Talk:Mary G. Enig/Archive 2

Merge/redirect?
Given the extent of the poor references and their inappropriate use as outlined above, let's just stub this or merge/redirect to Weston A. Price Foundation. While I haven't gone through all the references yet, so far I haven't even found one that makes her notability clear.

So let's turn this around while I go through the remaining references: What references do we have that meet WP:BIO? If we have none, then a merge/redirect is in order. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt you will get consensus for that. Plus as the page is locked no improvement can be made regardless. Colincbn (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I get the chance, I'll go through the list of sources we do have. I had assumed that WP:N would be easily satisfied for this article; I'm not so sure anymore.  I would love to get this article unlocked, and would support getting it unprotected if we can all agree not to edit war over tags. Yobol (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we don't have the sources, we shouldn't have an article.
 * The past AfD resulted in no consensus. Those editors for keeping the article asserted that there are independent, reliable sources available. Did we lose those sources, or did no one bother to offer them? --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get this moving. Should this be taken directly to AfD, or would it be helpful to get others' perspectives through an RfC or WP:BLPN? --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:BIO and our current sources, I think a merge would be best, so would support either a merge RFC or AFD (which might be the best to get more eyes on here). Yobol (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll start the WP:MERGE process when I have a bit more time. --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one oppose a merge at this time. We have not even tried to fix the article as it is. And I think it is clear that until we do there will continue to be edit warring. Bulldozing an AfD or merge without actually trying to reach a consensus is not the best way forward. Again I don't give a rat's ass about M.E. I have never even heard of her outside of this page. But it seems to me some people are taking a very strange stance against what are in fact acceptable refs in order to push for deletion. Instead of deleting the article why don't we just cut out all the praising cruft and write a short, simple, neutral article about her? We don't have to imply her views are right or wrong or anything. It should be a simple process of reporting who she is and what she has been saying. No value judgement attached. Colincbn (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Closer Look
1) Enig is mentioned in multiple, independent, reliable sources. (WP:BIO:  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.)

2) She is co-author of the notable, popular, and controversial book, "Nourishing Traditions". She is also the author of several other popular books on the role of fat and traditional diets.

3) She was an early researcher and constant advocate against trans-fats, also a highly notable area of nutrition which underwent FDA guideline changes in the last decade, consistent with (that part of) Enig's research and advice.

4) She is a frequently consulted advocate for traditional or alternative nutritional/health views in newspapers. She writes for alternative health publications and websites.  She writes for national and industry groups such as the Indian Coconut Journal, the Lauric Oils Symposium,

5) She has published studies in major journals about her research, some of which has received secondary coverage in newspapers.

Discussion
It would seem that mere mention by an independent sources, rather than coverage of her would seem to fail the "trivial" part of WP:BIO. However, I would agree that we should not proceed with a merge until there is consensus to do so, and would encourage Lambanog to agree to not edit war over tags so we can get this page unlocked and try to improve the article so that a merge may not be necessary, as proposed above. Thanks to Ocaasi for presenting some good sources. Yobol (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the repeated mentions of her in the context of her research with trans fats, Nourishing Traditions and coconut oil is pretty overwhelming. They are not direct profiles, but some of them are direct mentions which acknowledge her background or studies or expertise or publications, and there are a lot of them from all over the country and several internationally as well.  I have a few more to add.  I don't want to be hysterical about it, but I can't see a merge happening here for any reason except to bury her, her research, and her views inside another topic.  We have sources--we have at least borderline notability if not more or significantly more--there are no BLPprivacy issues since she's a published author and public advocate--we are not paper.  For me a merge isn't even on the table, although I agree tags should stay up until the article is improved.  Lambanog, focus on the sources and the tags will disappear eventually. Ocaasic 14:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might very well be right, I don't spend much (any) time on the deletion side of Wikipedia so my understanding of policy in this area is rudimentary at best. We should focus on incorporating these (and any other secondary sources) and remove any superfluous primary sources and then see where we stand. This is all moot until we get the article unprotected. Yobol (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't do much with deletions either, but I'm particularly wary of using notability policy as a wedge to keep out unpopular, fringe views. In an article specifically about Enig, WEIGHT issues should be as much about the subject as the reliability of the sources.  Detailed coverage of her scientific research can either be slightly trimmed, or counterweighted by reference to academic consensus.  We should develop the article as much as we can, and then see where it sits.  As to page protection can we agree:
 * Tags stay up until they are resolved by consensus
 * The subject meets basic notability requirements for at least a section in another article if not this independent article
 * No merge/discussion happens until good sources (above and elsewhere) are incorporated and poor or misused sources are removed
 * Ocaasi c 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree as nom Ocaasi c 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great work. I'm not sure about the notability until I've looked over these potential refs, but I agree on the other two points. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree We still don't have any articles about Enig, and it's borderline whether anything mentioned yet has significant coverage on her. However, she appears notable for her books and being cited as an expert as a result of her books. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Yobol (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree I have not been here long, but it seems to me that until the lock comes off the article will never improve. Colincbn (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Waiting to hear from Lambanog, whom I left a note. It might be helpful when the page opens up to a) propose drafts first on talk; b) accept both WP:BRD as standard and WP:1RR as binding--that means you can make any change you want, but if someone reverts it, which they can reasonably do, discussion is the only way to put it back; c) let less-involved editors (for good or bad) make changes (at least after 1RR); having those less involved in previous contentious exchanges may help filter some of the better ideas into the article. Ocaasi c 06:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some positive cooperation here. If there's also a firm  undertaking  from  Lambanog to  join the resolution, I'll unblock  the page, but  if there is the slightest  further disruptive editing, I'll  block it again. Please let me know on my  talk  page when you  are ready. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was never in favor of having the article locked in the first place, so yes unlock it. As for binding resolutions I do not see the need; the article should be open to normal editing.  That said I do not plan on editing the article until the other editors here have come up with a version to their liking.  If the process is successful the end result should be a dedicated article with no tags or banners attached to it.  If the end result is no consensus, a merge, or a messy article with tags still fixed on it despite those insisting on the tags having had the time to fix the article up, then I would say the process was unsuccessful and I will take such failure as a cue to make my own edits and recreate the article if necessary.  Is two weeks enough time for you guys to finish?  I'll evaluate the article then or I can be informed ahead of time that the others have gone as far as they're willing to go and then make my own edits if necessary.  Of course I may make comments on the talk page in the meantime.  Lambanog (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a mixed message, but it should work for as long as you're willing to collaborate or take a step back. It won't really work if you just jump in and make whatever changes you thought were best when it's all done, because if the version you don't like is the result of consensus, then that would be ignoring it.  You'd have to make your point sometime before the change, and have others agree to it if you expected it to stay.  And if others are sticking to a more reserved 1RR approach, it would be a problem to just put back what was removed.


