Talk:John Harvey Kellogg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is currently or was the subject of an Spring 2007 educational assignment.

Contents

[edit] Word choice

Inflicting them on others? I do not believe enemas are typically "inflicted", given would be a better word. If he did them without the permission of the reciever, then this would be the correct term. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 12:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Autointoxication

this would be improved by a link to the etext of autointoxication. May I have permission to link it?

[edit] Who invented Corn Flakes?

I believe the inventor of cornflakes is an entirely different Kellogg. In fact, John Harvey Kellogg is over 50 years dead!

Not only did he invent corn flakes but also invented peanut butter. See the NPR story on him. Read the history of the Kellogg company and about the fight he had with his brother. Kellogg cornflakes have been around longer than 1993 which would be the 50th anniversary of his death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He didnt invent cereals for breakfast. Vegetarian breakfast was around since 1860's by the 7th day adventists. They ate gruel, porrige, farinas, and other boiled whole grain cereals. He let a batch overheat and the dry material became "corn flakes". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That Seventh-day Adventist you refer to is in fact Kellogg. This article doesn't particularly well express his involvement with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. MyNameIsNotBob 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Key Fact

"John and Will eventually argued over the addition of sugar to the cereals and in 1906 Will started his own company called the Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company, which eventually became the Kellogg Company. They never spoke to each other again." WHO WANTED TO ADD SUGAR AND WHO WANTED IT LEFT OUT? This is a key fact and it is missing. I imagine John wanted the sugar left out?--6/10/05

Well, its been about 3 months, and no clarification. Anyone know? Wendell 03:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you think about the contents of commercial corn flakes and contrast it with the bland fair peddled by John at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, it shuld be pretty obvious. Don't have a cite handy for it. older≠wiser 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, as John Kellog's "Battle Creek Diet" was void of "all meat, alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco, and chocolate, and only sparing use of eggs, milk, cheese, and refined sugar", so it's obviously Will who wanted to add the sugar. And indeed, his company still makes 'sugar Frosted Flakes™". I've corrected this in the article. T-bonham 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Corn Flakes

The breakfast_cereal article says "After leaving a batch of boiled wheat soaking overnight and rolling it out, {John} Kellogg had created wheat flakes. His brother Will Kellogg later invented corn flakes from a similar method". That statement is contridicted by this article which says "Today {John} Kellogg, a radical advocate of vegetarianism, is best known for the invention of the corn flake."

The corn flakes article says"history of corn flakes goes back to the late 19th century, when a group of Seventh-day Adventists began .... Members of the group experimented with a number of different grains, including wheat, oats, rice, and of course, corn. In 1894, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the superintendent of a sanitarium in Battle Creek, Michigan and an Adventist, used these recipes "

Which is correct? Wendell 02:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any discrepency. Read the next paragaph in the corn flakes article, which matches pretty closely with what's here. The section you quoted above is the context leading up to the discovery. older≠wiser 00:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] morbid antisexuality

I believe there is a tie-in between his cornflakes and his morbid antisexuality--didn't he bill the cereal as a good bland diet which would help keep the passions under control? (i.e. Your food is tasteless and will not titillate your senses; tasty food weakens your self-control, etc.)--6/10/05

that is an interesting idea.. however such speculation is probably in the realm of original research. --Paraphelion 18:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a discussion page: original research and any reasonable ideas are welcome, whereas anal-retentiveness is not. 25.6.5 1,45

This is NOT speculation: It is well-attested and has been written about for years. The bland foods such as corn flakes, graham crackers etc. were made that way specifically so that they would be anaphrodesiacs. Spicy food stirred-up "animal passions"; bland, healthful food kept these passions at bay. If you want to read more about it, check "Innocent Ecstasy - How Christianity Gave America an Ethic of Sexual Pleasure" by Peter Gardella published in 1985 by Oxford University Press. He has a good bibliography if I remember rightly. You might also check out "Prophetess of Health" by Ronald L. Numbers, and "Manhood in America" by Michael Kimmel. Emyth 20:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All this from a man who was eager to squirt sticky white liquid into the rectums of his patients. Oh, the irony! --M.Neko 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anti-masturbatory chemicals?

