Talk:Fat/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Request to Split Fat/Trans Fat

As can be seen above, there was strong majority opposition in 2020 to merging the articles, but it wrongfully happened anyway. I especially agree with the detailed points Zefr made in opposition, which several other editors also explicitly agreed with.

My proposed initial restored trans fat page can be seen at this revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans_fat&oldid=1027610415 To make this page, I took the Aug 2020 version of Trans Fat, cut back the 'regulation" section by about a third, and rewrote sections that were about 10+ years out of date. While not very interesting, you can see the edits in the Trans Fat history section with my edit summaries. I also added a few new scientific and government sources, and fixed a bunch of citation errors that were flagged in red.

Here's why there should be a wikipedia article on Trans Fat again, as there was continuously from ~2004 to Aug 2020, including a period when it was rated a good article.

1. Trans fat has its own line on US and Canada nutrition labels.

2. There are hundreds of articles devoted specifically to trans fat. It appears there are more than 1000 scholarly articles with "Trans Fat" in their title, even more in their abstract.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22trans+fat%22&btnG=

3. It is very strange there's an article called Trans fat regulation (which is pretty good) but not one for trans fat. It's a bit like having an article called "ketchup regulation" but any content about ketchup itself is a subpart of a gigantic article called "condiments."

4. While not perfect, the trans fat article has a large amount of well-written, well-sourced, and well-organized information about trans fat.

5. The fat article is already too long, and not the right place for detailed information about every type of fat. There's a reason we have an article called "Tiger" rather than just a subpart of "Animal."

There was a specific proposal to merge trans fat into fat. Five people said they opposed, two said they supported. But the merger happened anyway, and even worse, most of the content about trans fat was removed or else is hard to find. And with respect to Jorge Stolfi, the concerns laid out by other editors about replacing multiple high quality and long-standing articles into one huge super-article called "fat" have come true. Zefr immediately reverted Stolfi's merger of saturated fat into fat, the same should have been done for all the other poorly described and poorly thought out proposals that a majority of editors opposed.

6. The French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese versions of wikipedia all have separate articles for trans fat.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81cido_graso_trans

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Fetts%C3%A4uren

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acide_gras_trans

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordura_trans

People who believe English wikipedia should not should explain why English should be the outlier here and why all the other wikis are wrong. In fact, it appears there are 40+ wikipedias with trans fat articles. Only English speakers have to wide down into the overlong Fat article, which would have to be made longer and longer without a separate trans fat article.

Pings to previous editors or voters on merger:

