Jump to content

Talk:Coconut oil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lambanog (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 2 September 2011 (POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:Energy portal fact

Further reading 2

WLU and I apparently have different views on what the "Further reading" section should contain. I agree that the scope of the section should limit the entries (hence reasonable number in the guidelines); and I agree that we should have the best possible entries (hence editor-recommended ); however, I view the scope as including material with data that the article does not address because of the data's specificity, and also, on the other side of the coin, material which puts the article's topic in context because of the need in articles to keep context discussions short. The guideline says: reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Further reading. Coconut oil does not have a large listing under the "Further reading" section, give our readers the best we can find. --Bejnar (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence a 2006 set of conference proceedings, not a 36 year old book that is about coconut palm products in general or a 19 year old book with a section on coconut oil. Why have one good further reading and two poor ones? Particularly on a relatively short page. What benefit is there for our readers to point them to two obsolete references? I fail to see having two poor references merely to have two poor references. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grimwood is not a "poor reference", and it is mostly about the processing of coconut oil and many of the processes described are still in use 36 years later. --Bejnar (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a text that says that? In which case, why wouldn't we cite that text? Or, why not integrate it into the body fo the article and use it as a reference? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot cite a text that says that. However, the FAO has not deemed it necessary to issue a new edition or a replacement. --Bejnar (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

What is the source for this chart? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatty acid content of coconut oil
Type of fatty acid pct
Lauric saturated C12
 
 47.5%
Myristic saturated C14
 
 18.1%
Palmitic saturated C16
 
 8.8%
Caprylic saturated C8
 
 7.8%
Capric saturated C10
 
 6.7%
Stearic saturated C18
 
 2.6%
Caproic saturated C6
 
 0.5%
Oleic monounsaturated C18
 
 6.2%
Linoleic polyunsaturated C18
 
 1.6%
Coconut oil contains approximately 92.1% saturated fatty acids, 6.2% monounsaturated fatty acids, 1.6% polyunsaturated fatty acids. The above numbers are averages based on samples taken. Numbers can vary slightly depending on age of the coconut, growing conditions, and variety.

