Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 3

"coconut butter"
Coconut butter is a different product than coconut oil. Coconut butter contains coconut meat solids, and is used like a spread on toast, or sweetened and used as frosting, etc. http://www.amazon.com/Artisana-Organic-Coconut-Butter-16oz/dp/B000WV153I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.188.131 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * From some books I'm reading it would seem the term coconut butter is often used interchangeably with coconut oil although there seems to be a preparation made out of coconut milk solids that are whipped into a seemingly distinct product also called coconut butter. Lambanog (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is. My favorite fitness and food blogs use "solidified coconut oil" (coconut butter) interchangeably with coconut oil.WIERDGREENMAN (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable content
I'd like to note that the current article version contains some errors. Please correct them or use my better version. Lambanog (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "better" version contains a lot of information that has already been objected to. Perhaps you could identify the improvements on a case-by-case basis or making noncontroversial edits first before we wholeheartedly embrace it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Grimwood
Grimwood was published in 1975 and documents coconut oil processing in 3rd world countries in the 20th century. As such it is appropriate for the further reading section in that it provides an historical perspective. --Bejnar (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to use it as a reliable source on the history of coconut oil processing, but it's again not an appropirate fruther reading. Further reading should be used for classic texts, not as a way of referencing historical texts for different periods.  The section should be kept deliberately short because without stringent standards it is almost infinitely expandable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

World Oil Seeds
Salunkhe, D.K., J.K. Chavan, R.N. Adsule, and S.S. Kadam (1992) World Oilseeds – Chemistry, Technology, and Utilization is a standard text. While some change in technology has undoubtedly taken place since 1992, the basic chemistry has not. If there is a better source to read for this that gives not only the details but also the place of coconut oil within the broader context, please place it in the /* Further reading */ section and replace World Oilseeds; until then is seems eminently appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes it ideal for use as a source, but it is still not appropriate as a further reading. It should be used to expand the references to its chemistry, not used as a general text as it is not specifically about coconut oil.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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. Manual of Style (layout). 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Note: Lambango has opened yet another thread on the NPOV Noticeboard here. Yobol (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I agree. I see no need for the tag. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree, as noted above. Yobol (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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."

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)

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 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 Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. 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)


 * Dispute resolution has expired with no clear resolution. Lambanog (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I don't know if I would say "stopped" . Lambanog's next edit removes the tag, 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)


