Talk:Maple syrup/Archive 3

Maple scent & consumption?
Alright, this might sound odd, but if there's an answer for it, it might be of interest to add to the article: From personal experience and that of others (related anecdotally), it seems consumption of maple can affect the way a person smells. For example, if I have big bowl of maple & brown sugar instant oatmeal in the morning, the rest of the day I smell mildly of it--even after a shower. I've been told this isn't uncommon with maple syrup and products derived from it, like the natural flavoring in the oatmeal. Is this something notable/unique about the chemistry of maple syrup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.226.151 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the main aromatic compounds in maple syrup is sotolon, which passes through the body relatively unchanged. Have a look at the article on sotolon for more on this. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Extra light for pancakes?
Why does the article say this? Surely I'm not the only one who wants something like US Grade B for their pancakes and waffles? Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a lot wrong with the article. I'd take that passage out. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cooks Illustrated testing syrup Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 production
here though contradicts Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * has 2009 production numbers for Quebec, but in pounds. For the US, I'd trust the USDA numbers dating back to June above the Newsweek report from during the season.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with the 2009 data and the reference given above (it's weird being a Google Docs URL). I didn't update Quebec data because I'm unsure about the "pounds" correlation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you can report as is (109.4 million pounds). The gallon conversion, using the data from 2008 from the USDA and the numbers in pounds from last year (in the link I gave) would give the following: from USDA Quebec 2008: 5,337 (1000 gallons); from Le Bulletin des agriculteurs 2008 = 58.7 millions of pounds, thus for 2009 109.4 millions of pounds is 1.8637 times the 2008 production, which translates to 9,946.64 (1000 gallons).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Found the document in English. Numbers are still in pounds though. But some data is better than nothing. With the 2008 numbers amputated, there's nothing about the Canadian numbers at all, thus the majority of the production is missing altogether.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How many Maple trees grow per acre/ hectare?
It would be nice to know if there is any data on the Maple tree plantations in Quebec and other Maple producing regions. How many trees are planted per acre/ hectare? What is the age of the saplings? For how long does a tree viably provide Maple sap? Consider, for instance, that you are asked to submit a project report by somebody interested in setting up an agricultural venture involving a Maple tree plantation, selling the various products, including the recent developments of Maple tourism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wargamer (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to know what Persian syrup is for the mapleQazimA (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)ronge

Chemistry section
I've added a small section on the chemistry of maple syrup.Fishing Chimp (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problems
I notice this article is up for GA. Looking it over, however, I think it has POV problems. The article is regional. Maybe it's because there aren't any maple trees in other locations but the section on artificial imitations is also deficient. How does one know that the purported imitations are really imitating maple syrup when they aren't allowed to label themselves as maple syrup? How is it known that pancake syrup isn't simply trying to be exactly what it says or corn syrup? Artificial substitutes is more neutral. Simply Substitutes may be even more neutral still. It seems to be implied throughout the entire article that maple syrup is better. If so, in what objective way is it better? Lambanog (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is regional because maple syrup is produced almost exclusively in Canada and the northeastern US.
 * Some label themselves as "maple-flavoured" or include that term on their label. However, most are considered imitation maple syrup because they attempt to replicate the taste of maple. I have made edited the phrasing of this section to make it more neutral.
 * "Substitutes" is not an adequate representation of the term - "substitute" would incorporate things used other than maple syrup, whereas "imitation" includes only maple-flavoured syrups used to replace maple syrup. It's a fine distinction, but one that I feel is important.
 * I have edited the article to cut down on implications that maple syrup is "better". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it could use some more POV work, particularly in the imitation syrup section. Kevink707 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Good reference
Another editor added this reference, though it is unneeded:

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Xylem or phloem sap ?
The article plant sap says that maple syrup comes from the xylem. I am convinced it comes from the phloem, thats where sugars are transported. I think a good article about maple syrup should have this information (to be called well researched). --Ettrig (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, do you happen to have a reliable source available to source your conviction? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a quick answer, but rather a question. No, I found several good sources to the contrary. Here is one sample the expresses understanding for my misconception. --Ettrig (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that maple sap is from the xylem, that is directly from the source you provide: However, under certain circumstances, sugars do move in the xylem, as is seen in the flow of maple sap. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

sugar, red, or black maple
This isn't a big deal, but the introductory sentence is wrong in the way it shortern sugar maple and red maple, as if "maple" was a modifier rather than part of the name. The name of the species is "sugar maple," not "sugar, which is a type of maple tree."

