Jump to content

Talk:Crisco/Archive 1

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

Cisco

Not to be confused with Cisco? I think that could be removed. Who the hell is going to confuse Crisco with Cisco? Why don't we have a disclaimer in the article for the color "red" that urges readers not to confuse it with "bed"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.118.220 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesterification

The sentence: "Fully hydrogenated oil contains another artificial fat known as interesterified fat" is confusing...

Crisco and similar low trans-fat products are formed by interesterifying a mixture of fully hydrogenated oils and partially hydrogenated liquid oils. The result is "artificial" insofar as the composition of the resultant triglycerides is random, and contains combinations of fatty acids not commonly found in natural products.

For a discussion of interesterification, see: http://class.fst.ohio-state.edu/fst821/Lect/Inter.pdf --Gahuntly (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vegan

I'd say it's questionable to if it's vegan or not due to the fact that Proctor & Gamble tests on animals, therefore I think that either the term, "vegan" should be taken out, or it should be stated that some vegans will not consume it. I can't currently edit that part of the page, if someone could do so for me, I would be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.13.141 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can add this and have done twice, if someone has a problem with it say so, it should be added as to not mis-lead people.

I do not think it is a defined requirement of veganism that vegans should eschew products produced or distributed by companies which carry out animal testing (on other product lines). Of course, individuals may make personal moral and ethical choices in this, as in any other, regard. If the actions of Procter and Gamble with regard to animal testing are important, then this should be reflected in an article about the company (as indeed is the case, in section 3.5 of that article). If the question of whether vegans should/do/may/etc purchase products from companies that use animal testing is important, then this should be reflected in the article about veganism.
Wikipedia aspires to WP:NPOV. Instead of specifically discussing Procter & Gamble's policy with regard to animal testing, I have instead weakened the assertion about suitability for vegans, so as not to mislead people indeed. Mooncow (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
PS, I note that in any case it is not the policy of Procter & Gamble with regard to animal testing that would be relevant now, but rather the policy of The J. M. Smucker Co. Mooncow (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Other uses

I'd say it's rather questionable whether the "other uses" of Crisco should be listed here (I'm referring to the reference to fisting) --Keflavich 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if someone could name actual sources for that...

Any object or substance has multiple sexual uses to a creative individual. I think it's obvious that this other use is mentioned here only to shock and offend so I'm removing it.

Do not deny information because YOU feel it is not proper.

If you'd like to include this usage of Crisco, you'll have to provide sources. That said, it would be difficult to think of any type of fat that hasn't been used as a sexual lubricant. I don't think this is especially notable. janejellyroll 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
And by sources, I mean those of the reliable variety. Please see WP:ATT. Just because you think something is so doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. janejellyroll 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll mention this seeing as the question was asked. I don't agree with the way the mention was made before (rather blunt, seemed written just to shock), but there is very definitely an association with crisco as a sexual lubricant amongst gay sub-culture. For example, you can find it on the shelves of the shop Prowler (a gay sex shop in soho) next to ID lube and KY (And before you ask, re your "creative individual" comment, the shop stocks no other such products. It just seems that there's a set of connotations that go with this particular brand, I dunno why.)

Not to mention its association with naked Twister NTK 05:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Here in Germany Crisco is almost completely unknown except as a sexual lubricant. You can find it in gay sexshops, but not in the supermarket. German gay men find it very amusing when they discover Americans actually cook with it. Angr 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the fisting reference, although toned it down a bit to avoid offending the housewives that might be looking for recipes! The fisting reference definitely needs to be included though, because it is a huge thing within the gay community especially. I've also added some important info about safety, because not everyone realises that you can't use oil based lubricants with condoms... 82.148.206.32 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it reads like an instruction manual. Yeh, this really improves the quality of this page, yeh, sure. Wahkeenah 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of gay men use Crisco for sexual activities. I hardly think it's a reference just for the sake of it. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but you probably shouldn't be using the internet if it bothers you that much. Have reinserted the reference, toned down (yet again) in the hope that your delicate eyes can cope with it. 82.148.206.32 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, how Puritanical, thinking you can go somewhere on the internet and not read about ass fisting!
  • Nothing shocks me. However, it was and is uncited, as to both the alleged use and the alleged popularity. I have added a couple of equally popular and equally uncited usages. Wahkeenah 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, reference added again and two citations added. Just Google "fisting" and "crisco" before you throw your toys out of the pram again. Stop being so f*cking childish and let it rest. 82.148.206.32 09:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah! Google it, dammit! What do you all think Wikipedia is, some sort of "information repository"?