 * 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)
 * Not all sources get to stay. Primary sources shouldn't remain.  Sources used to advance a synthesis should be removed, or contextualized.  Unreliable sources should be removed.  You're claiming we cut back on inappropriate additions because we "don't like it", apparently we're solely motivated not by the desire to write an accurate, reliable encyclpedia, but solely because we hate coconut oil.  That's absurd, it's the most ridiculous bad faith accusation I've seen in a while and it's a hallmark of tendentious editing, as are accusations that we are "defacing" the article by including reliable sources contrary to your opinion and removing sources used inappropriately.  I have looked at sources, and I have written a considerable portion of the Production section as well as contributing to nearly every other section of the page.  If one looks beyond the scientific literature on coconut oil, one also finds nothing - where are the lengthy, high-quality articles demonstrating coconut oil is healthy?  Where are the secondary, high-quality sources that present the positive health effects of coconut oil?  Where is the NEJM article citing coconut oil as cardioprotective?  What JAMA article demonstates the longevity of people consuming large amounts of coconut fats?  I've read the sources you cite, I've analyzed them, and in my opinion as an editor for five years, they just don't match up to what you use them for and they simply don't indicate that the scientific community considers coconut oil healthy.  Perhaps there is a void in the literature that needs addressing, but that doesn't mean you get to fill in that void with your own speculation and opinions.  The USDA and other organizational recommendations might be wrong, but wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and until they change their minds, we don't get to claim they are wrong.  Per WP:CRYSTAL, we document science after it changes and not before.
 * Rather than lecturing us on the inaccuracies and poor sources in the article, present your good ones. Opinions are easy, citations, policies and guidelines are harder and are how you actually build a genuinely good page.  You've accused me and other editors of essentially being bad people because we remove information, even citing the editing policy, but note that there is an entire section dedicated to when to remove information and it cites the exact same policies I've been citing for months - WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT and WP:OR.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are the NEJM and JAMA articles you ask? I could ask you the same thing.  This is a subject that falls under systemic bias since coconut oil is disproportionately more relevant to countries usually not covered well by NEJM or JAMA.  In the absence of such we use the best available sources.  I have provided many in my preferred version.  Where are your sources?  Lambanog (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources are required by the person making the claim. I've just requested four more review articles I found on pubmed  and I'll integrate them if they're relevant.  Again, all appear to be critical.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One of these is already used, another I think is pretty useless, another is supportive, and the remaining one looks critical but is rather vague so good luck trying to find a reason to cite it. Lambanog (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that the tag has been added again, I've relisted it again at EWN here, but have restricted the listing to just Lambanog since no one has revered the tag. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Places sources have been discussed
Though editors, including myself, are being accused of discounting sources - we're doing so with very good reasons. We're consistent, we're pointing to the appropriate policies and guidelines, we're seeking outside input from noticeboards, and we're civily discussing why we object. Portraying us as dogmatic because a significant number of us object to bending the rules for one editor who refuses to hear consensus is flatly wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 2 - probably the earliest evidence of opposition to Lambanog's edits.
 * Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 2 - reviews a set of 10 sources provided by Lambanog and gives reasons why most are unacceptable.
 * Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 2 - provides more analysis of unacceptable sources as well as why certain edits are inappropriate, including three sources suggested that don't mention coconut oil at all.
 * Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 2 - yet another discussion of sources, most of which are inappropriate.
 * Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 2 - analysis of sources suggested for further reading, where Lambanog suggests lowering the standards for sources because there's not much. Terrible idea.  Also a pretty good indication of the opposition to Lambanog's ideas, in the form of lengthy discussions with a clear consensus.


 * Talk:Coconut_oil/Archive_2 - Other opinions in talk archives
 * A section I contributed to in 2008 in which a single editor wanted to cite primary sources and multiple other editors stated this was inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk:Coconut_oil/Archive_2 - More opinions in talk archives
 * The only really meaningful citation being a primary study from 1996 where coconut oil didn't change CHD risk factors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk:Coconut_oil/Archive_2 - Another currently uninvolved editor making suggestion for a source shot down by currently involved editor. Regarding the Mary Enig mentioned, here is an article on Mary G. Enig that I succeeded in improving after with outside independent help despite lots of opposition from the currently involved editor who also was actively opposing there. A look at the talk page archives there will see a lot of questionable tricks used to obscure and obstruct article development.  Another opposing editor here also participated there.
 * A discussion in which a fringe researcher is brought up and rejected for being a fringe researcher, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_93 - RSN discussion. Starts off with some primary studies I proposed being disapproved but go farther down and one eventually sees what starts happening.
 * There's no ringing endorsement of Lambanog's edits here; at best some tepid support for using books as further reading (books which I believe I integrated into the article as sources). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk:Coconut_oil/Archive_3#Grimwood
 * Talk:Coconut_oil/Archive_3#World_Oil_Seeds Again Opinion of another editor regarding WLU's opinion on a couple of sources.
 * Both of these are the coconut oil talk page archives' version of the RSN discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One should keep in mind in the above that WLU makes certain claims about sources and why in his view they are not acceptable but his claims about them are not necessarily accurate or above reproach. Lambanog (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by my assessments, if there were clear consensus that I was wrong on the noticeboards, I would accept it. At no point was there any consensus for Lambanog's edits, and several other editors were reiterating the points I've made repeatedly - secondary, scholarly sources are better than primary, popular ones.  If I have a nefarious plan, I don't think it's obvious in these pages, aside from insisting on a high level of quality for sources and further reading.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Why the hell not, hey? I've added the full list of organizations to the lead .  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Coconut weight
Under 'Production' the article claims "A thousand mature coconuts weighing approximately 8,640 kilograms ". This is saying that a single coconut weighs 8.6 kilos? Not the coconuts in my backyard! Coconuts do NOT weigh more than my printer!