 * There are lots of new sources to be incorporated and old sources to be refined or possibly taken out. There are also some marginal policy questions that need work regarding Notability/Primary/Secondary/BLP issues.  You can get into that part of things or not, but as long as you choose to, you should try and keep the process in line with what others have agreed to.  If 4 editors are willing to work in a certain way in the interest of improving the article and reducing conflict, and 1 is not, that 1 ends up being WP:Disruptive even if they are right (or think they are right).


 * Also, tags are placed to indicate changes that need to be made or that discussions are ongoing. Though many dislike tags and prefer the {sofixit} mentality, it is generally not the burden of the tag-placer to do the work to fix problems themselves, and often the WP:BURDEN is on those who want to include information (although that's more for V than NPOV).  With NPOV, it comes down to consensus, which over the last few weeks was not in favor of removing the tags.  Anyway, a tag is the least of the worries at a relatively new article.  Tags just bring in more attention, and over the course of weeks or event months they let editors and readers know that significant changes are still being made and encourage them to help out.  We shouldn't remove tags because they're messy, but fix the article so it's cleaner. Ocaasi c 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is interesting you should bring up WP:BURDEN. There is nothing that says tag-placers are exempt from the provision.  Tags and banners are an addition to an article that need to be justified like any other addition.  Tags and banners that serve no valid purpose should be removed. Lambanog (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it locked, or ban Lambanog. It doesn't appear we're going to get good faith cooperation from him. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he is being perfectly cooperative. What do you want him to say? That he will never edit the article again no matter what? He thinks the tags should not be permanent, I agree. No tags should be. That does not mean they have a time limit of course. It just means that they are pointing out the biggest issues with the article and we should work on resolving those issues first. After that they come down. Why would anyone be banned for feeling that way? Colincbn (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The remarks don't seem very "cooperative" as they doesn't seem to understand that everyone, including Lambanog, needs to abide by consensus even if they think they're right and everyone else is is wrong. No need to "ban" Lambanog or keep this article locked, but Lambanog has to realize if they want a say in how this article turns out, they have to participate in a collaborative manner and can't expect to come in after everyone works on the article and change it to however they feels it should look.  As long as they abides by the rules as everyone else, let's get on with the business of improving the article, which is why we're all here. Yobol (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is all essentially semantic. One could say every edit done by every editor is "coming in after everyone works on the article and changing it to however they feel it should look". Sometimes it sticks and sometimes it does not, it seems to me that is what WP:BRD is all about. You hit the nail on the head when you said "as long as one abides by the rules". That is the difference between a disruptive editor and an editor who happens to not agree with you. Editors can argue and disagree with each other for years with no one becoming disruptive, that's just a hazard of working here. If Lambanog sees something he thinks should be changed than he is welcome to do so, if it gets reverted he is welcome to discuss why, if the discussion does not bear fruit then he is welcome to do an RfC etc. etc. It is not Disruptive to disagree, just to break the rules while disagreeing.


