Talk:Maple syrup/Archive 4

Article feedback tool
Please do not blacklist articles from the article feedback tool without a valid reason. It is part of a Wikimedia Foundation initiative developed following the strategic plan. Something like Main Page is correctly blacklisted as it not an article. If you have an actual reason for blacklisting it (such as WP:OFFICE protection, or it is a non-article in the mainspace), please state it instead of reverting without justification. I see a perfectly valid article hence it should not be blacklisted. For more information on the tool, see WP:AFT.  Maxim (talk)  04:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the page, thanks. The addition of that category was an editorial decision, and I request that you stop unilaterally removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Editorial decision"? This feature has nothing to do with article content. It is put in place for the readers, and an editor's personal aesthetic preferences have no bearing on the matter. It is akin to protecting an article without a reason. The default for all articles is to have it in place, and barring technical or legal reasons, it should remain there. Also, please follow your own advice and cease reverting—a revert with reason of "please discuss before continuing to revert" makes no sense.  Maxim (talk)  04:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you're aware, the sequence of events we are directed to use to avoid edit-warring is bold, revert, discuss - you made an edit, it was reverted, you should not have remade the edit. As I said, I'm familiar with the tool, and I said nothing about its aesthetic value (which is minimal, but that's beside the point). Could you please point me to the community discussion where it was made mandatory for all articles to have this feature? WP:AFT certainly doesn't say any such thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in what you mean by "editorial decision" here—because aesthetics is the only interpretation I could make in this case. The tool is not a community decision, but a Foundation decision. It follows from the Strategic Plan, specifically to "engage readers in the assessment of article quality".  As this tool was emplaced by the Foundation, it really should stay unless there are technical or legal reasons for removal. The reason of "editorial decision" is not valid for overriding a Foundation initiative. For example, we don't override the Fundraising banners even if a lot of users find them annoying. This specific tool can overridden by personal preference in My Preferences > Appearance > Advanced Options > Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages.   Maxim (talk)  04:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I already know how to individually block the appearance of the tool on all articles, and I'm not interested in doing that, because I agree that it is helpful - in certain specific cases, and interpreted intelligently. If you read the report you link in full, you'll notice that the goal of "engag[ing] readers in the assessment of article quality" is quite rightly subordinate to a number of other considerations. You assert that editorial discretion is meaningless in the face of a one-size-fits-all Foundation initiative. I have only one response, in the spirit of Wikipedia: Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not asserting that editorial discretion is meaningless. However, I do assert that there ought to be an excellent reason to remove the widget; furthermore, I do not see such a reason for removal in this article, or for all the other articles I edited. Please give me a concrete, objective reason as to why the widget should be removed from the article; you have not yet provided valid justification. Otherwise, I will reinstate the widget, as there is no reason as to why our Readers can not participate in the assessment of this specific article (and by extension, all the others where you have reverted me).  Maxim (talk)  05:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the current edition of the tool is disruptive to readers, the feedback has been net-unhelpful, the finesse of the tool is incompatible with audited content, and if you reinstated it you would be edit-warring. On your part, you have not provided an excellent or objective reason for removing it unilaterally across multiple articles, other than your still unsupported assertions. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If this tool is disruptive and unhelpful, I would be very interested in seeing commentary and discussions on the matter. Could you please link them to me? As it stands right now, you are one of the very few editors (I think there are two or three others) who are keeping some of their articles blacklisted from this widget. If it was truly so disruptive, more editors would have caught on by now. For example, if this tool was problematic with audited content, someone would have stuck in the code in Featured article to disable the widget for all FAs. I'm not here to edit war, and I understand that you have put a lot of time and effort into these articles so your opinion matters very much to me; however, your approach seems to be very inconsistent with how the widget is treated across nearly all other articles, and your reasons for blacklisting seem to be very general in nature, in the sense the same could be said for any article. I've asked Philippe from the WMF to comment on the matter; perhaps the WMF sees this widget differently than I think they do. The thread where I asked for input is User talk:Philippe (WMF).  Maxim (talk)  15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A sampling of complaints: Nabla, many here, here, etc. See also example of problematic application here - one of many. It's not a matter of "my" articles: I've written/edited many articles to which I have not applied this category, including an FA and several GAs. My concern is whether the tool is beneficial or simply a timesink on certain specific articles, and I see no reason why I or any other editor be restricted from making that determination. The WMF has traditionally respected the wishes of the community on similar matters. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedian - September 7, 2011 at 1:18 pm -"These ratings have a long way to go before they should be considered a barometer of anything."Moxy (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just chipping in; can somebody please explain what active harm the current AFT is doing to the article? I get that it doesn't produce anything that's actually useful for editors; that's why we're replacing it with WP:AFT5. But....what, precisely, is the harm? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (disclaimer: I'm the WMFer handling community relations for version 5, so this is sort of my baby. Except the bad bits, those are somebody else's fault ;p) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This new tool looks much more engaging - this is good. I was the one that added the "blacklist article cat " to many of the articles in question here about Canada. I did so because I have been working alot on 5 of them (those I added)... this was done because more then 30 edits were happening in a day making the feed back useless. I was planing to remove them when done - however I noticed that the main Canada article was black listed all the time so I simply left all those in the series listed. I don't care if they are black listed or not. I personally dont like the feedback but thats not why I added them as stated above. NOTE this was not the case for the article Canadians were It was added because of some odd error that is on that page.If the community thinks they are good so be it.Moxy (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it today and it was immediately replaced. I don't see a consensus for it being in the article and I don't think it should be in the article myself, so I removed it. Did I miss something and there is a consensus that it should be added? Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no consensus for removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be no consensus either way, and the default is to have the feedback box there, can I suggest not edit-warring and instead talking it out? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The default, per WP:BRD, is to have the category there, as that was the status quo prior to the unilateral removal that started this whole discussion. I'd be happy to continue to discuss in an effort to gain consensus, but so far the rationales for removing the category have been rather unconvincing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm. The category was not there at the start of this process; by default, articles have the article feedback tool. You would say that removing the article feedback tool was not a bold action? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To Nikkimaria: What do you mean by 'gain consensus'? Who agrees it should be in the article besides you? And Okeyes is correct, see WP:BRD. You added it, that was bold. It was reverted, then the discussion is meant to take place to gain consensus to add it. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The category was added months ago and was not reverted, meaning that it became part of the established stable version of this article. Thus, according to the BRD cycle, the unilateral removal by Maxim was the bold action. As to "gain consensus", I was hoping that someone would provide an argument for the application of the tool here other than "because the WMF said so". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see I was wrong. In any case, you are the only person disagreeing. There seems to be consensus that the article should not be blacklisted so I am going to remove the category. I hope that you will not replace it on the grounds that you don't like other people's reasons. I am happy for you to start an RfC to replace it if you still insist. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any reasons for me to dislike. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I only wish I could rate the above discussion:
 * * Trustworthy? Not applicable
 * * Objective? Removing Rating=No. Utterly subjective, "I can, so I did."
 * * Complete? Reason for removing rating=None.
 * * Well written? Eh.
 * The article, however, is much better. Now, in keeping with my attempt to never critize without offering a solution:  This article does not even mention the delight of running a slice of crisp bacon through the Maple Syrup which remains on the plate after finishing one's pancakes.  While technically accurate, the article has, therefore, completely missed the true spiritual essence of Maple Syrup.
 * Oh, and I think the other editors deserve to see how their work stacks up by user ratings. The onus would be on anyone to explain why the other editors should be denied that.
 * Now, everyone go fry some bacon...
 * -- cregil  (talk)  04:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. An RFC? Just stick the widget back in and lets do something more useful. Meters (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi cregil, thanks for the bacon! I realize the discussion is getting a bit long, but if you read through it you'll find that there have been reasons presented for adding the category beyond "because I can". The current version of the tool is rather useless in terms of providing feedback, as your example demonstrates quite nicely - had you provided only numerical ratings for those qualities, no one would know what you actually thought about the debate! Hopefully the next version of the tool will resolve that issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More feedback is better than not enough, and not enough is better than no feedback at all. -- cregil  (talk)  14:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear feedback is better than ambiguous feedback, and ambiguous is often worse than none at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And a reasonable person can tell the difference-- but only when given the data to analyze. -- cregil  (talk)  15:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Only when given reasonable data. If, for example, in your rating above you had said "Objectivity=0" (as the current version of AFT doesn't allow for nuance or explanation), no reasonable observer could have concluded without more information which "side" you were referring to, on what basis you made that determination, and what could be done about it. Similarly, if you rate the article as "Trustworthiness=0", we don't know whether that's because there's actually something wrong with it, because the article doesn't mention that syrup gives people superpowers and you think it should, because you think Wikipedia in general is untrustworthy, or because you just felt like messing with the ratings. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment I don't recall anyone consulting the editors on Wikipedia about this tool. Further, the questions seem a tad simplistic. Especially the "Trustworthy" question is over the top imo. We are not running a Savings and Loans Credit Union enterprise here. Who came up with this questionnaire and why weren't regular editors consulted about it? I also think this discussion should move to the Village Pump. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was repeatedly discussed in the Signpost, announcements were left on the village pump, the administrators' noticeboard and several other venues, a dedicated workgroup consisting of editors was formed...and this is the fourth iteration of the software since the announcements began. You may not recall any consultation, but it did happen :). Now, that being said, for WP:AFT5 we left a load of messages, have so far held ten office hours sessions, and left individualised notes for everyone who had ever expressed an opinion about the tool. We have had over eighty editors contributing to the discussion. If you've missed version 5 as well, I'm not sure precisely what more you think we can do to let people know. Now, if you're interested in discussing it, the village pump is an unnecessary venue - we're switching this version off in a month at most, anyway. Why not go to WP:AFT5, give it a read, and drop any ideas for improvement on the talkpage? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I guess I wasn't watching the VP closely enough. After your suggestion, I had a look at AFT5 and seeing that they dropped the "Trustworthy" part I can conclude that version 5 can only be an imrovement. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Trustworthy? Try looking at an article on, say, Melatonin.  I was appalled to find vendors of OTC drugs had taken over the article, hinting that it might cure cancer, increase your annual salary, help win the lottery, and allow one to leap tall buildings in a single bound (if taken while wearing a cape).  When Wikipedia articles are obviously intended as marketing tools, or agenda-driven revisionism, for examples, trustworthiness becomes useful not only to serious editors, but to readers.  If Maple Syrup was not so universally accepted as the elixer of life itself, we might worry about the trustworthiness of this article if and when it claims to provide consumers with superpowers.-- cregil   (talk)  14:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Trustworthy" is a simplistic metric which is asked without providing the proper context. For example in this day and age who trusts whom? Do you trust the reliable sources? What are reliable sources for the average reader? Does a reader from Pakistan trust the "Times of India" as a reliable source? And so on. Forget about medical advice. Anyone who trusts medical advice provided by Wikipedia needs to have their attitude reexamined and adjusted. Therefore asking readers to provide feedback on an ill-defined concept is misguided at best and insulting to the intelligent readers, not to mention the article editors. Wikipedia is not a confidence game as the "Trustworthy" metric implies. When I write something in an article I don't expect readers to "trust" me. I am not a guru. I expect the reader to check my sources and if they think that the sources are reliable (or not) to form their opinion accordingly. In an age of freely available and verifiable information, "Trust" should not even come into play and in an article context may have seedy connotations. Except if we want to patronise our readers and suggest that they have to be stupid enough to trust us without doing their own homework and without even providing to them a reliable definition of this "trust" idea. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the above reads like a rebuttal, we are saying the same thing. Medical advise on Wikipedia is NOT trustworthy, but an article on Napoleon probably is (I haven't looked).  The tool will likely indicate this if sufficiently used-- and thus the potential value of it both to editors and to the readers.
 * Realistically, most readers won't bother to rate an article UNLESS they find a glaring issue. On the other hand, most editors will tend to shepherd only their own articles, and I assume that few will be be willing to rate their own work-- knowing their bias.  If I did not know that the tool was being revamped (again), I would be rating articles that struck me as deserving such a rating-- either extremely well done or extremely poorly done.  The vast majority of articles are neither.  Rarely do I find the prose so breathtaking as to be something nearing poetic expression of deep human meaning; but then, who expects that in an encyclopedia?  But if you find it, don't you want to say so?  I do.
 * At a deeper level, the current method fails in that the use of the statistics are unknown to most of us. Is a recently re-written and excellent article inidcated as mediocre, because the old ratings have effect, or do they reflect a rolling average? And that check box about being highly knowledgeable-- If I was, I would be editing and contributing-- not rating it; if I am not, then my opinion is not sufficeint to be valuable.  We shot ourselves in the foot with that.
 * But back to the point. What happened, unilaterally, on this article is the issue, not the subjective (or even objective) value or lack thereof, of the tool.-- cregil   (talk)  17:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my reply sounded like a rebuttal, but this "trust" metric really bugs me. It had nothing to do with your points. I disagree that the readers rate only articles with glaring issues. I had articles I created like Timex Datalink rated quite well and even, you guessed it, rated as "trustworthy". But that's not the issue. I would not "trust" anything I read. I would verify, yes, accept a fact, yes,  but "trust", no. I also find the "trustworthy" metric coercive. If the article has high "trustworthy" stats it coerces the reader to "trust" it. Nevermind  that in the open-editing environment of Wikipedia the version they may be reading could have been vandalised. But I do agree with your last point that we have to move on from this topic. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is where sources come in. It is easy to write, but providing references to sources which have their own trustworthiness is something I would think critical thinkers (you, know, the kind that bother to look up something in an online encyclopedia) would be expected to verify for themselves.  On melatonin (the example I used earlier), the difference between citing a sales brochure from a health food store and citing the Mayo Clinic which sources its own summary with formal studies... is rather a matter of common sense.  "Trustworthy?" might be expected to reflect such an evaluation.  My low evaluation, for example, may be useful to a casual reader who might not have ever heard of the Mayo Clinic, causing him or her to wonder, "Hmmm, maybe I should stop expecting this cheap drug to give me the power of x-ray vision no how much I take of it."-- cregil   (talk)  17:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They told you, "Don't eat the brown acid". LeadSongDog come howl!  19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This article has appeared on the dispute resolution notice board, and as a DRNV I am here to try and assist you all with moving forwards through this matter. From a neutral uninvolved point of view I can honestly say there is no valid reason for removal of an essential appraisal tool from this article, and it appears that the editors are at a consensus that this tool--whilst not specifically tailor made for Maple syrup--is still a tool that can still be used for overall assessment and feedback from our readers.

