeds when the plant is eaten.[7]"

This sentence indeed is also on that raw-food site, but it is incorrect. No Fruitarians believe they should eat any plants at--Natubico (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC) all.

Presumably this is what was meant to be said: "Others believe they should eat only the fruits of plants, that spread seeds, when its fruits are eaten". --Natubico (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the source of this sentence is a site, that cannot be concidered a reliable source in the sence of the Wp rules. So we're gonna remove it, (unless there are any motivated objections). --Natubico (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The text in the article summarizes the source nicely. The source says, "Fruitarians believe you should only eat plants that

spread their seeds through being consumed."

As for the source, www.living-foods.com is not the source, the USA Today article is. The link is a "convenience link" to the article. If you can demonstrate that the site in question is altering the source in some way -- or making it up out of whole cloth -- you would have a valid point, IMO.

I have restored the section in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the cited text in question:

"Fruitarians. An offshoot of the raw-food diet, and even more of aniche, Haspel says. Like rawists, fruitarians eat only fruits andvegetables that are botanically considered fruits, such as green peppers and tomatoes. "Fruitarians believe you should only eat plants that spread their seeds through being consumed." For example, digging up a root vegetable violates the plant's integrity. "To eat an apple, however, scattering the seeds far from the tree, is to make a contribution to the plant's ecology."

So in a way the source isn't USA Today either, but that cookbook author Haspel. The USA Today article was only bringing, what she said. But is a cookbook author an authority in the field of alternative food principles? This one fur sure is not. As a matter of fact it won't be easy, to find a cookbook author, that is talking bigger nonsence (in the field in question), than this one:

1) Fruitarianism an offshoot of the raw-food diet? Where did she get that information?

2) Rawists do NOT "eat only fruits". They eat plants (like for instance spinach (whether or not in liquid form)) as well.

3) "Fruitarians believe you should only eat plants"???!!! Fruitarians believe you (or better they) should only eat fruits; and plants definitely are not the same things as fruits. Even an apple is not a plant, but a fruit and nothing more or less than that.

The only conclusion possible here is, that this source is very unreliable. Hopefully this nonsensical sentence will be definitely reomoved from the article soon. --Natubico (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Fruit flies

Maybe the following information can be added to the article one way or another:

"As fruitarians eat much fruit, the chance that fruit flies will be their guests is pretty big, especially in warmer seasons. Because these insects are known to reproduce themselves rather fastly, to prevent, that within a few weeks the house is filled with many thousands of little flies, measures have to be taken. As most fruitarians apart from no plants, don't want to kill animals either, these measures mainly consist from keeping rotting fruit, fruit with rotting spots, fruit of which the peel (partly) has been removed, and pomace out of reach of the flies; (for instance by use of plastic bags)."--Natubico (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Several problems. In the form presented above, this is essentially "how to" material. Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual.

If we ignored that problem, we're still left with the problem of sourcing. This is might be original research (from your own experience) or synthesis (drawn from various sources which may be unreliable or off-topic).

In any case, I, for one, have no basis to evaluate the text above. The basis I would need is a reliable source for that statement. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone of Article

As it currently reads, (in this readers opinion) the concepts presented are disjointed and the article is frankly confusing.

Fruitarianism is a diet and lifestyle choice that seeks to restrict the intake of foods to those consisting only of fruit stuffs. The definition of these fruitstuffs, the rationale behind the decision and the flexibility exhibited within the diet vary widely amongst adherents.

To try to reduce this down to percentages in the opening paragraph, and then to proceed with what appears to be a rather superficial (and bizarrely referenced [do we really need a (poor)reference to justify the grouping of bell peppers in the already-vague category of 'fruit'!?]) approach to defining the various strains of the diet does not improve the encyclopedia.

The Criticisms section is by far and away the best section, however I do think it needs to be made clear where concerns are related to the long-term use of the diet, and where they are not.

Many people practice fruitarianism as simply an aspirational or philosophical aim, extending veganism (with a recognition of its practical / physical difficulties) or during short periods of spiritual, physical or emotional cleansing. The article seems to only talk about the diet in terms of a all-or-nothing long-term diet, which is only a single sub-set (and I'd suggest, fringe) element of the topic.

How do people feel about this? Do you support a re-write?