 * But again, this is just semantics. It looks to me that everyone has agreed to work together. I think we can unlock the article and start proposing changes. I posted a proposed article to use as a starting point on my user page at User:Colincbn/Enig. All I did was cut out a lot of stuff and do some simple rewording. I would appreciate any suggestions on it. Colincbn (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It is not merely semantic. We need cooperative, good-faith, competent editing - especially in a BLP. When editors are uncooperative, assuming bad faith of others, harassing others, edit-warring, etc all to protect incompetent editing, that's disruptive on most levels, makes for worse articles and a hostile editing environment. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And who is assuming bad faith now? Colincbn (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, that was snarky and I apologize. I just think we should focus on content. Everyone has agreed to the above proposals. Even if we don't like the wording they used when they did it. We should now stop the pointless arguing and work towards improving the article. That's all I'm trying to say. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. How about removing the comments that you now regret making? --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you (all) are not ready  to  have this article unblocked yet. The 1RR can only be invoked by  Arbcom  or ANI  resolution, so  I  can't  insist  on  it. Perhaps if there were less semantics and meta discussion on  tagging, etc, and you  can just get  back  to  focusing on the article itself, my  offer to  unprotect  the article still  stands. Everybody going  off and doing  new drafts in  their own user space, is probably  not  the best solution - suggestions for article changes are best  posted on this talk page where everyone,  including  the non  regular contributors, can see them and discuss them  collectively. Let me see a couple of days of healthy  article discussion, together with  Lambanog's valued contributions to  it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We've had weeks of healthy article discussion, with the exception of Lambanog's contributions and the discussions in response to his inappropriate comments and behavior. If the only solution is to keep the article locked, then keep it locked. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those of Lambanog's contributions and discussions that I have seen have been perfectly healthy, although I may have worded them differently. How about we focus on content and not on contributors? What exactly do you want changed? What wording do you find fault with and how would you reword it? Also I do not "regret" any of my edits. But I do try to take responsibility when I make one in haste or frustration. Colincbn (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Diffs? You can provide them on my talk page if you'd like and we can continue this side discussion there for a while. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary
After avoiding this talk page for a week in the hopes that it would deescalate the behavioral problems here, I'm going to continue analyzing the sources and potential sources. At this point, I've looked and commented on everything used or offered to be used. While I'm not recommending a merge once again, I think that the article should be trimmed back until better sources are found. The sources we have are poor. We meet WP:BIO, but without any articles giving substantial coverage. This makes it close to impossible for us to determine proper WP:WEIGHT on her views and background. (More to follow) --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC Bio
I would like to request more editors to join in on this conversation. There seems to be a double standard being applied to this article. Perfectly good sources are being rejected by, essentially, one editor who seems to have a grudge against the subject of the article. It is a short BLP with plenty of reliable sources, and there are no neutrality issues, yet this editor refuses to allow the removal of banner tags that claim there are, with no explanation of why. Certainly it had problems in the past with advocacy but they seem to be cleared up. I feel this one editor may be violating WP:OWN. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC) -
 * In re-reading this RfC post I realize I was far to confrontational. I assume Ronz believes he is doing what is best for WP, I just happen to disagree about how he is doing it. I still think we need more editors to comment on this article though. Colincbn (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the RfC request and asked Colincbn to rewrite this and take any behavioral concerns to an appropriate venue (Discussion here.
 * Lambanog has been busy edit-warring to keep these attacks here on this talk page. I'm requesting Lambanog be blocked from this article at ANI. Link to follow. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ronz, your misrepresentation of my restoration of Colincbn's request for comment that you removed and your threats to have me blocked are more serious attacks than anything that can be gleaned from Colincbn's comments. Please retract your comments and stop wasting people's time. Lambanog (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ANI here--Ronz (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, I may have accepted that my post was too confrontational, but removing an RfC is just plain wrong. Why would you not want more people to help with the article? I am putting it back up. If you remove again I will bring this to ANI or at Least RfCU. Colincbn (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on your talk. I guess you want to discuss here instead:
 * The purpose of this RfC appears to attack me rather than improve the article. Perhaps you could explain, as you should, what specific problems with the article you see and would like resolved? Please take your attacks on me to an appropriate venue, with the appropriate documentation so they don't continue to look like simple harassment as they do now. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not an attack. It is an attempt to get more editors to look at the article and decide if it needs banner tags for Neutrality and Sources. I don't think it does, you do. Therefore getting more people to look at it is a good thing. I accept that when I made the RfC I was being confrontational. I pointed it out, accepted that I was wrong to do it, and made it clear that I understand you are doing what you feel is best for WP. Now can we get passed that and really try to improve the article? While we are at it what do you feel needs to be done to get rid of the tags? Colincbn (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still nothing but you being confrontational and violating WP:AVOIDYOU. It appears you can't get past it. Meanwhile, I continue my work with the potential sources... --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AVOIDYOU again. It specifically says "discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI)", note I struck comments here and only brought them up again in the ANI you started.
 * [Copied from my talk page]: My accusations are not baseless as can be seen by the discussion. Please stop accusing me of a personal attack. If you feel that I have violated policy start an RfCU or an ANI on me. I will be happy to respond.
 * Also I think you are focusing too much on the negative. You have not shown me any of the courtesy you are demanding. I made it clear that I do not want to be confrontational, and have apologized for the one time I was. yet you have focused on confrontation. Lets stop now shall we? Why not WP:FOC like you have reminded others to do. I'm sure that if you accept I am not "out to get you" or anything like that you will see we both simply want to improve the article. This is a collaborative process. Spell out what you want and I will do my utmost to provide it. And again let me apologize for being confrontational, if you remember that was in response to you accusing me of trying to hinder progress on the article after you reverted my changes, note I did not re-revert as I believe in WP:BRD, the fact that you reverted does not bother me in the slightest. But accusing me of trying to hinder progress does. You have since struck your comments and I have dropped it until now. Why not do the same and just move on? Colincbn (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While we are at it what specifically do you think needs to be done to remove the tags? I'm sorry but a vague answer like "when I feel the sources are ok" is just not enough for me. I need something actionable to work with. Colincbn (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one that has repeatedly continued to choose this as a venue for this discussion. How about you stop doing so? --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine I admit that I am a horrible person, next time you get the chance please smack me with a fish. In the mean-time will you answer the question above, ""what specifically do you think needs to be done to remove the tags? I'm sorry but a vague answer like "when I feel the sources are ok" is just not enough for me. I need something actionable to work with."? Colincbn (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag is still justified as the mainstream still is underrepresented; rather agnostic to whether the BLP is necessary. I don't understand the rush to take down the tags when this article still clearly needs work. As an aside, I think people need to tone it down and improve the article by adding sources rather than bickering here or. The tags will handle themselves when the article is in better shape. Yobol (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (Thank God, someone who is actually willing to collaborate) Ok, that is something I can work with. I think the Academic and professional history section does not need much of that kind of thing because we are not putting forth her non-mainstream views there. Also the lead makes it clear her views are counter to the accepted scientific majority, but if you have any ideas on improving it please go right ahead. I suppose the place that needs the most clarification on these point is the Dietary views section. Would you agree? In re-reading it I can see that there is scant coverage of how far from the majority viewpoint her stance is. That should be clarified. Colincbn (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a bit in the first sentence of the Dietary views section. And I think there could be better clarification in the last sentence as well. But the whole thing is only five sentences long, and three of them now point out that her views go against the established majority views. I'm not sure how much more we can fit in considering one of the two sentences that do not point it out is simply the one that says "Enig disputed the review in a letter to the journal". I do think the bit about lauric acid, needs a mention that her theory is totally unproven though. Colincbn (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ocaasi introduced a misleading statement there by saying its her theory. Her views are based on the work of Jon J. Kabara as clearly stated in the source.  One should also keep in mind that in this field hardly anything is proven beyond doubt; neither cholesterol nor fat has been proven to be worse than other nutrients without adding significant caveats, and years and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent trying.  To go out of one's way to say her view is not proven while neglecting to say the same of the majority view would not be neutral. Lambanog (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Bear in mind that this article is a biography not an article about dietary fat. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed some of the 'secondary source required' tags for cases where ther is no WP requirement for a secondary source. For the remaining contentious issues, I suggest that they are simply removed or phrased in a non-contentious way. We should state Enig's views and the fact that they have been criticised but any more detail is not required in a biography. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most, if not all, of the contentious issues have been removed. I have had a hard time getting anyone to point out any specific issues with the article even though the whole thing is only 14 sentences long . Certainly there are none that require banner tags from what I see. But it seems some editors just like having them. There was an agreement made not to remove them without a consensus, but those in favor of keeping them refuse to discuss the issue, and then claim there is no consensus so they can't be removed. If anyone gives a specific paragraph (out of the four in the article) that they feel is "non-neutral" I would be happy to look at alternate wording. Colincbn (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I presume that you agree that the tags were properly removed. There really is no need for a secondary source to show Enig was a member of a specific professional body when we have an except from the register, for example.  I think there is only one bit where there might need some change to the wording and that is the section where I have left the tag in place.