Perhaps an equally incorrect sentence makes my point clearer: "I have poison and English ivy growing on my wall." You have poison growing on your wall???

Just as importantly, the shortened links violates a wikipedia rule that wikilinks should be transparent to the reader. A reader unfamiliar with the species names of sugar-making maple trees has no way of knowing from this sentence that red maple is a type of tree. They have to mouse over or click to find out. We shouldn't force that extra move unless it serves a purpose.

So I'd like to un-shortern the sugar maple and red maple wikilinks. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh. I changed it because it was requested by two different reviewers here, but I don't particularly care either way. Perhaps you should discuss this with them? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this isn't exactly an Earth-shaking topic, is it?
 * I only see one comment regarding this wildly important issue in that review page, and the reviewer only said he/she thought it "flowed better" with the shorter links, which is a classic "I like it for no obvious reason" argument that has no weight. Am I missing a better argument? If not, I think I'll switch them, and then pat myself on the back for improving the universe. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd use a hyphen to clarify, hence I have poison- and English ivy growing on my wall." if that is unclear, then by all means change it back and add the "maple" word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly legitimate way to handle compound modifiers, but not, I think, species names - particularly online, where browser settings can make a single hyphen hard to see. I think in this case it's better to err on the side of a little tonal repetitiveness, so to speak, than confusion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ok. I'm happy with that then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A question
This information: As the weather continues to warm, a maple tree's normal early spring biological process eventually alters the taste of the sap, making it unpalatable, perhaps due to an increase in amino acids.[11]

The reference does not discuss the taste, and I do not believe that this info is correct. Over the years I've tapped a few trees from time to time and in my experience the trees just start to dry up after a while. The article does mention an off flavor once the trees begin to bud, however that does not seem to be what this statement is speaking of. Any experts around? Gandydancer (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that the source doesn't say that? I found it right here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060629023134/http://ohioline.osu.edu/b856/b856_10.html


 * "As maples begin their growth, chemical changes occur in the sap which make it unsuitable for syrup production. .. late season sap .. produces syrup with a very disagreeable flavor and odor."


 * I also did a quick Google search of the sentence you mentioned and it showed up in all sorts of places, although I guess there is the potential that they got their info from the Wikipedia article.
 * Note also that it's reference number 12, not 11 (at least at the time of writing this).
 * Hope that helps :-) MsBatfish (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional thought: that page doesn't specifically say this might be "due to an increase in amino acids", perhaps whoever wrote that got it that bit from a different page in the source or a different source? MsBatfish (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
If I were bolder I would edit this featured article to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph: "Maple syrup and the sugar maple tree are symbols of Canada and several US states, in particular Vermont." The maple leaf is a symbol of Canada, but not maple syrup nor the sugar maple tree. The sugar maple is the state tree of four US states, including Vermont, but in most cases state trees are not symbols of their states (List of U.S. state trees). Bootboy41 (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right - go ahead! Erasing errors is very satisfying. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another choice might be to edit the sentence so it is more clear, rather than removing it altogether. As a Canadian, I feel that maple syrup and the maple tree are both strongly associated with Canada and can see why some would consider that to be a symbol. Is there another way to say that? Perhaps that it has cultural significance or something? And maybe add the part about the maple leaf being a symbol of Canada and the sugar maple tree being the state tree of 4 US states, including Vermont? MsBatfish (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Boiling temperature to concentrate the sap to syrup
The english version states 4.1°C over the water boiling temperature. The french version states 3.5°C over the water boiling temperature.

