Talk:Mary G. Enig/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Renown" description

tightened up article slightly, and removed reference to the subject's renown - from what I can tell she has written just under 30 peer-reviewed articles in a long-ish career. This is a very respectable work-rate, but I don't see evidence of 'renown' (though would be happy if someone else could provide this) Jon m 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal praise for subject of article

Nice unsigned comments below here. Must have been Mary? Gravix 08:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

-I personally know of no better instance of greatness than that of Mary Enig. She has almost single-handedly changed the course of food history, when forty years ago she began a quest to show the detrimental effects of Trans Fat in the diet. Now every major food chain in the world (MacDonald’s KFC, etc.) are moving away from trans fat as a result of the pioneering work she began all those decades ago. Despite being interviewed in nearly every major publication in the world, and having written books on the subject, she has lived in utter anonymity when you consider the stunning change she has brought to the food industry, and to the health of the people of the world. The key to her success -- aside from her dedication to the truth and a fanatical dedication to her own scientific research -- has been her utter humility. As scientist, she has focused only on the truth of things, while never ever seeking the limelight. The more she took this approach and time passed, the more life responded, and the world benefitted. I believe there is a much to be learned about greatness from her monumental achievements in nutrition that were steeped in truth and humility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.187.95 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV accusations and related reverts

My attempts to expand this article to be more encyclopedic with verified facts have been consisently reverted by one editor who claims they are "nowhere near NPOV." My attempts to tag the article for further review have also been deleted by the same editor, as can be seen in the article's history.

Why is there such a strong desire to avoid stating the fact that Mary Enig is the co-founder, Vice President and Board Member of the The Weston A. Price Foundation?

Additionally, Enig's dietary advice is extremely controversial given current science and that needs to come out in the article if it is to be balanced - but seems to be defensively blocked. Is it possible the accuser is the one lacking a NPOV?

In an attempt to avoid the edit war that was forming, I'd like to discuss the issue here. OccamzRazor 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Homogenized Milk

The article counter-poses raw milk and homogenized milk, but isn't pasteurized milk the opposite of raw milk? Could someone clarify which one she is against: pasteurization, homogenization, or both?Brent (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How not to write "articles"

Someone who cares should rewrite this article so it doesn't suck so much. For example, there is a line saying Enig believes "that "big business" and other powerful vested interests played a significant role in the negative portrayals of saturated fats", but the document it cites as a reference does not include the phrase "big business" anywhere within it. Guess what? That means you can't put the phrase "big business" in quotes. Because she didn't say it. (At least not in the article the statement is referring to.) There's also a section that says "The only reference to back this claim is an article Enig wrote that addressed a 1970's era theory that was later disproven." It makes it sound like she wrote the article BEFORE the theory was "disproven". The article is actually a discussion of the reasons the theory HASN'T been proven. That's kind of important. I also don't see why "licensed nutritionist" is in quotation marks, as if it were a phrase Enig invented for herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivix (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has to abide by WP:BLP

This article is written in a hostile tone and is higly unencyclopedic. The negative innuendo has to be removed. The Wikipedia rules for neutrality are stricter for Biographies about living persons than for normal articles. MaxPont (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm one WP user who has attempted to edit this article with a neutral point of view (NPOV). However since I can only find primary references associated with the subject of the article, I am in agreement that the current article is not encyclopedic. In fact, I previously tagged it for needing additional non-primary references as well as requesting expansion of the entire article.

I'm not sure what you mean in your claim that the WP "rules" for "neutrality" are "stricter for biographies of living people." It is one of the pillars of WP that ALL articles have a NPOV. I'm not aware of any variations in the definition or level of "neutrality." However, even a NPOV includes properly-sourced controversial and/or non-complimentary information about the subject of the article. An article wouldn't be neutral if it censored such information.

Instead of stricter "neutrality" rules, it seems you may be referring to stronger standards regarding sourcing material posted about living persons, especially if the material is potentially libellous. This doesn't mean that an article about a living person has to have a positive or neutral tone, but only that all material (especially any potentially libellous material) must be properly sourced.

If you can, please improve this article with any properly-sourced non primary references to eliminate any "hostile tone" you perceive. It benefits the entire wikipedia community to have well-sourced articles. OccamzRazor (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely ridiculous for OccamzRazor to claim a NPOV. Every (non-minor) edit is aimed at making Enig appear worse. OccamzRazor has decided that the paleo/mediterranean diet is the best and is going around trashing articles that disagree with his views. I have already had to deal with this on the Saturated Fat article, and I am wasting more time dealing with it now. Now OccamzRazor is inserting original research to promote a biased point of view. I would love for this issue to be about content, but it is not. Gregwebs (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:BLP is to protect living people from libel that may potentially find its way into WP articles. Our best way to avoid introducing libel into our articles is strict adherance to our WP:Verifiability policy with careful attention to WP:Reliable sources. I do not see any unreferenced assertions of fact in this article that could do harm to the subject. BLP policy has very little to do with neutrality and much to do with verifiability and reliability of sources. Is there anything specific here that you believe violates BLP? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue would be the continued attempt to insert original research that can not been verified (see recent history). So taking care of the NOR discussion should take care of this issue. Gregwebs (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup

At what point can the Expand, POV, & Primarysources banners be removed? I've been working on the first two, but non-primary sources seem hard to come by. Also, any input on the changes I've made? Argonel42 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A lack of secondary sources can be a good indicator that the article has WP:Notability issues, and may be considered for deletion. Reliance on primary sources (upon which this article seems to rely heavily) can also lead to issues with neutrality and conflict of interest. The best course of action may be to nominate for WP:AfD. If the article can be improved, the AfD discussion will lead to improvement. If no other secondary sources can be found, then the article may be deleted, in which case all questions of NPOV, COI and BLP become moot. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR

As stated above OccamzRazor is demanding that original research be kept in the article. I am going to revert this once more, and start the moderation process. This is not about content, it is about OccamzRazor bias not allowing an understanding of WP:NOR

There is one issue of content that OccamzRazor is also reverting. There is a section "Homogonized Milk". It needs to be changed to "Raw Milk". Raw Milk is always unhomogonized, and WAPF information is always about raw milk, mostly with respect to pasteurization, and with minor info on homogonization. There is barely a need to mention homogonization. Gregwebs (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This subsection was not about raw milk, but Enig's self-contradictory article about homogenized milk having a link to heart disease. By sourcing it with her own article, it is not considered original research by WP standards. OccamzRazor (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a subsection about an article that you consider contradictory? Wikipedia is not here for you to do original research to try to trash people you don't like. It is here to provide encyclopedic information, which in this case would be the basic ideas and beliefs of Enig, consuming raw milk being one of them, with homogenization being a minor aspect of that. Gregwebs (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another third opinion: I'm going based on this edit. All of the text in that edit does constitute as original research. Unless a secondary source states that "The only reference on the WAPF website to back this claim is an article..." then it can be included, but it cannot exist in its current form. Further, to state that "Neither Enig nor the WAPF give any reason why homogenized milk might be harmful or any information that would link homogenized milk to heart disease, as the WAPF claims." is pushing a negative point of view, which is also unacceptable. We cannot state things that don't exist on their own; we need sources to tell us that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of mention of an unspecified study

I removed the following, because it seems to provide no significant information, but does suggest a negative POV. 66.127.52.57 (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

She says that an (unspecified) study conducted during the early 1970s by Canadian scientists on rapeseed and canola oil, concluded that at least 25% of fat in the diet should be in the form of saturated fat.