Everyunitone (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased towards those who are against a fruit diet. The citation (24) is a personal website for Tom Billings who makes a claim that Morris Krok, who wrote books on fruitarianism did not actually endorse the diet. This is just Billings claim and not a reliable source. The book Fruitarianism by Anne Osborne (Fruitgod 2009), states that the author has been a strict fruitarian for 17 years, and there will be many other examples, but not everyone has who is fruitarian is famous or has written a book. Therefore this article should be edited more fairly. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)]

(Note: the following response is to the earlier version of the above, prior to this edit.) Please note that adherents of numerous diets argue that THEIR diet is superior, natural for humans, intended by various gods, etc. These arguments need to be CLEARLY sourced. Material taken out of context to support an argument will be removed. This, that, or the other person randomly stating "just so" facts are moot. The real questions here are: what do adherents of the diet say and what does the science say. In the case of fruitarianism, the adherents and the science do not agree.

At the moment, I'm letting this sit. ALL of the famous people you've listed will, of course, need citations. Your huge section of quotes will need to be seriously trimmed and, of course, cited. After I've given you a bit of a chance to clean this up, I'll add this to the fringe theory notice board for some specialized attention. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

SummerPhdD says that those who practice a particular diet and write about it need to have their arguments presented and sourced. Anne Osborne's argument is her book, and the source is herself. The book and source is already stated clearly. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)]

(Note: the following response is to the earlier version of the above, prior to this edit.) I don't care what Anne Osborne's argument is. I don't care that some arguments in favor of this, that or the other diet exist. This article should and will present what adherents claim, clearly stated as claims.

What reliable sources say will also be presented.

Any and all "famous fruitarians" listed must be A) famous (I'll take "notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them") and B) sourced. The source need not be online, but it must be reliable (thus the repeatedly removed argument from absence that DiVinci was fruitarian will constantly fail).

Again, I'll let you develop your case a bit, then adjust anything I see as spinning out of control and, finally, take it to the fringe theory notice board. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I intend to review the content in a couple of days, and not until then. However, do NOT directly copy text. As time allows, I will be searching for uncited copying of text and removing the offending sections. Please be sure you are taking and citing the ideas in sources, not the text itself. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, please be sure you are actually reading the source you are citing. Do not quote John Doe's book "Fun With Dick and Jane" unless you are actually looking at John Doe's book. At least two of your current quotes were clearly picked up from a secondary source that is misquoting the original in one way or another. State where YOU found the material. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And which 2 sources were misquoted, you fail to say. What I want to know is, are you SummerPhD in reality, Tom Billings? Simply removing DaVinci, without explaining anywhere your reasons for doing so is unacceptable. Who are you accountable to at Wikipedia? If you 'do not care' what an author's argument (line of reason) is then why on Earth did you ask write 'These arguments need to be CLEARLY sourced.' - emphasis 'arguments'. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)]

(Note: the following response is to the earlier version of the above, prior to this edit.) I deliberately "failed to say" which sources were misquoted. If you were quoting from the sources you cited, the misquotes would not have occurred. When you clean them up, the misquotes will disappear.

I am not Tom Billings.

As to removing DaVinci, you should review the archived discussions before accusing me of not explaining. I did explain.

At Wikipedia we are accountable to each other. If you have a problem with me or my editing, please describe what policies you feel I have violated. If We are unable to work it out ourselves, please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Arguments must be clearly sourced to reliable sources. That Joe Schmoe said this, that or the other thing is a moot point. We need secondary sources giving the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study (that would be the scientific view, importance of B12, absence of B12 in plant sources, etc.) We also need secondary sources stating that "fruitarians believe B12 is unnecessary or produced by the body or available from ..." This is not the same as "I, Joe Schmoe, am a fruitarian and believe that fruit is the natural human diet." Fruitarians have numerous beliefs that are, in some cases contradictory. The varied definitions of fruit, what foods are acceptable, etc. If we quote one source, we do not cover the beliefs of the majority of fruitarians.