@Jorge Stolfi: @Zefr: @Distelfinck: @David notMD: @CV9933: @Ben Best: @Mdewman6: @Ice bear johny: @Littleb2009: @RMP360: @Gah4: @Graeme Bartlett: @BernardoSulzbach: @Ronz: @Firejuggler86: @Reba16: Declanscottp (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The history of the articles, who proposed what and when, who supported it etc is irrelevant. Likewise, the presence of foreign language versions of an article is of no consequence (see WP:OTHERLANGS). What does matter is people's opinions now. How does Trans fat regulation fit into this proposal as that was the remainder of the original Trans Fat article after the bulk was merged into Fat? --John B123 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that the large majority against merging in 2020 is irrelevant, as well as the fact every other major wikipedia language has a trans fat article. As for the other articles, I don't have a strong opinion. My proposed wikipedia article that you and polyamorph keep reverting has a much shorter regulation section than Trans Fat Regulation, and a link to that article noting it has more detailed information. I am open to other ideas. What is important, however, is the absurd situation of wikipedia not having a Trans Fat article be remedied. The German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc wikis are all correct to have trans fat articles. All the editors from 2004 to 2020 who edited the Trans Fat article were correct. The majority of editors who opposed the merger were correct. Declanscottp (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Equally you can argue that as the merge happened nearly a year and nobody has objected to it except you, everybody else has no objection to it. Whilst you think it's important that other language wikis have the article, en-wiki's policy is that what other wikis do has no influence here. I'll reiterate, what is important is people's opinions now --John B123 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
You say "the merge happened nearly a year and nobody has objected to it except you." BUt I count all of the following as "objecting" to the merger after it happened: @Graeme Bartlett @Zefr @Reba16 @Gah4 So five people including me. Or six people if you count @Firejuggler86, who restored my version of the Trans Fat article with the comment "you don't need to "wait for consensus" to restore content that was BOLDLY MERGED without consensus in the first place, and it is dishonest to try to game the system in such manner! (if the editors who do such are ignorant of the background, they're ok. if not, shame on them)" That makes six. Declanscottp (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • stop Comment It is entirely inappropriate for Declanscottp to have copy/pasted this talk section, including comments made by other editors, from Talk:Trans_fat#Why Trans Fat Should Have Its Own Article. This is made even worse by Declanscottp changing the original text the users responded to. As such I have no choice but to remove the copy/pasted user comments as they are now out of context. Polyamorph (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. I think your aggressive reverts are inappropriate however. I first made a proposal to split fat by undoing the merger on May 6. More than a month later, there has not been a single substantive comment against having a separate trans fat article, just aggressive wikilawyering and reverts that refuse to respond to any of my points in detail. Declanscottp (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
If you had taken heed of multiple editors telling you to wait until discussions were complete there would have been no need for multiple reverts. --John B123 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't give two hoots if you disagree Declanscottp, copying other users comments out of context is serious, as is intra-wiki content copying. Polyamorph (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "intra-wiki content copying." My proposed page is an updated and improved version of the trans fat article as it existed in August 2020. Declanscottp (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Which, as has been explained, duplicates the content at Trans fat regulation. Polyamorph (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
My proposed version of trans fat has a much shorter "regulation" section than the article "trans fat regulation." Perhaps that section should be further updated and improved. These are arguable issues to fix after the separate trans fat article is restored. Declanscottp (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Polyamorph: I had typed out a detailed summary of what needs to be addressed but when I came to post there was an edit conflict. When looking at the posts causing the conflict, it's clear that Declanscottp doesn't want to have a constructive discussion to move things forward, but simply wants everybody to agree with his earlier actions of restoring a historic version of Trans fat. --John B123 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
What I want there to be a good article called "Trans Fat." I do think the best way to start is with the Aug 2020 version and go from there, which is what I did until you reverted it. Please give as much detail as to why you think starting with the Aug 2020, and then improving it as I did over the course of May and early June, was wrong. I am very open to other ideas that end with the goal of having a lot of good information about trans fat, a notable topic in nutrition . Thanks. Declanscottp (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the main problem I see is that what is being proposed (as shown in the attempted and reverted edits at Trans fat) is not a split of content from this article. It is an attempt to return to a version of Trans fat as it was in August 2020, followed by further edits. However, there is no version of Trans fat from August 2020. It was moved/renamed to Trans fat regulation on August 30th 2020. Take a look at the history for Trans fat, no versions from any earlier. If you really want that content back under the Trans fat title then you want to do a page move. This split discussion is probably moot. Lithopsian (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes it looks like the old "trans fat" page was renamed trans fat regulation. I have no opinion on whether there should or should not be a page called trans fat regulation. I guess I am OK with it. What I feel strongly on is there needs to be a page called trans fat with information about a nutrient in human food that is very notable. Declanscottp (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Since the content you keep pasting into Trans fat heavily duplicates Trans fat regulation, not having an opinion isn't an option. You can't have two articles with the same content. "Split" means remove from one article to another, leaving behind at most a summary of that information. The bulk of the content you are pasting in is about the regulation of trans fats which is why it got renamed in the first place. Then, rightly or wrongly, the remaining content was considered small enough that it was merged here. So take an opinion: keep Trans fat regulation largely as is and create brand new content (ie. written by you, not pasted from other people's work, and not duplicating the content at Trans fat regulation) at Trans fat; rename Trans fat regulation back to Trans fat and just leave a redirect behind; split a portion of Trans fat regulation into Trans fat and keep both articles (should probably discuss this at Talk:Trans fat regulation or at least tag it; or an actual split of content from here to Trans fat (and leave Trans fat regulation alone), which is what you are apparently proposing by this split discussion but is not what you keep trying to do. Or split some content from both Trans fat regulation and here into Trans fat? Pick one and then maybe there can be some meaningful discussion about the merits of that idea. 86.24.170.230 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment There have been a lot of comments on my proposal so far, but none that answer the question I am asking: Should there be an article called Trans Fat on English Language wikipedia? I think it would be most helpful if people could support or oppose this. This is a really basic starting question that should be resolved first, then we can deal with making the article better. Declanscottp (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Fat is probably WP:TOOBIG and there's enough notability and content to make a decent article of Trans fat. However the article that was Trans fat a year ago is not a good starting point for the new article. It was split into Fat and Trans fat regulation, both of which have been developed since then. Using the old article as a starting point would lose all those developments. The new article needs to draw from the current versions not step back a year. --John B123 (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