I've restored it. It's sourced. I don't understand the complaint against it in light of WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of sources

In the section entitled "Saturated and trans fats" this article claims "Her position regarding saturated fats is supported by recent meta-analyses of randomized intervention trials, which indicate that saturated fats are no riskier than monounsaturated fats or carbohydrates when substituted on an isocaloric basis. ." However, both of these studies demonstrated that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat was correlated with a significant decreased risk in coronary heart disease. Thus, the first clause of this claim is not supported by the sources provided. The second clause is technically accurate (although it seems to intentionally leave out the main result/conclusion of the studies), but it is not relevant to the article because her position does not favor the use of polyunsaturated fatty acids over saturated fatty acids. Jasonbholden (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream consensus has been that unsaturated fats including monounsaturated fats are healthier than saturated fats. If monounsaturated fats aren't healthier then the newer studies cited would seem to support her. I'll remove the inline OR template. Lambanog (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial dietary advice" section

We need independent, reliable sources for this section. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If Enig's views here deserve mention at all, we need independent sources demonstrating it. Otherwise, we're simply re-publishing her viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; to know which of her views are prominent enough to place per WP:DUE and to place in proper context, we need independent secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The specific issues that are thought to be problematic should be identified. The blanket tag would seem to be inappropriate and I am inclined to remove it without more details on the complaint with the article. The subject of the article is Mary Enig so her statements on the position she holds on certain issues can be properly sourced to her self-published sources. Lambanog (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The specific issue is that while self published work are reliable sources for her views, they also do not give us an idea of how much weight to give them. Sure not every thought and sentence she has published is notable enough to be here; we should use reliably published secondary sources to identify which views have garnered outside interest and are therefore significant enough to be included. Yobol (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It would help to know what specifically you object to. From what I've seen she can claim to be an expert on fats and lipids. She has cachet from being an opponent of trans fats from way back before it was fashionable. She is known for being a coconut oil advocate. She can be associated with the organic or natural foods movement—that hasn't been mentioned. One can get a pretty good appreciation of it from the interviews. The section I'm most iffy about is the section on raw milk advocacy because although it seems the Weston Price Foundation supports it, it isn't clear that Enig does. Are you claiming she isn't notable or she isn't an expert? Have you looked at the sources by others yet? Lambanog (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I specifically object to the current sourcing. It is hard to know which of her views are notable for inclusion without secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What reference in particular on what subject? Something like the Passwater interview article I think covers nearly all most pertinent points. Also consider the result of this Google Books search: Mary Enig. Lambanog (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Any self-published source including those hosted by the Weston Price foundation. I'm not saying that any of the current text is unsupportable, just that it is hard to know with such poor sourcing. Yobol (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A self-published source would be the best source for her views, better than a secondary source. Removal of them would lower the quality of the article not raise it. I think it is established from all the other sources given that she is notable in the area she comments in: fats and lipid nutrition. Accuracy or veracity of the truth of her statement is a different matter. Lambanog (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, especially when we don't know why or how the sources were picked. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that WP:PSTS clearly states our article should be sourced the vast majority of time to secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be useful: --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Garin: Claims on health benefits of VCO need proof 12 Sept 2010

I reintroduced the claims about AIDS and raw milk. The reference above should be good enough for the AIDS claims. Most of the searches about raw milk and Enig result in articles requiring payment for access, so I'm not as sure about it, but thought we should at least give other editors a try. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem is the sources on Enig's views on AIDS and raw milk aren't from good sources and aren't precise. Placement of comments within article is not optimal either. Will remove. Lambanog (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the AIDS info with the source above. Many other sources are available if anyone thinks we need more. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Storage

Moving items here for possible restoration later.

Much of the dietary advice Enig is known for is it odds with the prevailing view in the medical and scientific communities. Karen Allyn in an interview with Enig in 2006 noted it was rare to find other sources holding Enig's views and suggested that "fringe" might describe them. Enig replied that she thinks most do not know the science, that vested interests have been effective in promoting research favorable to them, and that she is troubled that other research has not been recognized.

Enig has conducted and published original research into the properties of coconut oil and is a vocal advocate for its dietary consumption, writing multiple articles regarding its health benefits. She has been quoted in newspapers regarding her views on coconut oil and is recognized as an expert by the inter-governmental Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC).

She says lauric acid, the main acid in coconut oil, "has antimicrobial properties and is the precursor to monolaurin, the antimicrobial lipid." She also states that lauric acid "gives human milk its major antimicrobial properties, and it may be a conditionally essential fatty acid since it cannot be made by mammals other than the lactating female and must be obtained from the diet." Enig also notes that the saturated fat in coconut oil consists of medium chain fatty acids, which she says are not only not harmful, but help in promoting healthy metabolism.

Enig is critical of lowfat diets for weight loss and states in summary: "Perhaps the best way to lose unwanted weight (excess weight in the form of fat, that is) is to change the type of fat in the diet to the type of fat found in the coconut." In collaboration with Sally Fallon, co-founder of the WAPF, Enig wrote a book about coconut-based diets for weight loss called Eat Fat, Lose Fat.

Enig also says that natural coconut oil may be effective in the treatment of AIDS and other viral infections.

Enig disputes the lipid hypothesis, which postulates that consumption of saturated fats contributes to heart disease. A vocal critic, she has both received and given criticism in scientific journals on the issue. She raised concerns as early as the 1970s about the dangers of trans fats. The negative effects of trans fats are now widely recognized, spurring efforts to remove them from food supplies world wide. Her position regarding saturated fats is supported by recent meta-analyses of randomized intervention trials, which indicate that saturated fats are no riskier than monounsaturated fats or carbohydrates when substituted on an isocaloric basis raising questions about the link between saturated fats and cardiovascular disease that had been widely thought settled.

Health agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association, however, still advise consumers to avoid coconut oil because of concerns with saturated fats.

Enig believes that big business and other powerful vested interests played a significant role in the negative portrayals of saturated fats in order to sell margarine and similar spreads, which often contained substantial levels of trans fats. She is skeptical of consumer groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which flip-flopped on the issue of trans fats without admitting its earlier mistake in pushing for products containing them, and its continued campaigns in the name of public health.

Enig sees benefits in the consumption of saturated fats and notes their function in certain signaling and stabilizing processes in the body at the cellular level involving proteins. She also says that the "maintenance of a healthy digestive system requires input from lipids, which include molecules such as cholesterol, appropriate saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, and other lesser known components such as glycosphingolipids."

Lambanog (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

APCC verification

Can someone please quote from whatever source verifies "recognized as an expert by the inter-governmental Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC)?" I couldn't find a source for it listed. The fails verification tag I added was removed in this edit. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain the problem more? Two refs indicate she is recognized by the APCC. Lambanog (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate which refs and please provide quotes from those refs. I couldn't verify the information, and haven't a clue how anyone else thinks it's verified. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The ones labelled APCC and COGENT. Please reply if you still have difficulty. Lambanog (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The APCC reference doesn't verify the material in any way.

The COGENT ref just verifies that APCC gave her an award. I don't believe this reference demonstrates that it's worth mention per WP:WEIGHT, even if we get the wording changed to something verified in this reference. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Letters to the editor section

