![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)#Article Feedback Tool. Maxim (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)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)
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. λόγος πράξις 05:31, 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)
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)
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)
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)
The article used to use 'flavor' but now uses 'flavour', anyone know why? Dougweller ( talk) 14:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Why do we have a food article without discussion of allergies, intolerances, and cross-reactions? Ananiujitha ( talk) 19:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ohioline.osu.edu/for-fact/0036.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If Canada produces 80%, who makes the other 20? Unbeatable101 ( talk) 16:32, 11 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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)#Article Feedback Tool. Maxim (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)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)
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. λόγος πράξις 05:31, 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)
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)
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)
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)
The article used to use 'flavor' but now uses 'flavour', anyone know why? Dougweller ( talk) 14:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Why do we have a food article without discussion of allergies, intolerances, and cross-reactions? Ananiujitha ( talk) 19:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ohioline.osu.edu/for-fact/0036.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If Canada produces 80%, who makes the other 20? Unbeatable101 ( talk) 16:32, 11 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)
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)