I do not care whether anyone believes their diet is superior to mine or not. I wish to present the general beliefs of fruitarians and the findings of science relative to these beliefs. Taking a few lines from this, that, or the other source, out of context, misquoted, etc. from pro-fruitarian websites is not acceptable. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I know my sources. You may have explained in archives, but did not explain to me. I fully appreciate the Joe Schmoe issue. Just because Tom Billings website says that 'Krok told me he later retracted the diet', - is totally unreliable as Billings is against the fruitarian diet.Yet it has been accepted. . You say 'the marjority of fruitarians', and who are they? Differences will exist between 2 fruitarians who agree on the same principles, according to their individual tastes. As for pro-fruitarian websites, that is no different to an entry for a Republic politician being cited in a Republican-orientated newspaper, yet such citations are accepted at Wiki. Whether science is cited or not, has no bearing on anything. It is just 1 way of seeing. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)]

(Note: the following response is to the earlier version of the above, prior to this edit.) This is a fringe theory. I have outlined several problems. We need an overview of fruitarianism from independent (non-fruitarian sources). We do not have these sources. We need the sources you got the quotes from. In at least two cases there are errors in the quotes that also occur in online fruitarian sites. We need less argument through editing and taking sources out of context (ex: There is no evidence the concept of a human fruitarian diet existed at the time, but Darwin is quoted as if that is what he was speaking of).

Again, I've stayed out of your editing for the most part, but I intend to make sure these issues are resolved, whether by me or others is a moot point. Fringe ideas are being presented as scientific consensus and that is clearly a problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clear you believe science it the arbiter of truth and therefore this article will never be edited objectively. A non-fruitarian source would be no more accurate, objective or neutral than a pro-fruitarian source. Every of every sentence in every article on Wikipedia, should really be citated, for listings to be accurate, yet this does not happen. So where is the accuracy in Wikipedia, never mind the fruitarian article. Answers on a postcard. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)]

(Note: the following response is to the earlier version of the above, prior to this edit.) "science it the arbiter of truth" Well, in a sense, yes. "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Wikipedia:Fringe#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance I contend that the relevant academic communities are sciences: biology, nutrition, etc.

"'no evidence ... of a human fruitarian diet ... at the time...', where is the reference your assertion." The burden is on you to demonstrate that Darwin (et al.) was talking about the subject of this article: a human fruit-only diet. "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." WP:OR

"A non-fruitarian source would be no more accurate, objective or neutral than a pro-fruitarian source." There is a difference between an anti-fruitarian source and a non-fruitarian source. Wikipedia requires coverage in independent reliable sources. If there are insufficient independent reliable sources to provide some level of detail, Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. WP:RS

"where is the neutrality or objectivity in your editing." I remove unsourced material. I remove material sourced to unreliable sources. I remove off-topic material. I add material sourced to independent reliable sources. If you feel I have wrongly removed material, identify and discuss the issue. If you feel there is on-topic material that should be added that cites independent reliable sources, please add it.

"The sources I got the quotes from are the publications in question." When I return to editing the article, I will remove any/all sources that are at variance with the original sources. If you have used the sources you have cited, you have no reason for concern. As I have stated, I am aware that some of the quotes vary from the original texts in ways that also occur on various websites.

"There is no taking sources out of context." Several of the sources do not directly discuss the human all-fruit diet. "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." WP:OR

"it is immaterial whether they themselves were fruitarians" Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources. Health Promotion Program at Columbia University is an independent reliable source, as are Nutrition and Child Health, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Dietetic Association and several others. An individual fruitarian is not an independent reliable source.

"your insistence on citations for everything has a flaw - not all citations are online, and not all things that exist are citated period, and even when they are, those citations are not always easy to find." Citations need not be online, nor easy to find. Additionally, Wikipedia does not aim to collect information on everything that ever existed. However, every subject must be sourced to independent reliable sources or Wikipedia should not have an article about it. WP:RS

"every of every sentence in every article on Wikipedia, should really be citated," If there is anything in any article that you wish to dispute, you may either remove it or request a citation by adding {{fact}} immediately after the fact in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Note: the following response is to the earlier version of the above, prior to this edit and this edit.) "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Wikipedia:Fringe#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance I contend that the relevant academic communities are sciences: biology, nutrition, etc. What academic communities do you believe are relevant?