Why are we including letters to the editors in her selected work section? I don't think I've ever seen these added to this section in any science related biography here on Wikipedia. Certainly these usually are not prominent like books and peer-reviewed journals. I think this section should be removed. Yobol (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I placed them there to have somewhere to put them before finding a better place within the article. The notability of Mary Enig's views have been questioned. Appearance in scientific journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine and Science tend to support the view that yes her views are notable and may have some scientific foundation. Lambanog (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is of course my point; we shouldn't be using letters to the editors to lend credence to her views - that is what actual peer-reviewed articles are for and these aren't peer-reviewed publications, they are letters sent in to a journal. Yobol (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that such journals aren't obligated to print them or write about the subject in such a way that would impel them to print material from the subject. That the journal prints responses from them would seem to indicate that the journals recognize those writing them as peers or at least having ideas or stands notable enough to give a forum to air their views. Lambanog (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it just means that the journal thinks they should respond to them - for whatever reason. It could be that they think Enig is prominent enough to merit a response, or it could mean that Enig's misconceptions are common enough to merit a response (that they chose her letter to respond to has nothing to do with them considering her a "peer") or it could be for any number of other reasons, none of which means very much. There is a reason why letters to the editors are considered bottom of the barrel type of source. Yobol (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you want but this indicates differently: Thoughts on writing a letter to the editor – "Based on their author instructions, many prestigious journals, such as The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, seem to consider the "Letters to the Editor" column in their journals to be as important as any other article." Lambanog (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A non-notable opinion by one person, vs. the general consensus of the academic community (and the Wikipedia community, BTW, which basically treats letters to the editor little better than WP:SPS). We're going around in circles, and am not really going to argue the value of letters to the editors for people who wish only to see and hear what they want. Yobol (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever I think of Enig and her views: to quote from our own article, letter to the editor:In academic publishing, letters to the editor of an academic journal are usually open postpublication reviews of a paper, often critical of some aspect of the original paper. The authors of the original paper sometimes respond to these with a letter of their own. Controversial papers in mainstream journals often attract numerous letters to the editor. Good indexing services list the original papers together with all replies. Depending on the length of the letter and the journal's style, other types of headings may be used, for instance "peer commentary". There are some variations on this practice. Some journals request open commentaries as a matter of course, which are published together with the original paper, and any autors' reply, in a process called open peer commentary. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for these letters to be listed. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-published banner

Please explain the reason for the self-published banner. I think it should be removed. If you think otherwise do you agree to have it settled by third opinion? Lambanog (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The need for secondary sources and avoiding WP:SPS has been discussed multiple times. Note also that a fourth opinion here concurs for the need for independent secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only are there problems with using self-published sources, there are WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems because of the over-reliance on such sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Enig and the other sources establish her as an expert or at least notable individual on the subjects. Is there disagreement on that? If there is explain so perhaps the concerns can be addressed. If not then to say her self-published sources cannot be used would be like saying an article about Kant cannot quote his own writings. Moreover a general banner like the one I object to should only be used when there are multiple problems with the issue. Please identify the specific location of problems in the text where a lack of secondary sources is believed to exist so that they can be addressed. If not, the banner does not belong. Original research or NPOV concerns can be identified right now so is clearly a separate issue. Lambanog (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been addressed numerous times already. We use secondary sources to find out which of her views are notable enough for inclusion in the article per WP:DUE. If secondary sources are not found, they should be removed. Yobol (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to tag inline where the perceived lack of secondary sources occur. I will see if I can address them. If no inline tags are inserted then the secondary source criticism becomes vague unaddressable and lacking in merit. Lambanog (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

All quotations/positions should have secondary sources to show notability. Rather than tag every single one, the banner is used.Yobol (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yobol would you say that in the Immanuel Kant article every citation attributed to him but unaccompanied by another from a secondary source is inadequate or does a certain threshold which when met on a particular topic by the subject makes all comments on the topic notable? It would still help if you put the inline tags. Please do so. Without them it is hard to say what you think sufficiently supported and what not. Lambanog (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put in a few inline tags for just the first two paragraphs to indicate a few of the problems there. Granted, these paragraphs are some of the worst of the entire section. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add more inline tags identifying problem areas or I will take it that the banner can be removed. Lambanog (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Given how poorly the last experiment at doing so went, I believe it would be a waste of everyone's time. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that doesn't address the problem. Would you agree for the issue to be brought to WP:3O? I will bring the matter up there if no attempts to tag the specific items found objectionable using inline tags are made. Lambanog (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there are more than two people involved, WP:3O wouldn't be appropriate. How about leaving the tag to remind us and attract others to help? --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No need. I'm already here ready and willing to fix the problems. Of course you could too. The purpose of the tag is to call attention. Attention has already been called, ergo the banner serves no purpose. Continued banner placement serving no apparent constructive purpose could be construed as disruptive behavior. Lambanog (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot that could be continued disruptive behavior. I suggest you let this go so your behavior doesn't seem so. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable knowing I'm here to build the encyclopedia. I don't know what you're doing. Lambanog (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a maintenance tag interferes with anyone who is building this encyclopedia, nor has anyone offered any rationale. Please review WP:AGF and WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed your editing pattern seems to violate both and WP:EDIT policy. Terse or no explanations. Attempts to improve articles or solve problems if any are superficial and seem to be of the bare minimum possible. If we're looking at the content you provide one might conclude it is net negative unless possibly if one counts banners and tags, but they aren't content. Could you please explain? Lambanog (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your baseless accusations are disruptive. I suggest taking them to a proper forum and stop harassing me here. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

The edit-warring over tagging the article is preventing the improvement of the article. I suggest keeping the refimprove tag, but in the meantime rewrite per WP:MOSBIO and WP:LEDE based upon what few independent, reliable sources we have.

She's notable for being a nutritionist and her relationship with Weston A. Price Foundation. That's about all that belongs in the lede other than the MOSBIO required info. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Concur Details like professional association memberships should appear further down in the article, not in the lede. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP banner

I see a BLP banner has been placed. Please describe the nature of the problem. Lambanog (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We've not resolved the problems in Talk:Mary_G._Enig#Self-published_banner. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a precise indication of the problems with the article, indicated resolutions cannot be devised and the existence of problems are cast in doubt. Please provide inline tags where problems are thought to be. Banners are generally used with multiple instances of a problem; without such indications the banner does not belong and will be removed. Lambanog (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problems here are as I just found this article about five minutes ago. But whatever they are I don't think the current banner is very accurate. It says the article needs more refs but there are currently 39 in-line citations so that seems wierd. Also it says the article needs to be Wikified, but there are lots of wikilinks and the formatting seems fine to me. Can we remove this banner? If someone wants to keep it can we change it to something more accurate? Is there a neutrality, CoI, or some other issue here that needs to be addressed with a banner? Colincbn (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion below on rewriting the article to address the problems. Please participate in the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also a discussion going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_preventing_maintenance_tags_to_Mary_G._Enig Lambanog (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And the result of that discussion so far is to protect the page from further edit-warring, to revert questionable edits by Lambanog, and to restore the maintenance tags. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My view

Ok I've looked at this article a few times now. And while I think it needs some copyediting, I also think it is relatively OK. Yes, there are some passages that cross the NPOV border into praise, but they are not un-fixable. Also I think rather than there being too few references, as the banner tag states, I would say there are far too many. There is rarely ever a reason to have more than two citations for one statement, and this article has many with three or more (six in one instance). That is a clear sign that there is a problem here. If any one of those refs is actually usable all the rest in the same group can be done away with, provided of course that the refs kept are in fact reliable and are actually saying what is being attributed to them. Again I think there are places which seem to be clearly implying that her more controversial views are in fact correct without giving acceptable refs. Which is SYTH and/or OR and obviously no good. But we can't go the other direction and imply she is wrong without providing refs either of course.

I would also point out this ruling: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative_theoretical_formulations

Regardless of the accepted scientific consensus, her methods are what determine if her work is pseudoscience, not her stance. If her methods are not being critisized in citable sources we can't just assume she is a quack.

From what I have seen she is a notable person with cite-able views, regardless of what they are it should be pretty easy to fix this article. Colincbn (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is fixable and I don't think anyone wants to send this to AFD or to claim it is an irredeemable article. I also agree that the problem isn't so much a lack of citation, but a problem of reliance on relatively poor sources (primary, self published) rather than independent secondary ones. I would encourage removal of those with the substitution of better ones (and have been encouraging that for some time now). As to WP:ARBPSEUDO, I'm not sure I understand why you brought it up; I don't think anyone wants to apply that case here by calling her a pseudoscientist or a "quack". Certainly her views fall outside the mainstream of current medical understanding of saturated fats, but that can be cleared up with appropriate sourcing. Yobol (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Current developments regarding saturated fats are increasingly bringing "mainstream" closer to Enig. Recent meta-analyses have not been able to establish negative CVD outcomes for consumption of eggs, dairy, and red meat. After 30 years of trying, the assertion is wearing thin. After a string of clinical studies the Atkins Diet is now respectable. This 2001 article from the magazine Science explains why the entire premise wasn't that strong to begin with: The Soft Science of Dietary Fat. The issue has only gotten murkier since then. I get the impression the diabetes people are abandoning ship. Maybe Enig will never be mainstream but it has not refuted her; it's more the other way around. Lambanog (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case, I really don't know anything about this stuff. But whether she is right or wrong is kind of irrelevant. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to disparage her, or anyone for that matter. It's just that as far as WP is concerned all we should be doing is reporting on her and, as far as they are relevant, her views. She has stated her case very clearly and it should be easy to get it into the article in a way that confirms to WP Policy. It does not matter to WP if her views are right, it only matters that we report what they are accurately and neutrally.

