Talk:Trans fat

DO NOT MERGE THIS PAGE WITHOUT DISCUSSING FIRST

There is a discussion and vote on the talk page of Fat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fat#"Fat"_articles_need_major_reorganization

Putting your demands in all caps doesn't give them any more weight. The merge (really more of a move to trans fat regulation) of this page took place nearly a year ago (arguably without full consensus although I don't see any uproar about it at the time), so it's too late to demand it shouldn't happen. I've seen the talk page: much discussion, many opinions, and no consensus. Personally I don't have strong objections to having this article, but the way you're going about it is not acceptable and the results I've seen so far are poor. When and if you claim consensus for having an article at this title, do not just copy all the content from trans fat regulation to here. You didn't initially write that content and you can't claim attribution for it here as if you wrote it all in one go. If you want to write an article largely based on trans fat regulation then move it here properly. Otherwise write new content that you can actually claim to be your own words, or split a relatively small part of trans fat regulation or fat to here and mark it as split content. Either way, avoid having three quarters of the article simply duplicate what is at trans fat regulation. Lithopsian (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

John, nobody has made any statements that completely favored the merger, and an outright majority opposed. Why exactly cannot I not restore the TF article and then improve it?

That's just not true. I have made major improvements to the article the past two weeks, fixing citation errors, updating it, and greatly condensing the "regulation" section while keeping the most recent and important content. You have not addressed any of the main points I made and Zefr made in Talk:Fat. Please do so before making more disruptive edits that not only go against the prior consensus to have a Trans Fat article, but remove without comment the many improvements I am making here. Since you have not responded to my repeated requests to engage those points on the fat talk page, I am reposting them here, which is after all the more logical spot. Declanscottp (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Declanscottp: I see 6 oppose and 3 support !votes in the thread you link to above. How is that a consensus to make the changes you want? Even if there was a consensus to make the changes you want, to copy and paste into this article is not the correct way to do it. The point made by Lithopsian above about attribution is correct, and is a basic requirement of Wikipedia. Your subsequent "improvements" do not change this. As per WP:BRD, where there is a content dispute, then the content should be reverted to the version prior to the dispute until discussion has finished. --John B123 (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You say you want to discuss it more. OK, let's do that. I made all the points I have in favor of a seperate article. Weeks went by, no statements in opposition, several in support. How long do I wait, with ZERO statements opposed, until there is a consensus?? Declanscottp (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Given that the merge was completed last summer, and that you Declanscottp acknowledge the discussion still taking place at Talk:Fat, then it would be wise to wait until that discussion is completed BEFORE re-splitting the content. Your continued edit warring over matter this may lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Polyamorph (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not acknowledge any discussion is taking place. Rather, many editors support restoring the Trans Fat article, but I see it deleted with no content-based discussion of why the articles should be merged. Jorge did not seem to convince anyone, at best he got a minority to give some tentative support with a majority opposed. And he hasn't edited these articles since. Zefr did the right thing by immediately resplitting/demerging the Saturated Fat article. So now we have an even more stupid setup with Saturated Fat separate and trans fat merged. Declanscottp (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not acknowledge any discussion is taking place what's this then? I don't see where these "many editors support restoring the Trans Fat article" are? I don't see any editors supporting copy and pasting without attribution so we end up with a article that is entirely duplicated content. --John B123 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand your statement about copying and pasting. I restored the 2020 version of trans fat as my starting place, and then made a large number of improvements to it. I did not copy anything from the fat article, which is a disorganized mess right now. Declanscottp (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The old versions of Trans fat now forms part of the history of Trans fat regulation as the page was moved there. You must have copied and pasted from the history of Trans fat regulation to "restore" the article and as the history of the page is now at Trans fat regulation, you have detached the content from its history. --John B123 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You literally wrote There is a discussion and vote on the talk page of Fat. So you clearly have acknowledged the existence of a discussion, so kindly participate in it there, and respond to the concerns highlighted by several editors around duplication of existing content. Polyamorph (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Why Trans Fat Should Have Its Own Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Trans Fat very much deserves its own article.