Darwin did not say "fruitarian" or "fruitarianism", he said "frugi-ferous" (the site you copied this from, along with many others, chose to "correct" this as "frugivorous"). The burden is on you to demonstrate that a) Darwin "meant" fruitarian when he said this and b) that he was (as headed) a "supporter" of fruitarianism.

Incidentally, I will be continuing with my editing, as you may have already noticed. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Darwin, a close friend of Thomas Huxley, whose book Man's Place In Nature shows man is a frugivore, meant carnivorous, by using the word frugi-ferous. You prefer to delete contributions, rather tha build on theirs, or provide your own. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)].

(Note: the following response is to the earlier version of the above, prior to this edit.) It is in no way "obvious" that Darwin meant the human fruitarian diet when he said "frugi-ferous". Wikipedia takes souring very seriously: "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." WP:OR

Your opinions of science are moot. Your views of academic communities are moot. Wikipedia's policies trump your views. To present material in Wikipedia, you must cite reliable sources. I do not need to show what is not in DaVinci's notebooks, rather you must show that Davinci indicated he considered himself a fruitarian. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This article will always be flawed, and, people who really are interested in the subject, will simply go elsewhere. Wikipedia is going to end up like conventional encyclopedias, full of voids. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]

(Note: the following response is to the earlier version of the above, prior to this edit.) You need not do anything unless you wish to restore DaVinci to the article. Then, yes, you will need to cite reliable sources.

By "independent" sources, we mean sources that are not directly connected to the subject. Pro-fruitarian sources are created and maintained by fruitarians. They are inherently biased. They are likely to claim well-regarded public figures (e.g., DaVinci) are fruitarians on scant evidence (e.g., "His notebooks never mention him eating vegetables or meat, so I guess he's a fruitarian!") while miligned public figures (e.g., Klassen) are omitted even when the evidence is clear (he self-identified as a fruitarian).

Yes, some peer-reviewed sources are flawed. Sources that are not peer-reviewed or subject to substantial verification processes are not reliable sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".WP:V - SummerPhD (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

""By "independent" sources, we mean sources that are not directly connected to the subject."" Then you will say the sources are not connected to the subject and reject the sources.

""Pro-fruitarian sources are created and maintained by fruitarians. They are inherently biased. They are likely to claim well-regarded public figures (e.g., DaVinci) are fruitarians on scant evidence (e.g., "His notebooks never mention him eating vegetables or meat, so I guess he's a fruitarian!") while miligned public figures (e.g., Klassen) are omitted even when the evidence is clear (he self-identified as a fruitarian)."" Not if they provide citations e.g. books where this was mentioned.

The evidence is not clear about Klassen. He promoted a fruit, nut and vegetable diet. That is not fruitarian. You dont bother to define fruitarian, so that way you get to justify Klassen. Are you a supporter of white

"Yes, some peer-reviewed sources are flawed. Sources that are not peer-reviewed or subject to substantial verification processes are not reliable sources."

Since peer reviewed sources can be flawed they are not more reliable than un reviewed sources, and in fact, unreviewed sources may be more reliable. There is no objectivity. Every verification involves a new observation which is just as subjective as the original observation. That is why science is a joke, as is the peer review process.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Since nothing can ever be verified (see above), the threshold for inclusion is a farce as are those who believe in it. Furthermore since verifiability does not constitute truth, this further makes the criteria a farce. Continue to derrogate (which you call editing) rather than contribute anything of substance yourself. Lol.{Zanze123 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)}

Independent sources vs. sources that refer to the subject: An article written by Jim, owner of Jim's Seafood Shack is not an independent source for an article about Jim's Seafood Shack. An article by the New York Times, about Jack's Seafood Emporium that does not discuss Jim's Seafood Shack is independent of the subject, but off topic. Darwin is an independent source, as he is regarded as authoritative on some subjects (except to the extent that some of his findings have been successfully challenged. However, he did not refer to the human fruitarian diet, so he is off-topic.

If pro-fruitarian sites provide citations, that's a good place to start. When a pro-fruitarian site cites Darwin, find the actual source they cited and possibly use the original source in the article. As we have seen (in the Darwin case), pro-fruitarian sources my misinterpret or misquote sources. As with Thoreau, DiVinci and others, they are simply expanding on the author's text and making unfounded assumptions. For balance, you also need to look beyond what pro-fruitarian sites say. None of they point to Klassen who self-identified as fruitarian. None of them explain that no non-animal food source has proven to be an adequate source of vitamin B12. None of them discuss the potential for serious illness as a result of B12 and other deficiencies.