By the way what were the issues leading to page protection and what needs to be done to get it lifted? Colincbn (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all there in the above discussion and in the article history. I was fixing up the article by adding sources. Another user kept adding a banner without sufficiently explaining what actionable items he wanted fixed. I removed it because I saw no need for it; I am here after all willing to address concerns. Banners are not supposed to be permanent (WP:TAGGING, WP:RESPTAG), and before I began work on the article there was one slapped on since November 2007 [1]. There was more than ample time allotted for the banner to have its intended effect; but it didn't seem to accomplish anything. In any case if the purpose of a banner is to call people to fix issues then my stated willingness to do so backed up by my addition of sources addresses the problem. So I removed the banner. This was objected to and, despite the avenue suggested by WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM being open, the matter was brought to ANI. Orangemike, an admin who has commented on this talk page recently and edited the article in the past, reverted my last edit thereby adding back the banner and removing some sources I had just added and locked the article on his preferred version despite WP:PREFER. I leave it to other parties such as yourself to judge what is going on here. WP:FULL offers the suggested way forward. Lambanog (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how about this, what can we say about her? That she is a dietitian, that she has published both books and papers, and that she has been interviewed on several occaisions? How about what her views on various fats are? It seems to me that those points are the heart of her notability. Does anyone object to allowing that information into Wikipedia? Colincbn (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should focus on what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about her. If you look through the history of this article as recently as 2009, basically the only sources used for this article were primary sources published by Enig herself; this turned this article into basically a WP:COATRACK for her views. My preferred route is to eliminate any primary sources about her and rely on what independent secondary sources have said about her. Obviously we need to describe her views on various issues such as those on fats, but keep in mind what WP:UNDUE requires us to describe the mainstream thought on these issues. Whether or not Enig turns out to be right in the end is really not something we can determine ahead of time; what we need to do is describe what she believes now and how it differs from the mainstream now (virtually every medical and dietary association recommends decreased saturated fat intake). The issues about tagging will resolve itself once we get more appropriate sources here. Yobol (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and explain how the essay WP:COATRACK applies. The article is about Enig and her views; if that should not be the subject of the article then what should it be about? As for what the mainstream says, sources should be cited to show what that supposedly is not just impressions given on this talk page. Lambanog (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that in an article about someone with "non-mainstream" views we should avoid spending too much time on the value of those views. We can, and should, include them of course, but a more thorough critique should be placed in an article on the views themselves, or given a simple neutral summary if they do not yet warrant their own article. Colincbn (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Read this article and note the idea of information cascade and reputational cascade: Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus. Wikipedia should be able to present information without being party to such bias. The framing of this discussion in terms of mainstream vs. non-mainstream indicates it already falls into that trap. Simply present the best information available. Lambanog (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

An article about the fats controversy would not be a BLP and therefore refs would be much easier to include. I think that would be the best way to cover those issues. As for this article it should focus more on her. Of course her views are a significant aspect, so they should certainly be included, but they should not be the main thrust of the article. Colincbn (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

So, I know things like this often don't work. But I went ahead and copied the page to my user space and I hope some of you might be willing to work on it there as a way to work toward consensus.

I have already removed a lot of the article that seemed like it might be contentious. But that is not to say the information should not be included, just that wording and sourcing will need to be meticulous to avoid coatracking/npov or the like.

I have also removed many refs that seemed superfluous. I did keep a few "primary" sources for things like dates and simple unambiguous facts.

Feel free to make any changes to my sandbox version that you would like to see done to an "unlocked" mainspace version. If we can come to an agreement there perhaps we can move toward unlocking here.

User:Colincbn/Enig Colincbn (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with your efforts but I'm mainly interested in improving the article here, not in a sandbox. I think the article without the banners, although far from perfect, is okay as is (WP:PERFECT). The others are the ones who have expressed having a problem with the article. Ask them to improve it and see how serious they are. Lambanog (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is we will never be able to remove the banners until the page is no longer locked. So the first step is finding a way to do that. Colincbn (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It all boils down to finding an admin to unlock it. Lambanog (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So Lambanog wants to continue edit-warring, and prioritizes the edit-warring over improving the article. Glad this has been made even clearer.

I'd rather work on improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, I added over 15 sources to this article in less than a month and cleaned it up. How many references did you add Ronz? One or was it two? And you've been monitoring this article for how long? Take your own advice. By the way do you have any article that you can point to as having successfully built? Maybe you should show that you are capable of improving an article before boasting that you can? I'm skeptical. Lambanog (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Was that what you were doing with your previous statement? When I focus on the content of your article history I don't see any from you. Lambanog (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was summarizing your comments that directly relate to the recent ANI on your behavior and the resulting page protection. Shall we open a new ANI instead? --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please no. Let's either A) agree to edit the subpage (I'm willing to throw in my 2 cents as I get a chance) or B) agree not to remove the banner until consensus is achieved it can be removed (since edit warring over the banner got the protection in the first place) - then we ask to have this page unprotected. Going to ANI is not going to solve anything. Yobol (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think either of the two suggestions Yobol has made above are acceptable. Anything that moves the process along toward resolution is fine with me. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's further disruption by Lambanog, and I'll open a new ANI. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to ANI. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the article, I suggest starting as a stub or redirecting to Weston A. Price Foundation. We simply don't have the references for much of an BLP article. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlocked

The article has been unlocked and I posted my changes. I expect they will get the big "revert", but if you do please tell me exactly what you object to and I will happily work with you to resolve the issue. Lets all take a deep breath and do this together. It should be a pretty simple article after all. Colincbn (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am unsatisfied with the presence of the banner. I plan to edit the article in two week should it still remain. If it is removed and everything else stays the same I do not plan on making any changes. Lambanog (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Lambanog, the banner stays until the issues are resolved by consensus. That could happen quickly or it could take longer. It could require a month-long RFC and arbitration (it won't). The point is that we don't work on a deadline and tags are just alerts to readers and editors that there is a dispute. While two weeks could be enough time to improve the article, if there is no consensus after two weeks, unilaterally removing the tags, and insisting on their removal would be disruptive. Meanwhile, if you want some say in how the article turns out, better to chime in during the next few weeks than after. Ocaasi ^c 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The presence of a banner or tag is an invitation to edit the article. Any of you are free to find a way to remove the banner or tag, but if not, I will. The natural state of an article is one without a tag or banner. Their presence on an article must be justified else they are subject to removal. If you wish to argue that attempting to improve an article is disruptive while blocking attempts to improve an article isn't, I can only consider that very odd. Lambanog (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We really don't need to debate this hypothetical, but the natural state of an article is to reflect the consensus of editors working on it. If there is no consensus (meaning there's a dispute) we tag the article accordingly as a courtesy to readers and as an invitation to other editors to discuss it not just to edit it. I've seen articles with NPOV tags on them for months and it's not a big deal. Years I would have a problem with, but not all articles are simple to construct, and tags give everyone reason to improve them. That's why the tag has to stay up until the NPOV issue is gone; so that it gives everyone who wants the tag gone, yourself included incentive to improve the article. (There's a limit to this, of course, and tags can't be used to indefinitely taint a good article. But that's not what has happened yet; there's a legitimate dispute here--one which I tend to side more with you on, but nonetheless). Ocaasi ^c 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi how long have you been with this project? Please point me to the pertinent guidelines and policies on tagging. By the way this article has had a banner on it for years [2]. Lambanog (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, Lambanog wants to continue his edit-warring, and harasses editors to do so. Let's get him blocked and be done with it. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page comments do not constitute edit warring. Please focus on content. Colincbn (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was unclear. Lambanog wants to continue his edit-warring of removing tags regardless or any consensus to do so or any consensus on whether or not the corresponding problems have been resolved. His comments above demonstrate yet more disruption and harassment. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dietary Views