red: Saturated; orange: Monounsaturated; blue: Polyunsaturated

NPOV tag

If we're going to have the NPOV tag up there, then there should be a clear statement of what is disputed. Without such a statement, the tag should be removed. If no such statement is made by say, April 28th, I would like to remove the tag. Obviously any issues raised would have to be dealt with until a consensus is reached before the tag would be removed. Currently I am certain the page could be improved but do not see it as non-neutral. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the tag be better placed in a specific section? I have been following this dispute but not the details of the debate. If it's localized, {npov section} is preferred. I believe Lambanog has expressed his opinion that the section is not accurately summarizing scientific consensus, or that the consensus has recently shifted? He can probably comment better than I. Implicitly, whatever the difference between LPV and the current draft, that is the NPOV dispute. Ocaasi c 17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly certain the main area of dispute is the health section, and for the same reason as being discussed on the Mary G. Enig page re: saturated fats and high fat diets. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I replaced it with an NPOV section tag. Perhaps it would be useful to invite some other WP:MED folks to help summarize the recent research. Ocaasi c 17:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than guessing, it may be clearer and more helpful to other editors if the individual who disputes the neutrality (Lambanog) summarizes or restates his or her position. Though we may guess at what the problems may be, the three of us seem to find the current version acceptable. I am open to any improvements that could be made, I just don't see what they are. I have too many problems with the health section of the extended draft to support it being put into the main page but would prefer a clear statement of what is wrong/missing from the current page. I'll leave a pointer to this section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the matter to the NPOV Noticeboard. Lambanog (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We have all stated that we would like a summary of the issues you feel impair the neutrality of the page. Ocaasi added the tag to indicate an ongoing dispute. We're waiting for a description of the problems. To what end? That just imports the dispute to a new page and means we now have to check at least two discussion pages in order to comprehensively understand what's going on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of the tag. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. Tags aren't meant to be badges of shame, and one person can't hold up consensus on this. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly underweights the perspective of countries which utilize coconut oil the most. Sources approved by third party editors on the reliable sources noticeboard were removed with little to no explanation. Glaring errors that have been introduced, however, are untouched. Certain editors here are also displaying tag-teaming behavior. Lambanog (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing preventing you from improving the article itself, but reverting to your preferred version or adding dispute material that has been previously discussed would probably not be appropriate. Let's be clear here: there has been no discussion here from you on this page for over 3 months - perhaps instead of accusing others of misconduct, you might want to consider the possibility that WP:CONSENSUS is just against you. Yobol (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I see independent third-party editors who have a history of constructive edits that improve artices and do not have a questionable pattern of editing opposing my edits I will take the opposition more seriously. However, when I see the same editors over multiple articles displaying a similar editing pattern (that has also noted by another editor so it isn't just my imagination) then it is a relevant topic to bring up. Moreover looking at the talk page archives and article history it is clear multiple other editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the article or believed it could be expanded but have been reverted by the same group of editors now currently pushing their views on this article. So no I do not believe there is consensus at all. Lambanog (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again you have chosen to comment on the editors instead of the content. You'll find this is attitude goes against our behavioral policies and is no way to behave collaboratively. Dismissing multiple editors' opinions and contributions to consensus will get you nowhere. Yobol (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The poor quality of the article under your aegis speaks for itself. Compared to the eggs, butter, and milk articles the non-neutral negative tenor of this article is very clear. Stop behaving in a tag-teaming manner and start improving articles and there will be no basis to bring the issues up. Lambanog (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Lambango has opened yet another thread on the NPOV Noticeboard here. Yobol (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between tag-teaming and consensus can appear obvious only to the person who works against consensus. The problem is, Lambanog, any independent editor who disagrees with your interpretation will almost certainly be labelled, by you, as no longer independent and lacking a history of constructive edits. The main issue again appears to be the unwillingness of editors to accept that coconut oil is an inherent health food. This again seems to fall back on a lack of sufficient sources to make the "health food" approach appear to have adequate scientific weight. The diff you posted on the NPOVN has some improvements which I will try to include, but much of your changes consist of minor adjustments which certainly don't justify maintaining an alternate version that I can see, particularly when maintaining your alternate version "somehow" results in you saving your preferred version. In other words, it really just looks like sneaky edit warring with some oops-I-forgot plausible deniability built in.
Eggs, butter and milk are of much greater interest world-wide (and I think you mean Egg (food)). There's a substantial difference between them and coconut oil. However, we can certainly add sources that give the tropical perspective on it since it's such an important native food source in those areas. Of course, for medical claims we are still bound by MEDRS to maintain a high standard. It doesn't matter where the research is done, but the experimental controls, publication impact factor and scientific acceptance do matter and will determine weight.
Incidentally, I've removed the chart from the page since, as I mentioned in an above section, it's unsourced. Even if it's replaced, it should be left- or right-justified, not centered. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This section pretty clearly indicates there is no support for the {{POV}} tag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I see no need for the tag. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, as noted above. Yobol (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with reference

I need help referencing this article: http://www.tampabay.com/news/aging/doctor-says-an-oil-lessened-alzheimers-effects-on-her-husband/879333 ... How would I do it? Dragix (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medical claims on Wikipedia need to be referenced to reliable sources suitable for medical claims, such as reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. Claims of published on tampabay.com by one doctor do not qualify. Yobol (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

I was contemplating integrating the following, but the reference doesn't explicitly give a caloric breakdown for coconut oil that I can see, making it original research.

The caloric content of coconut oil is very nearly the same as that of other dietary fats, being reduced only slightly by the presence of medium chain triglycerides which constitute less than half of the total fat content. A value of 8.3 kcal/g has been quoted for dietary medium-chain triglycerides.[1]

Also, based on this diff culled from the NPOVN, I think I've integrated everything Lambanog had added to his parallel version, though my review wasn't nitty-gritty. I've also updated some citations, including an interesting one about how coconut oil won't work as an alternative to diesel just yet. That was kinda neat to find. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning and notice of pending dispute resolution