''Her chapter in the book Coronary Heart Disease: The Dietary Sense and Nonsense – An evaluation by scientists, was reviewed in the New England Journal of Medicine which noted that while she provided an appropriate discussion of trans fats in diet, she misrepresented the medical literature on the connection between diet and coronary disease, and that she wrote with an inflammatory tone that was unjustified. Enig disputed the review in a letter to the journal''.

I just wonder why we pick one chapter from her book and criticism of just one journal. If that is all there is, it is hardly worth mentioning. Might we just say something more general along the lines that her views have be criticised? Martin Hogbin (talk)


 * I think there was more but many of the refs have been removed. If you look through the section above with the long lists of refs you may find something usable. And yes I agree with the tag removals. Colincbn (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Apart from the section above, I can see nothing remotely POV about this article.


 * My point is that we should not say anything which implies 'Enig is a crazy fringe scientist' or 'Enig is a well-respected mainstream scientist representing a major dissenting group' without a good quality secondary source or two. The section quoted above has slight fringe implications to me although it is actually purely factual.  What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. I think having a slight fringe implication is fine though. In fact I would say that her notability as a dietitian is based on it. I assume the only reason she was invited on to Opra et al. was because her views differ from the mainstream. Also there are plenty of sources that cover the issue. Colincbn (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason that I mentioned this section was that it is the only part of the article where I could see any reason whatsoever for a POV complaint. My thoughts were therefore that we should make this bit scrupulously neutral and remove all the tags. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientifically accepted?
"Scientifically accepted" is vague. What does that mean? That scientific means have been used to show support for it? But scientific means have also been employed to argue against it as well. Maybe what is meant is accepted by the scientific community? But how has that been determined? What studies have led to that conclusion? A source should be provided. How conclusive is "scientifically accepted"? The hypothesis is a working theory—a popular theory—but not a law. The failure of drugs like torcetrapib should show that this lipid mechanism is by no means fully understood. "Widely accepted" is less contestable. Lambanog (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no serious dissent about the validity of the lipid hypothesis in the medical/scientific community, so the current wording is appropriate. Yobol (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording is ok, but I also agree a source is needed. We can't say what is and isn't scientifically accepted. All we can say is that sources say it. Colincbn (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source in the article that is most proximate is a dissent published in Science considered as among the top two leading scientific publications. That would seem to indicate serious dissent.  Even among those that would say the issue is over with the statements I've seen were that it was only recently settled with the argument about the effectiveness of statins and that was before the recent mammoth diet studies that were supposed to be the last word came out with inconclusive results.  This issue is not settled. In fact the alternative explanation that focuses on carbohydrate mechanisms are gaining more prominence. Lambanog (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, the criticism in the source is directed more towards saturated fat as a cause of CAD rather than lipid hypothesis in general, which should probably be changed. One letter to the editor is not serious dissent in the scientific community. Yobol (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether is is scientifically accepted or not is a matter for somewhere else. We have a link for lipid hypothesis so why not leave out the unnecessary 'scientifically accepted' and let the readers look at that article for a discussion of its current scientific status? This is a biography. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we inform our readers which theory has consensus and which is fringe/alternative. For my taste, Enig's bio is much more interesting when we acknowledge how little acceptance her ideas (the ones she supports) have received--because if they ever do change, it will be a sea-change which she in part deserves credit for. Ocaasit 18:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear from the lipid hypothesis article that there is still a level of controversy relating to this subject even though there may be an overall consensus. We should not be giving a verdict on this subject in two words in a biography. How about 'widely accepted'.  This is a bit more neutral and factual.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)  I see it has already been proposed above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it to 'widely accepted'. I can see no real objection to that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Colincbn (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Ocaasit 03:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