The biggest problem I can see thus far is that we don't give her dietary views any context regarding mainstream consensus. Since her views are WP:FRINGE, and this is an article about the non-mainstream person/view, we don't have to give the typical WP:WEIGHT to scientific consensus, but we have to at least mention that her views are very much not accepted by the vast majority of academics, doctors, and nutritionists. This is not just for balance, it's also sociologically important to explain Enig's role. If it turns out one day that she was right, it will be all the more important that she made these findings and promoted them against such strong opposition. Ocaasi ^c 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of her views are likely fringe, some are unpopular but not discredited, some are in the process of being vindicated and others have already been vindicated. She was ahead of her time and is already accepted as right when it comes to trans fats. When it comes to saturated fats and coconut oil she may not be mainstream but it is now doubtful whether she can truly be classified as fringe. Indeed I find it hard to believe someone who has testified before the U.S. Congress, been recognized as an expert by a quasi-multi-governmental organization, was an editor for the Journal of the American College of Nutrition and has been inducted as a Master of the American College of Nutrition in 2003 can be considered that far from mainstream since it would seem she has the respect of her peers. The case remains to be made that she is as fringe as some here seem to believe with no evidence in support. I have no problem if that point was made. Indeed I supplied a couple of sources that did so but it seems at least one has been removed in the current version. Lambanog (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fringe isn't a pejorative in my book. To me Fringe does not mean wrong. It just means not accepted at this time. I think there's a very good chance she's right about more than just transfats. We still have to put her theories in their current and historical context, though, since it's part of the story of her life and work. She's not necessarily Fringe, but her views for the most part still are. I wouldn't be surprised if that's radically different in another decade, but since we take the long and winding road, we have to call it as most sources see it. In my opinion, she clearly represents a Fringe nutritional viewpoint with regard to saturated fats, and a pretty pioneering expert on trans fats. We should make both distinctions clear where we have sources to do so. Ocaasi ^c 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fringe may not be pejorative in your book but it is to others. Minority would be a more neutral term. Also I don't know if you've seen the latest on the saturated fats front, but the link between saturated fat and CVD is looking even more insignificant [3][4][5] and refined sugars are now being looked at by top scientists as possibly worse than saturated fats [6][7], kind of ironic since the low-fat no-fat campaign of the past decades resulted in the substitution of carbohydrate sugars for fats, much in the same way the saturated fats scare resulted in more trans fats in foods. Eggs bad? Not clear. Dairy? "...there appears to be an enormous mis-match between the evidence from long-term prospective studies and perceptions of harm from the consumption of dairy food items." Red meat? A very large study says yes, but a meta-analysis that includes the same study and others says no. Coconuts? Western authorities cannot even convincingly indict eggs, dairy, and red meat but despite even less research for coconuts will warn against them anyway. Lambanog (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Enig turns out to be right in the future is not for us to say; the current mainstream consensus is that saturate fats are not healthy and we have to reflect that to maintain WP:NPOV. "Fringe" in Wikipedia terms is used to refer to the WP:FRINGE guideline, which her views clearly fall under. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Yobol has hit the issue on the head here. It is essentially irrelevent to WP if she is right or not. We just report what she is saying, not if it is true. It's like with the old dinosaur warm/cold blooded thing. Back when there was only one guy saying they were warm blooded that view would have fit under WP:Fringe. But now it is the accepted scientific consensus. What we should be doing is just reporting what she says, and in what context as far as her divergence from the majority viewpoint. Colincbn (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lambanog, I have seen those studies and they are very exciting/intriguing. They're also too recent to have much bearing on an article like this, haven't received enough attention in the scientific review process, and haven't been confirmed by further studies. They face an overwhelming mountain of prior research and consensus, which can change, but hasn't budged much yet. Anecdotally (not MEDRS at all) for the not budged consensus, see [8] [9] and recent news about links between saturated fats and Alzheimer's [10], stroke [11], depression [12], heart disease [13], and pancreatic cancer [14]. Now I'm sure Enig would have intelligent things to say about the difference between trans-fats and sat-fats, the role of other factors in the diet, the importance or properly raised meats, etc. It's still plausible that the consensus is wrong, but there's a lot that needs to be established for that to be proven. That said, I think we should mention the Saturated Fat debate briefly, but I'm don't think we can say much about those recent studies' effect on consensus yet.

The tag in this version is accurate; there are no (or very few) reliable, independent secondary/tertiary sources. It took me about 45 minutes to track down every newspaper article mentioning about Enig since 1970. That's the point of the tag, to encourage research. I said I'd seen tags up for months. But it doesn't matter how long someone's been here to realize an approach that's against consensus-building. I have also spotted people attack Fringe views against sources and encyclopedic merit. Neither is a good thing. Ocaasi ^c 06:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

@Yobol and Colincbn, I don't mind what approach is used but I object to the banners. Discussion on actionable improvements to the article to remove them on this page are unclear. Given that the current version is one submitted by Colincbn, I presume he considers it largely adequate.

@Ocaasi, you are free to look for summaries of the overwhelming mountain of prior research. The studies I am referring to are meta-analyses, which are reviews of prior research, very large recent studies, and recent opinions of leading researchers. If you look at the history of the "saturated fats is bad" view you will see they grew out of a group of studies from the 1950s to 1970s. The mammoth studies done recently are less conclusive. They seem to show that PUFAs may be better than SFAs for CVDs but it is unclear if that's because SFAs are bad or PUFAs are good and it is a far cry from the SFAs are to be avoided like the plague story that has been propagated. The sources you present aren't exactly damning for saturated fats and are inferior to meta-analyses according to WP:MEDRS. Although you did not refer to it, a meta-analysis does lie behind the most recent 2010 US dietary guidelines but on the other hand it has been criticized for being selective in its choice of studies to review. Regarding the sources you found for Enig, if the above is all you found there are still a few more. Even with only those above though added to what's already there that would give this article a citation density that could rival that of a GA. Do you want to bring this article to GA status? As for tagging, any article can be further improved, that does not mean every article is tagged with a banner. Lambanog (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware the links I mentioned were just news reports about primary studies. The recent systematic reviews are important, I just don't think we can link them here directly without it being WP:OR. For example, the criticisms of the 2010 dietary guidelines are Fringe as well--which doesn't make them wrong, but it's not within our purview to do much criticism of study design when they fall under MEDRS (trust me, I've tried, see: Chiropractic, E.Ernst). If you have other sources, please add them to that list. We can perhaps move it to a sources subpage. I think we're clearly in banner territory until the recent spate of sources have been integrated and the scientific consensus has been added for context. After that, if tags are still up I'll have a different opinion. GA is a good goal, that's all I can say time-wise. Ocaasi ^c 08:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If the meta-analyses are OR then including the dietary guidelines would be OR as well. As for criticism of the dietary guidelines being fringe are you referring to something specific? Or are you going at it along the lines of this is mainstream therefore any criticism of it is ipso facto fringe? By the way Ocaasi, in your view should it be included in the article that Enig is a Master of the American College of Nutrition or merely a Fellow? What is your rationale? Lambanog (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I would like to remove the tags. But if we want them taken down we need to address the concerns they raise first. If we cant get a consensus on removing them than they will most likely just keep getting put back up. Rather than focusing on the tags lets focus on improving the article first. Then we will be in a much better position to have them removed. Colincbn (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand, but those insisting on the banners are obligated to give a detailed enough description of the actionable problems so that improvements can be made. If there is no specific description of the problem then there is no need for the banner. I can see maybe a couple of suggestions that can find manifestation in particular edits but more detail and specificity would be better. I therefore ask that any problems with the current version be fixed or identified with an inline tag so that they can be properly addressed. Lambanog (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes??