Do Kelloggs put anti-masturbatory chemicals in their corn flakes today? Since many companies can get away with having their secret ingredients, it seems reasonable to assume that kellogs either have done or are doing this insidious act. Coca-cola brand are notorious for their fungus substances in their phosphoric acid drink known as 'Coke'.

wtf? Sherurcij 13:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be an urban legend then. Neither product legally contains any illegal contents today. If they did so, I don't know. But "secret ingredients" need to be listed just like anything else. What they are, exactly, and how they are combined (read: quantities) is the secret. -- 62.143.158.48 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

It seems to me there really ought to be discussion of his role in the Adventist church, which I believe initially kicked him out for not titheing 10% of his profits to the church, but today considers him one of their most famous Adventists, even naming a building at Walla Walla College after him. Sherurcij 13:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an important story here about Kellogg's relationship with the Adventists. Originally hailed by Ellen Gould White as virtually her successor or, at least, closest adviser, there ultimately developed a rift between them as an aging White came more under the control of Adventist hierophants and would-be theocrats, while his own professional position was being undermined by the development of more scientific forms of medicine, increasingly advocated by many of his own students. This eventually led to the discrediting of Kellogg within the Adventist leadership and his expulsion from the church. An attempt was made to wrest control of Battle Creek Clinic from him, which, I believe, failed. At Battle Creek, Kellogg trained young men he called "Medical Evangelists". Originally the clinic exercise coaching staff, some of these men became increasingly interested in medicine. Eventually, Kellogg established an education program at the clinic, which graduated a number of "doctors". I believe this started around 1896. The turn of the century was a chaotic time in American medicine, with quacks galore and much emerging social pressure against bad treatments. A number of Kellogg's students separated themselves from Kellogg's hydrotherapy and other "holistic" practices and were chartered by the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church as the "College of Medical Evangelists". These are the men who went on to found the great (really) Adventist medical college at Loma Linda, CA. I regret that I do not have references or details for most of this; however, I will willingly correspond with anyone who would like to follow on these leads. The most authoritative information is probably a book "The College of Medical Evangelists", published some time in the '60s, I believe, or maybe the 70's. There are also a number of "white papers" (no pun intended) about the "Kellogg Rebellion" that may be found in back issues of Adventist Spectrum and various on-line sources, primarily related to the Urantia Book (which was organized and published by Dr. W.S.Sadler, Jr., a student of Dr. Kellogg, who married one of his adopted daughters, Lena Kellogg (Sadler). Both separated from Adventism and were known as leaders of the eugenics movement and the author of many popular books on medical and health topics.) To correspond, send email to ldmjr@comcast.net. I may register in the future. This is only the second input I've made in 18 months!

[edit] Name of the institution he created

Why does someone insist on using the middle of the three names for the institution that Kellogg created even though it is most popularly known as the Battle Creek Sanitarium? Ansell 01:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the "middle of the three names", but sanatorium is the spelling Kellogg (and the institution) used, and evidently the somewhat idiosyncratic spelling was deliberately chosen. older ≠ wiser 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The article says that it was founded as "Western Health Reform Institute", but apparently was named Battle Creek Sanatorium, even though it is now popularly referred to as Battle Creek Sanitarium. The fact that the name seems to be in the middle of the three known names in chronological order was what I meant by that. Could you provide an official quote stating that its name was officially known as that, because all the quotes I have ever seen about the place have been under the common name, including all of the references and wikilinks that haven't been changed by you. Ansell 01:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I found this quote [1] that uses three different terms for the one institution, given that it was a report from 1904 it hardly says that only one was recognised by the citizens of the day. Ansell 01:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like I may have gotten things confused. I had done a bit of research awhile back on the history of the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center and had it on my list of articles to develop, but never came back to it. Then in the interim, an article was created at Battle Creek Sanitarium which escaped my attention until I happened to notice this edit by an anon. It struck me as odd and some very quick searches and a look at Sanatorium led me to misremember something I had read in the Hart-Dole-Inouye center history. Anyhow, it probably should go back to the "sanitarium" spelling. older ≠ wiser 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I will move it back and rearrange the names in the introduction to indicate the difference. BTW, Sorry but my hasty linking of multiple {{fact}} tags. I get carried away sometimes. Will use the above sources to avoid future misunderstandings. Ansell 03:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formating