Unless a valid reason as to why this tool will harm the article, beyond annoying one or two editors who seem to hold very strong views on this tool, I will reinstate it in 24 hours from my signature time stamp. Please note I will not enter into multi-page discussions on this matter, also for future reference, before calling for dispute resolution requesting a third opinion may have been a better route to take. ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at the noticeboard. In addition to several factual inaccuracies in your statement, you should also be aware that consensus is based on arguments not votes, and that your personal belief that AFT is "an essential appraisal tool" (it isn't) is not a valid reason to restore it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

12 hour check up on this dispute. I have noted no rational argument for retention. Nikkimaria, I have read the notes at the DRN thoroughly and the administrators and organisers have elected to stand behind me in resolving this matter efficiently and effectively. Please note I do not need a valid reason to restore anything to it's natural state, there needs to be a valid consensus to remove and retain things from their natural state. I will return in 12 hours to allow any other parties to make their arguments against resolution. ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As much as I appreciate the decision itself, to quote "Being a volunteer on [DRN] is not formal in any respect". The wording of your comments suggests you think it is. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the mediator is projecting an air of authority which is often a good thing in dispute resolution. The only problem is if the air of authority becomes hotter than necessary. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "natural state" for a Wikipedia article; Wikipedia by its very nature is dynamic, and the state of an article can change daily if not more rapidly. There is such a thing as a stable state, which in this case includes the category, as it was added months ago and went unchallenged until very recently. You claim to have noted no "rational" argument; could you kindly explain why you feel the many reasons given are irrational? Could you please also withdraw your claim to being "apathetic", as your initial statement here makes it clear that you are not? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misconstrue being uninvolved and unwilling to enter into emotive or anything but effective communication as an air of authority. I am a user, nothing more, who is seeking to resolve an issue in the most expedient method possible. As outlined in the resolution closure note at the DRN:

Closing notes: A determination has now been made by uninvolved editor in good standing ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq that there is consensus for the position that the Article Feedback Tool blacklist category tag should not be on this article. Pursuant to the "Determining consensus" section of the consensus policy that determination is now binding on all parties to the discussion and the tag may be removed by any editor. Replacing it could be considered to be disruptive editing or evidence of improper ownership. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if I have come off in any other way, but I do suggest that assumption of good faith may appear to have been waived in the two above comments due to involvement on this issue on your behalf; which is one of the integral reasons having a third party who is apathetic to the cause for or against but only focused on the productiveness element and moving the article forwards is essential. ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment: but I do suggest that assumption of good faith may appear to have been waived in the two above comments due to involvement on this issue on your behalf; fails WP:AAGF. Please do not try to ascribe motives to my comments. They were just a humorous reply to another editor's remarks. And a piece of advice: A good mediator never insults any of the parties in the mediation. Not that I consider myself more than tangentially involved in this. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Whilst TransporterMan states that the tag may be removed, please hold out until the 24 hours have elapsed to allow a fair go for any respondent, on the freak chance that a late coming argument or rationale may emerge. In situations like this spending 24 hours but saving weeks of edit wars or debate are often the best means. ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * DRN case reopened: I have reopened the dispute resolution case at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard because User ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq was under an indefinite block under a different account (and has subsequently been indefinitely blocked under the new account) and his consensus determination was not effective, since under the consensus policy such determinations can only be made by an editor in good standing. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Too bad. We may have disagreed but the guy sure had the flair of a good mediator. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that although Nikkimaria removed the blacklist cat, she replaced it, along with other changes, with an edit summary saying "cleanup, remove ambiguity." That's a bit disappointing, especially as when she removed it her edit summary statted she removed it. I also believe that Cregil was an independent editor and simply because he posted here first his post to DRN was called 'involved', although if I've read the times write the banned editor did the same. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My removal used HotCat, which resulted in a default edit summary; my replacement included other edits and warranted an explanation. I removed the category for 24 hours to re-evaluate its merit. During that time, the ratings remained ambiguous, no improvements were made to the article (other than those made by me), no one who rated the article chose to either edit it directly or provide an explanation/suggestion/complaint on talk, and my conclusion that the current iteration of the tool is unnecessary and unhelpful was confirmed. I will be happy to re-remove the category once AFTv5 is rolled out, as hopefully that version will address the issues with this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You thought 24 hours was enough? And although you claim that you think it is inappropriate for this particular article, it's clear from what you have just said that this is a general objection which for some reason you are implementing only on a handful of articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clear from what I just said? I just said that my evaluation was based on what happened with this specific article; I have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct a similar evaluation on a large scale. And yes, the 24 hours confirmed previous observations. Since you seemed to be in such a rush to get the tool re-inserted, despite my stated intention to restore it in a few days' time, I thought you might appreciate a rapid re-evaluation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why did this article change from American English to British English?
The article used to use 'flavor' but now uses 'flavour', anyone know why? Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The oldest version of the article that I can find that demonstrates which dialect of English it was using was this, using the British or Canadian spelling of "litre", as opposed to the US spelling "liter". The next major edit, by User:Montrealais further indicates that this is most likely Canadian English, as he retains the spelling "litre" and states on his user page that he is Canadian. Per the style guide, I believe that the article should therefore use Canadian English until such a time as consensus determines that a different dialect would be more appropriate, or until somebody finds that the article was in fact not originally written in Canadian English. Falconus p  t   c 15:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject itself is in any case strongly associated with Canada. Roger (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I know about the Canadian relationship, of course. But I'd been looking at 'flavor', which was the original spelling of the word, and hadn't though of litre. Thanks for digging this out. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When the article was raised to GA status, it was in Canadian English with the American section using American numeration but with the Canadian Spelling. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with either, just wondered what had happened. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so you know - MOS:RETAIN has removed the part about original text. We no longer care what was first - consistent usage is what is important now after stubsMoxy (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, well I am adding the Canadian English template here, as it seems like people agree that it's using Canadian English. If you disagree, feel free to revert and comment here why. Falconus p  t   c 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Maple Syrup
Hi every 1 i wanna know where i could buy Maple Syrup in Dubai UAE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.57.199 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we can't help you - try a local search, or ask around. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sucrose/Fructose
This statement is misleading, I think: "It [maple syrup] consists primarily of sucrose and water, with small amounts of other sugars such as fructose and glucose." To the reader who doesn't know that sucrose is half fructose, it will certainly give the wrong impression. Nicmart (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Surviving Native American Ag Practices
"Production of maple syrup is one of only a few agricultural processes in North America that is not a European colonial import."

