Talk:Brown sugar

message: :First paragraph, first sentence: Brown sugar is an unrefined or partially refined soft sugar consisting of
:Second paragraph, first sentence: Many brown sugar producers produce brown sugar by adding molasses to completely [emphasis mine] refined white sugar crystals
All evidence I've found on the web states that, at least in the west, brown sugar is completely refined white sugar, with molasses added. (Wholly separate from so-called "raw" sugar like turbinado). Is there anyone around with a mild amount of sugar-production authority who can fix this poor article? If no one objects, I'll strike the conflicting parts in a month. JMD 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the talk section above. You seem to be a sensible person, so go right ahead. I'll keep this page on my watchlist. Bye, Shinobu 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refined?

message: This article appears to have been vandalized on Sept 1 by 220.227.192.95, and no one has noticed or cared.  It just looks like random sections were deleted and nothing significant has been added since.  I'm just going to go ahead and revert it to the previous edit by GraemeLeggett... as soon as I figure out how.  Sorry, I'm new at this.--driver8
:Just go to the page history, click the revision you want to revert to and edit and save it. Shinobu 10:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I changed the wording sightly, both to reflect a more worldwide view, and to tone down the stated effects of using beet molasses. The taste of beet brown sugar is different, but not particularly strong. As noted before, the beet molasses used are sold as a spread for bread and pancakes and the like, as "sugar syrup". Although the production process is different from the one on sugar beet. Also note that brown sugar is often used precisely because it has a slightly different flavour. Shinobu 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced it comes across as clear enough. GraemeLeggett 11:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacture 

message: If you live in an area that gets a lot of snow (like Buffalo) you know all about "brown sugar", the snow on the streets and walkways. It is dirty, wet snow that perfectly resembles brown sugar the sweetener. Maybe this reference could be added to the brown sugar page? 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term, brown sugar, also refers to the snow in streets or walkways during winter. 

message: Closed; obsolete proposal, lacks rationale, lacks support. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jaggery and Palm sugar I think are distinct. Palm sugar is made from palm trees, and jaggery historically was made from palm trees (currently jaggery is sometimes made from sugar cane). The other products are made from sugar cane or sugar beets, but never from palms.  Maple sugar is another kind of brown colored sugar, but surely would be considered distinct.Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several sites for brown sugar 

message: :"brown sugar packs more densely than white sugar due to the smaller crystal size"
White sugar comes in many different crystal sizes... so since brown sugar is made from refined white sugar plus added molasses, is this necessarily true? Is there a standard size for brown sugar crystals? DemiReticent (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess it's comparing 'standard' granulated white sugar with standard soft brown sugar. But you're right, it is rather ambiguous. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal size 

message: Alright, what is "golden brown sugar"? This is mentioned in the picture. The types of brown sugar mentioned in the article are the ones I am familiar with, that is, light and dark. I have have never heard of "golden brown sugar" is this a regional term for light brown sugar? Either the picture caption should use the same terminology as the article, or, if golden brown sugar is a real term, the article ought explain it. --Ericjs (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've changed it to "light". Thomas Kluyver (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text: "Golden caster sugar" is a fairly new, popular product in the UK. It's a very light brown sugar, at caster size. 86.129.13.137 (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden? 

message: Two sentences currently read, "For domestic purposes one can create the exact equivalent of brown sugar by mixing white sugar with molasses. Suitable proportions would be about one tablespoon of molasses to each cup of sugar (one-sixteenth or 6.25% of the total volume)." I'm sorry, but one tablespoon of molasses to each cup of white sugar seems to result in seventeen parts, not sixteen!  The math can easily be corrected so the parenthetical phrase reads, "(one-seventeenth or about 5.9% of the total volume)", or "(one-sixteenth or 6.25% of the white-sugar volume)".  However, is there a citation for this somewhere that indicates mathematically correct percentages specifically based on volume?  I've found a few book references with those exact numbers, but it is unclear to me if they are copies of wikipedia, or if they are third party sources, and they do not seem to claim them as specifically based on volume and instead are ambiguous.  So, it seems there are some errors in uncited volumetric ratio numbers and/or text.  Any thoughts regarding corrections? Gzuufy (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As molasses is a liquid, and sugar is crystalline granules (with many air gaps between the granules), adding one tablespoon molasses to a cup of sugar should not measurably change the volume occupied by the sugar, so 1 tablespoon molasses would indeed be 1/16 of the total volume of the sugar and molasses together.  Keyesc (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay!  Thank you. Gzuufy (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Math Error - Culinary Considerations, volumetric ratio for substitution 

