User talk:Reing
Edit: Fatty acid ratio in food
[edit]Hello. On my talk page, you said: Nearly all yellow varieties have modified ALA/LA content. In Canada there is mandated that modified varieties have to be yellow. (edit: Sorry, this is not actual). My contribution was not good faith, rather actual knowledge. Unfortunately for you supported mostly by Czech scholar resources, for example: Srovnání obsahu oleje u odrůd olejného lnu, které jsou zapsány ve Společném katalogu EU (Comparison of oil content of flax varieties recorded in Common catalogue of EU) https://docplayer.cz/62489162-Srovnani-obsahu-oleje-u-odrud-olejneho-lnu-ktere-jsou-zapsany-ve-spolecnem-katalogu-eu.html Such varieties were nearly not known worldwide in 2000 and rarely grown in 2010, that is why the database dated 2012 you rely on is outdated and the article I cited is still actual, despite it is dated 2006. For example in the Czech republic waste majority of produced flax in recent years is that of modified FA content, and some of the varieties are marked as for food production (for cooking oil or for bakeries). (edit: more recent source: https://flaxcouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FlxPrmr_4ed_Chpt1.pdf pages 13 and 14) (another: https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/crops-and-horticulture/grains-pulses-and-cereals/growing-grains-pulses-and-cereals/growing-linseed-and-linola-in-victoria) Please reverse your editation. Reing (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- There were problems with your edit. First, calling the existing source for seed information as "natural varieties" appears to be your original research, WP:OR, because the source - the USDA - does not refer to the nutrition data presented as from a "natural variety". Second, your source for the change doesn't clearly present the 20:1 ration you stated. As editors, we have to make this easy to understand for non-experts reading the article for simple, clear information. Under WP:BURDEN, it is your responsibility to make it clear and supported by an easy-to-understand reference. Third, the sentence you added was unclear and unsourced for importance, and used incorrect grammar (a plural subject with a singular verb). Again, if English is not your native language, and you are editing the English Wikipedia, please be sure of your competence with the language. Overall, your edit didn't impress as a useful change for the article. I am following your talk page, so a reply can be posted here. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. Of course, English is not my native language and my contribution was not precise and I am not expert in this area. Maybe rules changed in past few years, at least many things are more complex than they were, but earlier it was usual, that correct information was improved rather then deleted. I expected help, not training. There are varieties with modified ALA/LA ratio grown for production of cooking (table) oil. This is essential information. Usually the en.wikipedia serve for me as a source of relevant information with good schollar/professional/reviewed references. Unfortunately it is not the case with the article in discusion, which rely mostly on single unreviewed source. Moreover, scientifically it is incorrect to provide information with more than two valid places for component with variability of more than 5 %, which variability is common for fatty acids even inside of three clusters of varieties of flax. Better would be to provide ranges. That is why I tried starting to improve the article. "Natural varieties" is used in one of more than 20 articles I read yesterday, when I searched for information about fatty acid composition of flaxseed. Then I noticed that information in the en.wikipedia article is too simple to be correct. The "20:1" ratio (or even more) could be simply derived from information in tables in linked article. No such information is provided for flaxseed in the database linked as source in the discussed en.wikipedia article. (And finally, the original USDA SR28 (the linked database uses SR21 dated 2008, but values for flaxseed does not change since) provides values with standard deviation, based on this the ratio is 3,86±0,33, ie. 3,5...4,2, see https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400535/Data/SR/SR28/reports/sr28fg12.pdf page 295).Reing (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I suggest you propose a concise content revision for flax seeds, with one or two reliable sources (such as the USDA, best if within the last decade), on the article talk page to allow other editors to assess the overall value of a change. We can help with the English there and confirm the references. Keep in mind the content should be as simple and general as possible for a non-expert audience. Zefr (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. Of course, English is not my native language and my contribution was not precise and I am not expert in this area. Maybe rules changed in past few years, at least many things are more complex than they were, but earlier it was usual, that correct information was improved rather then deleted. I expected help, not training. There are varieties with modified ALA/LA ratio grown for production of cooking (table) oil. This is essential information. Usually the en.wikipedia serve for me as a source of relevant information with good schollar/professional/reviewed references. Unfortunately it is not the case with the article in discusion, which rely mostly on single unreviewed source. Moreover, scientifically it is incorrect to provide information with more than two valid places for component with variability of more than 5 %, which variability is common for fatty acids even inside of three clusters of varieties of flax. Better would be to provide ranges. That is why I tried starting to improve the article. "Natural varieties" is used in one of more than 20 articles I read yesterday, when I searched for information about fatty acid composition of flaxseed. Then I noticed that information in the en.wikipedia article is too simple to be correct. The "20:1" ratio (or even more) could be simply derived from information in tables in linked article. No such information is provided for flaxseed in the database linked as source in the discussed en.wikipedia article. (And finally, the original USDA SR28 (the linked database uses SR21 dated 2008, but values for flaxseed does not change since) provides values with standard deviation, based on this the ratio is 3,86±0,33, ie. 3,5...4,2, see https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400535/Data/SR/SR28/reports/sr28fg12.pdf page 295).Reing (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I have moved the note on this topic back to "Other subtractive forms" - if you had anything in particular in mind in moving it down a section we could discuss it on the talk page for the article. We have pared the mention of the Excel function down to avoid OR - and it may not be quite so clear as it was that the effect of using this function is limited to producing "non-standard "subtractivity". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are trying to convince me that for the function which is nonsense based on no historical evidence (except for the single setting with correct outputs), and which contradicts the above text "This seems so obviously the right place for this." among historically based examples rather than among non-standard forms. Reing (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, I am not trying to convince you of anything. At this point the article simply mentions the Microsoft Excel function, and explains its effect. "Other subtractive forms" is indeed the obvious heading. We are quite deliberately NOT making value judgements, which would be "original research" (In the Wikipedia sense) without separate references. I am not sue what the relevance of historical uses is in this context. Do you want to relocate this discussion to the talk page for Roman Numerals ? I am reluctant to do so myself but feel free to do so yourself if you think it warranted. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Soundofmusicals: Ofcourse You are trying. What else is Your effort here? :-) Maybe it is due my lack of understanding of English but I don't see any problem You mentioned. Section title "Standard form" is not value judgment just like "Non-standard variants" is not. The Excel function is simply non-standard according to the text in the section "Standard form" in the same article just a few of paragrahs above (except for the single setting with standard outputs). Is this anything like "original research"? In my opinion original research would be if I claimed that XIIX for 18 was used as a kind of graphic trifle (wisecrack? or whatever you call it). My knowledge and my opinion expressed in my previous talk to You has nothing to do with that. On other hand the wording "so obviously" seems somewhat manipulative for me. I would like you to revert your edit and perhaps include a parenthetical note from my previous talk. Or something else to be clear that only one particular setting provides standard rendering. If you insist on the current state, I will not challenge it anymore. Reing (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, I am not trying to convince you of anything. At this point the article simply mentions the Microsoft Excel function, and explains its effect. "Other subtractive forms" is indeed the obvious heading. We are quite deliberately NOT making value judgements, which would be "original research" (In the Wikipedia sense) without separate references. I am not sue what the relevance of historical uses is in this context. Do you want to relocate this discussion to the talk page for Roman Numerals ? I am reluctant to do so myself but feel free to do so yourself if you think it warranted. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)