Talk:Sunflower oil/Archive 1

Untitled

The term "chemical-free" is misleading, imprecise, and lazy, hence the dubious tag. Husaaved (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

With reference to the claim that sunflower oil provides more vitamin E than any other vegetable oil i have found this site: [1]

There is a table on which sunflower oil ranks forth in vitamin E content, below Wheat Germ oil. If this can be considered a vegetable oil then the claim made by this article is incorrect.

Bigfridge 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo featured this little thing: http://health.yahoo.com/experts/drmao/1165/health-tips-about-oil-pros-and-cons I'm far from an expert (as you might have guessed), but I greatly suspect that there are several inconsistencies and outright flaws. Now, I may be entirely wrong, but could one of you guys have a look? It's admittedly just a small article, but it's available to a wide audience.

Well, the Sunflower Oil Marketing Board have done a good job on this article. I've started drinking the stuff for breakfast. People are saying I look cadaverous though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.164.161 (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

that's pretty common if you only consume oil and no actual food, your bowels must be incredibly shiny though! Markthemac (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading tables?

The information in the tables is for high oleic (70% and over) oil. I'm doubtful is this is what you get when you buy sunflower oil in a supermarket. You are more likely to get ordinary sunflower oil. 92.24.182.231 (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sterile unreadable article

Sunflower oil is commonly available in the supermarket. I'm not a chemistry expert, I'm a typical reader, who bought some nice-looking oil on sale, and wanted to know where it was from, how it was used. Instead, there's some synopsis from several textbooks, which while true, is unreadable and unusable. So little attention is paid to the niceties that here are 16 (!!!!!) errors in the second paragraph. What a waste of bloody time! 67.180.16.240 (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Information that could be included

You have a great article going here but may I suggest including some of these information to further improve it, 1. Sunflower oil comprises 7.8% of the world's vegetable oil consumption. Ranking it the fourth leading oil in the world. 2. Over the years, there has been an increase in demand for crops from sunflower including Sunflower oil. 3. Methods have been made to increase sunflowers resistance to pathogens so as to increase sunflowers population. More sunflowers, more sunflower oil to harvest. Chexi.1 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Usage in cosmetics

The information on usage in cosmetics is neither an advice on medical usage, nor an advertisement of particular products. It simply lists typical applications of sunflower oil in cosmetics. This site

• "Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil and Related Ingredients". Cosmeticsinfo.org.

gives a general information of this kind. It does not promote sunflower oil, it just gives a general information on its usage in cosmetics, skin care etc. It is even a secondary source, as it provides references to its resources: http://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/ingredient/helianthus-annuus-sunflower-seed-oil-and-related-ingredients

The above source and information impress as opinion and promotional of sunflower oil, WP:PROMO, as displayed in the links under "Why is it used...?". Under "Scientific facts" on that site, there are no peer-reviewed or expert sources cited, making this WP:OR. Keep in mind WP:NOT; our encyclopedia audience is the lay public, requiring reliable expert sourcing. For skin health, this implies WP:MEDRS quality sourcing. --Zefr (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Information taken from this site

• "Healthy benefits of natural sunflower oil". Smude Enterprises.

is just technical and non-controversial: that only high-oleic variety can be used. And that its INCI name is Helianthus annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil. Where is the problem? --Off-shell (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The smudeoil site is clearly commercial spam, WP:PLUG, not WP:SCIRS. --Zefr (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please, specify which sentence in this paragraph you consider spam, promotion, controversial, questionable, biased, whatever. It does not offer recommendations on using any particular products, nor it describes their "potential adantages" for health etc. It is a very general information, like saying that steel is used for production of cars and other machines. For this kind of information, these sources are absolutely reliable. --Off-shell (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "healthy" and the section under "Health benefits" do not meet WP:V. --Zefr (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever is written there under "health benefits" and whatever is written in the first source under "scientific facts". We do not refer to that information. We do not mention those "benefits" or "facts" in our text. We refer solely to the non-controversial part of the information. The site cosmetics.org is a reliable source for the information that sunflower oil is used for producing some cosmetics and skin care products. We use these sites as the sources for the information we provide and we don't need to care about other information given on those sites. Let me make a drastic comparison: A yellow press newspaper can be used as a reliable source for the information that some Hollywood star married someone. They just publish a wedding photo with a short message, and we don't need a secondary source for that. The same newspaper may have another article on the same page claiming that linseed oil allows cancer cure. We don't refer to that part of the page which is unreliable. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD:

"An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products..."

What we provide here is most basic facts about products. We do not discuss their advantages or disadvantages etc. or anything else on those pages.--Off-shell (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your explanation using those sources is WP:CHERRYPICK to me, and there is no consensus , so we should wait for further input here on Talk. --Zefr (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

To allow other fellow editors to join the discussion, I put the paragraph in question below. Here I put a slightly updated version where I remove one half of the first sentence, such that any interpretation as a medical advice should be avoided. So I claim that this is a basic information about cosmetic products made of sunflower oil (similar to the example An article about a business in WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), that this does not include any medical advice, commercial promotion or advertisement, and that the sources quoted are reliable to support these statements, and it does not matter which other information can be found in the cited sources.