I'm a big supporter of PC (at least its testing and development), but I think this page is the very much the wrong place for it. We don't have a low-watched article with unpredictable vandalism and a high percentage of positive i.p. contributions. We have a highly watched and localized content dispute that requires careful examination of phrasing and sourcing. It's pretty much exactly what pending changes is not designed for. I don't know what it's doing really on this page.

I'm a reviewer, but if anyone else is having trouble making additions, I'd be happy to just add them for you and let the discussion follow afterwards. Ocaasi ^c 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure why it was added either. It might be that someone wanted to stop people from making reverts not logged in to avoid 3RR. But that is not really what PC is for. Colincbn (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit

I did a significant copyedit. There are about 18 different diffs, since I prefer small edits for tracking and potentially controversial changes, which these weren't i.m.o. but the article is, (and I use WP:POPUPS, and you should if you don't). I took out almost nothing and added almost nothing; it was primarily rephrasing and reoganization, a bit of tagging, and a bit of new section recommendations based on source reading. Highlights are in the edit comments, but here are a few.

• Rephrase intro - she's not just a nutritionist, but a nutritionist and researcher (and advocate).
• Add butter to list of fats she advocates. She's a big butter fan too. Perhaps we should also mention raw dairy, organ meats, organic agriculture, and grass-fed animals.
• Add trans-fat section (currently empty, but probably her most important view, though it's no longer controversial--that's why it's important)
• Move coconut oil section after saturated fat section. I believe coconut oil is most recent in her research and advocacy chronologically, so I put it last.
• Change from direct quotes to paraphrasing of scientific content. There's not much rhetorical benefit from exact quotes, and the ideas are easily summarized.
• Edited NEJM review description--was a little long and NPOV in my reading. Think it's tighter and more direct now.
• Add section on organic farming and animal husbandry (currently empty). A big part of her theory of nutrition and current advocacy.
• Add advocacy section (currently empty). Distinct from her professional history, or in addition to it is all of the non-research work she does to promote her views. Should have enough for a short section.

Ocaasi ^c 05:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Subpage

Ok I created a subpage where I can show the large number of changes I would do to the article to bring it to a good neutral starting point. It is not a userpage it is a subpage of this talk with a link to it at the top of this page. I think we all agree that pasting it here would not be advisable as it would clutter up the talk page something horrible. Talk:Mary_G._Enig/Proposed_changes. (page deleted, see below) Colincbn (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And for the record I always subscribe to 1RR, I even have the spiffy userbox on my userpage. Colincbn (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're better off with starting from scratch. The current article is so poorly sourced, that trimming it down to only the bits that aren't poorly sourced gives us almost nothing to work with. We need new sources. We've got potential sources above, but the notes with them provide little or no context that we need to use them properly. I'll work on identifying the context next. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I had the page deleted as it was never used and is no longer needed. Colincbn (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

See also

It's obvious that this article should link to certain terms: Weston A. Price Foundation, Fatty Acid, Saturated Fat, Coconut Oil. I recently added the following in the See also section:

Directly related

• Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy
• Lipid hypothesis
• Diet and heart disease

General

• Nutrition
• Healthy diet

Those are in the interest of linking to relevant theories and controversies in part, but also broader information about nutrition. My two concerns about this article are 1) That we cover Enig's work and thinking in full and two, that we not keep it isolated but provide sufficient context to the dominant nutritional paradigms. Also, I'd like readers to see that approach to diet is not the only non-mainstream diet that has vocal supporters and researchers. So I'm interested in including the following links as well:

To add:

• Vegetarianism or Vegetarian nutrition
• The China Study

As well as approach influenced by Enig's line of thinking such as:

• Paleolithic diet

Thoughts? Ocaasi ^c 13:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally for having as much info as possible, and links help put things in context so I would say go ahead. however we don't want to over-saturate the see also section either.

On a separate note I don't think the dubious tag is needed. The coconut oil section does not say she is right (which might deserve the tag), just what her views are. I think her views are quite clear and therefore the info is not "dubious" at all. Colincbn (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Colin that tag should really be {contradictory}, since the sentence reads: she opposes low-fat diets "recommending changing the fats to coconut oil". The change she recommends is different from the criticism, so it's confusing. It should read something like, "Enig opposes low-fat diets, and instead recommends switching from XYZ fats to Coconut oil". I'll switch the tag. Actually, i'll just update the text. Ocaasi ^c 13:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, yes I see your point and agree. Colincbn (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lipid hypothesis is unnecessary since it is already hyperlinked in the text. Vegetarianism and the China Study seem unrelated to Enig, and Paleolithic diet seems a stretch too. Lambanog (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think "See also" sections are quite often related only by topic. In this case alternative diets. Still if the section gets too long those might be the first to cut. Colincbn (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO is pretty clear that this section should be as short as possible but as large as is useful. So whatever we choose, basically. Better to integrate links into the article, but okay to use peripherally related links, perhaps with a short explanation of what they are or how they connect Ocaasi ^c 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would consider adding Gary Taubes and Conrado Dayrit. Lambanog (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think all suggestions above are reasonable, but would like to keep this section on the compact side rather than lengthy side. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Misleading and inaccurate statements

The statement "scientific consensus that high-fat diets lead to heart disease" is inaccurate. If it isn't ignorance it is POV pushing. Someone should acquaint themselves with the Lyon Diet Heart Study, the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial, the slew of recent diet studies involving low carb diets (e.g. Atkins diet) and the resulting fallout. The statement in question is an example of what happens when people don't look at sources and rely on conventional wisdom—a conventional wisdom perpetuated by certain supposedly authoritative institutions when they had considerably weaker evidence than they have now. Lambanog (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Every major medical and dietetic association (WHO, ADA, AHA, etc) believes high saturated fat diets are harmful. They form the medical consensus, so you'll need to take it up with them to change the consensus. Yobol (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the statement in question and figure out the difference. I would also say that the current wording in the lede is not neutral even if corrected. The WHO hasn't issued a detailed statement on this since 2003 from what I can tell and the AHA has an embarrassing record of being wrong (AHA prudent diet vs. Mediterranean diet, stand on Atkins diet, belated recognition of trans fat as a danger). If you are talking about the American Diabetes Association, I read they revised their dietary guidelines to allow for a low-carbohydrate diet in 2008. I would not object to them being mentioned but the recent high quality contradictory information from recent meta-analyses and prospective studies should be too. Lambanog (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If they haven't issued new guidelines, then they obviously still hold the same ones currently. When they issue new ones with new recommendations, then we can discuss it, but if they haven't issued new ones, they obviously haven't found the need to do so. Yobol (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're debating the current statement in the article, then yes it is inaccurate. You might have missed it, but the AHA has shifted its emphasis. The spanking its prudent diet received at the hands of the Mediterranean diet kind of forced it. Lambanog (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AHA guidelines clearly state to limit saturated fat intake. Yobol (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the article in question isn't about saturated fat. It is about "high-fat diets". Please read closely and do not conflate the two concepts. If there is something to be said about high-fat vs. low-fat diets and Enig vs. scientific institutions like the AHA, it is that she has been vindicated. Lambanog (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