I came here specifically to find out if there were any health ramifications for using Crisco anally. The article bizarrely lacked any information about any uses of Crisco other than as shortening, so I looked at this discussion page. I am not at all surprised to find out that yet another article has been censored. I think whoever is responsible is doing us all a disservice. I would like to use stronger language but guidelines prohibit it. 76.10.128.105 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fisting reference

Ok guys, can people please stop removing the reference to fisting. Crisco is used by thousands of gay men for this precise purpose, as a quick search on Google will verify. I don't understand why people keep removing it. If it really shocks you that much then may I suggest that a separate article is created for the fisting reference and linked off this article under "see also...". However, I was under the impression we lived in the 21st century and could be a bit more liberal and mature about this. Clearly there's a few people who still need to see a bit more of the world beyond their computer screen. 82.148.206.32 08:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You are pushing your own personal agenda by continuously forcing this gross and offensive stuff into this article. It demeans both the article and wikipedia itself. And enjoy your German ass-fucking while you can, because when Islam takes over Europe, you'll find out the true meaning of "whacking off". Wahkeenah 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So you're saying... what? That we should remove from Wikipedia all references to fisting and any other sexual practice you find slightly offensive? It's not a personal agenda. I just think it's a useful reference for people who are looking for information about Crisco for that purpose. God only knows where your comment about Islam came from, but I think it just about sums up your attitude. 82.148.206.32 14:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, in addition to the fringe activity of fisting, you should note that Crisco has long been used for garden variey penis in anus sex. Tommypowell 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The ways in which Crisco can be used as a lubricant are not at all relevant to this article. That it can be used as a lubricant probably is relevant, but there's no need to start enumerating the ways, or we'll get completely off topic. Mangojuicetalk 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If a million people use it as a lubricant for anal fisting, six hundred thousand people use it as a lubricant for anal intercourse, ten people use it as a lubricant for dresser drawers, seven people use it as a lubricant for bulldozer gear boxes, and three people use it as a lubricant for microtomes, then it's disingenuous to say that it can be used as a lubricant for anything that needs lubrication, and there's no relevance in a discussion of just what. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. I do not have references to back up the assertion that the real use of Crisco as a lubricant is overwhelmingly as an anal sex lubricant; and I don't know whether that is even true; but the claims made by others above suggest that it actually is true, and verifiably so.
If it's true and verifiable that anal sex lubrication (per se, not just as a subclass of lubrication in general) is a major application of Crisco, then the article should say so; and just talking generally about lubrication would not adequately address the issue. And if you do mention any kind of sex in connection with Crisco, then you'd better mention that Crisco is incompatible with latex, because not doing so is irresponsible given Wikipedia's position as an authoritative-sounding voice. Some other anonymous person (Edit: turns out it was Wahkeenah, not an anon) successfully discredited my mention of that point by linking it with the obvious silliness about inflammability, so that the anti-vandal folks deleted both. I'm not going to try to fix it, because it's clear that saner heads will not prevail in the current climate.129.97.79.144 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You're making a general argument that doesn't hold up. The question is not only whether the information you're talking about is verifiable (I'm sure it is), but whether or not including it in an article about Crisco makes sense. Crisco's use as anal lube is not an important topic we must cover in regards to Crisco. I'm sure people recommend lubing up with all sorts of household products: this is actually discussed at personal lubricant, and I'll note that Crisco isn't even mentioned there either specifically or categorically. If info is neutral and verifiable it probably belongs on Wikipedia somewhere, but it's important to put it in the right place. The info you're talking about belongs at Personal lubricant, not here. Mangojuicetalk 00:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My point (I'm also 129.97.79.144, but