Listing Klassen as a fruitarian, cited to a reliable source, is in no way pro-white supremacist/anti-white supremacist/pro-fruitarian/anti-fruitarian. It is pro-verifiability.

Let's suppose we have two sources: A and B. Let's say both are about 90% accurate. Now we peer-review A and catch a paltry 75% of errors (which is an absurdly low number, not like realistic peer-reviews). A is now 97.5% correct, B is still at 90%. Your beliefs that "science (and) the peer review process (are jokes)" are moot. Fruitarianism is a fringe theory, so Wikipedia demands reliable sources documenting "the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Wikipedia:Fringe#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance Peer-reviewed journal articles are going to be the gold standard for this.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".WP:V This is a core principle of Wikipedia. If you can't find a way to live with it, Wikipedia is not the place for you. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Summer PHD. I cut our long discussion to save space, now I know what you think. There is also no academic 'community' but a hugely divided and fragmented spectrum of thought. Consensus also results in the low common denominator. If Peer review journals are the 'gold standard', god help humanity. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)]

I have restored the material you removed. Please see WP:TALK. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Please note: this response is to the earlier, unredacted version, prior to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fruitarianism&diff=322115587&oldid=321856997 this edit.) I am sorry to hear of your problems with Wikipedia's standards. Nevertheless, the standards remain. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines say I may edit my own comments. Zanze123 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DaVinci (again)

As previously discussed, DaVinci mentions only eating fruits and pasta. This does not mean that he didn't eat anything else. The sources presented are not reliable sources for the controversial deduction presented. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoreau (again)

As previously discussed, reliable sources indicate that Thoreau was "almost" a vegetarian, eating some meat. The unreliable sources presented here merely claimed he was a fruitarian, contrary to the reliably sourced claim presented in Henry David Thoreau. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

SummerPHD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is SummerPHD anti-fruitarian and is this why SummerPhD's editing has such an anti-fruitarian slant? Discuss.{{Zanze123 (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)|Zanze123|22:15, 21 October 2009}}

Please restrict your discussion to the content of the article. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." WP:NPA - SummerPhD (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK so contributors have no bearing on content. Lol. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]

If you have a problem with me or any other editor, please try to resolve the issue on the editor's talk page. Failing that, please follow our dispute resolution procedures. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are not Tom Billings, are you Stephen Barrett? You are clearly somebody with a grudge against fruitarianism - your edits on this page are the citation. Zanze123 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I should not have said that I am not Billings. Please see WP:OUTING. Please comment on content not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Content is determined by Editors, therefore it impossible to refer to content without reference to the editors determining that content. Oh so you are Billings or a clone of. That would explain your anti-fruitarian editorial changes that make this article such a joke.Zanze123 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your accusations are a serious breach of policy. Please refer to WP:OUTING. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation that I have made accusation is unfounded. It was not an accusation. It was an open-ended suggestion (rhreotical), with the point being that your are clearly against the fruitarian diet and that is why you delete anything in this article, even with citations, which suggests that a fruitarian diet may be possible or is possible. That is why this article is a waste of time and space and Wikipedia is a joke. Zanze123 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..."WP:OUTING - SummerPhD (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I never asked for anyone's personal information. It was rhetorical and a point of irony to show how you are anti-fruitarian, as shown by your edits - including the deletion of material without giving contributors the chance to add references. Unfortunately, SummerPHD, due to the nature of text, you cannot hear tone, and therefore do not hear the rhetorical question. Zanze123 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You've posted claims that I am various people. "Posting another person's personal information is harassment.... Personal information includes legal name,... whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..." - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have claimed you are nobody. I asked if you were somebody. Not expecting you to answer. It was a rhetorical question. I am not interested in who you are. What matters is that you delete people's content without giving them a chance to reference it, and then don't put it back when they ask you, so they can then add references. Provide the section in Wikipedia guidelines where this is permitted. Zanze123 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not editors. - 23:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books....Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" WP:V - SummerPhD (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, you deleted content before allowing enough time for references to be added, and you refused to re-add the content which you deleted. Zanze123 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." As such, I will not be restoring your unsourced material. "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" I removed unsourced material. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You will not restore the material so I can add a reference, because you are intent on sabotating this article. Otherwise you would restore the material as requested. Zanze123 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If I restore the material, the burden would be on me to provide a source for it. I cannot find a reliable source for any of the material I have removed. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are just being obtuse. I asked you to restore the content so that I could add the reference. The burden is on you to restore what you deleted before giving a chance for a reference to be edited. Since an editor is free to edit as an editor pleases, there is no neutrality. Zanze123 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This topic is being conducted simultaneously in other sections, so in the interest of reducing repetition, I've archived this section. Please place further comments in other sections (particularly #Editing your talk page discussions). -kotra (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pythagoras