Who should we believe? Are there different practices? Should the articles show a range? ArnaudContet (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, given that that part of the French article is not sourced and this one is, I would be inclined to believe this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans
Under the heading Native Americans, someone deleted a tribe's name, and entered the word "squirrel". Can an editor figure out which tribe's name was deleted and replaced, and then restore the appropriate name? Iss246 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The names are actually not those of Native American tribes, but beings in their legends that are said to have discovered/began production of maple syrup. The squirrel, from the research that I've done, does seem to be the focal point of some Native American legends regarding the discovery of maple syrup, but since it causes confusion I think it would be good to find a (credible) source for that information. I checked the edit logs from as far back as August and that information has been there since then, so I think it's safe to assume that it's correct. Thank you for bringing this to our attention! Murmuration (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the edits I have made were reversed. The reason for the edits were: I will be re-incorporating these changes when I have a bit more time. CJLippert (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Aboriginal", though a perfectly acceptable word in Canadian English, is considered derogatory in American English. At WP:IPNA, our solution was to specifically use "Indigenous" rather than "Aboriginal", and then "First Nations" in Canada while "Native Americans" in the US.
 * 2) The word for "sugar" given is Ojibwe, not some other language. So, Fiero spelling was used. Ziinzibaakwad etymology cited is wrong, as ziinz=/ziind=/ziinji- (pv4) means "wedged, packed, molded, stuffed, crammed" and the =aakwad (vii-final) is associated with wooden objects.
 * 3) The word for "sweet water" specifically refers to the sap, not the syrup.
 * Do you have an appropriate source for point 2? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many (Alphabetically):
 * Nichols, John and Earl Nyholm (1979). Ojibwewi-ikidowinan: An Ojibwe Word Resource Book. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press. ASIN: B000GTBX06
 * Nichols, John and Earl Nyholm (1994). A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0816624283.
 * Pedcenko, Svetlana "Weshki-ayaad", Charles J. Lippert and Guy T. Gambill. Freelang Ojibwe Dictionary. http://www.freelang.net/dictionary/ojibwe.php.
 * Rhodes, Richard A. (1993). Eastern Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ottawa Dictionary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-013749-6
 * Treuer, Anton (2001). Living Our Language. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press. ISBN 0-87351-404-1
 * Valentine, J. Randolph (2001). Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-8389-7
 * They all have ziinzibaakwad, while only Valentine shows the vii-final Pedcenko, et al. shows the preverbs. CJLippert (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I've removed the term, since it refers to sugar and not syrup. The "sweet water" reference has also been removed. As to "aboriginal" vs "indigenous", IPNA is free to use whatever terms they prefer on their project pages, but we're not required to follow them, and given that this article is in Canadian English, "aboriginal" is the preferred term. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But, both syrup and granular sugar are collectively called ziinzibaakwad, though the term specifically originates from the granular form and not the syrup. The only exception would be the maple taffy as bigiiwizigan/bigiiwichigan/bigiiwizigaans/bigiiwichigaan (depending on the dialect) where the pitchy/tarry/nugatty texture is described. Many times, table sugar is described as bibine-ziinzibaakwad (lit. fine sugar) or waabishki-ziinzibaakwad (lit. white sugar), while the maple syrup and maple sugar are then distinguish from the table sugar as Anishinaabe-ziinzibaakwad (lit. Indian sugar). However, once the ganular maple sugar has been formed into cakes of sugar, the cake themselves are called ziiga'igan (lit. that which has been poured), with the mold for making the cakes being called ziiga'iganaatig. CJLippert (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also "northeastern part of North America" from an ethnlologic definition includes the Great Lakes and the Interlakes. I see that the link for that was also removed. CJLippert (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Birch syrup
What's wrong with adding Birch sap and Birch syrup as a "See also" section? Why was it undoed, and do you really think it does not belong here? Is not "see also" the way used in Wikipedia to give links to somewhat related phenomena in different cultures / species / times / areas? (I'd appreciate a response, as I really wonder if I did a mistake adding information like that to the Wikipedia) Khakhalin (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't take it out, and I think the editor that did probably should have given an explanation in the edit summary. Opening the discussion here is a good way to go. Perhaps other editors will give their opinions on whether your additions should stay in or not.   Wikipelli  Talk   18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say, perhaps the section about "imitation syrups" should be about other related products, and since it includes so much discussion about "pancake syrup" I think Birch or other syrups are just as worthy of inclusion.
 * Birch and other syrups are worthy of inclusion in their own articles, but this article is about maple syrup, and the imitation section is about syrups that imitate maple syrup, not about other syrups that exist. Furthermore, per WP:SEEALSO, "a good article [or a featured article] might not require a "See also" section at all". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree that birch syrup should not be added to the "imitation syrups" section of the article, but I see no reason why it cannot be put under "See also." Birch syrup isn't mentioned in this article at all, so having the link in the "see also" section could be useful for those who want to read more about similar syrups. Murmuration (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there is no "See also". Those who want to read more about different kinds of syrup should visit the syrup article (linked in the first sentence) and work from there, or from Category:Syrup. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up. That's why so many people stop writing to Wikipedia in a while, and that's why the site has such a turnover of editors! Birch syrup is related to maple as it is the only other syrup that is made of out sap gathered from trees in the spring in the northern hemisphere! The culture of making it is very similar, and it is certainly interesting that there's no ash syrup, pine syrup, oak syrup, but at the same time the maple syrup is not completely alone in this world - thanks to the birch syrup! Which is not also an imitation of the maple syrup by any means, at it is more expensive, more rare and harder to do than the maple one! The majority of other Wikipedia articles have a "See also" section (thank God! Not all the wikipeditors are as strict as some of you guys here), and in many cases I personally find the "See Also" items to be the most interesting part of the whole article, as they help me to learn about things I never heard of, but that are in some regards close to the things I am interested in. I constantly browse through these "See also" links, and I suspect that many people do it as well! But I just don't have enough energy to fight against these personal idiosyncrasies of local fighters for academic purity. If you think birch syrup is no closer to maple syrup than any other syrup, and it doesn't deserve to be mentioned here - OK, let it be (or rather not be). Good luck. Khakhalin (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right - I'm adding the "see also" category and birch syrup therein. But don't frazzle out; social interaction is supposed to be the fun part of wikipedia! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * David, thank you for your support, and for adding the Birch link. Your attempt did not work however, as Nikkimaria deleted the link again =) So my frazzle is not likely to disappear, and the social interaction just does not work. That's what I find fascinating about Wikipedia: all the good stuff comes from people, but all the bad stuff comes from people as well - it is a mirror of the society! The only reason it survives is because new people come, and they manage to contribute something _before_ becoming disillusioned and tired of endless revision wars. And then Wikipedia people get "concerned" about the low retention of editors. No wonder =) Khakhalin (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've returned the See Also, which belongs. I don't know enough about the terminology argument to participate. Nikkimaria, please don't remove the "birch syrup" link again; two of us agree that it belongs and while it's true that good articles don't have to have a "see also" section, they certain *can* have them, and most do. Thanks. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does not belong. As I've said, if people want to read about other syrups, that's what the link to syrup in the first line is for. This article is about maple syrup, not other syrups. Birch syrup is only related to maple syrup in that both are syrups. Please re-read WP:SEEALSO. Furthermore, OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument, nor is the rant above. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... Yes, the article is not about birch syrup, which is why it makes sense to have it in the "See Also" section. As Khakhalin explained, birch syrup and maple syrup are similar in the way they are collected, which is more relevant to maple syrup than that very general syrup category. People who wish to learn about syrups in general are free to browse the category, but those who want to learn more about syrups that are similar to maple syrup in the way they are collected will benefit from the "See Also" section. I have read WP:SEEALSO - there is nothing on that page that gives reason for birch syrup to not be present in the "See Also" section. Birch syrup isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, and is "peripherally relevant." At this point I think you're just being stubborn. As it stands, there are three people in favor of keeping the See Also section, versus your one. Please do not remove it again to prevent and edit war. Thank you. Murmuration (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. There are a number of syrups made from tree products, none of which are particularly relevant to this article. As this is a FA, relevant links are in the article text, so there is no need for a See also section. The proposed link is simply not relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not particularly relevant how? Birch syrup is collected in a similar manner to maple syrup, and is also used as a dressing. Birch syrup is not mentioned in the main article because the article is not about birch syrup, it's about maple syrup. Not being mentioned in the main article while still being relevant is cause enough to have birch syrup in the See Also section, as per WP:SEEALSO. Murmuration (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that an edit war over the inclusion of birch syrup in the "see also" section probably qualifies for WP:Lamest edit wars.--Hazel77 talk 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've been involved in MUCH lamer edit wars! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems obvious to me that birch syrup should be mentioned somewhere in the article. As murmuration says, it is collected in a similar way, and it is also used in a similar fashion. There may be others that belong also. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with adding birch syrup to the article as Nikkimaria currently has: what it seems we've all agreed on here is that birch syrup is relevant based on the similarities in the way it is collected compared to maple syrup, [i]not[/i] that it's used as dressing. Therefore, I don't think that it fits in the "Imitations and substitutions" section. Please weigh in on this, and avoid making any edits that people haven't agreed on; always keep consensus in mind! Murmuration (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "keep[ing] consensus in mind!" is exactly what I am doing; personally, I disagree with including any link to that article in this one, but as consensus seems to be against me I've added it. If it's relevant enough for a See also, it's relevant enough to be included in article text; if it's not, it isn't. Consensus here seems to be that it's relevant. Where, then, would you suggest putting it? By the way, "avoid making any edits that people haven't agreed on" isn't the way Wikipedia works, and if it were the link would never have been added in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree: consensus was to add it to the "see also" section, which was done, which you later removed in favor of your own edits. I agree that there is probably a better place in the article for it than the "see also" section, but you should have addressed this with other editors before going ahead with it. I suggest putting it in the "Production" section, as the similarities between maple and birch syrup seem to be mostly in the ways that they are produced/collected/whathaveyou. I should have been more clear: avoid making edits to content whose place in the article is currently being discussed on the talk page (as per WP:CONSENSUS). Murmuration (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Please review WP:CONSENSUS, as you seem to be misinterpreting it vis-a-vis the actions of various editors in this dispute. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call birch syrup an "alternative" but it is certainly related. It makes the most sense to put it in a "see also" section. Jonathunder (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Canada
Nowhere in the reference cited does it mention that the maple leaf on Canada flag is from sugar maple tree. I was thought as a kid that it was from a red maple tree.