am not any other anon) is that there is apparently a significant population that uses Crisco - not just any slippery substance but Crisco in particular - as a lubricant for anal sex - not just any activity that requires a lubricant, but anal sex in particular. And in some places (see the comment above about Germany) Crisco is the major lubricant for anal sex, and the major application of Crisco is as a lubricant for anal sex. Someone who wants to know about that (for instance, because they want to know why everyone started giggling when they suggested Crisco as a possible lubricant for something else) would not be adequately served by merely being told that Crisco is one of many slippery substances in the world. However, the point I actually care about is only that if it's mentioned as a sexual lubricant, then the incompatibility with latex should be mentioned too. Leaving out the anal sex mention is against Wikipedia's mission; but including the anal sex mention and not the latex mention, is actually dangerous. 216.59.230.140 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The crux of this argument is that people are going to come to Wikipedia and search for Crisco to see how it's used to fisting/anal activities/etc. As I said before, I've got no problem with it being in a separate article or, indeed, under "personal lubrication". However, I think it should still be linked off this article so that people who come here looking for that particular information can simply click the link. Maybe that's a sensible compromise, although I still don't see why it can't remain as a couple of lines within this article as well. 82.148.206.32 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Crisco is sold in the lube section of plenty of online sex shops aimed at gay men if anyone would care to search for it.[1][2][3][4][5] I'll admit to a great degree of kinkiness than the average person (and a lesser degree of heterosexuality), but I've never used Crisco for sex. Still, the first time I ever heard about it was as a lubricant used primarily for fisting by gay men, not a cooking ingredient. I think the same goes for a lot of other Europeans.
Peter Isotalo 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it works as works as axle grease, too, along with endless other usages. So what? Citing this specific use is for only one reason: furthering the "gay agenda". However, feel free to cite Crisco, and other lubricant you can think of (including axle grease), on a page that actually focuses on homosexual behavior. Wahkeenah 09:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care what Crisco thinks about this. I'm sure they're appalled and don't want anything to do with this, but there's no "gay agenda" here; I'm not a member of the pink mafia, and the lovely thing about Wikipedia is that these things can be included in articles if you have references for it. Now stop being so obtuse and find a better reason to weed out references to gay culture. You got your reference, now find a better excuse to remove verifiable info.
Peter Isotalo 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've requested comments about this issue. In the mean time, leave referenced information in the article or put up a POV-sign. Removing verifiable information while going on about a "gay agenda" is not kosher.
Peter Isotalo 10:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to insist on posting this nauseating non-standard usage, it's only fair to cite other things. Wahkeenah 10:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall objecting to any other uses, can you? I'm not a stranger to the idea that it's far more common as an ink remover, even. But you should try to be a bit more sensitive about these things. Winding up about "gay agendas" and telling people to keep their "German ass-fucking" to themselves while waving the specter of Islamic sexual conservatism about isn't exactly civil. To me it looked more like closet homophobia, even if that wasn't what you were trying to purvey. I'm glad we found a compromise, though.
Peter Isotalo 11:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm old-fashioned, and I think things belong in their proper place. I have no problem whatsoever with having an article about ass-fucking that's as explicit as you want it to be. I do have a problem with putting that info where it doesn't belong (as per wikipedia policy)), and the Crisco article is just such. But this exercise has been educational, as I have found that the internet has many references to various household uses of the product. For all I know, the makers of Crisco might be just as offended about their product being used for tar removal as for anything else. And I still say that info doesn't really belong in the article. But if you're going to have a citation for ass-fucking, then there needs to be some balance to show that that's only one of many non-standard uses, rather than singling it out. Wahkeenah 11:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Request for Comment