Bkonrad: First, there is nothing un-American about the format dd Mmmmm yyyy. It gets used many places; and, if you'll notice how Wikipedia (an American website) itself time-stamps things by default (as at the end of comments), you'll see that it uses dd Mmmmm yyyy. Second, go to your own talk page, use the “+” tab to create a section with a header, and then after it's created, go back and look at the mark-up created by Wikipedia — notice that there is a blank-line after the section header. Further, that blank line, while being transparent to users, helps editors quickly locate headers and sections. Now, I'll wait for your reply before doing any reversion, as you might have some good counter-arguments. But if you don't provide them then I'll feel free to revert. —SlamDiego 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The references to timestamps are irrelevant as the format is determined by the system -- that some of the servers are physically located in the U.S. is also besides the point. dd Mmmmm yyyy is a relatively uncommon date format in the U.S. Just as with British/U.S. spelling differences, there are differences in how dates are presented. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formats related to topics indicates that editors may choose to use the date format for that country. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Spaces indicates that spaces following a heading are "completely optional". I find that having the space before the heading is more than sufficient to help in locating the headers and find the extra space is an annoyance. older ≠ wiser 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The first issue isn't whether the format is required; it is whether it is alien (as you insist); the referential time-stamps refute your claim that the dd Mmmmm yyyy format alien to America. The very section of the Manual of Style that you cite goes on to indicate that dd Mmmmm yyyy is an acceptable format for articles about America. You are indeed correct that spaces following a heading are “completely optional”, but it is, further, against Wikipdedia policy to make edits that are no more than removal of optional things, inserted by another editor in the course of some larger process, simply because you don't like them. If you can give good counter-arguments, then please do so. —SlamDiego 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your wasting each other's time. No matter which format you use, the way it displays is based on your chosen preference settings. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Richard, that's only true for people who have preferences set, which in turn requires an account, which most users don't have. —SlamDiego 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"Alien" is your word, not mine. I said it is an uncommon format in the U.S. and I stand by that. Besides changing needlessly changing the default date formats, you also added numerous pointless links to year-only dates. It was the combination of both of those factors that motivated my edits. Now we just seem to be stuck in a pissing match. You can continue to restore your preferred date format if you like, as will I. older ≠ wiser 16:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klismaphilia

Is the Klismaphilia 'see also' link of any purpose other than to poke fun at Dr. Kellogg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Storm Surfer (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

If there is no sourced evidence provided to justify including a link to Klismaphilia in this article, I will remove it. Any further attempts to add the link back in without supporting evidence will be taken as evidence of bad faith. --Nonstopdrivel 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point. There is no evidence to my knowledge that Kellogg had other than health concerns motivating his practice, and considering the dietary practices of the day, it was often a good idea in the extreme cases he saw. Extreme situations can demand extreme actions. That doesn't justify making it a lifestyle. If the lifestyle is correct, regular enemas and such should become unnecessary. They are a self-perpetuating and deleterious practice making themselves necessary, since they destroy normal peristaltic function, thus they should be the exception, not the rule (as proposed by quacks, salespersons, and believers in mucoid plaque. Delete it straight away. The burden of proof for inclusion is on the one making the inclusion. -- Fyslee/talk 21:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place of Birth

I've changed his place of birth to Tyrone, Michigan. The 1850 US Federal Census places his family in Tyrone, Livingston County, Michigan. John Harvey was born two years later and the family had moved to Battle Creek by the 1860 Census. I believe the NY Times Obituary citing his place of birth in New York to be an error. Swango 04:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't see your comment here before I changed it back. I'll fix it. older ≠ wiser 10:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent detective work, you should load the census images, and add this as a case study on the page of errors in mainstream media corrected by Wikipedia. I have found a half dozen errors in Britannica and other reference works where they based the age of movie stars on their Hollywood press kits, and I corrected from the SSDI --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Richard - I believe the images I used would be considered copywright protected as they belong to Ancestry, although I would be happy to provide citation information. Also, I'm not sure where this project you refer to resides. Swango 02:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)