A UCF file on biodiesel lists coconuts weighing approximately 1.56 lb or 0.7 kg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.123.138 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the sentence originally I believe, and it looks like I was simply wrong. I checked the source that was attached and it gives a weigh of about 1.44 kg, so your edit was completely correct.  Thanks!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fractionation section is broken - can someone with expertise please advise and fix?
Here is the text from the extended draft, which is I think what was originally in the main article and seemed to make perfect sense to me: "Fractionated coconut oil is a fraction of the whole oil, in which the different medium chain fatty acids are separated for specific uses. Lauric acid, a 12 carbon chain fatty acid, is often removed because of its high value for industrial and medical purposes. Fractionated coconut oil may also be referred to as caprylic/capric triglyceride oil or medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oil because it is primarily the medium chain caprylic (8 carbons) and capric (10 carbons) acids that make up the bulk of the oil. MCT oil is most frequently used for medical applications and special diets."

but now it has been messily edited so that it does not. I'm not sufficiently expert to know whether the attempt to distinguish between fractionated coconut oil and caprice/caprylic trigliceride has any scientific validity and there are no citations to support it. I do know that in practical, industrial application and on ingredients labels, the two terms are used interchangeably. Whatever the case the text can't stay like this:

"Fractionated coconut oil may be confused to be referred to as caprylic/capric triglyceride oil or medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil because it is primarily the medium-chain caprylic (8 carbons) and capric (10 carbons) acids that make up the bulk of the oil. Caprylic capric is extract from fractionated coconut oil but they strip out caprylic (C:8) and capric (C:10) fatty acids from coconut, so it not the same thing and shouldn't be confused being the same thing. MCT oil is most frequently used for medical applications and special diets."

Because it isn't English, does not make sense & has no citations to support it.

Can someone with the appropriate expertise advise whether the intent of this edit is correct and either correct or replace it please? Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Failing that I propose to revert to to the text from the extended draft.Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Chemist here. I just read that section and was quite concerned. I'll take care of it. Mutinus (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks! Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This section was re-broken by the original editor, who has not engaged here to explain what s/he is doing so I've reverted it back to the version provided by Mutinus in response to my request for help. Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Made some minor edits above for readability (blockquotes and indents)
 * My concern is that the section is not sourced. I don't really have the expertise to fix it, and the whole section could be removed without issue.  I will look, not too hard, for some information, but I don't know if I'll be successful.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This link seems to support the idea that the two terms are indeed interchangeable (which accords with my experience within the perfumery world) and also the idea that the triglycerides in question are extracted from coconut oil. I've not been able to find anything amongst my own chemistry books on it, which is why I sought help in the first place.  I think the section is worth having because many people will see the terms used on ingredients labels and want to look them up - if it's correct that they are the same the information belongs here, if it isn't it's useful to dispel a widespread misconception.  --Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That page is definitely not a WP:MEDRS, and I would question its general use as a source. It appears to be written by a ND, which I believe is a naturopath - a nonscientific discipline that are among the greatest offenders in believing food is medicine is magic.  I would heartily suggest looking for better sources on google scholar or books.  You can get a surprising amount of full free text information from both, particularly if logged into a google (i.e gmail) account.  It sounds like you might have some background knowledge here - would you be able to tackle the sourcing?  My chem isn't near good enough.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Agree re the dodgy link, and thanks for the hint re Google Scholar and Books which I should have thought to use myself.  I think this one: Wiley Online Library abstract clarifies that coconut oil consists of the relevant triglycerides and that they are in practice extracted from coconut oil on an industrial scale by fractionation.--Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now found a book link which clearly shows the industrial process by which this is done: p1108 onwards in Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry --Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Both excellent publishers, you can use this webpage to automatically generate a citation template for the google books link, and cite doi to generate one for the journal article (it looks like this:  ). Make sure to check the actual citation in the references section though, you may have to click on the "jump the queue" link to get it to actually populate. You can also try pubmed for sources, but it obviously would miss journals without medical applications (biochem probably OK, industrial engineering less likely). It actually looks like you can get full PDFs of the Gervajio chapter via the "All 7 versions" link in google scholar, though they are likely copyright violations and we should not link to them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those tips. I think I've got it properly referenced now and I'm also now confident that what I thought I knew before was correct (which is nearly as good as learning something new) so happy this section is now as it should be, though there might be room to clarify that the three terms used do mean slightly different things.  I'll think about that and add another day if it seems useful, or the edit proves controversial.  --Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Partially hydrogenated coconut oil
In the Health section is a quote: ""Most of the studies involving coconut oil were done with partially hydrogenated coconut oil, which researchers used because they needed to raise the cholesterol levels of their rabbits in order to collect certain data. Virgin coconut oil, which has not been chemically treated, is a different thing in terms of a health risk perspective. And maybe it isn’t so bad for you after all."

