Talk:Sugar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Sugar has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 29, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
September 30, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Supplemental (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Grammar[edit]

"...since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed" What the fuck is this? 'Most dogs do not use a tree that do not have any leaves'? Try this: '...since few studies use a population that doesn't consume "free sugars", the baseline is effectively flawed'



Abbreviations[edit]

Hello. What does it means the abbreviations tr and na in the table of composition of foods, in the file of the yam. I'm traslating part of this article for the Wikipedia in Spanish proyect. Thank you.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo 17:14 9 oct 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

tr is trace - a very small amount
na is not available Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thank you again.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sugar and cocaine have similar effect on the brain. Their brain activity show similarities.

High Fructose Corn Syrup[edit]

High Fructose Corn Syrup is a sugar, consisting of glucose and fructose. Why is there no mention of this in the article? Could we at least have a link to the Wikipedia HFCS article? The article is about sugar, not just cane or beet sugar. For example the tonnage of HFCS produced in the USA alone is greater than its tonnage of cane sugar. --MichaelGG (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016[edit]

<! -- Begin the request --> The American Heart Association recommends daily sugar intake for women is 6 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoon for men.

Lnajmi (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Or less, preferably; and with a citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the AHA recommendation is to not exceed those amounts, not to consume those amounts! Secondly, in May 2016 the FDA issue new rulings for labeling added sugars, and to not exceed 50 grams/day, for both men and women. This information has been incorporated into the section on Recommended dietary intakes.David notMD (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sugar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

List of sugars[edit]

The article here has two lists, one that is types and one that is forms. I started List of sugars without, for some reason, noticing the lists at this article. My intention was to make a catchall list of sugars that states what each is made of. So, what should be come of List of sugars? Is it useful? And what about {{main}}s here and such? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Content improvement[edit]

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.20.85 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Biological necessity, and actions, of sugars need to be described if this article is to be considered valid science[edit]

 Hello, hope I'm doing the right thing here-
 The Wikipedia entry on Sugar is listed as a good article, and is semi-protected; yet there is almost nothing therein which describes the essential role of sugars in biology (as opposed to much of the article's text describing the ill effects of over-consumption in humans).
 Complex life on Earth is dependent on the metabolizing of sugars and this process is much-studied and fairly well understood, but you wouldn't learn that from this article: There isn't even a decent exterior link. 
 Instead, sugar seems to be portrayed in large part as a 'first world' dietary cause of disease- an absurdly limited perspective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.2.160 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC) 

Etymology[edit]