Standard cautions on civility and assuming good faith.

Text under dispute

from the section Non-cooking usages or Gay culture (heading seems subject to change):

As a sexual lubricant, it is long-lasting, cheap, and does not exude a strong odor. However, as with some other non-water-soluable lubricants such as Vaseline, it cannot be used with latex, i.e. condoms. It is used by certain parts of the male gay community in North America and Europe.[1]

  1. ^ AIDS Vancouver Island, retrieved on May 6 2007

Statements by editors involved in the dispute

(summary, from POV of each editor)

  • I don't think any non-standard uses belong in the article, but as long as a number of documented uses are in the article (hence the section name change), as opposed to singling out just the one (which is obvious agenda-pushing), then I'm OK with it as it stands at this moment. Wahkeenah 11:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Position

Comments

Summary

Editors came to a compromise on their own. RfC withdrawn. / edgarde 09:17, 8 May 2007 (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.


Deleting material from wikipedia on homophobic grounds and referring to homosexuality as "disgusting" and "nauseating" is not acceptable behaviour for an editor (and yes, Wahkeenah, I am talking about you).--feline1 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Non cooking uses

This section was removed with the comment 'this isn't "Hints from Heloise"'. I'm not all that sure what exactly that means, but the section is well sourced and I see no reason for its removal, so I readded it. Darksun 21:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "wellgdfsdfgsdfgsdfgdf sourced" at all! The sources given include a blog, a personal page, a message board, and a commercial site, none of which are acceptable under WP:RS and WP:V. wikipediatrix 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The main sources were a well established sexual health organisation, a news site, a civil war reenactment society. Yes, the reference about pans was from commercial sites, but there's nothing wrong with using commercial sites as sources as long as doing so doesn't compromise NPOV, which from what I see, it doesn't. Certainly, the reference about the use as a sexual lubricant has already been debated and had an RfC, you're going against consensus by removing it. Darksun 11:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to readd the bits that I feel are properly sourced. --Darksun 14:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The source for its usage as a lube is down, so I've added a {{fact}} template. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 08:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Another reference was added, and I added a web archive link to the original reference. Darksun 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal lubricant section

I suggest this section: "As a sexual lubricant, it is long-lasting, cheap, and does not exude a strong odor. However, as with other oil-based lubricants such as Vaseline, it can degrade latex and is unsuitable for use with latex condoms.[2][3]" be moved to the personal lubricant page; it reads more like an advert for it here. It's already listed as a personal lubricant in the list above. I would do it myself but I haven't figured out how to add a section to the table yet and copy the links and sources... DACS42 (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This information seems worth including, and is sourced. Could you suggest another wording that seems less like an advertisement? / edg ☺ ☭ 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Changes in Fat Content" text

I dont think the text "According to the FDA website, "Food manufacturers are allowed to list amounts of trans fat with less than 0.5 gram (1/2 g) as 0 (zero) on the Nutrition Facts panel." belongs here; its not on topic, whereas I have no doubt it is correct it implies a criticism about the reported trans-fat content of Crisco. However: It's quite useful information on its own. Does anyone have an opinion? DACS42 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to merit an explanation, since the the language "Zero Grams" is used despite a trans fat content of >0 grams. Without the FDA information, this would imply false health-related advertising, which is a more serious implication, and incorrect. Is there a different wording you would prefer that still conveys this information? / edg ☺ ☭ 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Trivia section?

Perhaps it should be suggested that a "Trivia sections are discouraged" headlines should be added, as is uniform for the discouragement of trivia sections, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.211.243 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

done. -- Banjeboi 21:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If you study the article history, you'll see that it was only ever called a "Trivia section" in the first place to appease some homophobic editors. "Other uses" is a better title.--feline1 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, they actually used the word 'degenerative?' Zazaban (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It should be turned into a short paragraph then and remove the section title. -- Banjeboi 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do you say that? Most of the rest of the article is about its culinary uses, it seems to me it makes sense to have a separate sub-section for other uses.--feline1 (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Use for fisting

Here's a few dozen books that may help source any concerns about the content. I suggest the article needs a fair amount of clean-up and the company would be absolutely incompetent to be unaware of this particular use which is pretty widely documented for decades. There likely are a fair number of reliably sourced ways to use the product instead of it's intended purpose which likely would amount to a paragraph that can be inserted (no pun intended) wherever it fits best. -- Banjeboi 21:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So? People shove coke bottles and hair brushes up their twat and/or arse, and I can find sources for that as well. You need to not only show that there are sources, but also that it is relevant. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you are confused. If coke bottles were celebrated as a particularly good form of dildo to an extent that satisfied WP:NOT, then this would indeed merit mention in the coke bottles article. But they are not thus celebrated. However Crisco is widely regarded as the lubricant of choice for fisting, and as such this is notable. Moreover this notability was described in several of the links which were deleted for no good reason.--feline1 (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
So, mention Crisco on fisting. That would be a good place to start. Surely it is more relevant to mention Crisco on "fisting" than it is to mention fisting here on "Crisco".
But if you find some good sources which demonstrate that this is the product of choice, feel add them here and we can discuss them.
Note that the other uses currently on the article are also dubious, but at least they are not sourced to online shops. I'm working on them now. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If you examine the article history and talk page, you will see that the "other uses" (which are indeed dubious) are only there because homophobic editors claimed it was unacceptable to "only" have fisting as another use, and so all the other uses were added to provide "balance". I'm also not sure I understand why you think that copious examples of gay online shops explicitly stating that they are selling Crisco as an ideal lube for anal fisting do not constitute good evidence that Crisco is widely used and sold by gay online shops explicitly as an ideal lube for anal fisting?--feline1 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Online retailers are not reliable sources. All of these "other uses" need reliable sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You're claiming that half a dozen online gay shops all selling Crisco, with sales text noting that it is a fondly regarded lube for fisting, can not be used as a reliable source that online gay shops sell Crisco as a lube for fisting? What next? John Vandenberg's user page cannot be used as a reliable source that there is a wikipedia user called John Vandenberg? --feline1 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