List of removed sources
Please park all removed sources and references here. Lambanog (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Update. Lambanog (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of banner tags
An agreement was made not to remove the tags without consensus. In an effort to judge if we have it I am asking here what specific places in the article are non-neutral and which ones need additional references. If no specific examples are given I will take that to mean consensus has been reached. If there are any places that anyone, at all, feels still qualifies for either of the two tags please let me know so we can work on them. Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Repeating myself: If we simply present her views without any secondary sources, we do so without any means whatsoever of determining if those views are worthy of note. Hence NPOV (WP:UNDUE) and refimprove.
 * Given that the sources we have are poor (few that have significant coverage of Enig), I think we should keep the refimprove. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I would say that if her views are not worthy of note, then that would imply the article itself should be deleted as non-notable. I have never seen anywhere that NonNotable=NPOV. Also I think there has been some disagreement over what secondary sources are includible. From what I have seen there are plenty of secondary sources, but they have been removed from the article. Colincbn (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant what I said, "worthy of note" as in WP:UNDUE:
 * "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
 * How can a view be significant if there are no secondary sources for it?
 * If there are potential secondary sources, or if secondary sources have been removed, then let's find them and get them back in. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not need secondary sources to show her clearly expressed views. We need secondary sources if we are to compare her views with those who disagree with her, or comment on her standing in the scientific community. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that WP:UNDUE says "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. " and "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". Because this article is about Enig, and her views are a significant part of why she is notable, covering those views is not only not prohibited by WP:UNDUE, it is specifically called for. Colincbn (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "How can a view be significant if there are no secondary sources for it?" Anyone? Anyone?
 * The article is about Enig. Without detailed sources about Enig, we're stuck. Let's not make this article a coatrack for insignificant viewpoints from Enig. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The viewpoints are significant to her biography, if not to mainstream medicine. We have ample secondary sources (above) which describe her theories, and published primary sources which augment them.  We have more than enough to stop acting like there's some deficiency.  Ocaasit 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The viewpoints are significant..." howso? Without secondary sources, seems like NPOV and OR. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ronz what Specific wording do you have a problem with??? Out of the 14 sentences in this article which one(s) do you feel are OR? You keep giving these vague answers that make it impossible to address the areas you are worried about. Plus we have two long lists above of sources that corroborate what is said in the article. If you tell me what sentences need more sources I can add them from those lists. If you don't give any specific places that need work I must assume there are none. Colincbn (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your concerns have a solid foundation, Ronz, but the current article doesn't seem like a soapbox. She's notable as being the spokesman of theory that hasn't got wide acceptance, and the article states that fairly neutrally, and describes the theory briefly and fairly neutrally. It had some formatting issues (the use of bold headers to overemphasize the content), and I've taken care of that. The article needs to be watched, because it certainly could have problems, but it doesn't seem to have them right now.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What specific wording do I have concerns? The wording based solely on primary sources of course. Additionally, I'm concerned with the unsourced lede. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Enig's theory is that lauric acid, the main acid in coconut oil is the precursor to monolaurin, a lipid with antimicrobial properties" is sourced solely by Enig. The 1997 reference at the end of the sentence has some parallel information. Is it enough? --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added refs to the lead.
 * So if the refs at the end of the sentence corroborate the info what is the problem? Colincbn (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Nation (Thailand): Congressman Ramon Bagatsing urged the health and the science and technology departments to pursue the findings of US-based biochemist Mary Enig that the fatty acid monolaurin in coconut oil could kill the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes aids. "We are duty-bound to support more research into Dr Enig's discovery, not only because of teh increasing number of of Filipinos threatened by HIV, but also because we are among the world's top producers of coconut oil," said Bagatsing, former chairman on science and technology in the House of Representatives. In October, Enig told Southeast Asian coconut oil producers in Manila that studies had shown that lauric oils might be a suitable supplement in the diet regimens of HIV-infected individuals because of their high lauric acid concentration. There, we have secondary and primary for augmentation. Next. Ocaasit 05:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed Ronz question "is it enough?" at the end of his last post. I believe it is. The primary explains exactly what her stance is thereby filling in any blanks left by the secondary. Colincbn (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So are there any other reasons to keep the tags? The refs are ample for an article this size, we have many secondary sources. There is nothing like advocacy in the wording so NPOV does not seem to be an issue. If there are no other specific sentences brought up for improvement I will remove the tags. Colincbn (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see no justification for the tags. Ronz, I do not understand your point.  Are you suggesting that Enig may not actually have the views stated in this article?  Are you suggesting that these views are a minor part of her work and life and have been unjustifiably singled out for special attention here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As no other examples of NPOV problems or needed refs have been given I must assume we have consensus and am removing the tags. Colincbn (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "I believe it is..." Thanks for addressing my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup & populate refs?
I've tagged the article for cleanup in light of the references, some of which are unformatted urls. Does someone have time to consistently format them all and populate them with information (title, publisher, date published, access date, etc)? --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the WP:Cleanup link says anything about ref formatting. So that was not the appropriate tag, as you pointed out. The formatting one is applicable so I don't have a problem with it as long as those issues remain. Colincbn (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually according to the information in the link provided by the tag this article's refs are properly formatted. It does mention how to use "citeweb" and "citebook" templates but says " Their use is optional: they do aid with consistent formatting, but on the other hand they can make editing more cumbersome". So according to this the article is fine. I will save you the trouble and remove the tag myself. If you do want to use the optional templates by all means go ahead. I'm sure it will improve the article. I may even do it to some of the refs myself. Colincbn (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to Citation templates for the how-to guide on using the templates. It also mentions "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged." (second sentence at the top of the page). Colincbn (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact the page Template:Format footnotes specifically says that this tag is not applicable to the way the citations in this article are formatted.
 * It says:
 * Use in an article with citations like:


 * "Australia has a government Australian Government."


 * or


 * "Australia has a governmentsee footnote 1"


 * We do not have these, or any problems like these, in this article. I can only assume you mis-read (or did not read) the multiple places where it is pointed out the "citeweb" etc tempaltes are optional, and misunderstood the intented use of this template. No worries. I fixed it. Colincbn (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yobol has done some great work formatting the refs. I added two citeweb temps but for some reason they show up with different formats in the reflist. I used the exact same template for both so I don't know why that is happening. Can anyone who has used these templates point out why? Colincbn (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yobol fixed it. Thanks! Colincbn (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Secondary Expansion
I expanded her dietary views with the secondary sources on the Talk page. To anticipate concerns, Enig is attributed and quoted verbatim where possible. All sources are secondary. If editors want to add mainstream counterpoints to anything, that makes sense too. The context is clear that, though a pioneer in some areas, she is also clearly against the grain with her advice. As this is an article about her and her dietary views, both RS and MEDRS are in operation, RS for Enig's writings and advocacy, and MEDRS for actual research and scientific consensus. Thoughts? Ocaasit 00:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a biographical article, and a biographical article alone. There's no reason to expand the level of coverage of her views.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that, since her theories are why she is notable. Those additions were sourced and are relevant.  At the least, the less technical arguments could be put back.  Or rather, most it could be put back and the technical pieces removed. Ocaasit 01:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) So far the only thing I would suggest is possibly removing the "pioneering" bit. I also added this based on the same newspaper article yesterday, but after looking at it for a while I started getting the feeling it crossed over into advocacy. True that is exactly what the newspaper says, and your sentence is much better than mine was in that it points out the source clearly. So I would not object or make a big deal about it, I just think that if it is only one source we need to think about how much it adds to the article vs. whether it crosses the advocacy line. Just a suggestion, but you might want to re-look at it. Colincbn (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think Kww has a point. We don't want to coatrack, but we also should cover her views to some extent. Deciding what that extent is will be a delicate piece of work perhaps. We could look at other articles on other scientist who are also questioning currently accepted theories and see how they handle it. Also some of the info can be added to the Weston Price foundation article. Colincbn (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I cut back some of the dietary views section, but left some as well. I don't think the bits about the diets themselves are needed, but the parts about Enig herself, and to some extent her views, seem relevant. Colincbn (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused here. Sources were requested.  They were provided.  What Enig thinks about diets is the essence of who she is:  she's a nutritional researcher and advocate.  The only thing I can imagine excluding is technical pieces.  Why else would we limit sourced coverage of her views, with attribution and context?  That's who she is and what she thinks, and that's the root of her notability... Ocaasit 02:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I reorganized, cleaned up, and added back the part about Price and Nourishing traditions. 1) Price is her key predecessor.  2) Nourishing traditions is her key book.  3) The foods advocated in NT are the foods Enig advocates, they are not just "Price's" diet, but Enig's.  Check it...Ocaasit 02:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel coverage of the Diet crosses over into WP:COATRACK, Specifically:
 * ''A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing
 * Amanda Pubilchep is a journalist. One day she wrote an article about Conspiracy Theory X. The main points of Conspiracy Theory X are as follows..."
 * I do see your point about covering her views, and I agree. I just think the coverage needs to focus on her more than on her views. Colincbn (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made another pass at toning it down some.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Colin Maybe I'm still missing something... The Journalist is notable for her conspiracy theory, so we should explain the theory in moderation. Enig is a pioneering/fringe/contrarian nutritional researcher/advocate.  Well, what does she advocate?  We can't just skip that stuff as coat-rack; it's only a coat-rack if the main article is elsewhere, but in this case Enig's views are part of the main article.