There is clearly an edit war going on here since August 2 over the inclusion or exclusion of a {{POV}} tag. I've not checked to see if a three revert rule violation has occurred, but no such violation is necessary for an edit war to exist since 3RR is merely a bright-line rule and the "rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." The only reason I'm not reporting everyone involved in the assertions and reversions at the edit war noticeboard is because an attempt at dispute resolution is being attempted at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Coconut_oil. Please make no further additions or removals of the POV tag until dispute resolution is completed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution has expired with no clear resolution. Lambanog (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, no edit war can occur here. The tag has already been asserted and reverted one time since the failure of the DRN. Both of you know what is going to happen if the tag is added or reverted. Continuing to add or revert in that situation is clearly an edit war. You need to continue to pursue dispute resolution; go to Third Opinion, do a Request for Comments, and if those fail take it to mediation, but stop adding and reverting or a request will be made for the article to be protected from further editing in whatever form it happens to be at the time and/or you both will be reported to the edit war noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TransporterMan, Lambanog is the only editor who thinks the tag is warranted (note removals by me, Ronz, Yobol, Belg4mit, and if you go back further, Ocaasi). I don't think edit warring is the appropriate issue, I think tendentious editing and POV-pushing is. The other editors have looked into the dispute, reviewed the sources, and came to a clear consensus that the tag was unwarranted. The issue was raised at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and Lambanog refused to accept a mediator, presumably based on Hasteur's comment that Lambanog may canvas his viewpoint to other venues if he didn't like the results of this one. In its essence, the dispute appears to be that Lambanog is only interested in input that agrees with his own opinions. In my mind, this is barely-civil POV-pushing by a single account. I don't mind information about the health value of coconut oil appearing on the page if it can be justified. So far, I've seen only bare speculation in a few WP:MEDRS that it may, perhaps not be as bad for you as other saturated fats, but nothing conclusive. What shall we do, how shall we resolve this? I don't want to have to keep checking coconut oil for Lambanog slipping in unjustified information (for instance, an article about palm oil that is of questionable relevance to the page, as well as another article claiming that saturated fat isn't as bad for you as originally thought). In my mind, per WP:SOAP, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ENC, promoting coconut oil as a health food is not what wikipedia is for. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without either agreeing or disagreeing with the allegations that you have made, my suggestion would be that if you believe that Lambanog is engaging in those behaviors against strong consensus to the contrary, then it would seem to me that a request for a community topic ban against Lambanog editing this or related articles ought to be made at ANI. Edit warring here is not the way to press either that case or the case for leaving the tag on the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being the community traditionally doesn't do well (in my experience) when the ban rests on misuse of sources. But I suppose that is the next step. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the archives will show there are certainly more editors than just me who think certain sources should be included and a look at the article history will show that WLU and company's pattern of reverts on this article go back much further than my own edits. I'm here to build it; can they say the same? I think not. As for the sources I add—read them—they speak for themselves. Of course with WLU and company perfunctorily removing them with little or no stated justification that's complicated somewhat. Lambanog (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, none of those accounts ever saw fit to discuss on the talk page, or revert the main page, to support your edits specifically. Though talk page discussion is important, the rubber hits the road on the main page and nary another editor has reverted to replace your tags. Meanwhile, five editors have seen fit to remove them. As a justification for my previous edit, McNamara does indeed say that palm and coconut oils were replaced with trans fatty acids with dubious justification. That does not, however, mean that coconut oil is healthy. Further, the effects of fats on health are still being debated within the scientific community and no clear consensus has yet emerged; I also doubt that the 22 pages, covering 6 articles in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association specifically vindicated coconut oil. Therefore, putting these two statements together, as you did here and replaced here is a synthesis of unrelated sources to promote the idea that coconut oil is a health food, or at least not bad for you. Since you lack specific medical sources to justify this point, I have reverted again. Please get consensus for the edit before edit warring to include it (and the {{NPOV}} tag) on the main page. You are promoting a viewpoint that is not mainstream in advance of the actual findings. This is inappropriate, and no matter how much you really, really want it, until you have a consensus to include the information, it is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The viewpoint is a significant one which is sufficient for it to be mentioned. Moreover, you say "the effects of fats on health are still being debated within the scientific community and no clear consensus has yet emerged"—clearly that should be mentioned yet you perfunctorily remove sources that make that point. If as you claim the views expressed are fringe you are free to present the better more detailed more recent sources backing you up. Your inability to do so and reliance on reference removal belies the weakness and shallowness of your position. The preponderance of evidence does not support your contentions. You also say 5 editors revert my additions. Two seem to have made procedural reverts and have not done so after their request for clarification was addressed. So that leaves you, Yobol, and Ronz. Now if you wish to associate yourself with Ronz's edits that's fine because the swathe of destruction he leaves behind is even worse than what you and Yobol manage. You and Yobol on the other hand display a chumminess that is questionable. Perhaps it is not intentional but I think one could construe your edits as coordinated, not impartial, and having a distorting effect on a fair view of consensus. When I see editors who actually have a history of building articles stepping into the discussion I'll pay more attention to the claims of consensus since it will reflect more than just one faction of editors here on Wikipedia. Lambanog (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such a fact should be mention on an article discussing the impact of fats on health, here it barely merits a mention and specific benefits of coconut oil require specific, high-quality citations rather than general smears. The article already spends considerable amount of text on the hypotheses through which coconut oil might enhance health; considering it hasn't been associated with a genuine health benefit, that's pretty questionable right off the bat.