←And there's a big difference between so-called "good evidence" and reliable sources - Alison ❤ 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And there's a big difference between good editing and wikilawyering. Be seeing you. --feline1 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
*flounce* - ^_^ - Alison ❤ 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up those sources (some of which are quite shitty), and added two of my own. There is still the question of whether this wis worth a mention in this article. Except for the GLQ article, the other sources only say that the product is often used for this purpose. Can we find stats on how many units are sold each year? Are there studies which give us a clue into how many fist fuckers are in the world?

The GLQ article is the only one that talks about the relevance of its use irt fistfucking to the product itself, and it is doing so as an example of the dual sexuality some objects have. It would be nice to have some sources which demonstrate that this product usage is significant to the world-wide market, that it has become a (sub-)cultural icon for this usage, or some tacit acknowledgment from the producer that the product is used for this purpose. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To me that would be easily getting into undue. among the books was images of a fisting club's t-shirt with a can of Crisco as the illustration. Several of them talked about the bartender or coatcheck handing out cupfuls of Crisco for those there to engage in fisting. A featured article would certainly delve into this and point it out as the preferred lube of choice and how poetry was written about it, etc., but for now? Isn't this covered enough? -- Banjeboi 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Your sources certainly support Crisco being mentioned on the Fisting article, but what relevance does it have to the Crisco article? None of the sources are about the product itself. Is it a notable alternative use? Or is it trivia? I've found sources for "Frisco Crisco" referring to San Francisco[6] and shirts, as you say, that employ Crisco as a gay icon. It is described here as cultic. But they are all quite obscure and are relevant to sexuality topics, rather than to the brand and product.
If it has become a brand/subcultural icon, that would warrant inclusion.
In regards to the product use itself, I would much prefer that we cover this use as is done on Coconut_oil#Personal_Health_Uses, noting that it is not a recommended use, and leading the reader to in-depth articles if they care to learn more. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly Crisco has attained an 'iconic' status as a lube for fisting (in the strict literal sense, in that it is often used synonymously for fisting (eg http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crisco ) or as visual code for fisting in erotic art (for example see the image http://www.gaytubs.com/images/clubz.jpg at http://www.gaytubs.com/bathhouse_artwork.htm ) (Wheras in actual fact, in 2009, purpose-made personal lubricants are now readily available for consumers and Crisco's use in this regard is probably diminishing - but the crisco brand remains associated with this generic use). Crisco's iconic status in this regard is surely notable under WP:NOT; furthermore, because crisco may be used as a cypher for fisting itself (ie, the word "fisting" may be replaced by crisco in this context), it is useful to have mention of the fisting usage in the crisco article itself (rather than simply at say personal lubricant because a reader who was unaware of the fisting connotation could encounter mention of crisco in that iconic context and be puzzled as to what crisco had to do with the scenario. It would thus be helpful if it was mentioned if they went to look crisco up on wikipedia.--feline1 (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless we're going to list every possible use for Crisco under the sun (please don't) this would be best suited for the Fisting article, not here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree this article should not list every plausible makeshift use. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly (for years in fact, most recently by User:Feline1) on this discussion page, Crisco has long had a special association with fisting; it merits a mention, if only to dismiss it as no longer common and not recommended. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Feline really undermines himself by citing the likes of Urban Dictionary and gaytubs.com, but that is beside the point. It really does not merit a mention as it does not belong in this article. JBsupreme (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
What he said. ViridaeTalk 13:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
References have been provided to demonstrate why Crisco's use in fisting is WP:NOT. Blind assertion and tautalogical statements such as It really does not merit a mention as it does not belong in this article. have zero value in achieving editorial WP:CONSENSUS.
"References have been provided to demonstrate why Crisco's use in fisting" If that is so, then there is no logical reason to justify it in this article. It would seem that to put it here when it would not be accepted in its main topic area (fisting lubrication) would be even more egregious. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The logical reason to mention Crisco's use-in-and-iconic-association-with-fisting in the Crisco article is because the Crisco article should contain notable and relevant information about its subject, namely: Crisco. With all due deference to WP:AGF, are you being deliberately obtuse?--feline1 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is so iconic, then it would be notable enough for its own article. Crisco is the main subject, and in terms of Crisco as a whole, there is not enough to say it meets WP:WEIGHT. Sure, it may be notable for -fisting- or for -lubricant-, but not for a long lasting major historical product that is overwhelmingly used for food. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I see, so if you can't refute my argument, you just say something completely different instead? :) Regarding your latest pronouncement, I am struggling to see how a couple of sentences about Crisco's fisting association, in a Crisco article with a couple of hundred sentences, could be considered to violate WP:WEIGHT. And there is no "it may be notable for fisting" about it: we have already established that its use for fisting is notable, and have references for this.--feline1 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, I resaid exactly what I stated before and the previous time refuted any philosophical underpinning to your statement. You have yet to provide an argument within our policies or a justification within logic. And Weight is based on its prominence within the world and within usage. Seeing as how homosexuality represents less than 10% of the population and that even fewer would be into fisting, it would fail to meet logic to assume that any more than cursory use could be attributed to such a degree enough to pass under weight. Then there is the idea that this is not the topic, as it would be "fisting" and not "crisco" that is the topic, and thus WP:COATRACK applies. There are many other policies and guidelines that further undermine your stance. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
