Template:Did you know nominations/Pure, White and Deadly


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Pure, White and Deadly

 * ... that in his 1972 book Pure, White and Deadly, John Yudkin identified sugar as the culprit causing obesity and heart disease, but it was thirty years before this became widely accepted because of lobbying by the sugar industry? Source: John Yudkin: the man who tried to warn us about sugar

Created/expanded by Velella (talk). Self-nominated at 01:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Thank you for your DYK nomination. The target article needs to appear in the hook with a bolded link, like: Pure, White and Deadly ; alternately, it can be piped, like: his 1972 book . Looking at the article, I see numerous paragraphs that lack any cite at all, per Rule D2, and also paragraphs that have been tagged with questions. It also appears that User:SlimVirgin did extensive expansion on the article at the same time as you, and should be added to the DYK co-creation credits. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be very happy for SlimVirgin and Michael Yudkin to receive all the credit. I nominated it in the belief that it was a very interesting article.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I added them to the creation credits, and made you the nominator. But the article and hook are still in no shape for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been adding refs as I find them. One of the big issues with Wikipedia and books published before the digital revolution is that finding references can be very difficult and time consuming. I am working without access to an academic library but will continue to persevere. However, looking at the qualifications to Rule D2, specifically excluded from the requirements of referencess are book and plot summaries, yet this constitutes most of this article. Assuming that the summary and recapitulation of the main points from the book are exempt under D2, is this now looking closer to an acceptable DYK nomination? Any help and guidance much appreciated.  Velella  Velella Talk 01:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not think that this article will be suitable for DYK anytime soon. The sourcing in the article is far from WP:MEDRS compliant, and therefore emphasizes the popular reception of the book rather than what scientists think of the theory. This leads to neutrality problems because the science is not as clear-cut as stated in the hook. For example, the most recent US nutrition guidelines states on page 15 that "The recommendation to limit intake of calories from saturated fats to less than 10 percent per day is a target based on evidence that replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease." On the same page, it recommends that sugar be kept to 10% daily but does not identify sugar as a cause of heart disease. On page 57, the guidelines state that "The purpose of discussing solid fats in addition to saturated fats is that, apart from the effects of saturated fats on cardiovascular disease risk, solid fats are abundant in diets in the United States and contribute substantially to excess calorie intake. " buidhe 07:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether you realise quite how ironic your comments are. I am pinging  who may also have comment to make. I accept that the sourcing is not yet WP:MEDRS compliant and this may in part reflect a need to adjust the phrasing. This is, after all, an article about a book and its reception and not the science per se. What John Yudkin wrote in 1972 may no longer be consistent with current thinking, but that doesn't make it in any sense "wrong". When he wrote almost all of his contemporaries, some financed by the sugar industry, said he was wrong, and it remains possible that current US dietary guidelines are still reflecting outdated thinking.  Velella  Velella Talk  10:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no view whatever about the nomination of this article for DYK. I'll just draw attention to the fact that the Dietary Guidelines mentioned by Buidhe contain (at page 31) the following sentence: "Strong evidence from mostly prospective cohort studies but also randomized controlled trials has shown that eating patterns that include lower intake of sources of added sugars are associated with reduced risk of CVD in adults, and moderate evidence indicates that these eating patterns are associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults." Michael Yudkin (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but look at the hook. As it stands, it states that "identified sugar as the culprit causing obesity and heart disease". That makes it sound as if it is the only, or the primary cause of heart disease, and I rather doubt that there is any serious research suggesting that that is the case. The article is slightly better but reads as an WP:ESSAY in places: "Although excessive sugar consumption is recognised as a major health issue, it is likely to remain a problem for decades ahead. The incidence of obesity remains high in most developed countries. It is also rising in many developing societies, even those with widespread deficiencies, where it produces the “double burden” of malnutrition. As yet, “not one single country has managed to turn around its obesity epidemic in all age groups”[34][35]. The burden of illness has shifted, in rich and poor countries alike, towards “non-communicable diseases”, including those of the metabolic syndrome associated with sugar." buidhe 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Buidhe, As I said before I have no view on whether the article is suitable for DYK, and as I have very little experience of Wikipedia I'm afraid I didn't know until this week that the category DYK existed. I posted the quotation from the US Dietary Guidelines in response to your asserting that they do "not identify sugar as a cause of heart disease." But they do: the sentence I quoted (from the section called "Added Sugars") says there's "strong evidence . . . that eating patterns that include lower intake of sources of added sugars are associated with reduced risk of CVD (cardiovascular disease) in adults." Michael Yudkin (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This can possibly be resolved by changing the hook to say "a culprit" instead of "the culprit". Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or "a cause of". The article needs work to make sure it's neutral and MEDRS-complaint, and to remove the essay tone in places. I'd suggest putting the DYK on indefinite hold (if that's allowed) until that work can be done. SarahSV (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know though, indefinite holds aren't allowed, such cases usually instead end up as rejections. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you still interested in pursuing this nomination and addressing the sourcing concerns raised in this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't nominate it and don't really have any involvement in the nomination, so I'll leave others to decide how to proceed. SarahSV (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't nominate it either, and (as I said before) I didn't know of the existence of the DYK category when I submitted the article. I am very grateful to Velella for the nomination (and for much else), but I don't think I want to pursue it. My co-author agrees. Amongst other things, we are unclear about the request that the article be made MEDRS-compliant. Having read the criteria for compliance I don't feel that they apply to an article about a book published nearly 50 years ago; but given my unfamiliarity with Google I don't want to enter into an argument on this point with those who understand these things far better than I do. Michael Yudkin (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interest of disclosure, the reason why I pinged both of you was because you were both listed as DYKmake or DYKnom credits above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Marking for closure; withdrawn by page creators. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Came back here to close this, but I don't see any withdrawal comment in this nomination or on your talkpage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see saying I don't think I want to pursue it. My co-author agrees. and the other co-creator,, saying I didn't nominate it and don't really have any involvement in the nomination. The actual nominator, who is brand new to the DYK process, appears to have left the article improvements to those two, so it's at an impasse. I recommend closure. Yoninah (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, in case it matters, I'm not the co-creator of the nomination or article. My only involvement at that article is to have done some copy-editing (and I may have added some biographical details). That's why I'm leaving it for others to decide what to do. SarahSV (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted. Closing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)