Talk:High-fructose corn syrup

Admin board actions

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI filed by IP Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Strong-arm_tactics_by_Jytdog Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing why either of these should be here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

they are actions that inform other editors here what is happening. Both are directly relevant to activity here. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Outcome of ANI is that IP is blocked. That should lower the temperature here. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So Jytdog (talk · contribs) accuses me of sock puppetry while I'm gone for a handful of days, posts about it here, and then doesn't note here or anywhere else on this page that I am, in fact, not using a sock puppet of any sort. Nice! Apparently typical Jytdog tactics here—this is the guy who reverted the NPOV tag from the article space for being "lame" and archived an active thread that I had just contributed to as a "mistake". Enough is enough with the childish tactics—strike out all of the accusations, apologize, learn from it, and move on. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

yes my suspicion was not borne out at SPI. Please comment on content, not contributor, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Comment on contributor..." isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card when you've fucked up. I was obviously not a sock puppet. However, even before you could get your results back you ran with it and referred to me as a sock puppet not only here but elsewhere. Now go back and strike out all the accusations wherever you've left them. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

i fixed the statements that were stated as facts; my statements should have acknowledged the uncertainty of whether you were a sock or not, when i wrote them. my apologies. but whatever i did, is no excuse for your generalizing personal attacks here or elsewhere on this page. please comment on content, not contributor. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Go back and strike out all the false accusations, here and elsewhere. Not just part of them, all of them. That includes this "/" nonsense. Boo-hooing about non-existent personal attacks when you've been making false claims about me here and elsewhere isn't doing you any favors and certainly doesn't make you look better. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

to end your drama I will strike. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "drama"? Wtf is wrong with you? I also note that you struck out your apology for making false accusations about me here and elsewhere. Cute. Real mature. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for edit request 2 of 2

Does everyone agree to revert this dif to remove links to the various specific dicarbonyl compounds and to remove the editorializing editorial comment there? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that or those editor(s) is or are the only one(s) arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (some further redacting to better acknowledge the ambiguity Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)) (strike Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Not a sock puppet. Strike the above accusation through and apologize. Saw this a few days later. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Context is needed on dose for any chemical for a toxicology perspective to avoid either scare tactics or making something sound less toxic than it is. This is a case of the former. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You agree with him no matter what he says.85.211.108.65 (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment No need for editorializing IP. I don't see any problem with the change over all. Though perhaps the tone could use some work where discussing Mercury.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What tone change would you suggest, serialjoe? If you could make a concrete proposal that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2015

Serialjoepsycho, have you looked at what reverting that diff would actually do? It would restore content that was clearly misrepresenting its source, and which I left the invisible comment about. Anyone who follows the link I gave in that comment will see that the source was misrepresented. Jytdog carefully and deliberately worded the poll in a misleading way, omitting these consequences of the undo, as well as suggesting the flaky accusations of sockpuppetry were proven, and nobody apart from the puppetmaster would oppose Jytdog. The sudden and immediate support he got from Kingofaces43 on both 'polls' is no mistake - they have known each other from the start and colluded on this issue specifically. Concerns of collusion with Kingofaces43 and off-wiki canvassing in general have been raised previously. There are more concerns on talk, of his participating in email canvassing.

And Jytdog already has rejected the compromise addition of a phrase that states that both forms of mercury are hazardous to human health (even though it's true); he earlier favored the phrasing that implied only methylmercury is hazardous he doesn't look very open to compromise to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.65 (talk • contribs)

• The proposed wording in the version to be reverted to ("comparable to the levels found in bread," etc) would have to be attributed because it's almost a quote (though see below), and to alert the reader to the industry funding (source). Also, does the text reflect the source?

Source (and table 1): "Methylglyoxal levels in carbonated soft drinks are comparable to those reported for bread, instant coffee, and alcoholic beverages. Considerably higher levels are found in fermented or thermally processed foods such as toast, brewed coffee, soybean paste and sauce, and cheeses."

Proposed edit: "HFCS contains reactive dicarbonyl compounds that are created during the processing steps, these compounds are comparable to the levels found in bread, instant coffee, and alcoholic beverages, and significantly lower than those found in toast, brewed coffee, soybean paste and sauce, and cheeses."

Given the health concerns and the money at stake, would it not be better to base the health section on independent MEDRS sources? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

all this stuff about dicarbonyls is content that the now-indeffed IP has been POV-pushing for about a month now. There is no discussion of this in MEDRS sources that I found, outside of the one source that I just left in the article, that mentions them in the context of AGEs. I just removed their OR invisible edit comment, and the source that SV is objecting to, and left content based on the MEDRS source. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, could you say what the significance was of the difference between your proposed text ("reactive dicarbonyl compounds that are created during the processing steps ... are comparable to the levels found in bread ...") and the source text ("[m]ethylglyoxal levels in carbonated soft drinks are comparable to those reported for bread ...")? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at the topmost section of this page. The emphasis on the dicarbonyl was the IP's very special own issue. There is almost no discussion of it in MEDRS sources. If you find some MEDRS sources that treat this as The Very Serious Issue that the IP held it to be, I am all ears. The source that is there, treats it with passing reference; it is just kindness to leave any discussion of it all. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternative names?

I noticed that this section is blank and has been so for several previous versions of this article. Is someone planning to add something here or should it be removed? Unharmedbastion (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out (downside to only editing specific sections at a time). I removed it for now, but if someone wants to add content there, it might very well be fair game to add it back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about fructose malabsorption?

I think fructose malabsorption would be relevant here, especially because it is underdiagnosed, and is more common than diabetes mellitus. 74.96.172.110 (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Princeton study

I am just an interested layperson who was searching for information about HFCS. I haven't found much info, but I did see this 2010 article, which I noticed was not mentioned in your article: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ Has anyone tried to duplicate the results of this study? Lisapaloma (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)