A passing reference in the article does not constitute an example of WP:COATRACK. Also, I'm afraid wikipedia doesn't have a WP:I-DON'T-LIKE-GAYS policy, so your arguments in that respect carry little weight. (What percentage of the human race cook their food with Crisco, in any case? Is it more than 10%?) Your claim that You have yet to provide an argument within our policies or a justification within logic is nonsense - I and half a dozen other editors above on this talk page have repeatedly made the case that Crisco, particularly in the gay and BDSM communities in North America & Europe in the latter half of the 20th century, was virtually synonymous with fisting. References have been provided to support this. It is a notable attribute of Crisco. And it is not being given undue weight within the article.--feline1 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"A passing reference in the article does not constitute an example of WP:COATRACK. " Quite the contrary. You even admitted that it did not fit in the fisting article. As such, putting it in this article would be coatrack. Your claim of homophobia further verifies that you lack an argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"was virtually synonymous with fisting" By the way, this is a stereotype and an outrageous claim that I am quite sure the LGBT wikiproject will not be too happy that you are promoting. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you are confused as to the meaning of the word "stereotype". It means a type of behaviour or personality ascribed to a type of person. Crisco is not a person. In any case (as has already been discussed above on this talk page), Crisco did become virtually synonymous with fisting, for example in the SanFran and NY bath house scenes, to an iconographic extent. This is precisely why this usage is notable.--feline1 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Crisco doesn't magically add itself to a hand and enter the anal cavity. A person does. You claimed that all gay people believed that crisco was connected to fisting. That is stereotyping and outrageous stereotyping. If I didn't know better, you were a homophobic user who is trying to put outrageous gay stereotypes into a food article. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And if the usage was notable it would be in the fisting article. Not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That's why it *IS* in the fisting article too /rollseyes/. Your hysterical assertions about stereotyping notwithstanding, the situation with Crisco being alluded in the single sentence about it in the article (but expanded upon at length in the reference given) is that (as often happens with popular product brands) that Crisco's became closely associated with fisting, taking on a somewhat iconic status. --feline1 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting page here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions
"That's why it *IS* in the fisting article too /rollseyes/." Before you claimed that it was not allowed in it. Now you are claiming it is there. Either way, your argument removes any claim to put it in here. Please choose one story so that you can be refuted correctly. You could save everyone's time by realizing that every policy and guideline is against you, and that your claims of homophobia are actually quite ironic as your stereotyping of homosexuals meets the very definition of a homophobic response. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you're talking complete rubbish and virtually every assertion you've made on this talk page has been completely wrong. I can certainly see why you've been receiving scrutiny from an ArbComm vis-a-vis your banning, as WP:AGF would direct me to suspect you are deliberately trolling rather than a genuine imbecile.--feline1 (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
First claims of homophobia, now all out attacks. Is there any other way that you can reveal through behavior that you don't have an actual argument and never had? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Feline, you were blocked for your inappropriate actions related to this topic. You are going 80 mph towards a brick wall. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again - the blocking was due to series of reverts on personal lubricant, not on Crisco, and we appear to have resolved that dispute with some careful editing, user Azure supplying a good reference from an FDA notice, and myself extracting text from it to make the article read less like an advert.--feline1 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You were edit warring while putting in information on Crisco over in that article. The edits you are making on fisting, here, and personal lubricant all deal with the same topic and all are marked by the same actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that fisting is not relevant to the article on Crisco, no more than the fact that you can use them as dildo's would belong on the cucumber article. However true the fact may be it is undue weight to include it in the article as it is not a significant part of the subject. Sam Barsoom 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Blind assertion is not a valid argument :) And your comparison with cucumbers does not bear scrutiny - cucumbers have not attained iconic status as dildos. A use of crisco does belong in the crisco article, and one sentence about that use does not constitute undue weight.--feline1 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"..cucumbers become the folkloric dildo of choice for later ages.."
"reasons women prefer cucumbers to men" - 9,970
cucumbers+gay = 915
cucumbers+lesbian = 618
cucumbers+dildos = 545
crisco+sex = 636
crisco+gay = 618
crisco+lubricant = 615
John Vandenberg (chat) 11:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and crisco+fisting = about 14,200. Your point again...?--feline1 (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Sam Barsoom on this. Just because something can be used in a sexual fashion does not indicate relevance. Or if it does, I have a very VERY nasty section I can put in about gerbils... -WarthogDemon 06:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But the argument for inclusion on notability grounds is NOT simply that "it can be used in a sexual fashion".--feline1 (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone post a picture?? I think this article definitely deserves a photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.242.199.11 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Brown Company

