DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Crisco

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

[edit]

So there was a bar around the corner called "The White Horse" that closed in the 1980s. Should I create a link to it in the Wikipedia artilcles on horses, and the color white? No, of course not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle kursk (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q: policy about adding content about emergency uses?

[edit]

example: Crisco candles & table top heaters ==> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnNHM4OLkvE

okay to add? or if not why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard from NYC (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have a section regarding sexual uses of a shortening?

[edit]

guys, cmon. ~2025-43164-60 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would argue that if Crisco Disco, a gay nightclub which took its name from the brand, is notable enough to be included on wp, then the connection crisco has to gay culture is prominent enough to warrant inclusion on the product's own article Blaithnaid (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
crisco disco is its own article and at most should be linked under see also on this page. ~2025-43164-60 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but why? why not include it, and the rest of that section, in this article? its use as a sexual lubricant is documented by reliable sources and at one time was widespread in the gay community. what can you say specifically to discount its inclusion rather than just that it "isn't relevant" – when verifiable information indicates otherwise? Blaithnaid (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its well documented that hitler loved dogs, and yet, there is no mention of hitler on the article for dogs. ~2025-43164-60 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. If it's notable (has independent reliable sources talking about it) and related (it's literally a use of crisco) then it should be in the article. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://crisco.com/frequently-asked-questions/
for posterity's sake, I do not see personal lubricant as a listed use from the manufacturer ~2025-43164-60 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q-tips are officially not meant to be used in the ears, and yet we still mention it because it is a common use. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
qtips are a tool with a wide range of applications. Crisco is a substitute for animal fat in food recipes ~2025-43164-60 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And? Both have popular or formerly popular uses inconsistent with manufacturers recommendations. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crisco/Archive_1#c-Mangojuice-2006-12-19T00:32:00.000Z-129.97.79.144-2006-12-18T21:34:00.000Z
this has been going on for 20 years lol. welp, i'm out then. ~2025-43164-60 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you would really like to get through this, start a Request for comment if you really think it will be a difficult decision. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current Crisco#Sexual use was added on 26 September 2024 by a now indefinitely blocked user. Standard procedure is for an issue like this to be discussed in articles about sexual activity, not in an article about something else. As a guide, consider the seven links to other articles in the "sexual use" section. Five of those do not mention "Crisco" so why should this article mention them? The two articles which do mention this product might appear in a "See also" section. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, I ventured into the pages' history and not only is what you said correct, it has also been repeatedly added by socks. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am OP and have now created an account for this. I read Dante8's sockpuppet ban logs going back over a decade. I completely new to editing. I will once again delete the sexual use section. I will add in the edit notes that the submission is from a decades long sockpuppetter, on top of being irrelevant, and ask for anyone to check talk page before reverting, then possibly make a user check request on Dante8 sockpuppeteer page. I will also email Crisco customer support that wikipedia insists their product/brand is most commonly used and exclusively recognised as an anal sex lubrication between gay men. If it comes to that, it wont be just gay men that are getting fucked.
If any of this is out of order or procedure please correct me. For the record I have never used and never will use Crisco, as I avoid ultra processed foods. 2Scoops1President (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco as a company has absolutely no role whatsoever to play in the maintenance of their Wikipedia article, and your contacting them is (if anything) only going to introduce potential WP:COI edits which would complicate matters. it is admittedly unfortunate that the section has been readded by sockpuppets, but i will continue to advocate for its inclusion.
i would be happy to bring this to a Request for Comment if needed - i feel that previous discussions on this matter have not adequately illustrated why this subject is inappropriate for discussion in the article altogether, and honestly have been filled with a lot of uncomfortable personal biases (like making reference to its inclusion as being part of the "gay agenda").
the subject has in fact been covered in an RFC already - if i understand correctly, the consensus reached was to revert the section to this revision. i think useful information is contained within the current version of the page when compared to that version which it would be disappointing to remove, but i would not be personally opposed to refactoring it to fall under broader "non-standard" usages of the product. Blaithnaid (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, feel free to revert the edit, if you wish, however I doubt this will be the end of the discussion, and thank you for your edit summary. I know you are new to Wikipedia, so here's something you should know: we don't particularly care about what corporations and groups say about themselves if it contradicts what other reliable sources say. Technically, the generic name for a Jet ski is a personal watercraft (PWC), but since PWCs are more commonly refered to by the brand name, even if they're not made by Jet Ski, the article is still called Jet ski. Also see my above Q-tip example. For this reason, I would advise against letting Crisco know about this. While it is most likely to be ineffectual, it could possibly cause them to attempt to edit their own article, which would cause COI problems, which, quite frankly, is not something anyone wants to deal with.
On a different note, there are only a couple good reasons for removing information. The question should not be "is it useful?", or "is it necessary?", nor "Is this appropriate?". The question should be "is it sufficiently related/notable to the topic?". We don't whitewash, we don't censor.
I'm also fairly new here, so more experienced editors, please let me know if I've made any mistakes so I can fix my argument to be more accurate.
Also, I think there may be a couple more options we could try before submitting an RfC, per Before Making an RfC. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, the previous RfC resulted in a compromise of including a list of alternative uses, including a mention of its use by the gay community. Perhaps we could do that? FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