In the table about the Composition of various oils, coconut oil is included but there is no indication if that is "partially hydrogenated coconut oil" or virgin kind that "isn’t so bad for you after all." Based on the quote, it seems this may be an important difference. Could someone add the information about both types to the table? Thanks. CBHA (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes to lead
The changes to lead violate several guidelines and policies including WP:MEDRS for sourcing, WP:LEAD, and WP:NPOV in setting up poor sourcing as superior to the medical consensus by implying the medical consensus is a "misconception". Yobol (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * More importantly, the edit misrepresented the sources by making them appear to be stating things they did not state. Or the edit had a original research problem - the edit appeared to say that organizations like LiveStrong and diabetesincontrol.com know better than the WHO, the DHHS, the ADA, and other well-respected international organizations, but the actual sources appearing on those pages don't even mention the WHO, DHHS, ADA, etc.    02:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has reoccurring problems of this nature, NPOV and BATTLE problems centering around (and usually ignoring the information in) Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy.
 * We just need to keep an eye on the article. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It just goes to show you that there's no such thing as an article you can expect to be free from this sort of conflict...   04:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. It's not that bad. After all, no one has suggested that the "truth" is being suppressed by a super-secret international conspiracy of doctors, health agencies and vegetable oil manufacturers. Yet. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Shhhhhh!!  12:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone here dispute the definition of medium and long-chain fatty acids? Does anyone here dispute that coconut oil is made up of roughly two-thirds medium-chain fatty acids? Does anyone here dispute the difference between refined coconut oil, hydrogenated coconut oil and extra virgin coconut oil? THC Loadee 20:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THC Loadee (talk • contribs)
 * I changed my sources to conform with WP:MEDRS. Yet, my edits are still being vandalized.  This is ridiculous.THC Loadee 01:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If, as you quoted on your talk page, "Edit warring over content is not vandalism", then your edits are not being vandalized. AutomaticStrikeout ?  02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if no one is going to address my concerns here on the talk page then I suppose that means there is no problem with my edits. -THC Loadee 08:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THC Loadee (talk • contribs)
 * Or, we could all be waiting for you to address Yobol's and Zad's concerns while you continue edit warring and mistakenly assuming argument from silence and mistaking silence for consensus.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As an fyi, reverting additions to content (including in an edit-warring situation) is not a minor edit. Examples of minor edits include "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content". I'm looking at AutomaticStrikeout and User:Apokryltaros. As far as the content, I would recommend using the strongest source, like the 2010 Dietary Guideline, and dropping older references and the dead-links (seems to be a few). Surprisingly, THC Loadee did not start with an obvious source such as "Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World" (2011, NY Times). Unfortunately, the Cornell scientist quoted in the article, Tom Brenna, does not seem to have ever published the coconut oil lit review mentioned, although he's been publishing a fair amount. The literature on coconut oil still appears very thin, with one 2012 review (Coconut Oil for Alzheimer’s Disease?; questionable publisher, but decent article) finding only 3 human studies total. II  | (t - c) 07:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Table of composition flawed (wrong numbers according to cited source)
The numbers itself are in the wrong format. Take coconut: 91.00, 6.000 and 3.000. Either 91.00 or the others or all of them are in a wrong format, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Digit_grouping. Perhaps it is the european notation (in the english wikipedia?) and a typo so that it should be ninethousandonehundred? I don't think so.