 * @Kww, I like the first pass in spirit, since it removed overly technical details, but I'm less keen on removing headers. Headers only help with organization and reader navigation.  Why would we want them removed?  I disagree that they emphasize extraneous detail:  a) that's what in discussion here, so I won't concede that conclusion as justification; b) her dietary views are not extraneous, they're the very cause of her notability, so outlining them organizationally makes sense to me.  The effect if not the purpose of removing content seems to minimize the article rather than balance and structure it?  That's the other side of coat-rack I suppose (hey, that's my coat! and my name-tag!)  Kww, can you explain the header issue, please, without assuming they are extraneous. Ocaasit 04:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't mind the headers. It makes the section easier to read. My problem with the diet is that rather than just explaining her views on the mechanisms fats etc, it is extrapolating that into a subject beyond the scope of the article. For example, I think "She thinks trans-fats are bad" is fine, while "she thinks trans-fats are bad so you should eat this and not that" is also just explaining her views but it is covering them too in-depth for an article that is just about her and not the diet she recommends. I would even be ok with "she thinks trans-fats are bad because she believes they do x" as it is still focused on her views of trans-fats rather than being about the diet. Colincbn (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm still on the other side there, just organized differently. She followed price and advocates x type of diet.  She believes transfats are y and advocates z.  She believes saturated fat is a and advocates b.  How are her dietary recommendations separate from her advocacy as a nutritionist and alternative/natural health campaigner?  As long as we don't go full bore on the how's and why's of traditional diets, there's nothing I see that's coatrackish about describing her ideal diet.  That's half of who she is, the other half being her research. Ocaasit 05:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the thing about that paragraph that bugs me most is that after the second sentence the subject becomes the book, rather than Enig. Yes the book is important but it is only one of many she has been involved with. And I see her notability coming from her research rather then the controversy. Regardless of the subject matter if any researcher publishes papers that get mentioned in news sources they usually pass notability. True for her the reason may be the controversy, but it is not a necessary component of notability for a scientist. But I am getting off topic here.
 * If I was to edit that section again I would do something like this:
 * Enig's work was inspired by the research of Weston A. Price, a dentist who traveled the world researching traditional diets in the 1920s and '30. When Weston Price advocate Sally Fallon began to think about popularizing Price's work in 1989, she recruited Enig for her nutritional training to co-write a cook-book called Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook That Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats.
 * And then cut the rest. How would you feel about that? Colincbn (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's the missing piece: [Nourishing Traditions] explains Price's findings and provides recipes of traditional foods such as chicken liver pâté, sauerkraut, sourdough breads and bone broths,[8] as well as raw milk, kombucha, probiotics (yogurt, kim-chee), trans-fat avoidance, organ meats, coconut oil, and butter.[9] The book has sold more than 400,000 copies as of 2011.  Here are two issues I see. One, this is still about the book Enig (co)wrote. Although this article is about Enig, not Price or NT, NT does not have its own page, and those details seem both relevant here and appropriate within summary style to cover this aspect of Enig's life. Two, we could rephrase it to focus it more on Enig's, i.e' Nourishing Traditions explains Enig (and Fallon's) view of an ideal diet, and then provides recipes on traditional dishes such as...  That way the focus would be slightly less on Price. I think the list of foods is appropriate as illustration of what Enig's dietary recommendations actually entail, besides just, 'more lauric acid, less trans-fat' which isn't very palatable information for the reader. Ocaasit 13:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Headers
Breaking this out for a separate discussion. I generally oppose the use of headers for two and three line sections. The bold, enormous text, screaming the topic information at the top of its lungs really emphasises the information contained in the header. Notice, for example, that you are all well aware now that I think that the use of headers is an important topic for discussion.

It makes a lot of sense to use headers to organise clumps of several paragraphs. Breaking out a header every other sentence is an overemphasis. It also encourages editors to expand the section. The logic seems to be "Here's a header, so it must be an important topic, so there must be more to say about it than these two sentences". They then proceed to add stuff to make the headered section bigger. In this case, I will still argue that we don't need most of this information at all, and I certainly don't want to encourage growth.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How about something like
 * This header

