Talk:Sugar Blues
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This Entry is Neither Well Written Nor Particularly Neutral
[edit]Having read and enjoyed Sugar Blues over 20 years ago, this writer is woefully disappointed at the lack of a neutral point of view, as well as how poorly the article is written. It is hoped that this article can be edited by a literate authority on this book, and its attempt to reveal the effects of a major ingredient in food that is prepared, sold and consumed in Western society. It would be particularly interesting to see an objective review that takes a considered approach in evaluating both the book's verifiable facts on sugar production and consumption, as well as the allegations of conspiracy made against large corporations in the United States. The subject of this article has some definite historic value for its place among nutrition books; however, the article as it is currently written assumes that Sugar Blues, in its entirety, is filled with nothing but absolute and indisputable facts. --BuzzDog (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Deserving of Speedy Deletion?
[edit]Yes this book certainly does not deserve the speedily deletion tab. It was the best selling health book of the entire 1970's, and as soon as I can find the source, I'll site it. --Eckre (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I took off the "speedy deletion" tag after googling and finding out that the "sugar blues" are apparently for real. It still might not merit an article, but I don't think it's quite speedy-deletion material. Mcsweet
- Fair enough. The creator of the article is going around being insulting and maliciously editing articles at the moment24.48.229.57. If you feel it has merit I'll leave it with you. :) --Randolph 03:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Surely it could be merged somewhere? Now I'm not saying it belongs in Sugar, but maybe there's a "Sugar Allergies/Reactions" article somewhere for it? This isn't exactly a naturally-occurring phenomenon, it's an entirely man-made condition (either deliberately or accidentally) so I don't know that it's really a "medical" article. Then again the Bends was also invented by man... but anyway I'm sure you'll find a better home for it than I could... Master Thief Garrett 06:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "The Sugar Blues" is an important and influential book, and deserves an article for that reason. The content, substance and tone of the present article must be improved, no doubt about that. Have commenced by providing references for some facts and editing the colloquial tone a bit. Intersofia (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Surely it could be merged somewhere? Now I'm not saying it belongs in Sugar, but maybe there's a "Sugar Allergies/Reactions" article somewhere for it? This isn't exactly a naturally-occurring phenomenon, it's an entirely man-made condition (either deliberately or accidentally) so I don't know that it's really a "medical" article. Then again the Bends was also invented by man... but anyway I'm sure you'll find a better home for it than I could... Master Thief Garrett 06:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete the article, just re-write it to talk about what's in the book. Most of the article doesn't discuss the book, it's more like an anti-sugar, anti-HFCS polemic. MFNickster (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
John Lennon citation
[edit]It's probably mentioned in other books about him, but for sure you can check The Last Days of John Lennon by Frederic Seaman. Early in the book he mentions that Lennon endorsed healthy eating in general and Sugar Blues in particular. Zip-x (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Criticism section
[edit]I've just reworded the criticism to reflect that of the three authors cited, only one (Oakes) appears to be a reliable source on medical matters. (Hendershot writes about TV censorship, and Pendergrast is a librarian who wrote a corporate biography of Coca-cola.)
To be balanced there should be more input from historians (of the middle ages, for instance, and of whichever US president it was who was involved in the saccharin anecdote Dufty mentions) and nutritionists.Zip-x (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Balance
[edit]As noted above, this article requires balanced views of a sensitive topic. The following text was removed:
- ...the sugar industry conspires to keep Americans addicted to sugar.
The book is not a "conspiracy book" and this assertion is not supported in the text. Rather gluttony and greed have been sufficient to lead the masses into debilitating consumption of sugar in quantity. Two chapters mention that government has failed to protect, but the tone of the book generally is that people follow the crowd. Sections called Support and Criticism have been joined into Mentions as book reviews frequently balance positive and negative aspects of a book, and some mentions here can be understood either way.Rgdboer (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)