But the numbers itself don't add up. The source cited in the table is and for "oil, coconut" and "oil, cottonseed" it shows different numbers than presented in this article. 87.139.217.27 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Composition
There used to be a detailed composition of the fatty acid profile on this oil, and it's been replaced altogether with a chart that summarizes the composition in comparison to other oils. Can someone please add back the detailed composition of this oil? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spudchick (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is this garbage table here? It defies credulity that the composition is exactly 6.000 % of this and 3.000% of that.  This table should be removed and the composition of coconut oil actually detailed.  Comparing it to multiple other oils is obviously some fan-boys work but is just not relevant to an article on a single oil.173.189.74.76 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of the obvious
If someone reverts your edit, read the edit summary. If, upon reading the edit summary, specifically discuss the issue on the talk page. Saying your edit is now correct on the talk page is not discussing the issue. If several editors revert your edit several times and you are blocked for edit warring, do not assume that lack of discussion on the talk page means everyone has now agreed with you. Additionally, do not edit under an IP address and/or another user name during your block. Gee, thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that THC Loadee is more interested in perpetuating the edit war, while simultaneously ignoring all attempts at discussion and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with him of ignoring all of his alleged attempts at discussion.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

THC Loadee has been indefed for disruption/personal attacks/socking. Due to IP socks, this article is semi-protected. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another sock. (See Sockpuppet_investigations/THC_Loadee.) Watch for more, request protection as needed. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * HSV-1 is a really annoying problem that you really can't get rid of. I wonder if the misunderstood 66% medium-chain fatty acids in coconut oil (as cited in livestrong) are an effective treatment for this. I would be REALLY nice to get rid of this recurring annoyance. (Note that this has nothing to do with HSV-1. I've opened a new sock case.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Health organizations against
An IP has removed the following piece three times: "Many health organizations advise against the consumption of high amounts of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat."

On my talk page, the editor explained, "coconut oil is very heathly for you give me a souce where health companies think its bad for you mma fighters n athelets eat it everyday" I replied, "That various athletes use it does not, in any way, demonstrate that it is healthy to do so. The "Health" section cites numerous organizations (United States Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, International College of Nutrition, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British National Health Service, and Dietitians of Canada) saying as much. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks." (As the text is in the lede summary, we typically do not cite the claim there when it is extensively sourced later in the article.) Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Although many health organizations warn against the consumption of coconut oil because of saturated fat content, consumption of coconut oil is recommended by an alternative health organization called the Weston A. Price Foundation. This recommendation is based on research of the effects of the consumption of saturated fats on cholesterol and also of specifically the consumption of coconut oil on cholesterol. One such study examined the effects of removing coconut oil from a person's diet. The effects were an increase in total and LDL cholesterol and a decrease in HDL cholesterol.
 * Mary G. Enig, PhD. "A New Look at Coconut Oil". Weston A Price Foundation. 01 January 2000 19:37. www.westonaprice.org. 25June13.
 * Prior IA, Davidson F, Salmond CE, Czochanska Z. Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau Island studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34:1552-1561;1981
 * Wkemp22 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Wkemp22
 * Generally when we present health information in an article, it needs to be sourced following WP:MEDRS. The sources and organization you mention above fail MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This needs to be revisited. Weston A Price is not the only source on Coconut Oil's benefits. If I could submit my own blood test results over a 3 year time span, I would, but cross research on this to offer a counterpoint would do a lot of good. 71.219.254.137 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for offering to submit your own research, but, unless your research has been subjected to peer-review and published in a reputable scientific or medicinal journal, mentioning your own personal experiments would violate Wikipedia's policy about original research--Mr Fink (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not! People on Wikipedia need resources to quote, so I understand, but people as a whole are being lied to about the benefits and health of Saturated Fats. But I understand why it's not common knowledge.  Yet.  The time will come. 71.34.128.135 (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)  (same as previous comment, even if my IP has changed)
 * THC Loadee has been indefed for disruption/personal attacks/socking. Due to IP socks, this article is semi-protected. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not an "IP" and I removed it from the opening paragraph. The sentence I removed was repeated verbatim in the health section, which is where it belongs. I do not believe it is important enough to include in the opening paragraph. Chekit (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. We should reword it in the health section. It's fine in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Coconut oil apologist MEDRS list
The citations offered in this artcle are a good list of potential MEDRS. However, the article itself should not be cited, as they exaggerate, speculate, and misrepresent many of the studies linked to. As an example, their claim that a study has shown an increased burning of 120 calories a day had 8 subjects, all young male college students. And they were consuming 190 extra calories worth coconut oil for the study. And 120 calories was on the higher end of the range observed within the 8 subjects. So while this is a good round-up of the research, please don't believe anything written in the article. Gigs (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are any of them reviews? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, and many of the studies were very small. They should of course be used with due caution.  Gigs (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Fractionation
The fractionation section was reworded to eliminate redundant language. Blonz (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC) ER Blonz