I am currently doing a research project with a few classmates of mine on the Brown Company Research and Development. The Brown Company is located in Berlin, New Hampshire, USA. According to my research, Crisco was originally Kream Krisp, invented by the researchers of the Brown Company. However, the Brown Company sold their patten to the company that now sells Kream Krisp as Crisco. Kream Krisp was also originally made with hydrogenated peanut oil. Kream Krisp or Crisco was invented in the late 1800s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.5.21 (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Heres a quote from a "Brown Bulletin" in 1919 on the creation of Kream Krisp (Crisco), "Peanut oil is a mixture of two liquid compounds and one solid substance. These two liquid components can be made firm and hard like the first by adding hydrogen. This hydrogen can be added in but one way. That is, by the help of a catalytic agent. Pure finely divided nickel is the best catalytic agent. It picks up the hydrogen forced in contact with it and hands it to the oil, which alone is unable to pick up hydrogen. The meeting between the peanut oil and the hydrogen takes place in a machine called a capsule, a tank about six feet in diameter with a curved top and bottom. The catalyzer is laid in a filter bed in the center of the machine, leaving a space above and one below. The peanut oil is recieved here in tank cars, stored in tanks of a million pounds capacity each. From these it is fed into preliminary tanks in the mill and heated before being forced into the space above the catalyzer in the capsule. The hydrogen is collected from the cells in the chemical plant, stored in an ordinary gasometer, such as is used for city gas lighting systems and supplied to the upper space in the capsule under pressure. The peanut oil and hydrogen, both beeing brought into the space above the catalyzer under pressure, are forced thgrough it to the space below. It is during this short poeriod that the catalyzer picks up the hydrogen and hands it to the oil, the liquid parts of which are thereby changed to firm, solid fat." The bulletin goes on the explain the cooling, deodorizing, and canning process. This information is from an original document that can be found at the Moffet House in Berlin, New Hampshire. If you have any questions my team would be glad to help, email me at sbinette@inbox.com.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.5.21 (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy" Section

I removed a broken link being used to cite the first two sentences http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=seenon&id=4972333. Considering that it is an unsupported claim, I changed the first word from Many to Some.