I have again removed unreliable sources making controversial claims. The closest any reliable source comes to claiming he was a fruitarian are those who read him as prohibiting all animal foods, which would make him a vegan or vegetarian. There is no historical evidence he was a fruitarian. See sources cited at Pythagoras#Pythagoreans. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What matters is what famous names advocated whether or not they did it themselves. As for sustaining such a diet, again irrelevant. And it all depends how fruitarian is defined. There are 15 definitions at least. So this whole article is meaningless without definitions of what a fruitarian can be and how those definitions link in with what each famous fruitarian advocated, and, practiced. So this article is totally flawed. Yet I don't hear you talking about this, so the article is just structured in such a way so that you can have your own way with this article. Obviously. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]

You listed Pythagoras as a "famous fruitarian". Reliable sources do not indicate that he was a fruitarian. We need not get into the numerous definitions of "fruitarian" in determining who is or is not a fruitarian. If reliable sources say that he "was a fruitarian", (for the purposes of this article) he was. If reliable sources do not indicate that he was a fruitarian, he was not. If reliable sources have conflicting claims, both sides should be stated, without giving undue weight. In the case of Pythagoras, the sources you cited were not reliable. The sources at Pythagoras#Pythagoreans demonstrate conflicting claims that he was or was not a vegetarian or vegan. I am not aware of any reliable source claiming that he was a fruitarian. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Appleseed

I have removed from "Fictional" Johnny Appleseed. 1) this was unsourced 2) he was a real person. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He was not just a real person, but manifested as a fictional character, and the character was fruitarian, whether implicitly or otherwise. Ever heard the expression, stick in the mud. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)]

Your claim was unsourced in any event. Whether the real person or the legendary characterization of him is moot until there is a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing your talk page discussions

This series of edits clearly "substantially alter(ed) a comment after it has been replied to" WP:TALK. Henceforth, I will reply to the general tone of your comments and extensively quote anything I respond to. I see no reason for you to alter the overall content of your discussion without comment. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You write: "I see no reason for you to alter the overall content of your discussion". I see no reason why to have a discussion with you about this article, it has to be a published one. Secondly, a long detailed discussion is not necessary for the purposes of this Talk section. Thirdly, if comments are not meant to be altered, then WIki should not permit it, but does. Finally, when you say "I see no reason", indeed. Zanze123 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, please restrict your discussion on this talk page to the content of the article. Discuss content not editors.

"It is best to avoid changing your own comments." Wikipedia:TALK#Own_comments

Again, the idea that content exists in a vacuum, even though it is being edited by editors, is nonsensical. How could content be discussed without reference to editors when it is editors who are determining the nature and substance of the content. Again, this shows what a joke Wikipedia really is. Zanze123 (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you have anything to say about specific, referenced improvements that might be made to the article? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What are your references for editing this article? Zanze123 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is content in the article that you feel needs a reference, feel free to remove the content in question or request a citation using {{fact}} immediately after the questionable material. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Only to have you reverse anything I add to the article. Do you really think I want to waste my time any more on your destructive editing due to your apparent grudge against the fruitarian diet. Lol. Zanze123 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