positive and negative health stuff
This edit has changed the lead, but I don't see any positive effects mentioned in the body of the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe the cholesterol stuff. Though the article referenced is not solely about coconut oil.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, all the research I've seen shows coconut oil is good. I'm not aware of any research that shows it's bad. So, although it's true that lots of governments and NGOs recommend broadly against saturated fats, putting that so strongly at the top of the coconut oil article seems misleading and biased. Just having it all down in the health section is at least an improvement. Cup of cocoa (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but we have to summarize current mainstream thinking. I am quite sympathetic to your view, but we have to go by mainstream secondary sources.  The one for the cholesterol effects actually does not look only at coconut oil.  I hope others chime in.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The only downside I can find, is that although coconut oil is good for you, it *might* not be as good for you as some other healthy oils, like olive oil, as per. Not sure if that's worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cup of cocoa (talk • contribs) 02:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole paragraph on saturated fat govts/NGOs should be removed for a reference to Saturated_fat instead. That page already goes in to detailed sourcing on the fact that there's not much of any scientific evidence to support the recommendation to avoid saturated fat, but also notes that various governments and NGOs recommend avoiding it. Just linking over to that seems better. Cup of cocoa (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mainstream medical thought still advises against the use of coconut oil. When that changes, we can change the article, but it should state this unequivocally as long as the medical mainstream is also unequivocal. Yobol (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What? You just made the article even *more* biased. I don't know what you consider mainstream, but there are no studies showing coconut oil is bad. As mentioned above, per the article, the only thing to note is that maybe some other oils are even a little better. Cup of cocoa (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you would read the article, we have multiple sources from mainstream medical organizations saying it should be avoided. Yobol (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there are mainstream govts and NGOs saying it should be avoided, but the point is that there has never been any study to justify that recommendation. Mentioning their recommendations is fine, but the state of medical research should also be reflected. Cup of cocoa (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Produce a WP:MEDRS compliant source, and we can talk. The high quality sources we already have that do meet MEDRS say it should be avoided due to its saturated fat. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We need MEDRS sources, Yobol is right on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He just deleted MayoClinic and IUPAC references. The page is more biased than ever towards governments/NGOs and away from the medical research community. I don't see how that could possibly be seen as an improvement. Cup of cocoa (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted material that placed undue weight to speculation about lauric acid. Most of the weight should be given to higher level sources such as recommendations by high quality medical bodies. Yobol (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The notation that coconut oil is primarily composed of medium chain triglycerides (MCT) has been deleted. The main fatty acid in coconut oil is lauric acid which is a fatty acid of 12 carbons length. The peer-reviewed scientific literature support the argument that medium chain fatty acids are 6 - 10 carbons long,, , and that lauric acid being considered among the long-chain fatty acids, albeit the shortest of that group. That being the case approximately 19% of the fatty acids of coconut oil would be considered as MCT. A statement could be added to this effect, but the existing "primarily composed of medium chain triglycerides" has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blonz (talk • contribs) 03:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Blonz (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The first study you removed flatly contradicts you: "coconut oil (containing over 50% medium chain fatty acids)". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have cited the scientific resources to support the accepted definition that medium chain triglycerides are composed of fatty acids between 6 and 10 carbons in length. If you examine the composition of coconut oil you will see that this amounts to about 19% of the fatty acids contained. This not only corrects the error, but makes the article consistent with the Fractionation section where it also states "Medium-chain triglycerides, such as caprylic/capric triglyceride . . . " Caprylic acid is 8 carbons long, and capric acid is 10 carbons ling. These two fatty acids comprise 19 percent of the fatty acids in coconut oil. My original edits were supported in discussions in the talk section. Blonz (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Ed Blonz.
 * This is synthesis, combining two or more sources to reach a conclusion that none of the sources directly make. The source you removed, directly states that coconut oil contains "over 50% medium chain fatty acids". The sources you are adding do not seem to discuss coconut oil, the subject of this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can get beyond the SYN concerns and look at the reliability of the sources? --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are saying. Those are unrelated issues. If a source is not reliable for the statement it makes, it should not be used (so synthesis is not a concern). If a source is used in synthesis (and/or does not directly discuss the topic), it should not be used (so reliability is not a concern). What are you saying about which sources? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that we need to look at the reliability more closely, as it might help us determine what to do with the apparent contradiction. Specifically, the reliability of the Trends in Food Science & Technology paper appears suspect. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Trends in Food Science & Technology appears to be a reliable source, under WP:IRS. If you disagree, I invite you to raise that question at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The apparent synthesis from the sources you've provided is a separate issue that I'm not sure you've addressed. Do you agree with me that it is inappropriate? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they published a poor paper. Perhaps this is yet another of Elsevier's questionable journals. I don't know. I certainly an unimpressed with the language and assumptions of the abstract.
 * On the other hand, perhaps the distinction between they types of fatty acids isn't so clear cut. There are many possible explanations. I'm saying that we should look closely. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand. Whether or not you agree with the source has nothing to do with whether or not it is a reliable source. If a reliable source said that coconut oil was produced by Martians using genetically engineered Muppets, we would report exactly that. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with what I agree to, so let's not waste time assuming so. It would also help to WP:FOC.
 * I'm questioning the reliability of both sources, and saying that given that this is science we should figure out what the scientific consensus is on the matter, then give appropriate weight to that scientific consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a question of verifiability, one of our core policies. We have one reliable source that says that coconut oil contains "over 50% medium chain fatty acids". This may or may not be true, but it is verifiable. We also have an editor saying that combining material from various sources contradicts this. This may or may not be true, but it is synthesis. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If a source isn't reliable, we don't use it. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