This sentence is not true at all. There are a lot of agricultural processes still being used that are native. Beans, squash, pumpkins, corn, tomatoes, etc. are all native American foods, and a lot of the processes used to grow them or prepare them were developped by the original Americans. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Prepare them, certainly, but grow them? I'm not sure what process of growing these foods persists, certainly not beyond private gardens. Could you provide a reference or two? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

effect of tapping on the trees?
if the trees use this liquid to grow, what happens to the trees when the liquid is tapped out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.252.247 (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Direction of sap flow
Sap flows down from the branches as the tree thaws, not up from the roots.

see http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmaple/maplesapexudation.pdf, cited on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acer_saccharum

72.33.188.90 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sap doesn't magically appear in the branches. It's drawn there by capillary action up from the roots.  In fact, there is research the PMRC that you cite into collecting sap from saplings by cutting the top part of the sapling off and using vacuum to draw sap up from the roots.  The sapling has a full recovery over he summer but this has been repeated over multiple seasons.  There's some discussion about that here.  Dbroer (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Allergies and other bad reactions?
Why do we have a food article without discussion of allergies, intolerances, and cross-reactions? Ananiujitha (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Hamilton and Gannes, here, http://www.skintherapyletter.com/download/stl_16_4.pdf there is cross-reactivity with formaldahyde allergies. Ananiujitha (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Grades
This is the caption for the image under the section "Grades":

"Grade A Light Amber ("Fancy"), Grade A Medium Amber, Grade A Dark Amber, Grade B"

Why does it say "Fancy"? Is that supposed to be there? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the article mentions, that grade is sometimes referred to as "Fancy". Nikkimaria (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it. Thanks for replying! Bananasoldier (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The 'new' grading system is described as if it was industry wide and generally accepted, and then - almost in passing - it is mentioned that Quebec, maker of 75% of the World's supply, has not adopted it. So the 'new' system represents lass than 25% of the supply. The 'new' system appears to have no interest in purity - it appears unconcerned if the syrup is 100% maple or 47%. Is that correct?
 * The claim that Quebec hasn't adopted the new standard is preposterous. It was adopted on a national level in 2014:


 * http://www.internationalmaplesyrupinstitute.com/uploads/7/0/9/2/7092109/nr_-_maple_regs_cgii_mino_approved_final_en_1_4.pdf


 * Further, it defines what pure maple syrup is:


 * http://www.internationalmaplesyrupinstitute.com/uploads/7/0/9/2/7092109/maple_classes_pst_e_24x36_prsrdy.pdf


 * Since maple syrup is only produced in the United States and Canada and both countries have adopted the standard, I think that represents 100% of the supply.

Origin
I've noticed that the origin of maple syrup has been edited several times and the latest time the user stated "Maple syrup was discovered by Canadian Algonquin aboriginals in Canada hundreds of years ago, also seeing as Canada produces the majority of the worlds supply, it doesn't seem like rational thinking to say that it originated from the united States" and they used that as a reason why the United States should also not be listed as a source of maple syrup. I think this needs to be settled to prevent future edits.