The sentence on the flag of Canada should be deleted or an appropriate reference should be given for the type of maple tree on Canada flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.33.48 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anybody know enough to answer this? It's a good point, and this issue crops up on several Wikipedia pages A quick search finds several sources that say that the leaf is a sugar maple leaf, but I don't know that any of them are good enough. I'm inclined to say no. Most sources just call it a stylized maple leaf. Confusingly, it is ofen described as a "red maple leaf"... is that the leaf of a red maple, or a red coloured maple leaf?  Meters (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

'Aboriginal' vs. 'indigenous'
An editor has changed each use of "indigenous people" to "aboriginal people" in this article. I have no knowledge or preference for either terminology, but I suggest that he/she double-check what they're doing, since aboriginal people goes to a wikipedia article titled Indigenous people. Since wikipedia founds of forwarded links, the usual practice would be to revert the text to the actual title name: i.e., "indigenous".

The terminology does not seem to be settled. I've changed the link to read just "people" since it doesn't seem necessary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone (not me) has reverted you. Common practice allows for piped links for a number of reasons, one of which is WP:ENGVAR, which would apply in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see how WP:ENGVAR applies, since "indigenous" seems to be the preferred term in wikipedia article titles for American topics, notably Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands which applies to all the tribes in this article - changing it to "aboriginal" in this article seems at best unnecessary and potentially confusing. Similarly, you can find "indigenous" used in Algonquian peoples but not the term "aboriginal".
 * What's the difference between the terms, anyway? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Usage is the only difference, AFAIK. There are a number of different terms used for these peoples in both Canada and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct - . Moxy (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I did the revert. Sorry for the late explanation, but I got a work call between making the revert and explaining it. I have restored it to aboriginal. Just saying people made no sense. I think "indigenous people", "Native Americans", "aboriginal people" would all be correct here, but for this article I suspect the term most commonly used in Canada is best. The indigenous peoples of the Americas article makes it clear that the three terms are interchangeable. If you really feel that "indigenous people", or "native Americans" is a better choice I won't argue with you, but just "people" immediately begs the question which people? Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal; I have no personal preference. My only concern, and it's a minor one, is that "aboriginal" is not the term used in most (but not all, of course) relevant wikipedia articles, and so its usage here seems to stand out slightly. Also in the USA, "aboriginal" is most often used in connection with Australia and so it seems slightly awkward here, whereas "indigenous" doesn't. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Check the comment up higher, in the section "Native Americans" - it addresses the Canada vs. American terminology. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2011
"The basic ingredient in maple syrup is the sap from the xylem of maple trees. It consists primarily of sucrose and water, with small amounts of other sugars such as fructose and glucose." Sucrose is fructose and glucose. Here is wikipedia description, "Sucrose is the organic compound commonly known as table sugar and sometimes called saccharose. A white, odorless, crystalline powder with a sweet taste, it is best known for its role in human nutrition. The molecule is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose." Blsmith31 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Blsmith31 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Puffin  Let's talk! 18:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo
Hi Is this really a photo of a bottle of maple syrup? Syrup is quite thick and viscous, thus unlikely to form bubbles at the top as one can see in this photo. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, bubbles can form as the bottle is being filled or after it has been poured. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Stable version
Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus p t   c 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)