The question of whether an editor builds or guts articles is not important, the important issues are whether or not an editor is in compliance with the policies and guidelines. Sometimes gutting, or even deleting an article is better than leaving a badly-written article full of misinformation and distortions on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the tag war on this page at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nothing has been resolved by the EWN posting, and Lambanog continues to push against an obvious consensus, I am very happy to discuss a topic ban. This talk page, or a RFC/U, or straight to ANI? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do believe that something has been resolved: the tag war has stopped. I'm watching the page to see if it resumes and will repost at EWN if it does. As for a topic ban let me first say that whatever I say here should not be taken to either support or oppose such a request: at this point in time I'm only commenting on procedure. You won't get a topic ban merely by posting on this talk page, it needs broader community support than that, so either a RFC/U or ANI would be the proper procedure and I think RFC/U is the more proper place. Finally, and I'm not implying anything here or making a judgment, you might want to consider WP:BOOMERANG before you go there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I would say "stopped" [1]. Lambanog's next edit removes the tag [2], but in the past he has mainted a "preferred" version that he occassionally "forgets" to revert back to the consensus version (see discussion, again, and these diffs make, undo; make, undo; make; make, undo). The frustrating thing is that a number of editors have expressed clearly, and multiple times that his "preferred" version is not acceptable, and why. He refuses to hear this, and no matter how much outside input or how many editors express their reservations or outright opposition, we're still seeing edits like this. If history is any judge, Lambanog will stop for a while, then return to push an idea rejected months ago.
There's no real "official" guidance or procedures regarding topic bans, is there? I realize we have to do it at ANI, but getting editors to engage on substance-based disputes like this one is generally a low-reward activity.
Your BOOMERANG point is valid in any situation where a noticeboard is involved, no worries there. In this situation I consider myself the most active and aggressive remover of the unnecessary tags, but I'm not particularly worried since the dispute is extremely one-sided. Five editors, four of whom have not only reverted but posted talk page objections. Perhaps I'll be criticized for not bringing this up sooner, but I hate the tedium and drama of ANI posts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the actions of the other active editors here constitute article sabotage. They don't like the subject, so they deface it. The history of the article and vast removal of sources show this. Notice REMOVAL of sources. There is next to no addition of sources by the other parties. Why? Because there is very little to support them. I challenge other editors to try looking up sources for this topic. Simple Google book search on coconut oil yields this. Overwhelmingly positive. One can try to be skeptical and restrict only to Western medical sources (even though that is biased). If one looks beyond the obligatory "it is high in saturated fats line" one will find...pretty much nothing. Dietary recommendations against coconut oil are based pretty much on the association with saturated fat, never mind that the dietary recommendations have been questioned by the medical community as being ineffective, never mind the dietary advice promoted the substitution of much worse alternatives like refined carbohydrates and trans fats, never mind the advice is issued by the US Department of Agriculture which has among its constituents the American soy lobby which has been accused by tropical oil producers of waging a health scare campaign as a pretext for protectionist and trade gains and the American Heart Association which has a pathetic record with its "prudent diet" recommendations that it was forced to abandon the moment studies were actually conducted and comparison made to the Mediterranean diet and then later the previously derided Atkins diet. Add to that concerns raised about publication bias and food industry manipulation and one wonders why these recommendations are given weight at all much less exclusive prominent placement. This article is not neutral. That's just on the saturated fat health aspect. It doesn't include the factual inaccuracies and replacement of good sources with inferior ones and the overall poor understanding of the other parties here in how to build an article. Lambanog (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heat-stable

I restored, "Coconut oil is very heat-stable, which makes it suited to methods of cooking at high temperatures like frying." after it was removed without explanation. Does it need a source? Maybe slight clarification as well? --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly either way, but a source is always an improvement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption recommendations

I restored, "Numerous governmental agencies and medical organizations recommend against the consumption of significant amounts of coconut oil due to the high saturated fat content." after it was removed without explanation. Does it need further sources? --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell not, hey? I've added the full list of organizations to the lead [3]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Bach, André C. and Vigen K Babayan. (November 1982). Medium-chain triglycerides: an update. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 36: 950–962.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil&oldid=448080293"