In the previous discussion it was noticed that this page has experienced frequent unconstructive changes from non-auto-confirmed users and socks (not talking about the user who brought up the previous discussion). I propose we semi-protect the page to prevent further vandalism. Putting this here to see if anyone objects before requesting it on the protection requests page. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide diffs if necessary. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would protect if needed, but it's not. I forget the shortcut but at WP:RFPP the reply would be that protection is not preventative. That is, wait until there are sustained problems before requesting protection. Also, at the moment, protection would not be appropriate because the issue is a content dispute and both sides can point to long periods when their favored content was displayed. Further, removing mentions of sexual activity from this article is not vandalism. Also, I saw mention of WP:NOTCENSORED above. Removing that content from this page is totally unrelated to censorship. The issue is WP:DUE which boils down to a matter of opinion backed by an WP:RFC. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it's not a problem, I trust your judgement over my own. But I was not referring to the conversation above. In fact, the opposite. Previously many socks have actually readded the info, which was against consensus at the time. I also agree that this is not an issue of censorship, but the original reason the question above was opened was "is it necessary" which to me kind of felt less about due/undue and more like censorship/I don't like it. But I didn't mean to accuse the account. Anyway I agree that they make a good point about it being undue, hence why I made my above comment about "the real question is it sufficiently related/notable." And again, with vandalism, I'm specifically talking about the sock edits, which I will give diffs for at the bottom. Though in hindsight I should've said disruptive editing, because that is closer to it. Anyway, the point is I mean to do this unrelated to the content dispute, specifically for the repeated removal OR addition of the content, especially by socks. Also, if you'd rather me wait to file the RfP until the above discussion has ended, I can do that.
Here are diffs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1321459351 removed the section, not sock, but they were clearly censoring (the edit summary says "Inappropriate sexual nature")
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1321456949 removed, same user as above, "Encouraging pornography"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1309072188 removed, "invalid documentation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1247818247 added, sock of Dante8, which is how it still remains today because no one changed it FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't done
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1287849298 Only removed part of the section, said "unconfirmed" even though the statement was well sourced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1287948375 Also only removed part of the section, same IP
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1166864206
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1166863552
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1166862900 These three were the same IP, unrelated vandalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1019481836
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1019481525
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1019480788
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1019480027
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=1019480027 added five times by same IP
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=978713457 unrelated vandalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=929248988
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=929248815
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisco&diff=prev&oldid=929248428 unrelated spam
and it keeps going. This feels like both repeated edit warring and various other vandalisms.
FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:RFPP if you want but many of the diffs above are ancient. WP:PROTECT requires current activity and WP:VAND makes it clear that "vandalism" does not apply. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I apologize for the misappropriation. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on use as a personal lubricant

[edit]

Should the use of Crisco as a personal lubricant be described in the article?

Linking the previous RfC and discussion. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