SummerPhD was saying that if you see anything currently in the article that is unreferenced and you dispute, you are free to remove it or request a citation, as she has done. Wikipedia requires reliable sources to be cited for all disputed content. That is not destructive editing, it is Wikipedia policy and is really the only practical way to have any sort of credibility. And please refrain from accusing other editors of nursing grudges. Ad hominems are not helpful, especially when we are all just trying to improve the encyclopedia. If you have a problem with someone's edits, discuss the edits themselves. -kotra (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Content was deleted and the 'editor' refuses to put it back so references can be added. This is not constructive editing, this is deconstructive editing, and most unhelpful, whnen trying to improve the encylopedia. If the editor was not against the subject matter of this article, the editor would put it back but refuses. You ask me to discuss the editors themselves. "If you have a problem with someone's edits, discuss the edits themselves." I already did but you did not ask the editor to put back the content on Honiball and Engelhardt, which is most unhelpful when trying to improve the listing. Zanze123 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Asked repeatedly and answered repetedly. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Zanze123, please re-read my comment. I have suggested three ways for you to re-add the content with a reliable source cited; if you choose to ignore these suggestions, that's your choice, but please don't accuse others of impeding you from adding reliably sourced content when they are not. -kotra (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In the time that the repeater repeated, the repeater could have added the content back as requested. Kotra, I never knew editors were only capable of deleting and not able to reverse their deletions. The content was deleted before I had a chance to add a reference. If that is not impedement then find another word, but it amounts to the same thing. Zanze123 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kotra and I do not have a reliable source, so we will not add/restore the content. If you have a reliable source, go ahead and restore the content with the source. If you do not have a reliable source, there is nothing to do. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Zanze123, I am struggling to understand how you can continue this line of thought. By way of explanation, here is an example of a statement, complete with citation, ready to be added: John Doe was born in 1950.<ref>Doe, Jane (2009). ''A Biography of John Doe'', Random House.</ref>

If you still do not understand how content can be added with a citation in the same edit, I can try a different explanation. -kotra (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Summerphd makes more work for contributors by deleting their content before giving them a chance to add references. You are assuming a reference shall added be added at the same second as the statement, instead of realizing this is an evolving process. He said he was sitting on it to give the quotations time to be reference but then deleted it without giving time for it to be referenced. Zanze123 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Asked and answered. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has become pointless and circular, so I'm stepping out of it. It's clear now it's not about improving the article, but about user behavior, so if there's anything left to discuss, the proper venue would likely be WP:RFCC. -kotra (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kotra, I added a paragraph about Tony Wright to the article, and it was promptly deleted by Summer PHD without any explanation, just a note to himself in the Edit Summary line that nobody else could understand. So it's not about improving the article, indeed. Zanze123 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

SummerPhD's edit summary explains why the content was deleted: the source cited is a non-notable vanity press book. The publisher, Lulu, is a vanity press, and so the source falls under self-published sources. This means that it is not a reliable source. (sorry for going back on my word to leave this discussion, but this deserves an explanation) -kotra (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another flaw in Wikipedia. Many famous books were self-published. Wikipedia -itself- is also self-published. What a joke. Zanze123 (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly why we can't cite Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -kotra (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you agree that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. For that reason, I can't see the point of the Articles at Wikipedia, when they are unreliable, even if with references. Zanze123 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in and of itself Wikipedia is not reliable, though it's a great starting place for research. Anyway, glad we could finally agree on something! -kotra (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe source citing New York Times

The pro-fruitarian magazine claimed the author had "proven that proto-humans were exclusively fruitarians". The actual source (Boyce Rensberger, Boyce. 15 May 1979, New York Times, "Research Yields Surprises about Early Human Diets - Teeth Show Fruit Was the Staple") is far more cautious: "Preliminary studies... have led an anthropologist to the startling suggestion... appear to have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit." I have removed the claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Instead of adding the correct text which is still 100% relevant to this article, you remove it completely. This is the proof that you are only interested in deconstructing this article instead of adding anything constructive. It is another reason why this article is a waste of space as is the editorial process. Zanze123 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One scientist's "suggestion" that proto-humans may have subsisted "chiefly" on fruit is so far removed from "proven that proto-humans were exclusively fruitarians" that that original statement is unsalvageable. The accurate statement, "An anthropologist in 1979 suggested, on the basis of preliminary studies, that proto-humans may have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit," is basically a non-statement with no real value or relevance. If more than one scientist had positively asserted (not merely suggested) early humans were fruitarians, based on real non-preliminary studies, it would be worth a mention. But it is not.