There are several sources that mention many different "origins" of how maple syrup was discovered including ones from the United States and Canada. They all mention native peoples and that the true origin is really unknown. It's safe to say that since the maple tree exists on both sides of the border and that tribes did not exist in a vacuum and traded regularly with each other that the knowledge of it was known on both sides of what is known today as the United States and Canada. Therefore, since it is not known where the person was when they discovered that you could produce maple syrup from a maple tree that it could have been either country.

We also know that it is produced on both sides of the border and that globally it can only be sourced from those two countries. It should be immaterial which country produces more.

Based on this, my vote would be that it should list both the United States and Canada as an origin source for maple syrup. Dbroer (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur - Unless some scientific proof can be established both should be listed.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  00:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Plea to remove false information on the basis that it is likely bogus marketing, or at least unreliable, unverifiable, and self published.
THIS, "Scientists have found that maple syrup's natural phenols – potentially beneficial antioxidant compounds – inhibit two carbohydrate-hydrolyzing enzymes that are relevant to type 2 diabetes. In the study, 34 new compounds were discovered in pure maple syrup, five of which have never before been seen in nature. Among the five new compounds is quebecol, a phenolic compound created when the maple sap is boiled to create syrup."

-when i looked one of the links it only goes to an article published by some "university", about a "study" done by a "scientist" who works there. this is a nono.

the other links are to editorials, pertaining to that article.

lastly, i have found a link to the actual study, but it is not peer review or published in a reputable journal.

IN summary; the claims made in this paragraph are preposterous, indicating many things never mentioned in the links and boarder on medicinal recommendations which is dangerous, particularly the benefits for diabetics. I have found NO proof any portion of the paragraph is true. 216.152.188.88 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello IP. agrees that "maple syrup extracts may have potential for phenolic-mediated type 2 diabetes management".  also supports beneficial effects of maple syrup. I'm still trying to track down more information on the research being discussed in the Classical source.
 * I don't think we have enough evidence to say unambiguously that maple syrup is good for diabetics, but I also don't think the current text goes that far. You are correct that sources seem to disagree about how many compounds are involved - I've taken that number out. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's also been some discussion of anti-cancer potential . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As a molecular biologist (and fervid amateur botanist) I feel I should weigh in on the journal links quoted above. The abstracts largely boil down (sorry!) to "We made an extract from this plant material, and it has biological activity against certain cells and/or enzymes in vitro." This is true as far as it goes. Unfortunately, that's true of pretty much any plant; plants are chock full of secondary metabolites, and just about any traditional food or herb plant can yield an extract that has biological activity against something. A tremendous amount of this sort of literature gets published every year, typically with a ritual genuflection toward the possibility that the extract will have some sort of therapeutic value. This is almost never the case. Even if the connection is implicit rather than explicit, this material invites the naive reader to conclude that the beneficial in vitro activity of a certain plant extract or phytochemical predicts in vivo medicinal value for consuming the material, something that's very rarely demonstrated. Obviously, there are exceptions, e.g., plants or extracts that have actually undergone clinical trials. But in general, I feel that it's in the spirit of our policies on undue weight and indiscriminate collection of information to exclude this sort of material; just as we don't feel compelled to list, for a given chemical, every published reaction in which the chemical has been used, we needn't feel compelled to report on every in vitro effect of a given substance, only those that are effective in vivo or are otherwise of note. Choess (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've removed the sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Xylem sap or phloem sap?
This article says, in its first sentence, that maple syrup is made from xylem sap, while the much more general article on Plant sap says that phloem sap is the type that transports sugar through the plant. The plant sap article later mentions maple syrup, but at that point has forgotten about two types of sap. Now, I don't know the subject at all, but it looks to me like one article or the other is likely in error. Or are maple trees peculiar in having sugar in their xylem sap? Wildbirdz (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Wildbirdz, both articles are actually correct: plant sugar is typically transported in the phloem, but maple syrup is made from xylem. See for example this source: "Since grade school we've learned that the xylem transports water from the roots to the aerial parts of the plant while the phloem transports sugars and other organic materials. Though true, this has lead to the erroneous idea that sucrose-rich maple sap is being removed from the phloem - which is wrong. Maple sap that drips out of a spile in the tree comes from the xylem. In fact, this is the only time during the year when the fluid in the xylem is rich in sucrose and is an exception to the wisdom we garnered in grade school." Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

