Talk:Maple syrup/Archive 2

Prehistoric Maple syrup?
no, the others were right; this is a highly North-America-centric article. I quote 'According to Native American oral tradition, maple syrup and maple sugar was being made before recorded history.' Personally, I had no idea that Native American tradition had survived since thousands of years BC. Surely the knowledge won't have carried that far between civilsations. If it did than this is incredible! Please, if you are an American talking about history, talk about global recorded history, not American. The fact that your history only goes back a few centuries is not my problem. Wikipedia is international. Someone please change this to 'before recorded North American history.'

Could someone also change 'candy' to a more proffessional and widely-understood term such as confectionery, because not everyone in the world is American, and thus not everyone will understand.

Also, could someone please tell me why everything in America is 'The National'? e.g the National Security Agency? National Aeronautics and Space Administration? which Nation? Iraq? Russia? I mean imagine if the ESA (European Space Agency) was called the Continental Space Agency. Which continent? For the love of God, you aren't the only nation, wake up America. Your economy is dying by the way.

Rant over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhyrd (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to England being the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force? More then one royal family in the world isn't there? It is called that way because everyone in America can recognize it as belonging to our nation (the only one that matters to a lot of the people of the US). 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "National" is opposed to "State" or (usually) "State of Iowa" or "Iowa...". (Florida has a Space Agency BTW!) State governments are surprisingly strong in the US. The country covers a large distance and the constitution supposedly enforces states rights though the federal courts, federal government and media don't much like it. It tends to be confusing but is a counterweight to federalization not quite as powerful as Switzerland but more towards that than the rest of Europe. Anyway the adjective is intended to clarify things for citizens/residents, not to annoy foreigners, believe it or not! Student7 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Production data external link removal
The following was removed at this diff:
 * National Agricultural Statistics Service: Specialty Crops - Production data for U.S. agricultural commodities, including maple syrup. (Highlight "Maple Syrup" and click "Search".)

Although it does require further action once you navigate to it, which can't easily be avoided, I don't see how it fails WP:EL and the data (gallons production per year and ranking of states) seems highly relevant. The source is generally considered reliable under WP:V, as it's the U.S. Department of Agriculture. So I'm wondering what exactly the problem with this external is.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I removed it because external links shouldn't come with, and shouldn't need instructions to reach the relevant parts (to me, that's similar to a search engine result, which are to be avoided), but if there is concensus to return the link I won't object. I do wonder how relevant that link is. What does it add that the article doesn't have, except for really precise numbers which, as far as I know, are useful only to people who wouldn't use Wikipedia to find them (people in the maple products business). Also, if it is relevant, shouldn't a similar link with the exact Canadian numbers be added as well, as otherwise it gives undue weight to the US production.--Boffob (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If such Canadian data can be found it most certainly should be included. A lot of Ag pages have production data, usually in table form, maybe something better can be found; but otherwise, the data here could become the reference for such a table.  I agree it's unfortunate that this particular link does not give you the data without some work, but it's pretty intuitive, you just click "maple syrup" on the list and then a button to generate the data page.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The link is better than nothing, let's return it. If a Canada link exists, let's add it. If not, that's no reason to leave out the American data. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked around a bit, and found this link which has the advantage of having both US and Canada numbers and is a PDF file (so no extra instructions/clicking involved), the drawback is it's not a page that updates these figures over time. But I think it might be an adequate replacement, even if temporary. Any opinions?--Boffob (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added this to the external links. Feel free to use it elsewhere as a reference instead.  It may be duplicative with reference no. 1, I haven't checked.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Syrup from Manitoba Maples
Apparently, there is now syrup production from the Manitoba Maple, on the Canadian Prairies. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/96-328-MIE/2004032/96-328-MIE2004032.pdf Grandma Roses (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada
Wikipedia is very US-centric in general. And as I agree with this, I've taken the liberty to mention the US second in all points of interest in the article where it was mentioned before Canada, without removing or altering any of the factual information. Since Canada produces more than 80% of the world's maple syrup, and since Quebec alone produces more maple syrup than all of the US combined, by logic the foremost producer should to be given precedence. --Bentonia School (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And for the same reason, surely the spellings ought to be Canadian rather than US and the term "Native American" used only parenthetically after the preferred Canadian terms of "aboriginal" and "First Nations." Eh? Masalai (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Density
Maple syrup density is measured in Brix (which is percent divolved solids, principally sugar), see here: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/08-003.htm

The syrup density stated as 32 kg/m3 must be wrong. The density of 1m3 of water is 1000kg/m3 and the density of 1m3 of maple syrup is around 1333 kg/m3. This figure is calculated from this article: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=115 which states that 2 teaspoons (=10ml) of syrup weigh 13.33g. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Placebo2000 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No prices
I agree that Wikipedia should not say that we can pick up a Ken doll for $30. That is a retail type item. However, maple syrup, along with a bunch of other agricultural products, are "commodities." There has to be some business reason for people to be engaging in this business. While it would not be appropriate to say in an item about a mall or retail store how much a Ken doll retails for, it might be very germane in an article about Mattel or even K-B toy store maybe, to discuss the markup range on various items.