Usage in cosmetics

Sunflower oil has smoothing properties. Only the high oleic varieties possess sufficient shelf life to be used in commercial cosmetic formulations. It is an ingredient of a wide range of health and beauty products, including bath and shower oil, shampoos and hair conditioners, makeup, skin care products, depilatories, and suntan products. Its INCI name is Helianthus annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil.

--Off-shell (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Can one of the two editors please ask a concise question that the third opinion can address? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I raised two questions. 1) Is this site WP:SCIRS for discussion of skin health purportedly provided by sunflower oil? The links under "Why is it used...?" and those under "Scientific facts" do not supply peer-reviewed or expert sources. The site is from a cosmetics industry organization, giving the impression of non-WP:NPOV. 2) Is this site a reliable source? I called it spam, WP:PLUG, and does not satisfy WP:MEDRS for the health claims promoted. It states unverified health benefits for heart disease, blood cholesterol levels and anti-coagulant properties which are not scientifically confirmed or approved by any national regulatory agency, violating WP:V. --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My point is that the paragraph "Usage in cosmetics", as was included in the article before it was deleted (s. above), does not discuss any "health benefits" of sunflower oil whatsoever, and does not make any advertisement for its usage. It gives only basic information about the usage of sunflower oil in formulation of cosmetics products. Therefore it does not matter at all what other information these sites provide. E.g. the site cosmeticsinfo.org ran by Personal Care Products Council, "the leading national trade association representing the global cosmetic and personal care products industry", is a perfect source for a simple list of applications of sunflower oil in cosmetics. --Off-shell (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Off-shell. We have to be conscious of who reads the article. A non-scientific, non-skeptical user of the encyclopedia may access those sites and believe the authors/editors have included them because they are qualified, reliable references. This would be misleading and irresponsible of us, not fulfilling sources that have peer-review and WP:SCHOLARSHIP for an article supposedly raising the possibility of skin health value of sunflower oil. --Zefr (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are stretching these guidelines too far. Though we don't discuss any health effects, you allege that the link alone may be interpreted as a medical advice by an uncritical reader. In my view it is not an advice of any kind, and hence WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD ("most basic facts about products") is sufficient here. I think we need further opinions on this point. This seems to be a difficult but rather general issue which may pop up in many other places. --Off-shell (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Sunflower oil/Archive 1 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that nature. First, based upon the text of the paragraph proposed just above this Third Opinion section, I don't believe that any biomedical claims are being made which require MEDRS to be satisfied. Second, I would point out that both SCIRS and PRIMARYNOTBAD are essays, not policies or guidelines and while they may present some considerations or things to think about, they are in no way binding on the community. Third, while I don't think that the paragraph presents biomedical information, it is obviously controversial and must, therefore, be supported by reliable sources under the verifiability polcy and I do not believe that either of the sources currently cited meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source as they both appear to be self-published sources and also fail to have any apparent reputation for fact-checking and reliability.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan, thank you for your opinion. Could you explain why is this paragraph controversial, if it does not fall under MEDRS? Or which part of it do you consider controversial? --Off-shell (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If it was not controversial, y'all would not be talking about it. I mean "controversial" only in the sense of the verifiability policy's requirement that edits which are "contested or likely to be contested" must be sourced. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I still don't get it, TransporterMan. The site cosmeticsinfo.org is run by Personal Care Products Council, which includes ca. 600 companies of cosmetics industry. Why does it "fail any apparent reputation for fact-checking and reliability" to support these statements: "Sunflower oil is an ingredient of a wide range of health and beauty products, including bath and shower oil, shampoos and hair conditioners, makeup, skin care products, depilatories, and suntan products. Its INCI name is Helianthus annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil."? These are absolutely basic statements which can also be trivially proven by googling for "sunflower oil shampoo", "sunflower oil makeup" etc. (put any term from the list). You will immediately find a wide range of these products. How can one reasonably doubt these statements??? And can one really assume that the organisation representing and lobbying the interests of cosmetics industry may claim the existence of some cosmetic products which do not exist in reality? --Off-shell (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sunflower oil/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would like to by oil from this sunflower oil.My e-mail is sergio123@windowslive.com

Last edited at 12:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Control of eczema

Then article currently has the absurd statement that consumption of "sunflower oil dietary supplements is not an effective treatment for eczema." I imagine this could be said of almost every substance, so it is not notable in regard to sunflower oil. It might be more effective applied topically, but I haven't seen WP:MEDRS to add this to the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The statement about use of sunflower oil capsules for relief from eczema is clear (no evidence of benefit), and supported by the only WP:MEDRS source available - a Cochrane review, even though the quality of studies was generally poor. There isn't strong clinical research showing benefit, so the statement used is accurate according to WP:MEDASSESS. A 2018 review on use of topical sunflower oil for eczema in babies reached a similar conclusion, PMID 29055852. --Zefr (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the Cochrane review, but does everything in Cochrane need to be in an encyclopedia? Regardless of whether it is accurate, it is trivial. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's worthy to include because it's the only MEDRS-quality review specifically addressing eczema and the subject of the article, therefore serving as a benchmark until more substantial studies are undertaken. --Zefr (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

History

I came to this page interested in the history of Sunflower Oil, but surprisingly there's no section. Anyone have basic info on it? LegendLength (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This page seems to be a good summary. Some more info can be found here and here. --Off-shell (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)