@Zefr: Twice now you have reverted my addition of other language script into the etymology section, despite examples I have given (Macedonia_(terminology)#Etymology, Ginkgo_biloba#Etymology_and_pronunciation) where it is used. Also see, for example, Carbohydrate, which has Ancient Greek script in the lead, specifically: The word saccharide comes from the Greek word σάκχαρον (sákkharon), meaning "sugar". Do you have a policy based reason for removing this? The fact that this is an English encyclopedia makes no difference; the etymology section is about other languages. Laurdecl talk 05:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The English pronunciation of the root non-English is fine because it is pronounceable, but the non-English script serves no purpose for the English encyclopedia per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, #s 1 and 3. --Zefr (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the link you gave about not including foreign languages in etymology sections. I've given you three random articles where it is used. What about the carbohydrate article? Laurdecl talk 06:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It may be a matter of interpreting the WP guides and policies. In my opinion, there is no gain for the common English-reading user having the Sanskrit, Arabic and/or Greek scripts for the etymology of sugar. Especially for sugar (as opposed to carbohydrate), where three different origins and scripts are provided for a simple word, this seems "dictionary-like" to me, so falls under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY where it states under #3: Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not (desirable). The policy further refers to WP:NOTMANUAL, #s 6-8, where it states: Texts should be written for everyday readers, which by my interpretation means a typical WP English user cannot read and does not have interest in Sanskrit, Arabic or Greek scripts. There is a place for these scripts in the foreign language Wikipedias listed here, but not in the English encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. The etymology section is most useful for those interested in the study of language, not the average user; for them it might be useful to have the untransliterated script, and it doesn't take up much room at all, so there is no loss to having it. It also seems to be the standard in etymology sections, like I've linked above. What if we put the script in brackets, after the transliteration? Laurdecl talk 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a toss-up. I'll invite Plantsurfer and Anna Frodesiak to weigh in; you could invite two others, so we can settle by committee. --Zefr (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I think Zefr's reversions are fully justified. The Sanskrit, Arabic and Greek scripts do not contribute to understanding. The etymology section is already becoming excessive. Let's go through the text. 1) The sentence "The etymology reflects the spread of the commodity." is unsourced and unexplained by what follows, since there is no connection of this statement to any information about the history of the world spread of the use of sugar. 2) How is the clause "as granular or candied sugar, which is cognate with the Greek word, kroke, or "pebble"" relevant to the etymology of the word sugar? It is out of place here. 3) The statement "(the g is unexplained, possibly a Venetian dialect)" is unsourced, arguably WP:OR. 4) The sentence "The contemporary Italian word is zucchero, whereas the Spanish and Portuguese words, azúcar and açúcar, respectively, have kept a trace of the Arabic definite article. The Old French word is zuchre and the contemporary French, sucre. The earliest Greek word attested is σάκχαρις (sákkʰaris)." can probably be removed per WP:NOTDICT. A list of foreign language words for sugar is irrelevant here unless there is a clear clear connection with the use of the word "sugar" in English language. Plantsurfer 00:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of the section, but what's being discussed is whether to include foreign script. You say it doesn't contribute to understanding, but for people studying etymology and language it might, and it takes up no additional space so there isn't a downside to having it. The norm is to include it, as shown in the examples I've listed. See how Greek script is used in the lead of Carbohydrate, a closed related topic. Laurdecl talk 02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
foreign script? "sákkʰaris" is quite foreign to me, being unreadable (to me) as a guide for pronunciation of a word that... I'm forbidden to see? "σάκχαρις" *is* the word. "sákkʰaris" is one of many possible representations of that word. Without the actual Greek word the pronunciation is useless and misplaced. The same goes for the other pronunciations given instead of those words - they don't actually identify the word.
Objecting to foreign scripts is really disconcerting to me. Only if you would defend renaming the article to 'shughar' could you object to retaining the distinguishing form for specific words. σάκχαρις is the word. Any particular form of pronunciation is 'beeess' in isolation from that. I'm afraid I disagree with Zephyr's first statement above very strongly.
I've read the mentioned WP:NOT#DICTIONARY sections and don't see why they were mentioned. The subject here is 'sugar' and all the what/why/how topics. I can't agree more with "The etymology reflects the spread of the commodity." That topic is quite interesting. Mentioned above is that "the section is too long". Address that then by refining the section to the information behind the introductory topic statement. It does seem to wander a bit a field currently. But that is a separate issue. Shenme (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. The IPA is not the word. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY could be construed as saying there shouldn't be an etymology section at all, if you wanted it. I can't understand the desire to remove this information, which takes up no room on the page. Laurdecl talk 06:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi folks. We're talking about a teensy amount of text, so not a big deal to include. However, It is probably wanted and appreciated by an even teensier percentage of readers. I'd lean toward omitting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As Shenme says above, the IPA is not actually the word. Even ignoring the fact that it is the norm to include script in etymology sections, there is really no reason to removing this. I'm not sure why Zefr pinged two random editors... Laurdecl talk 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The highly experienced editors who responded were in the history of editing the article; I requested their thoughts per WP:TEAMWORK. --Zefr (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My apologies; I did not realise they had previously contributed to the article. Laurdecl talk 02:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply to my point that script is commonly used in etymology sections and Shenme's view above, nor has there been any example of a con to including this text, I have readded the script. Because the version with the script has been in place for ~11 years (!) without being contested, the burden is on Zefr if they want to change the article – they can try WP:DRN if they like. Laurdecl talk 07:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Slavery>[edit]

Sugar, refined sugar, was used in history to keep slaves addicted and inline, with assurance that they would die young of diabetes or any other refined sugar induced momentary energy, fast depletion disease.

Anyone here has a good article reference on this, the lot of the tropics having had a fast number of ' slaves ' and there being such a large continued interest in continuing to promote enslavement processes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.51.205 (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sugar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sugar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Health_effects_of_sugar[edit]

Content has been forked to Health effects of sugar by an anonIP. Forking is probably reasonable, but could an interested editor please review/edit appropriately.~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)