message: In my view including "Natural brown sugar" in the "Brown sugar" article makes sense - but I can see why some would hesitate.  In some ways having separate articles makes good sense too.  The problem is that they sound like sort of the same thing but they are different in ways that some consider very important.  Those people are a little touchy about equating "natural" and "unnatural" brown sugars in any way.  Solution?  The section in "Brown sugar" called "Natural brown sugar" must be prominent (its own separate section and up near the top - not shoved to the bottom) and the distinction between "natural" and the common "brown sugar" I buy at my local grocer has to be clear in the text.  (This distinction should also be stated - redundantly - in the "Natural brown sugar" section.)  Both of these stipulations are easy.  Merge the articles. Ben (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natural brown sugar" and its relation to brown sugar  -  more on the 'merge' question 

message: >> Couldn't disagree more. "Brown sugar" besides being a famous song title is typically a commercial scam by the sugar industry as the subject relates to health. If you want to combine the various topics then "unrefined sugar" or something very close to that reflects what is unique about these natural foods vs the manufactured and nutritionally empty brown sugar on the store shelves. If you are going to categorize topics just by color then you might want to start with each of the different colors of iPods. Unrefined sugars are distinctly unique foods from the highly processed and nutritionally empty products simply identified as sugar. Additionally you ignore the cultural aspects of the societies that they come from by clumping them together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicMry (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. If the merger took place there would be a section for every possible type of brown sugar and any relevant information related to it. Including cultural, color, nutritional, etc. Whatever criteria that is relevant would be in the article. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is (one example of) what redirs are for. Anyone who feels that sucanat is a reasonable search term, whether anyone thinks sucanat is special or not, would encounter very little opposition to his creating a sucanat redir, and it only takes minutes. Personally I don't think sucanat is worthy of much attention, but anyone producing any encyclopaedic text on a household name such as sucanat in the brown sugar article wouldn't raise any howls from me, and any reader entering "sucanat" as a search term would hit the brown sugar article straight off, possibly not even noticing that its heading is "brown sugar". In fact, the sucanat text should gain from being mentioned in context rather than in isolation. Everyone happy. Except the advertising staff of some brands maybe. Shed a tear. Half our WP problems should be so simple.  JonRichfield (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIG NO on Merge 

message: The referenced New York Times article for this sentence "there is no nutritional basis to support brown sugar as a healthier alternative to refined sugars despite the negligible amounts of minerals in brown sugar not found in white sugar.", does not make the claim that what is referred to in the article as natural brown sugar has negligible health benefits.  A resource may exist, but this New York Times article is talking about typical brown sugar where molasses is added back to refined sugar, not the working definition of natural brown sugar as presented in the beginning of the article.  I would speculate that the composition of natural brown sugar, particularly the minerals within, is subject to the conditions in which the sugar cane was grown, and thus one type of natural brown sugar is not chemically analogous to another. Any health benefits ascribed to natural brown sugar are then particular, and not universal.
42.3.2.153 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Sources

message: On the main page there are two pictures, labeled as showing "clarified" and "unclarified" brown sugar. They do appear to show different textures, however what "clarified" means in this context is, if you will pardon the pun, unclear.  What is the difference?  How do they "clarify" brown sugar?  The article needs to say something about it, in my opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.169 (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This important question has not been answered or attended to, after 6 full years! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clarified?" 

message: Hit & Run tagging in January 2014 (this edit); Merged and unmerged (twice) in March 2014 (with these edits) per comments here. Archived now. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal with [[Molasses Sugar]] 

message: Just tried to access an article for Turbinado sugar and got redirected to a fairly generic and useless article on "brown sugar". While all these sugars may be brown-ish in color and no doubt have similar chemical properties, that fact is probably not as relevant to the broadly understood user base as the fact that in the real world average grocery store there are several different types of sugar. People are likely seeking information to differentiate between them and will search use the name provided on the packaging. Think there should be, at minimum a section header for each common name of the various brown sugars and realistically, separate articles -- they must have different innovation and manufacturing histories anyway. JBVaughan (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: (New comment)

message: Parts of the "culinary considerations" section read like a how-to, mostly as if it were instructing the reader how to mix molasses and sugar, its equivalencies, and such. Does that seem like the case? Radioactivated (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Culinary considerations" reads like how-to