When?
Maybe I missed it, but what time of the year is the sap collected? Could someone please add that to the article? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Late winter early spring - it's in the opening paragraph (I just made it a little more obvious). The exact dates depend on latitude and weather. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Frog Run
I propose the merging of Frog Run (maple syrup) into this article, particularly into the "Production" section. There's not much to merge, and it should require a ref or two. When complete, the hat note at Frogrun! should be updated. Mind matrix  18:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would also add that as a multi generational maple syrup producer in southern New England that I have never heard another producer use this term and I deal with producers throughout the region.  I also did a search on a maple producers forum with tens of thousands of posts and only a handful mention this term.  I believe that this may be an archaic expression that was used in certain regions and the text should reflect that.  --Dbroer (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear you say that; I'd never heard it either and I've dealt with plenty of maple syrup producers in New Hampshire and Vermont over the years. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I passed through this page while doing some research on maples and agree that the proposed merger seems eminently sensible. Suggest that the discussion be closed out and the merge finalized. Hard to imagine where any serious opposition would come from. Alafarge (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Maple syrup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://ohioline.osu.edu/for-fact/0036.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230224634/https://www.umext.maine.edu:80/onlinepubs/PDFpubs/7038.pdf to http://www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/PDFpubs/7038.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed in article. --Zefr (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

40 gallons
I have re-added the fact that on average, it takes 40 gallons of sap to make a gallon of syrup - a basic piece of information in the entire process - with two references, including Cornell University. Please don't remove it again without explaining here what the problem is. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A discussion of sap to syrup yield is included and sourced in the Processing section. The Cornell source doesn't support the "40 gallons" claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am mystified by the objection to this basic fact of syrup making ... If you read the Cornell guide you'll find it gives calculations that produce 43 gallons of syrup per gallon of sap at an assumed 2 percent sugar level - hence my use of the terms "about" and "depending". Here are three more sources: "Keep in mind that it takes approximately 40 gallons of sap to produce just one delicious gallon of fresh maple syrup!" - from New York State maple weekend site (first reference that I gave) - " It takes 40 gallons of sap to make each gallon of maple syrup which has a sugar content of 66.9%. " (http://vermontmaple.org/how-we-make-it/) = "Each tap yields an average of 10 gallons of sap per season: that yields about one quart of syrup." http://cedarvalemaple.com/faq/ -
 * I believe this number should be included in the introduction is that I know from experience that it is a surprise to people. There is a general assumption (I've done lots of stories about sugar maple days in which tourists visit our local sugar shacks, and have encountered this repeatedly) that sap turns almost immediately into syrup.
 * The introduction currently has a weasel phrase "... the exuded sap, which is processed by heating to evaporate much of the water, leaving the concentrated syrup" - which leaves the reader guessing what "much" means. There's no reason to make it vague when we have a specific figure.
 * Can anybody explain why we shouldn't put it into the introduction, and thus give useful information to casual readers - which is kind of the point of the introduction to an encyclopedia article? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it. I'm also a maple syrup producer and this is a common fact based on the average sugar content of the sap.  The other section goes into more detail and the introduction needs to reflect basic facts about syrup.  Namely, giving the reader an idea of about how "much" water needs to be evaporated to produce syrup. Dbroer (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not everything that is (potentially) surprising needs to be included in the lead, and in this case it's more important to explain the issue in detail where there is room for this - in the article text. "much of the water" is broad, but there is no specific figure, as you yourself note: there's significant variation across different producers (which is why a commercial site is not a particularly good source). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said I'm baffled why vagueness is preferable to exactitude, but years on wikipedia have taught me not to beat my head against WP:IDL - I'll come back in six months and try again. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maple syrup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201232833/http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch13e.shtml to http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch13e.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525093903/http://www.mi-maplesyrup.com/about/history.htm to http://www.mi-maplesyrup.com/about/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708084621/http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/warren/maple%20flavor%20and%20syrup%20grading%20article%20part%202.doc to http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/warren/maple%20flavor%20and%20syrup%20grading%20article%20part%202.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906233915/http://www.ontariomaple.com/fact-finding/pure-maple-syrup.html to http://www.ontariomaple.com/fact-finding/pure-maple-syrup.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cooksillustrated.com/tastetests/results.asp?docid=18253

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Archived urls work but need replacement or removal. Will work on article. --Zefr (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun
Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maple syrup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705044222/http://cdi.uvm.edu/collections/getCollection.xql?pid=maple&title=Maple%20Research%20Collection to http://cdi.uvm.edu/collections/getCollection.xql?pid=maple&title=Maple%20Research%20Collection

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Xylem or phloem
Xylem carries water and minerals. Phloem carries sugars. I suspect that when taps are inserted, both xylem and phloem are collected. Shouldn't this article list both the xylem and phloem as sources of sap? Only xylem is listed in the article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5b0:43c5:1388:b5c2:19e3:93a1:a0af (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect that when the sap is collected in early spring there is no phloem flow since there are no leaves to photosynthesise.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Then where does the sugar come from? Does the maple store sugar in its xylum all winter? Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently so. from Phloem:

During the plant's growth period, usually during the spring, storage organs such as the roots are sugar sources, and the plant's many growing areas are sugar sinks. The movement in phloem is multidirectional, whereas, in xylem cells, it is unidirectional (upward).[citation needed]

Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Xylem, phloem? For the lead, I think sap from maple trees is sufficient. If it is necessary to add one or the other, I think it belongs in the body of the article, clearly explained, with references to reliable published sources. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can of Quebec Maple Syrup.JPG

How much production?
I would like to see a table of production figures (by country).

