Jump to content

Talk:Seed oil misinformation

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 reviewer, closed by BorgQueen talk 14:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that despite a panic to the contrary, most researchers think seed oils are healthy and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease?
  • Source: "most cardiovascular health researchers believe omega-6 fatty acids are safe and healthy. The American Heart Association has stated that a reduction in omega-6 fatty acids could lead to an increase, not reduction, in cardiovascular disease."
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I understand this is beyond the seven-day limit; however, I'd like to request an extension for two reasons. First, that this is my first DYK so I didn't know there was a deadline; and second, that this is a medical-related topic so it's best that the article has been shown to be stable.
Moved to mainspace by Dan Leonard (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Dan • ✉ 04:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Way too weak. It's not a "most researchers think" thing; the seed oil misinformation is utter nonsense on many levels. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was nominated two weeks after creation, which is far beyond the seven day limit, or even the two-day extension that is built in into DYK. As such, the article is ineligible for DYK. Although leniency is sometimes granted to DYK newcomers, two weeks is too long for what is usually granted. My suggestion is to nominate the article for GA status: it may be a challenge given that it is a medicine-related article but it should be achievable. Once the article is a GA it can be renominated for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that this was moved to mainspace on 29 August and nominated on 9 September, so a smidge under 11 days. Still a big ask though.--Launchballer 02:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this some more thought, and while I don't feel strongly enough to overrule, I do think that as a brand new nominator, as a one-off, this should be given a chance.--Launchballer 17:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing a one-time exemption this time considering the length of time involved (around 11 days) would be unfair to other nominators, both new and old, who are not given the same opportunity. If it had only been late by a day or two, it probably would have made more sense and been fairer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "origins" to "definition"

[edit]

MOS:WAS and MOS:REALTIME seem to go against this section as it was originally. It doesn't really seem to make sense to have a chronological/dated section about the invention of seed oils in this article. It also is not a section about the origins of seed oil misinformation, but of the origins of seed oils themselves, which belongs in a separate seed oils article. I changed the verb tenses (from was to is) and removed the dates. -edit my edits were reverted, I also don't see how its relevant to the concept of seed oil controversy that Procter and Gamble are responsible for the development of Crisco. I really don't understand this section. Sydpresscott (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Views" section

[edit]

Seems like this section goes against WP:CSECTION and WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Though its named "views," it seems like a "Criticisms and controversies" section, especially because it is preceded by the section about Omega 6 fatty acids. It might be enough to just remove the "Views" subheading and just have the information be in the body, but the tone in general might need to be tweaked. Sydpresscott (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory sources in article

[edit]

Multiple sources in the omega-6 section suggest that omega 6 may contribute to inflammation, but this is contradicted under the medical opinion section. Sydpresscott (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by removing the weakly-sourced (/irrelevant) content. Bon courage (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source is very good [1], I suggest including it in the text. There is also an article by Carrie Dennett in Todays Dietitian [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are already included, Dennett (2023) is even cited twice. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I didn't see that. In regard to the consumer reports reference would you consider adding a line or two about linoleic acid. The topic of linoleic acid is a keystone of what seed oil misinformation is about, it may even warrant its own section at some point. It's definitely worth covering this on the article. There is also some brief coverage here [3], this pooled analysis is already cited on the article [4] which might be useful to also cite in regard to LA intake and CVD risk. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your removal of Cravotto, Fabiano-Tixier, Claux, & Abert-Vian (2022), while sensible as published in a MDPI journal, left a reference broken. Would it make sense to leave the journal in the reference list as it is currently used to support a statement? — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better title

[edit]

The current title overemphasizes recent fringe theories, IMO. I'd suggest that Health effects of seed oils would be a better title, along with a rebalancing of the article to discuss both the fringe right-wing conspiracy stuff, and the omega-6 content (which has, AIUI, any foundation in serious scientific thought, even if the current nutritional consensus is against it).— Moriwen (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to mix conspiracy theories and reality based content in a single article doesn't really work, except to the extent that reality based sources are used to debunk the conspiracy theories. Reality-based content about omega-6 fatty acids belongs on the article at Omega-6 fatty acid. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at {{consumer food safety}} you'll notice that we have standalone articles dedicated to the non-science-based claims so as not to clutter the main articles. See for example aspartame (controversy) and water fluoridation (controversy). — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I think we should use the labels "fiction" and "non-fiction". Polygnotus (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense! I wonder if "controversy" would be a better title, then, actually, for the parallel.— Moriwen (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a controversy; that makes it sound like some kind of legitimate debate. It's people spouting nonsense, and a few scientists bothering to point that out. Bon courage (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there is no controversy. The article title should not be changed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacies

[edit]

1) I am not personally a fan of RFK Jr, JD Vance, or Donald Trump.

2) These three men are 100% irrelevant to this article. They seem to be mentioned as a kind of “poisoning the well” logical fallacy. The safety or danger of seed oils has nothing to do with these politicians. This section should be deleted.

3) I am not personally convinced on the safety or danger of seed oils.y personal opinions are just as irrelevant to this topic.

4) This entry does not pass basic logic. 2407:4D00:1E04:81C3:18F6:D20C:9A83:B40F (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only "logic" that counts is that Wikipedia reflects the knowledge in relevant reliable sources. If they mention that certain US politicians are promoting this misinformation then that's not a problem Wikipedia can fix. Bon courage (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not personally a fan of RFK Jr, JD Vance, or Donald Trump Nobody cares. This is not a forum.
I am not personally convinced on the safety or danger of seed oils Nobody cares. This is not a forum.
You said it yourself: y personal opinions are just as irrelevant to this topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone and WP:GUNREL

[edit]

@Dan Leonard: you reverted my removal of the Rolling Stone/Dickson source with the edit summary Rolling Stone's GUNREL is for factual reporting, not for attributed statements. This does not align with the source's use on this page, nor with Wikipedia policy.