"not a good starting point for the new article" - That's not what I am proposing. I am proposing the version in my proposal. If you have a different proposal that ends with a good article called Trans Fat, please go ahead and do it. I am still learning formatting and citations so you'll probably do a better job. Declanscottp (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Didn't this all start by you "restoring" a version from August 2020? --John B123 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Attempting to, I think. I don't think he realised that Trans fat had ALSO been split into Trans fat regulation before it was merged into Fat. None of this convoluted crap is Declanscottp's fault, and he shouldnt have to take heat for being the one to attempt to fix what is, frankly, a hot mess. (I did not realise, either, when I reverted your revert that the split into Trans fat regulation had taken place).
With all that said, this truly ISN'T as complicated as it all sounds! It can be fixed with two simple steps: 1, move Trans fat regulation back to Trans fat. This will require an admin. 2, re-merge the content from the section in the Fat article back into the trans fat article. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't see how anybody could not realise the remnants of the page had been moved to Trans fat regulation when retrieving the August 2020 version of Trans fat which is in the page history of Trans fat regulation not Trans fat. --John B123 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, but object to calling it a "split" - it is the undoing of an unjustified merge. When the merge was proposed last year, there were 7 responses with 2 yeas and 5 nays. The proposer then went ahead and merged the articles anyway, which, given there was not only a lack of consensus to do so, there was a majority opposed, arguably a consensus not to merge. Therefore, the articles should only remain merged if there is a consensus for them to remain so. A "no consensus" must result with the articles being unmerged, as there was objection to merging them in the first place, which is contra to policy/guidelines. Allowing controversial changes that were made in despite of objections remain in place because of "no consensus" sets a detrimental precedent that would lead to the unravelling of the encyclopaedia's integrity. Firejuggler86 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, one other thing I forgot to mention: in addition to merging trans fat into the fat article, the editor ALSO split some of the content from the old trans fat article by moving trans fat to Trans fat regulation over a redirect, then when they merged the rest of the content into fat they changed the newly created trans fat redirect target. So, what should be done is "trans fat regulation" should be moved back to Trans fat - this will require an admin - and then the content that was merged into fat should be re-merged back into that article. So, to sum it up, it would be a page move (revert), an unmerge AND an unsplit. Convoluted, eh? =/ Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Which would lose all the development of that part of the article that has taken place over the last year. See dif[1] of how much the article has changed since the merge. Some of the merged content has since been removed, other parts have been expanded etc. --John B123 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
While I agree that undoing the last 11 months' work is not acceptable (one reason for my reverts of just that), renaming Trans fat regulation and moving over some content from Fat doesn't have to mean going back in time to last August. However, I object to the imposition of conditions such as that no consensus *must* mean the articles being un-merged. These discussions are closed (or should be, the old one never was) based on the merits of the arguments made and not by a majority vote. So forget what happened nearly a year ago and concentrate on what is going to happen in the next few weeks. Lithopsian (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposal as it stands. Time for me to go on the record, with no prejudice against any future proposals. As I write this, the proposal references as its starting point an edit which is both a cut'n'paste reversal of a page move, and a paste of a version from nearly a year ago (and incidentally, not a split from this page). That is not an acceptable starting point for any work, as has been explained many many times. Until that simple point gets through, I can't support the effort to re-instate Trans fat as an article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Are you willing to specifically address the numbered points I made in my proposal? Declanscottp (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Un-merge but only if you can list enough sources to use. If you can, I am totally willing to help you undo the merge. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) 23:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Split. Both these topics are large enough and notable enough to deserve their own articles. I'm surprised that the articles were merged against consensus. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • split per Tom (LT) rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lithopsian until an acceptable proposal is provided detailing what Trans fat will contain, and what summary content will remain in Fat and Trans fat regulation. Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Unmerge and edit both articles: there seems to be enough editor interest to have admin help to restore as two articles, and editor involvement to retain content and sources from both articles since their merger last year. "Trans fat regulation" should be a section under "Trans fat". The effort for two articles will require attention to include up-to-date revisions for each article, but we should move ahead together and get it done. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment @Zefr and Declanscottp: and others: I am really disgusted by this discussion. The original artcles were a big mess and, with many hours of work, I improved them a lot. But, by and large the objections have not even touched on the quality of the articles. The most vocal oppositon was based only on the fact that I waited just 10 days instead of 20 days like some random editor wrote that other editors should do, and I did not try to actively ask for objections (!!!). Other objections are based on equally bogus "rules", like "when readers search for X they expect an article titled X" or "the article structure must be the same as in other languages".
In fact my mistake was to post a "merge proposal" template. I should have just edited the articles. I bet that none of the editors who opposed the reform would even have noticed.
Unfortunately I do not have anymore the energy to keep working on these articles. But anyone is willing to really improve them, there is lots of work to do. For one thing, most images of fatty acids on Wikimedia that show omega numbers are wrong(omega-3 is the fourth carbon from the end, not the third one). And there needs to be a clear description of the way fatty acids get transformed in the body, which (if I read the articles correctly) implies that the body could make the "essential" fatty acids, if given the proper starting ones. And much more.
All the best,--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you made some improvements. It was a huge mistake, however, to cease having a page called "trans fat" in wikipedia. Again, why remove the page when (1) there was one from 2002-2020 (2) trans fat is one of the most studied areas in nutrition (3) every other major language has a trans fat article. You were wrong to remove the article when a majority of the comments were opposed to you doing so. Of course your other improvements are appreciated. Declanscottp (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fat/Archive_2&oldid=1087358135"