It still breaks up the text into easier to digest sections, without being too "in your face". It also does not add seperate edit tabs for each section. Colincbn (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Same problem. The whole section really should be about 8-12 sentences long. How much breaking up of text does such a short clump of text require?&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The section does not have a predesignated length. All of the content is sourced, relevant, not overly technical, and adds to the picture of her dietary views.  Headers don't 'scream', they just locate information.  What about using level 4 rather than level 3 headers, as they're smaller. Or Colin's suggestion.  Also, note that the sections were a few paragraphs each.  Now they're less.  My intention is not to cut them down further.  Coatrack is balanced here by WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTPAPER.  The reliable sources describe these views in multiple different articles.  They're all secondary.  There's no reason I can see not to explain her dietary opinions.  Also, don't forget that WP:FRINGE applies contextually and in the articles actually about fringe people and subjects, their views get more attention.  This is about Enig's views,  her noteworthy publications, and her RS-noted advocacy.  I'm about done with the cutting, and I think headers are a nice navigational aid.  I'd like to get some more opinions Kww. Ocaasit 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Predesignated length", no, but "not the major topic of the article", yes. It can grow if information is found about things to balance it. Right now, it's small enough it doesn't require any navigational help.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kww, the length of the section really doesn't justify using subheadings. If it is expanded, it can be added at that point. Yobol (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic history
Currently her academic history has a "citation needed" template. This is a pretty important piece of info for this article and a primary source will not be enough. Has anyone seen this mentioned in any of the news sources already here? And please note I am in no way suggesting her credentials are false or anything like that. I am only pointing out that we really need to try and find something usable to cite them. I have been looking but have yet to find a non primary source (I am assuming the Weston Price Foundation will be considered primary). Colincbn (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Try the Passwater article from the List of Removed Sources section above. Lambanog (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Colincbn (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Widely accepted by the medical community
I am amenable to the wording widely held view but the repetition of the phrase "widely accepted by the medical community" three times I think is not neutral. It is also not supported sufficiently. Policy statements issued by various agencies and institutions would seem to make a strong case for the view but there also exist more recent position statements and studies by leading researchers that say the evidence does not warrant the degree to which the view has been promoted. It is still an open question. Lambanog (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at, but the controversy here is still not ripe. Ask almost any nutritionist or doctor and they'll tell you to avoid saturated fat.  We can source that well.  Recent research has reopened the question and the degree of certainty around the conclusion, but we have to make clear that it's still recent and somewhat uncharted.  That means the predominant view is the old one, the mainstream one.  Readers should know that, as well as they should know that there's some new thinking being put forth which has not yet changed the mainstream consensus. Ocaasit 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it can be sourced well then a good source should be provided. I would also note that WP:MEDRS suggests the best sources are in general recent meta-analysis from a respected biomedical journal.  The problem with the current wording is that I can come up with such a source and others besides that raise questions about the "widely accepted by the medical community" position. Lambanog (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'widely accepted' language was carefully chosen. Although recent meta-analysis has raised some serious questions, they have not yet become part of mainstream consensus.  Maybe we need to distinguish between mainstream and recent meta-analysis and source them both. Ocaasit 15:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But please remember this is not an article about saturated fats. Colincbn (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the phrase was included for a reason: to supposedly put Enig's views in proper context. I request that context be accurate and properly supported by a source because a source like this one "Scientific consensus: role of saturated fats in heart disease not well defined" from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition April 2011 would seem to undermine such a view. Lambanog (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, that is a good source from a reputable journal. You should add it to the Saturated fat page. However one source, about one event, regardless of how reliable, does not overturn every other reliable source we have. The wording is accurate, it is sourced. And while I completely agree, from a copyedit standpoint, using the same wording three times in the article is not cool. It is, so far, the best we have come up with. Colincbn (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understand my point. That statement was made by leading researchers who performed many different large prospective studies and meta-analyses. It is a summation of the results of numerous studies including many newer ones that previously hadn't been included in reviews.  I can provide links to some studies if you wish.  You make reference to "every other reliable source we have".  Please identify what you are talking about.  I think it is misleading to emphasize too much consensus against Enig's views on saturated fats.  Something that would reflect a true consensus in my view would be the attitude towards trans fats—no one really argues against that. Since I am the one primarily objecting to the threefold repetition I will provide alternate wording that I feel is more accurate and maybe you can then evaluate if you find them acceptable. Lambanog (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. On one hand I think it is important to explain accurately where her views fall in relation to the majority viewpoint, but on the other it seems best to also include info about the breath of research that supports her. However it is a precarious balancing act to avoid giving undue weight and tip over into advocacy. I think to err on the side of following the heretofore standard view is prudent, until such time as other articles on the subject of SFAs themselves clearly show the dispute has grown enough in scientific circles to challenge the majority view. Colincbn (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still widely accepted Lambanog, even if it's not uncontroversial, uncontested, or unquestioned. Accepted, as in the actual belief/assumption of the majority of health practitioners, as well as the bulk of prior research conclusions. The point you're making is that this consensus has been challenged in the past few years and important questions have been raised (which have not yet swayed the consensus). Both are true. Ocaasit 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ocaasi and Colincbn. This is not the article to go into the intricacies of saturated fat research. Clear consensus of major medical bodies (as noted in saturated fat) is a risk factor for heart disease. When this consensus changes (which would be shown by new recommendations by the WHO, AHA, etc) we can update this article. Yobol (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS says statements by medical organizations are in general less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. I would also note that the most detailed WHO position I have seen is from 2003 and if you look beyond the headline and actually read the report proper, it is more equivocal and balanced in its discussion.  Indeed most of the public service position statements by medical organization do a relatively poor job identifying what research they base their stands on and some have been accused of not taking into account the controversies or more recent developments.  Lambanog (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. However, even though that is all true the place to be bringing it up is the Saturated fats page. And please note I am not disagreeing with any of what you said, nor am I saying that this article should never change. I am simply saying that until such a time as the saturated fats page changes there is no reason to change the stance on this one. This is not because I am basing this page on that one, it is because this page is not about SFAs so this discussion should not happen here. Colincbn (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography Needed
Title says it. She's apparently at least co-authored two books; and the article hints at "chapters" in other works, etc.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Support of Enig's view?
Moved from the article because of numerous problems:

A paper published in the Journal of the Indian Medical Association suggests that more mainstream researchers are starting to support Enig's view. The researchers suggested that the rapid increase in Type 2 Diabetes in the Indian subcontinent was largely due to the abandonment of the traditional cooking oils of ghee, coconut oil and mustard seed oil, and their replacement with highly processed, polyunsaturated vegetable oils. They unequivocally recommended a general return to traditional dietary oils.

WP:V - Please quote where the source verifies that information.

WP:MEDRS - Please cite a source that meets MEDRS. That one does not.

WP:NPOV - Please cite a source demonstrating that the pov of the answer from the WP:V problem should be presented in this article.

WP:SOAP - Please cite a source demonstarting that this information is relevant to Enig and should appear in a biographical article on her.

We'll have to wait on specific SYN and FRINGE questions until we actually have something verified. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary G. Enig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807151711/http://www.americancollegeofnutrition.org/Default.aspx?tabid=121 to http://www.americancollegeofnutrition.org/Default.aspx?tabid=121

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary G. Enig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721155531/http://coconutboard.gov.in/English-Article-MaryEnig.pdf to http://coconutboard.gov.in/English-Article-MaryEnig.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)