First, that source is cited twice on this page to support factual claims in wikivoice: the description of the Joe Rogan interview and the statement that seed oil claims have nevertheless become popular on the political right. So those citations certainly need to go.

Second, the WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS entry says: there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive). The WP:GUNREL entry says: Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used... Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead (which we have with the Jacobin article). WP:DUE says: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources (emphasis mine). It is not DUE to include statements on a politically sensitive topic from a GUNREL source, even with attribution. 50.231.144.148 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source should be deleted because it says at WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, neither medical or science claims should be cited to this publication. There are better sources, we do not need this source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title should be changed

[edit]

The title is not neutral. "Misinformation" implies that criticism of the health effects of seed oils is objectively false. "Health effects of seed oils" or "Seed oil controversy" would be more neutral, while the article could still give greater weight to the majority view that they are not harmful. 73.40.102.35 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The title is correct. It is misinformation that seed oils are causing chronic disease. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia never endorses the expert understanding of a subject; it just pays the most attention to it. Articles in Wikipedia maintain a neutral, dispassionate tone with regards to the subject, never indicating a preference for or against the perspective being examined." The use of "misinformation" to refer to a minority view on the health effects of seed oils is not neutral. In addition, "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective."
The language and title throughout this article is consistently biased, and there is also no need for this separate article rather than covering this issue as a subpoint under the main article on vegetable oils. 73.40.102.35 (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the neutrality policy, specifically the sections on undue weight and false balance. WP:MEDRS also applies. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071971/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6196963/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-019-0061-9
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6121943/
Here are four peer-reviewed journal articles which question the health benefits of seed oils. The loaded language and irrelevant political references in the original article still needs to be changed - and the article probably doesn't even need to be separate from the main article on vegetable oils. 73.40.102.35 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't read WP:MEDRS. We are not going to cite weak opinion pieces or WP:Fringe papers written by conspiracy theorists like James DiNicolantonio. Nothing you have cited is new or original. I have been on Wikipedia for years and 3 of those exact same papers you cited have been cited over and over by low-carb editors coming to Wikipedia every year citing them on the carnivore diet or saturated fat article. One of those does not even mention seed oils and this [5] is not an anti-seed oil paper. It found "Unsaturated fatty rich oils like safflower, sunflower, rapeseed, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, palm, and coconut oil were more effective in reducing LDL-C (−0.42 to −0.20 mmol/l) as compared with SFA-rich food like butter or lard". How is that questioning the health benefits of seed oils?! Have you even read these papers? Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 January 2025

[edit]

Seed oil misinformation → Health effects of seed oils – The use of the term "misinformation" is loaded language, not NPOV, and incorrect, as there are many peer-reviewed sources that call into question how healthy seed oils are. Lands, B. (2018). Omega-6 vegetable oils as a driver of coronary heart disease. Open Heart, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2018-000898 Scientific American. (2023). Ultraprocessed foods high in seed oils could be fueling colon cancer risk. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com While it may not be the majority view, it is also not "misinformation." Changing the title would allow for greater emphasis to still be given to the majority view while accurately representing the issue 73.40.102.35 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That study doesn't even mention colon cancer, and SciAm's homepage isn't relevant. Do you have some actual sources? Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ultraprocessed-foods-high-in-seed-oils-could-be-fueling-colon-cancer-risk/
This is the popular article summarizing the study
https://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2024/12/20/gutjnl-2024-332535
And this is the underlying study.
"But researchers in the 1800s found that colon tumors under a microscope looked like “poorly healed wounds,” says Timothy Yeatman, a co-author of the study and a professor of surgery at the University of South Florida. Rampant inflammation over long periods of time damages cells and hampers their ability to fight potentially cancerous cell growth. Omega-6 fatty acids often come from our diet, and Yeatman suspects ultraprocessed food is likely a major source of them."
Is the claim that this study is "misinformation" and the professor who conducted it part of this "misinformation campaign?" Or is this a minority view that should be given appropriate and neutral weight? 73.40.102.35 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Ultraprocessed food" is a meaningless buzzword, and is not a synonym of "seed oils" anyway. And if you have to go back that far to find someone supporting your argument, there might be a problem with your argument. And here's some more studies for you. Remember, "it agrees with my viewpoint" does not mean it's not misinformation. Especially when there's money to be made.

 Sumanuil. (talk to me)

73.40.102.35 - Your first link is James DiNicolantonio a conspiracy theorist. Not a reliable source and wouldn't pass WP:MEDRS. Your other link, a recent study [6] is a primary source and does not mention seed or vegetable oils. So what you are claiming is WP:OR. That study was misrepresented by the media. It does not claim that seed oils fuel colon cancer risk. Show us one good systematic review claiming seed oils fuel chronic disease. None exist. It is misinformation to pretend there is a "debate" about this in the medical community. No reputable medical or dietetic organization is claiming that seed oils are bad for overall health or "driving" chronic disease. Not one clinical guideline would claim that. It is misinformation promoted by the online carnivore/low-carb/paleo diet crowd. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seed_oil_misinformation&oldid=1266826417"