Further- I think there should be a more descriptive title for this important section. How about "Continued health concerns with new recipe" or something?

More importantly I'm on the fence about whether the interesterification claims are relevant here. I suspect they are, but am skeptical. Here are the two sides to the argument.


Via their online contact form I asked if Crisco used interesterification in the process of making their shortening.

I received this answer in a voice-mail message from a Crisco rep. "At this time we do not have the capability to conduct the process and actually, we don't currently purchase any of those oils from an outside source."

I've been reading, however, that it's impossible to blend fully-hydrogenated fats with non-hydrogenated oils in a viable shortening without using the interesterification process.

This is according to a presentation by Ernesto Hernandez to the American Soybean Association in 2003 http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:te6_RV_s0VUJ:www.soyasa.org/documents/1/Hernandez_P_Interesterification_Aug03.pdf

(pg. 12 bottom) "Completely hydrogenated oils are basically useless as food ingredients, however a growing practice is to interesterifying them with liquid oils at different ratios to produce solid fats for several food applications."

Can anyone else cite sources regarding the presence of interesterified fat structures in Crisco shortening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgh librarian (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The broken link above may be viewed: http://web.archive.org/web/20070303124740/http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=seenon&id=4972333. Hyacinth (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Other uses II

this contains a list of other possible uses. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have a certain affinity with the male gay scene as a fisting lube. Google "Crisco gay" and you see what I mean. --Panzer71 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, we can source the use of crisco in fisting with some Google Scholar results.
Any objection to have that mentioned in the article, sourced with Martin P. Levine, Peter M. Nardi, John H. Gagnon, In changing times: gay men and lesbians encounter HIV/AIDS, pp 103-1014? --Dereckson (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This should be in the article!84.152.53.33 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Support the mention :-) — But the current version does not mention these 'other uses', and sounds more like marketing material :\ -Mardus (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
If you view the article's Talk archives, you'll see there's been a dedicated meat-puppet campaign by homophobic editors to remove all mention of fisting from the Crisco article. Good luck with any attempt to reinsert it ;) --feline1 (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
(I can't seem to produce diffs of Archived talk page comments? Is there was a way to do that?) - but for example, "If you're going to insist on posting this nauseating non-standard usage, it's only fair to cite other things. User:Wahkeenah 10:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) - this is typical of the kind of comments being made by editors, and it is quite commensurate with WP:FAITH to characterise such comments as "homophobic". There are many dozens more.--feline1 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Why, "may," the controversy section, "mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject," and why may it, "be better to integrate the material in those sections into the article as a whole"? Hyacinth (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that a serious question or "may" it indicate that you are being silly? --feline1 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Has this "controversy" been removed altogether? In Europe (and prob most of the rest of the world) Crisco is only famous because of its association with fisting. Gymnophoria (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

history???

the history section doesn't make sense. the first paragraph begins with the process of hydrogenation then hydrogenation of cottonseed oil, with " initial intent...for use as raw material for making soap". the next sentence discusses the origin of the name crisco.

then the second paragraph begins by referring to 'further success'. when was the first success? any why was further success achieved by marketing 'raw material for making soap' with a cookbook???? was it a soap cookbook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.91.62 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Crisco Performance

This is a comment regarding performance: I am using recipes from "W no oman's Home Companion Cook Boodk, Copyright, 1942, 1943, 1944, DY P. F. Collier & Son Corporation. Crisco (Vegetable Shorting) is indeed a pervasive ingredient in 1940's baking---this is WWII era. Quick Breads recipes I grew up on (with Crisco ingredient) no longer perform the same as I remember my mother's. There is little or no discussion on the internet regarding the "formula change" and whether it impacted recipe results with the de-hydrogenation. Personally, I am changing to butter to compensate for the dismal results. Sccientific explanations are appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.233.27 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crisco/Archive_1&oldid=1121284486"