more experienced editors, let me know if I made a mistake in my formatting, this is my first time starting an RfC. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings: @2Scoops1President @Johnuniq @Blaithnaid FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FloblinTheGoblin I can answer your question with a question: Do reliable sources mention Crisco's use as a personal lubricant? Polygnotus (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nebraskamed.com/health/conditions-and-services/womens-health/you-asked-we-answered-which-personal-lubricant-is-best & https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3244680/Polygnotus (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True, however other editors have brought up possibilities of this giving undue weight. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FloblinTheGoblin It may be a good idea to link to the previous RfC and preceding discussions surrounding this topic. Polygnotus (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, doing that now FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the ping. my opinion on the matter hasn't changed - i don't feel that the inclusion of the product's sexual use is giving it undue weight, and i would disagree with cutting down the section considering it's all pretty well supported. i would be open to including it in a section of broader scope around "unofficial uses" similar to Option B, but we would need to be careful not to inflate the importance of other uses of the product, seeing as that it appears that for the majority of those who have interacted with Crisco other than for its intended use, it has been for a sexual use. Blaithnaid (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another reliable source. Any mention should include the risks and not give undue weight to this aspect since use of the product for cooking is overwhelmingly the primary use. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I first support option A. Regarding sourcing, Crisco has been wisely advertised by LGBT groups and organisations within the LGBT community for a considerable time, and there are ample reliable sources documenting this usage. In this context, the brand name is often used generically to refer to any thick, fat-based lubricant. However, then we must include the same information in the Wikipedia article about vaselin, sunflower seed oil, olive oil, coconut oil, etc. That is why I think the best is to just stick to what Crisco is and what it is made for.
I would support Option B if we have to mention it. It presents the information in a way that is both useful to readers and appropriately neutral in tone. BassiStone (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not mention at all, unless there's a source that says that only Crisco brand vegetable shortening will do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco was particularly emblematic [1], to the point that Gayle Rubin stated that Vast quantities of Crisco were essential to the Catacombs experience. Crisco was the lube of choice. Nothing ever removed the pervasive layer of Crisco that coated every surface about Catacombs (sex club). I don't see why the fact that other vegetable shortenings have similar properties should determine whether or not it should be included. Katzrockso (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option B or C are both acceptable, with no particular preference to either. This seems to have sufficient sourcing to warrant a WP:CFORK, in all honesty. Katzrockso (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso Would be cool if you could list some sources about Crisco that mention this usage. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus I did in a comment directly above this one, and there are numerous sources in versions B and C of the proposal (incidentally, after I found the Drew Sawyer source, I noticed option C cited that same source). The Rubin quote comes from her compilation work "Deviations: A Reader" (great book if you ever get the chance). Katzrockso (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely worth including. I like the direction of Option B, putting it under a section titled "Other uses" or similar. Although the exact revision linked above would need some reworking... the last sentence has a rather brazen example of WP:EASTEREGG/WP:SURPRISE linking; not sure why I hovered over the word "can" anyway but oop okay, cheeks on my computer screen!!
Katzrockso brought up an excellent source I think should definetely be utilized. Time frame should be mentioned, seeing as there are MUCH better options nowadays, the fact that this was predominantly in the 1970s-early 80s in cities with booming semi-underground gay scenes gives context as to why this was such a widespread and notable thing. The current version is getting there in some respects but still needs help. It names a specific erotic film and simply links the online digitized movie itself as reference + Vice article does not support preceding statement (both WP:OR) + "fisting" should be "sex" or "anal sex" for general accuracy. elchupacabra (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize this when I first added it to my response but it's used in Option C! Katzrockso (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! I like that bit in Option C. Actually now that I consider them again option C looks pretty good too. elchupacabra (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option C or Option B, but we can obviously only do B if other alternative uses are widespread and supported by reliable sources. I think that ample reliable sources have been given, and I believe this is a better place for the information than, say, Fisting, Homosexuality, or Personal lubricant. However, it might warrant a mention on some of those articles. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option C or B, with stronger preference for C. Others above have argued well for an inclusion that isn't brief. Option C seems like a much better fit given the sources, though. Option B implies that Crisco is still as frequently used as before, but the significance of Crisco as a sexual lubricant is mainly a historical one. Nowadays, proper lube is easier to buy and Crisco is harder to come by. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option C or D. Option A and B read almost like a recommendation. If included this should be worded as "some people have used it for lube", not "it works great as lube." I can't imagine that any reliable sources are reporting on the effectiveness of using Crisco as lube - I don't doubt these claims, but maybe they don't belong in an encyclopedia such as this. It doesn't say, for instance, on the article about bananas "these make for a great pocket pussy..." Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, we don’t necessarily need to use the wordings used in those revisions, I just put them up as examples. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: Include brief mention of that use
Option B: Include mention along with other alternative uses
Option C: Include detailed section
Option D: Do not mention
Wikipedians !vote/discuss whether to include or exclude information or otherwise discuss things in an abstract manner every single day, so the idea that you can't support a change without a precise wording is absurd.

Katzrockso (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option D: Do not mention — seems a digression WP:OFFTOPIC for here that more appropriately belongs only in the Personal lubricant article if there, and any salacious mention here would naturally draw WP:UNDUE attention. It is not like humans haven’t used just about *everything* slippery and/or edible, no need to specifically say so at each such product. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not like humans haven’t used just about *everything* slippery and/or edible, no need to specifically say so at each such product. I don't think this is quite right. We don't need to worry about having to describe the sexual use at every other such product's article, because there is only one such product that was associated so strongly with the gay liberation movement. That product is Crisco. It's only Crisco.
    Also, not everything that is slippery and edible is suitable as a sexual lubricant. It also needs to be transparent and odorless, and it needs to be sex safe (i.e. doesn't cause immediate discomfort or health problems when inserted). This is a lot to ask of a substance. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - Include in a "Other uses / Cultural impact / Non-culinary uses" section, but weigh the content and amount of detail according to the prominence of these uses in reliable sources per WP:DUE/WP:WEIGHT. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]