That text is difficult.

Quebec is 73 kt.

Quebec is 90.83% of Canada (production).

Means Canada is 80.37 kt.

Canada is >80% of world.

Means world is <100.46 Mt.

Means Quebec is >72.67% of world.

Bit of a discrepancy with the other citation of; Quebec is 70% of world.

MBG02 (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The article says "about 70 percent" which seems fine. We don't need to chase significant digits; this isn't an industry analysis. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

HSCI evaluate wikipedia
Some reasons that the content gap might arise are to make that what you are writing is actually reliable and valid and until then there is not really anything you can put out. It can also help your content be useful and do better overall. Some remedies for content gaps could be to know what you want with it and really understand everything you have. You could also look at different ways to fix it and see what would be the best. I believe that it does matter who writes Wikipedia. Someone who has a lot of knowledge writing something would be more reliable than someone who is only writing after learning about it recently. You would want to read something that you can say is for sure accurate.Fsidd98 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What about the rest of the maple syrup?
If Canada produces 80%, who makes the other 20? Unbeatable101 (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Mostly the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence in the intro saying virtually all of it is made in Canada and the US, a statement that should have been in there already. Thanks! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

According to United Nations - Comtrade (https://comtrade.un.org/data) Germany, Myanmar and Denmark exported (not re-exported, exported) 12 million USD$ each of maple syrup and/or maple sugar in 2021. There are about 800000 maple trees in Germany so there must be some small local production and Myanmar has Nepal Maple Trees(Acer laevigatum) as well. I wish someone could find a source to clarify how much of this is production and whether it's linked to bioscience like the specie made in Vermont in 2009 so it could grow and produce sap in other climates or if it's just other countries reselling canadian/american maple syrup (ie: a "Switzerland" sitation as switzerland is the largest exporter of gold but they don't produce any at all they just resell it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.199.146 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There's something very wrong about that data because many of the countries on that report don't have a climate the supports the process of producing maple sap. I suspect that it's re-exports because of the size of some of the exports.  Myanmar, for example, while exporting 4x that of the U.S. doesn't seem to have any of its "maple" syrup for sale in any market.  The only information I could find was trade information, nothing about maple syrup.  This, despite the fact that climate wouldn't be conducive to the production of sap which requires freezing temperatures, something that Myanmar lacks.  Dbroer (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Defoamers, allergies & special diets
Maple syrup is processed using defoamers which can be problematic for people who do have allergies and special diets. Common defoamers are synthetic oils, butters, lards, and vegetable oils. This is relevant to the processing section of this article and should be included here. I've added this information with a citation to the processing section but it's been removed by the same editor. BrikDuk (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is a citation about defoamers - https://www.pressherald.com/2021/03/21/wait-what-maple-syrup-isnt-naturally-vegan/ BrikDuk (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The level of detail added was excessive for this article - this is meant to be a summary, not a detailed discussion of the minutiae of the manufacturing process. Additionally the claims made appear incorrect, as vegetable oil is not the only vegan option available. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A brief mention of defoamers seems perfectly reasonable. The article already goes into minutiae such as adjusting the goal temperature as a function of air pressure, using one large or several small batches, etc. It also incorrectly states that it is boiled "without chemical agents or preservatives".
 * That said, the Press Herald article seems like a low-quality source and not very NPOV. What about an article by researchers working for a maple research center?: Abby K. van den Berg, Timothy D. Perkins, "Identifying an Effective Defoamer for Certified Organic Maple Production", Maple Syrup Digest, February 2020, p. 8. That supports a statement like
 * Open pan evaporation methods have been streamlined since colonial days, but remain basically unchanged. Sap must first be collected and boiled down to obtain pure syrup, usually with the addition of small quantities (~50ppm) of defoaming agents.
 * 50ppm comes from 9 grams divided by 200 gallons at 11 pounds per gallon, as explained on p. 10 of the article.
 * How does that sound? --Macrakis (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've made an addition along these lines. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The information about processing agents to make maple syrup is still not included in this article that has very much technical detail about processing of maple syrup but does fail to state that processing agents are used. I will add this information again. BrikDuk (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It doesn't fail to state that - as per the discussion above, a mention of defoamers was added. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The mention of defoamers has been included in this article but not a definition of said defoamers or description of the defoamers. I have placed this information in the article multiple times with citation: "Defoamers added may include synthetic oil, vegetable oil, butter and lard." BrikDuk (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A brief mention is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The current wording does not include relevant information to the processing. I do not understand the opposition to including this factual, accurate and cited information. Do some maple syrup producers and those involved in the industry not want the information to be known outside the industry? This may be a trade secret for the maple syrup industry however people using Wikipedia who do have allergies or special diets would to think this is relevant information. BrikDuk (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * People should not be using Wikipedia to decide whether foods are compliant with allergic or other dietary restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)