After doing a bit of research, I'm not seeing a consensus that lauric acid is long-chain. I don't know what an authoritative reference for the classification of lauric acid might be. Given this, I've reverted the changes. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am hopeful that you would allow the science to speak here. I carefully cited all issues and the peer-reviewed papers that support the position that from a physiological perspective, the lauric acid in coconut oil is considered to be long chain fatty acid.  A search of the scientific literature (and I provided many citations to this effect , , ) and the studies that actually study MCTs - not the review piece in Trends in Food Science and Technology - only use the 6 - 10 carbon long fatty acids, mostly caprylic ((8) and capric (10).  You cannot hold the Trends piece, which seems more like a promotional piece by Malaysian authors, to the basic medical studies.   Please understand that the actual categorization of FAs by chain length has changed significantly over the last 40 years.  It was first based on physical characteristics, and the classification was more mathematical and melting-point based. Then when the health impacts began to be studied (and this IS the section where this is being shown), a review of the scientific literature finds that most scholars currently consider MCFAs as 6-C to 10-C.  So where does Wikipedia want to reside.  There is consideral financial interest by the Coconut oil industry to keep this medium-chain classification going.  The science, however points to a different direction.  I am making the effort to upgrade the tone and content of this topic. Blonz (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Find a better source. Ideally one that provides a definitive description of the classification scheme including a history that explains the inconsistencies.
 * I've not found such a source yet. What I am finding suggests that whatever classification scheme exists is rather informal. I'm finding some sources suggesting there are two competing classifications. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not as definitive as I'd like but Mosby's Medical Dictionary says 8-12 --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about coconut oil, not lauric acid. Reliable sources that directly discuss coconut oil belong in Coconut oil. Sources that discuss lauric acid belong in Lauric acid, even if other sources say that coconut oil contains lauric acid. Our policy is quite clear: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." There's an industry pulling strings to suppress the science? They have strong financial interests? An otherwise reliable source is unreliable on this one issue? Reliable sources haven't reported on this yet? I get it. Sorry, it doesn't belong here. What do reliable sources say about coconut oil - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