It is appropriate to suggest that management has a business plan. In this case, there is no "big" business involved, but it implies a whole range of farmers, mostly small farmers, engaged in the production of products from maple syrup. It is germane IMO. It may belong in an "economics" section. Since it was identified as a uniquely US product (Canadians are involved as well), it shouldn't be too many problems with currency. Student7 (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPRICES is quite clear. Any product or commodity has a price which changes over time. You can't put a price in an article, even sourced, unless there's an extra reason to do so (such as dramatic inflation). For example, Quebec's reserves, which were huge two years ago, are empty, and with two lousy seasons in a row, price have gone up a lot in two years. All this info, including the price then and now, is relevant and can be sourced. An economics section would most definitely be appropriate, but it should not just be about the current price in retail or from suppliers to retailers.--Boffob (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many articles are originated by students who don't seem to understand that money is the basis of decision-making. WP:NOPRICES is not clear that all mention of money should be avoided at all costs(!). Money is missing from many articles in Wikipedia perhaps because of student initiation - none in government (how would government survive without money?) - none in industry articles, none in college, not even tuition costs!. Articles about financial endeavors are nonsensical and meaningless without a mention of finance!


 * WP:NOPRICES is rather aimed at avoiding commercialism (WP:SPAM perhaps? or [[WP:PR?}. This is neither.


 * I concede your point that prices have to be treated in some organized fashion (annual? Highest-lowest?) so the article isn't swamped with a jumble of figures. But right now there are none, so we don't have that problem!Student7 (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The price of a commodity, yearly or otherwise, is irrelevant in the long run (though important changes may be, as long as there is context). It varies a lot both in time and in location (e.g. the price in the US is irrelevant to a reader from the UK). The price of a barrel light sweet crude per day is highly volatile and best left to news media, not an encylcopedia, but the fact that it rose dramatically to $147 then dropped to $50 in roughly 4 months is certainly notable and that can be included in Wiki. The tuition at a university by itself is not relevant to Wiki, prospective students can find this kind of information on university websites, but if you have reliable sources to cite on how tuition at an institution affects their recruitment of students (e.g. Canadian universities trying to recruit American students) then this may be relevant to be included in an article. The idea behind WP:NOPRICES is not just an issue of spam, but that prices by themselves don't say much (unless one wants to buy whatever item is priced, but Wiki is not a tool for conducting business, that applies to buyers and sellers). You need a particular reason, some context, before mentioning prices, if it is necessary. In this article, instead of the price per gallon or whatever, if you want an economics sections, you need data on the industry overall. How much was produced, where, how much income did the industry get, who sells it, who buys it and for what purpose, how the industry is affected by other economic sectors, by climate change, what proportion of the state/province economy does the maple syrup industry occupies, etc. Some of this may already be covered in the article, but more can be added.--Boffob (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You arguments are not without merit. Nevertheless there is now nothing in the article at all. How do you start? Yes, it would be nice if some economic guru would arrive on the scene and create a viable sub-article on economics. Unfortunately, we are the entirety of the article's resources. My point is to add referenced material in an objective manner (I have no interest in the marketing of maple syrup per se. Did tap trees and gather sap as a kid!). If this can be surrounded or replaced by something more sophisticated then fine. But I have no axe to grind here other than to provide significant, referenced data. Student7 (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the entry in the policy appears to allows for commodities. No catalog type stuff. This hardly falls into that category. Here is the entry in toto (boldfacing mine):
 * "{Wikipedia articles are not) Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions."
 * Student7 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing now because the only thing that was included was a very ephemeral pair of price in the US (bulk and retail). It's not enough to start an economics section and falls within the WP:NOPRICES guideline because it's missing the reason to be there (such as historical inflation), thus without context.--Boffob (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My thought is that you have to start someplace. Generally all I stumble across is a one line item about current prices. The rest is implied for a knowledgeable audience (which Wikipedia is not for maple syrup, I agree). This, in turn, attracts other data for comparison. The alternative (as mentioned above) is a robust article which I am too lazy to flesh out. I do start articles, but once there they provide a convenient uh coat hook to paste other information as encountered in the media. Footnoting and objectivity is the main problem. I agree that readability for one point of data is a bit, well, jerky, I suppose. But this is a lot different from pov, or, pr, unreferenced, or any of the other stuff that the noprices was trying to avoid.


 * While we are trying to make things presentable for the reader, we also need to consider the editor. Things have to be easy for them, as well. The harder it is to contribute, the fewer contributions.Student7 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a number of links in the External links section and references which have some info to start a proper economics section with something else than bulk and retail price. Footnote number 2 has data from the USDA if you pick "Maple syrup" within the link, and the Canadian encyclopedia article has data from 1995. I suggest you take look there.--Boffob (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A good reference. I did my best - quick and dirty. My specialty is geography not agriculture. My second specialty is organization. There are a lot of external links. I may try to organized them. If I can't, other editors may wish to delete some. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to add to the section itself right now, but I did find this news bit that has some recent data for Canada, both in price and volume, if you care to add it.--Boffob (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)