As for Wikipedia's editorial process, if you are only interested in confirming your negative view of it, there are other websites that do this much better than Wikipedia; I encourage you to check them out instead of hassling other editors who are only trying to help. -kotra (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What Allan Walker originally said is not unsalvageable, it is unpalatable to anti-fruitarians, and that is why SummerPHD has failed to include it. So if more than 1 scientist says that the sky is green, then it's worth a mention. It is not the number of scientists which warrant whether something is worth a mention, but the topic itself and the scientist's position on it. It is not my negative view of Wikipedia, it is a fact that since it relies so heavily on references whcih themselves can be unreliable, the entire process is flawed. Hassling contributors by deleting content without giving a chance for content to be referenced, is not helping but hindering. The entire article is so editorially biased it is a joke. Zanze123 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What Dr. Walker actually said is in the article, cited to the New York Times. Also in the article is one notable fruitarian (Lovewisdom) misquoting what Dr. Walker said in that same article. What is no longer in the article is two other non-notable fruitarian sources misquoting the same article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When I say article, I refer to the New York Times article, not the Wikipedia article. You failed to quote what Allan Walker actually said in favour of fruitarianism in the New York Times article. Lovewisdom did not misquote Walker, he clarified what Walker said. Misquoting - all depends on how the word is defined, used and interpreted.Zanze123 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What Dr. Walker said is clearly summarized in the article. What Lovewisdom and others say he said, though, is not what he actually said. The actual NYT article is cited. If you feel there is additional content in that article worth referring to, feel free to add it. However, I believe the "pro-fruitarian" content you seem to believe is in the NYT article does not exist. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What Walker actually said was: "I don't want to make too much of this yet. But it is quite a surprise." However, what you quoted in the Fruitarian article was Dr. Walker said, "I don't want to make too much of this yet." I therefore addded the full quote to give balance to the quote within the context of the Fruitarian article. Zanze123 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint, which I was responding to, was the Dr. Walker said something in favor of fruitarianism and I didn't include it. My reply stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not stand. He actually said "I don't want to make too much of this yet. But it is quite a surprise." not "I don't want to make too much of this yet." as you tried to depict. There is a very big difference. Omitting "But it is quite a surprise" pooh-poohs the finding. Including it, suggests it is of significance and therefore gives credence to the finding which supports fruitarianism. So you are 100% wrong. Zanze123 (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested change is minor. I left it in after you added it. My reply stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You left it in so your reply does not stand. If it was minor, you did not need to have left it out. Zanze123 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It is in the article. Do you have a problem with that, or shall we move on? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with editors who apply selectivity when quoting quotes, yes. Zanze123 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It is in the article. Do you have a problem with that, or shall we move on?- SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here is a problem with editors who apply selectivity when quoting quotes, yes and then say 'whatever'. Zanze123 (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not editors. Your favored section is in the article. Do you have a problem with that, or shall we move on? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ibid Zanze123 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Unless/until I hear otherwise, I'm assuming this issue is resolved. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It does mean what it means and not what you think it doesn't mean. Zanze123 (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahisma

Why is there no mention of Ahisma Fruitarianism in this listing? Zanze123 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source explaining what that is, feel free to add it. It isn't there at the moment because it would seem no one has added it. I've mined the life out of the very few reliable sources I could find on the subject. There really is very little written about fruitarianism in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There was very little written about the celestial spheres and the world not being flat until Galileo (witch trial by fire) came along to refute Ptolemy. Just because vanishingly small amount of reliable people and or sources exist, does not invalidate a belief. In fact, the reverse is the case. The more something is believed (e.g. cigarettes don't cause cancer), the less it is likely to be true. On top of this many so-called 'reliable' sources are most unreliable, as is the scientific process itself. So presenting reliable sources in a world full of unreliable 'reliable' sources is heading for disaster. Zanze123 (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is invalidating any belief. Nobody has said that if something isn't in Wikipedia it's not true; that would be silly. Wikipedia is not a complete, comprehensive, openminded and equal-handed compendium of all human knowledge. It strives towards that direction, but it is constrained by ideas and facts reliable sources have already published. If you take issue with what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, feel free to propose changes to our policy at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. -kotra (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got time.Zanze123 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)