/* In food */ Removed a claim about breast milk
There was a claim that lauric acid was converted to the monoglyceryl ester, monolaurin, which was "otherwise found only in breast milk." It had a reference to an IUPAC article that contained nothing about breast milk. The statement in the article didn't say anything about whether this was a good thing or a bad thing, and it didn't support the claim, so it's been removed.Roches (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with sunflower oil
User Seekingbuddha entered this passage today for the table comparisons of different vegetable oils. It's better to sort out differences and find WP:SCIRS sources before entering a final statement into the article. --Zefr (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The following table provides information about the composition of coconut oil and how it compares with other vegetable oils. (Note: The composition of Sunflower oil, given by the following table is different from what is quoted at Sunflower_oil. Hence, all these compositions need review).

Consumption of Coconut oil Impairs the Anti-Inflammatory Properties of HDL Lipoproteins and Endothelial Function
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109706013386

Consumption of Coconut Oil reduces the anti-inflammatory potential of HDL and impairs arterial endothelial function! In contrast, the anti-inflammatory activity of HDL improves after consumption of polyunsaturated fat from safflower oil.

Subjects consumed 1 of 2 isocaloric meals comprising a slice of carrot cake and a milkshake containing 1 g of fat/kg of body weight. The first meal contained safflower oil (fatty acid composition: 75% polyunsaturated, 13.6% monounsaturated, and 8.8% saturated fat). The second meal contained coconut oil (fatty acid composition: 89.6% saturated fat, 5.8% monounsaturated, and 1.9% polyunsaturated fat). The order of meals ingested was determined by random allocation and was blinded to the investigators. ee1518 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A primary study is probably not the best thing, we really need secondary reviews. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This one
Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Does not appear to be a major medical publisher, would seem to be undue weight to use in this case when multiple high quality sources state otherwise. We already discuss the more nuanced positions about the specific type of fatty acids in our text already. Yobol (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. I'm backing off for now. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use WP:MEDRS as your guideline for sourcing biomedical content.  14:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to do that in the past couple of hours. Most are just preliminary studies. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then the reliable sourcing just doesn't support the kind of content you're trying to add.  14:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That they are preliminary studies is exactly the point. Preliminary studies often produce results that are, um, less-than useful: a correlation between type of razor used and later incidence of leukemia, breath mint use and lung cancer, etc. We could spend endless hours adding such studies to thousands of articles, only to end up confusing everybody. Instead of articles that rattle off endless lists of preliminary studies stating (quite incorrectly) that smoking is only dangerous if the tobacco is grown in certain areas or harmless altogether or a healthy treatment for various conditions, we state that the widely held consensus is that it kills people.
 * While it is possible that the consensus on coconut oil may change in the future, the current consensus is clear and is what we include in the article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or they haven't been published yet. Based on what I found the tide appears to be in my favor but it hasn't arrived yet. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some unpublished studies show that the governments of the planet are run by lizard men from the Dracos star system. Other unpublished studies show simple health practices that will someday save lives. We decide which to include through our policy, which we are following here. The widely held consensus is sometimes wrong. More often, though, challenges to such a consensus are found wanting. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Blah Blah Blah. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh well. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ¡Yep! Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As you've already pointed out, this is not merely systemic bias. This is part of Wikipedia's efforts to join the massive international conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists and medical professionals (the English-speaking/corporately owned ones), the World Health Organization, various corporate-owned agencies of various governments, the corporate-owned major media outlets, etc. all bowing down to the corporations who produce food oils but neglected to get into tropical oils. "They" own me too. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)