Talk:Mary G. Enig

"Renown" description

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

Personal praise for subject of article

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

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

NPOV accusations and related reverts

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

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

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

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

Homogenized Milk

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

How not to write "articles"

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

This article has to abide by WP:BLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article cleanup

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

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

WP:NOR

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

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

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

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

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

Mention of mention of an unspecified study

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

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

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

Inaccurate description of sources

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

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

"Controversial dietary advice" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-published banner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Storage

Moving items here for possible restoration later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APCC verification

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letters to the editor section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP banner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite

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

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

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

Identifying the independent, reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically:

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

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

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

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

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

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