From the same AHA page above, "Both types of unsaturated fats may help lower your blood cholesterol level when used in place of saturated fats in your diet. But you should be moderate in eating all types of fat, because fats contain more than twice the calories of either protein or carbohydrate. Polyunsaturated or monounsaturated oils — and margarines and spreads made from them — should be used in limited amounts in place of fats with a high saturated fat content, such as butter, lard or hydrogenated shortenings."(italics mine) Clearly they advise a low fat diet. Yobol (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The AHA it seems as always is vague enough to make it seem it has been consistent all along and has put the best spin on things to cover its reputation. Where it used to be about reducing fat intake it now seems moderation is the order of the day. Here's a more plainly spoken article from ABC News that explains things: Is the Low-Fat, High-Carb Diet Mantra a Myth? or this from the New York Times: Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds. No consensus. I could give many more but really if you don't believe me you should do the legwork and find the stuff yourself. It shouldn't be too difficult. Lambanog (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ABCNews and NYTimes are not MEDRS. Your claim that the AHA "shifted" their stance appears to be incorrect, as they still encourage reduced fat intake. The consensus reflected by the fact that a low-fat diet is what is advocated by numerous (all?) major medical and health organizations. Yobol (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since our article on Enig only speaks to saturated fat intake, rather than high fat diets in general, I have adjusted the lead. That should take care of your objection as well. Yobol (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there is a consensus I think ABC News and the New York Times would be able to figure it out and present it as such—but they don't. Maybe you don't understand the terms: "low-carbohydrate diet" is basically a stand-in for "high-fat diet". The term "high-fat diet" isn't as commonly used which is an additional reason I think the wording in this article is imprecise and inaccurate. Enig is against low-fat diets; I'm not sure she is for high-fat diets. You say a low-fat diet is advocated by all the associations? Care to produce the statements? What if they also say a low-carbohydrate (high-fat) diet is okay? Adjectives like "low" and "high" are also relative. To what? is the question. The AHA if I recall is saying a level of 30% of calories for fats but was previously promoting lower levels. 10% was a low-fat guru's preference. Average for Americans is about 40%. Define the terms.

Perhaps your fix deals with the issue, perhaps not. Enig was ahead of the curve in her opposition to trans fats and low fat diets. That she has proved correct on both counts is notable in her record. Lambanog (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue seems to be how do we define "Scientific consensus", is there a clear policy on the term? To use the dinosaur analogy, at what point did the scientific consensus change from cold to warm blooded. At some point there must have been some grey area with a large number of paleontologist on both sides. Perhaps we should use the term "majority" rather than "consensus" instead? I would need to review the policies to be qualified to take part in any debate on it though. Colincbn (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the context-content today and find it to be an optimal compromise for including detail about what Enig thinks along with some notes that put it in perspective of mainstream opinion. The Weight here is still in Enig's favor (we're not spending the whole article debunking her), and her views are properly represented as notable but still on the Fringe (except for trans-fats). That seems to reflect the state of the world pretty accurately, whether you like/agree with her or not. Ocaasi ^c 03:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I don't agree with her, I don't disagree with her either. I have no solid opinion on the matter. I was just saying that if there is enough of a debate in scientific circles, we might want to avoid the word consensus. However I am also not totally up on the WP Policies regarding this kind of thing so I would have to leave it to others to make that decision. Colincbn (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information

Ronz, would you check the sources section to see if information can be sourced before you remove it? Ocaasi ^c 18:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're saying to do this as opposed to this, correct?

As I've pointed out, I am at times. However, I prefer to follow WP:BLP closely. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP is not relevant any more, as I explained above. We've established notability. We have numerous secondary sources which establish the majority of claims. There are no negative, controversial claims that can't be sourced at the least to Enig's own writing. And BLPPrimary permits the use of primary sources to augment secondarily sourced claims. Following BLP should not be used for limiting coverage of Fringe topics, if BLP is not really the issue. Ocaasi ^c 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, I've added sources where it was clear from the title of the source that it verified information already verified and yet removed for some unexplained reason.

Are we done with this bit of hypocrisy? --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what hypocrisy has to do with it. Hypocrisy suggests I'm doing what I suggested you were, removing information unnecessarily. I don't think that's accurate. You may disagree with the characterization that you're removing information unnecessarily though. The reason I mentioned it was that in these edits you requested not using a self-published reference, when the references were being used to support the subject's own views. I don't believe BLP and SPS are in conflict the way you are suggesting. You asked that we move away from the poorly referenced version, but the easier way to do that is to source the text rather than remove it, since we have multiple sources on this page already provided. You asked if Enig's letter to the editor of a major scientific journal was notable without an independent source. (Just for semantics, notability only applies to having the article or not; now it's a Source/Weight issue). I think the publication in a major scientific journal is sufficient for Weight with regards to Enig's own views. And you removed her theory about lauric acid citing BLP. Again, maybe that's a Weight issue, but the BLP/SPS conflation seems to be making it harder to write this than policy requires, so I'm wondering what the purpose of that is. Ocaasi ^c 17:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks elapsed, banners still up

Two weeks have passed and i notice the banners are still up. Is anyone still working on the article or is it time for me to step in to improve it? Lambanog (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be working on the article soon, and you are certainly welcome to contribute, as long as that contribution does not replicate the behavior that led to the article being locked. Yobol (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a time frame of when you plan to start and how long you expect to take? I'd prefer no overlap just so it is clear who is doing what. If you plan on starting within the week or taking more than a week please advise. Lambanog (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not work on a deadline or a predetermined schedule. Yobol (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Took down banners and removed expansion tags

In its current state this seems like a fine article to me. Yes it could use expansion but I don't think having empty sections with tags is the best way to go. We should just let it grow normally. Also there are plenty of refs and no longer any neutrality issues so I took down the tags. Colincbn (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the tags per the discussions here. Please gain consensus before hindering the improvement of an article as discussed previously. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am trying to improve the article. What exactly about the neutrality do you dispute? Also in an article this size why does it need more sources than it already has? Just because you don't want the tags removed does not mean you can keep them up forever with no reason. Colincbn (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Struck last sentence with my apologies, that was snarky and uncalled for. Colincbn (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what about the content do you find non neutral??? What is wrong with the sources we have??? Please answer. Colincbn (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, all content not supported by independent, reliable sources. Hence all my work going over all the sources referenced and proposed. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you remember one of the first things that I did after the page was unlocked was to remove a large amount of unsourced claims. Also I tried to remove all nuances of advocacy. I think you can realize we both have the same goals at heart. However a vague answer like the one above does not give me anything to work with. From your conversation with Ocaasi above I worry that you might feel you are the only person allowed to decide about the sources and content of this article. Please prove my fears wrong by allowing us to work with you to improve the article. What content do you currently find to be non neutral? I will leave the discussion of sources for now as you seem to still be looking at them yourself. Colincbn (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"However a vague answer like the one above does not give me anything to work with." What would you like clarified? I'm busy going over all the proposed sources.

"From your conversation with Ocaasi above I worry that you might feel you are the only person allowed to decide about the sources and content of this article." Simply AGF. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the sources that are in the article right now needs to be fixed. Not the proposed ones. They are irrelevebnt to the current state of the article. I see no reason for the current article to need a neutrality tag. why do ou think it does? From the conversation you have been having with Ocaasi it could be taken that you want to keep them up to "make a point" to Lambanog [Quote: "I'm being cautious, trying to make it very clear to Lambanog that we're not doing the same thing that he does." --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)' diff] and while being cautious is admirable, editing to make a point is clearly an unacceptable reason. I am assuming this is not the case, but it is worrying. Please give me a specific reason based on policy to keep the tags and I will work with that to improve the article further. Just pointing out a policy with no direct connetion to this article explained does not allow me to address your concerns. Colincbn (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Identifying the independent, reliable sources

(The discussion below and the sources identified refer to the protected version here --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

As part of the rewrite effort, it would be almost essential to identify those few sources that are both independent and reliable and are about Enig herself. Those are what this article should be based primarily upon.