1. It 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=0,5&q="trans fat"&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/Ácido_graso_trans

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Fettsäuren

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.

Declanscottp (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes this should be its own article, as it is a major topic in nutrition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This is a topic that makes complete sense to have as a separate article from fat and trans fat regulation. Point #3, in particular, above makes the point of the strangeness (at best) of the current set of articles related to this topic. Reba16 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment There is already discussion on this at Talk:Fat. Please keep the discussion in one place and discuss there instead.Polyamorph (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

major sources that should be cited, but are not in article yet

Here are some points and sources that should be added to the article. I will eventually do this if someone else doesn't want to do it. FDA rejected petition to allow small amounts of artificial trans fat to be added to food https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/trans-fat

Good articles giving a summary of the trans fat ban and the FDA's reasons for doing so: https://www.cspinet.org/new/201506161.html https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-long-goodbye-fda-ruling-will-eliminate-trans-fats-from-u-s-foods-201506178091 official version of the FDA's 2013 announcement it was planning on banning trans fat in the future: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/08/2013-26854/tentative-determination-regarding-partially-hydrogenated-oils-request-for-comments-and-for

Much more recent (2019) article about where trans fat is still being used (mostly developing nations): https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/19_0121.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanscottp (talk • contribs)

I guess you mean U.S. FDA? --Smokefoot (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

History section is incomplete

The history section is about hydrogenation technology, but this article is about trans fat. Needed:

• trim or move (wholesale) the hydrogenation technology to fat hydrogenation.
• history of rumen-derived trans fats: discovery, biosynthesis, health effects.
• maybe more details on effect of heat on conversion of unsaturated fats to trans fats.

--Smokefoot (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Updated History Section

Hi folks, I did a lot of editing to this article back in the mid-2000s. Just popping in to see how things have developed, and the page generally looks good.

While I still intend to leave the article in the capable hands of others, I did spend some time updating the history section. And I think it is worth a note here about these changes.

Originally, I was motivated to clarify the role of the U.S.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) in the trans fat debate. The article has become unbalanced over the years when mentioning CSPI's role in getting trans fats banned, as it had lost the mention that CSPI originally played a role in promoting the use of trans fats (see some prior discussion of this in a prior talk page section).

But I decided on a broader update to the end of the history section to also include newer developments. This is because I came across newer peer-reviewed articles on the history of trans fat regulation. Notably the 2012 Technology and Culture article by David Schleifer (based on his Ph.D. research) is a thorough and reliable peer-reviewed primary source for this historical element. Also, I thought we could cover the WHO's global consensus to phase trans fats out.

So what I did is stick with the three-paragraph structure we had at the end of the history section (one on health concerns with saturated fats, one on the health concerns with the trans fats that replaced them, and then a third on phasing it out globally). I reworked these paragraphs to reflect the newer sources, including changing some of the material to be more accurate based on the academic work done by Schleifer.

p.s. I agree this article should never have been merged into Fat, and regret that the botched merge and restore discarded our long editing history on this page. This made it hard to find the original 2008 Trans Fat text. However, should anyone else need to dig into the archives, I found the old versions and editing history at this link -- cmh^TC 18:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"Partially hydrogenated soybean oil" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Partially hydrogenated soybean oil has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 6 § Partially hydrogenated soybean oil until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Molecular models should be equalized

Under "Structure" the unsaturated fatty acids use a space filling model and the saturated one a ball and stick model. They should use the same type of model in order to cause less confusion.

I'd suggest using the ball and stick model for every molecule, because the bond orders are of importance here 2A02:908:E855:AA00:1805:6158:9350:3754 (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Structural formula for elaidic acid is incorrect

In the table in the "Structutre" section, the structural formula for eladic acid shows a 16-carbon chain, but Eladic acid had an 18-carbon chain. I would use the image that is used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaidic_acid , but the image is in the opposite orientation from the other structural formulas in the table. 32.221.113.244 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)