Of the first ten references, there are none, with the possible exception of "Trimming the Fats." Can someone who has access to this article summarize it?. From what I can find, it's a short article listing books that have guidelines and recipes for reducing trans fats intake. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the first nine references are all we have for the "Academic and professional history" section. This suggests that there is little or no appropriately sourced information in that section. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with this one? Also it seems to me that the Washington post is fine for use here. Can you give a list of all the refs you think are no good so we can start on the same page? (I know that is kind of a pain but I think it will get us moving faster) Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides being a primary source, not independent, and not providing any substantial coverage of Enig in any way? --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

At least no one is disagreeing with my assessment. That's progress I guess. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to see Ronz explain. Lambanog (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving on, reference #11 (Webb 1990) while independent and reliable, isn't about Enig. It cites Enig at length though, so could be used as a source for her viewpoints. Note also that this reference is being used incorrectly, and doesn't verify information from either of the locations it is cited. Until we can find a way to use this source properly, it should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does ref #2 run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY? Yobol (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Looking through refs #1-11: 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 are all primary sources. That's part of the reason for this discussion - to find those sources that can be used to rewrite this article properly. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while that website is maintained by the state government of Maryland, and therefore could be considered primary, as the information contained there is not being provided by the subject of this article I think we can still use it. Also there is no actual restriction from using primary sources, even in BLPs, just a restriction against misuse of them to support OR and the like.

Specifically:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

The information it gives about Enig is that she is licenced as a dietitian, the exact information that it is being cited as a reference to, that seems perfectly acceptable to me. Colincbn (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Per BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Public documents produced by state governments would seem to fall under this restriction...as I do not routinely edit BLPs, I might be wrong, but this seems to give little leeway to use such information. If her licensing status is relevant to our article, certainly a secondary source has mentioned it, right? Yobol (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Directly after that the policy states: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." So there are obviously some cases where public records can be used (provided they don't contain an address etc). I think by "assertion" they do not mean a simple verifiable fact, like whether she is a licenced dietitian, but an interpretive assertion, like whether she is a good dietitian. Colincbn (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But wouldn't a date of birth be a "simple verifiable fact" that is nevertheless prohibited from being used? Yobol (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

An example of hairsplitting with dubious wikilawyering. A good reason not to use a birth date in an article would be not to potentially compromise or embarrass a subject by revealing private information. This information is of a public nature and from the best authority to declare it. Maybe you could employ your efforts to better advantage by trying to bring a couple of articles to GA or FA status. Lambanog (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MOSBIO for some of the basic facts that should be in if we can verify them, which includes birthdate.

My concerns with these references is WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP, but other problems from using primary sources still apply. --Ronz (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how ref #2 violates, or is being used to violate, any of the above. Colincbn (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I will bring this up to WP:BLPN, if nothing more than for my own edification on how to apply BLP policy. Yobol (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the fact she had been a licensed nutritionist is probably worth a mention. I'd prefer we had an independent source to support it. I suspect we can find them without much effort. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's worth a mention, though it appears we're doing it wrong and violating WP:BLP with how we're doing it now. Yobol (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

References #12, 13, 14 and 15 are primary sources. #13, 14 and 15 are self-published. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking through some BLPs of other notable scientists (such as Andre_Geim) and in most of those articles there are refs citing papers by the subject. However the ones I viewed were not very controversial and most also had much better secondary sources. I think that while it is important to replace as many primary sources as possible, there may be places where we should keep them, provided they are not being used to validate any of her claims. I guess the important thing is to develop a road-map to getting the page unprotected. I have started a thread below with the hopes of working in that direction. Colincbn (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

References #16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are primary sources. #17, 19, 20, and 22 are self-published.--Ronz (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference #18 is secondary and independent, but not substantially about Enig. That makes a total of two. The "Coconut oil" section has one, a gentle criticism of the lack of research supporting the claims made by Enig. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference #23 is a book review of an edited book which Enig contributed. It's not about Enig, nor does it mention her. #24 are a few letters to the editor in response to #23 that includes an letter from Enig and a response to her letter. This is a primary source. The two sources taken together do not support the information in the article, and violate WP:SYN. Reference #25 is a letter in response to a different article, where Enig is included in the list of authors of the letter. It's not about Enig, it's primary, and is another WP:SYN vio. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference #26 is a book by Michael Pollan. Not independent. Can anyone cite from this book anything that's actually relevant to the information in the article? Given our track record, I wouldn't be surprised if this is yet another reference that doesn't verify anything at all. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

off topic comments

Michael Pollan? I think Wikipedia's article on him explains enough. Interesting that you presented a red link for him. Given the track record should we be surprised? Lambanog (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Please WP:FOC and stop harassing me. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC) You should have clearly noted that you changed Pollan, Michael to Michael Pollan only after I noted it: diff. Stop making dubious edits. Interesting to see you are also now playing victim. Admins should tread carefully. In this prior incident [15] poor Toddst1 didn't look closely and took Ronz at his word and came to his aid and rightfully got criticized. Notice how those involved, except Ronz whose conduct initiated the whole sequence of events, is victimized in the affair. Lambanog (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Please stop disrupting this talk page. Ready for ANI again? --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Ronz please read WP:FOC. Moreover last I looked the addition of references was encouraged by WP:EDIT while the removal of references is one of the things sometimes automatically tagged for possible disruptive editing. I am the main proponent for adding references to this article; you are the main proponent for removing them. Lambanog (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Please stop disrupting this talk page. I'll write up an ANI requesting you be banned from the article when I have the time. Continuing to disrupt this page will just make the case against you easier. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC) If you are going to bring this matter to ANI bring it to ANI already, else what you are doing is merely engaging in threats which is disruptive. Lambanog (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The above was inappropriately collapsed by Ronz, a participant in the collapsed discussion, and not an uninvolved party. It is all the more inappropriate because questionable edits by Ronz were noted. Lambanog (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

References #27 28 30. 30 are self-published. Reference #29 doesn't verify the information. From the references, "She raised concerns..." appears to violate WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYN. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

References #31-34 are being used to WP:COAT and to continue the problems mentioned above concerning refs 27-30. None mention Enig. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference #35 is not about Enig, but is there to counter the problems mentioned above with a statement about the medical dietary consensus.

References #36 - 39 are primary; and 36, 38, and 39 is self-published. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Summarizing: references #11, 18, 23, and 31-35 are independent and reliable. None are substantially about Enig. 11, 18, and 23 mention her. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Listing them below for reference:

• 11 Webb, Densie. (September 5, 1990). Processed oils rival butter in raising cholesterol. Wilmington Morning Star. N.Y. Times News Service.
• 18 Garin: Claims on health benefits of VCO need proof The Philippine Star. 12 Sept 2010.
• 23 Stone, Neil J. (March 31, 1994). Book Review – Coronary Heart Disease: The Dietary Sense and Nonsense – An Evaluation by

• 31 L'Abbé, M R; Stender, S; Skeaff, C M; Tavella, M; Ebert, DS; Delp, EJ (2009). "Approaches to removing trans fats from the food supply in industrialized and developing countries". European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 63: S50. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2009.14. PMC 2830089. PMID 19190645.
• 32 Jakobsen, MU; O'Reilly, EJ; Heitmann, BL; Pereira, MA; Bälter, K; Fraser, GE; Goldbourt, U; Hallmans, G et al. (2009). "Major types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a pooled analysis of 11 cohort studies". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89 (5): 1425–32. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.27124. PMC 2676998. PMID 19211817.
• 33 Mozaffarian, D; Micha, R; Wallace, S; Wallace, Sarah (2010). "Effects on coronary heart disease of increasing polyunsaturated fat in place of saturated fat: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". PLoS medicine 7 (3): e1000252. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252. PMC 2843598. PMID 20351774.
• 34 Siri-Tarino, Patty W., Qi Sun, Frank B. Hu, and Ronald M. Krauss. (2010). Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 91 (3): 535-546. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725.
• 35 Maloof, Rich. Coconut Oil. MSN Health and Fitness.

11, 18, and 23 are still in the article as of 08:03, 20 May 2011.

31-35 were removed - I believe because they are off topic. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)