Talk:Iodised salt

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Spelling of iodized on the wiki page

Clearly both 'iodized' and 'iodised' are correct ways to spell the word, but the wiki page should use the common spelling, which is 'iodized'. As a simple test, if you Google the word iodised, you get the message "Did you mean: iodized?". I am a chemical engineer with a patent in the iodination of halgenated resins and I am well read on the subject of iodination. I have never seen the term spelled with an S in any source that I would consider to be worthy of reference.

I went ahead and made your bold header into a level 2 header. I was looking at the archives to see why this article was spelled with an "s" instead of a "z" and it looks like no major contributor took any initiative to change it, and the article creator started it with an "s". But since readers continue to bring it up, then a consensus can be reached. I !vote for the article to be moved to Iodized salt and the article updated to reflect this. But if no one seems to mind, then it's not a biggie. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I did find this in the archive:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since the subject matter of this article primarily deals with U.S. adoption of iodized salt the title of this article should reflect that. Can anyone explain why this should be the British spelling? 89.159.154.178 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, "iodised" is not actually British. The authoritative Oxford English Dictionary doesn't recommend its use because its both etymologically and phonetically incorrect. Since -ize is both British and American, and phonetically correct, it should be used instead. II | (t - c) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So any other thoughts on a possible move? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One other thought. It's been something like seven weeks without any opposition. Why not be bold and do it, already? --Eliyahu S Talk 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose name change. To quote from above: "the wiki page should use the common spelling" Says who??? "Common" where??? By those with internet connections??? There is nothing wrong with iodised, except that it bothers some Americans who dont read widely. The practice of iodisation/iodization is widely used, more prevalently outside of the US, where the default English is English-English, not US-English.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Favor name change. to Iodized salt. As the boxed comment from the Oxford English Dictionary notes, "iodised" is not actually the recommended British spelling, either! So the knee-jerk opposition to "iodized" as being some Americanization (Americanisation??), mystifies me. It's not as though we're discussing aluminium vs. aluminum. SBHarris 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"knee-jerk"? No, we are in fact not discussing aluminium/aluminum, what is that comment about? Are we trading spelling conventions?--Smokefoot (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you had to ask. You wrote: "There is nothing wrong with iodised, except that it bothers some Americans who dont read widely." In fact, "iodized" is favored by the O.E.D. which is the premier arbiter of British English spelling, and that fact is mentioned above. So who is it who "isn't reading widely"? I think you just had a reflexive moment when you saw an "ize" vs. "ise" spelling, and didn't realize that this isn't a very good place to make a stand. SBHarris 22:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in any case, taking a stand or not, I changed my vote on the move. My goal here is really not about English, and not really about following rules of OED, but an attempt to try to propagate iodiniz/sation because the technology is so impactful that rules and duels are less important. And my guess is that spelling with an "s" leads to marginally greater influence on those needing this info than spelling it with a "z". Extremely convoluted thinking, I know, so I give in.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is iodised the spelling commonly used in the Commonwealth countries (in spite of the QED)? If so, then WP:ENGVAR needs to be followed. It is clear, per the MOS, that iodised is the correct spelling for this article if it is the common British spelling. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the full OED, there is no entry for Iodise, only for Iodize: under the Iodize entry there are examples of use which include both spellings. The Encyclopædia Britannica also lists the ~ize variant only and not ~ise. I suspect that because BE avoids the use of ~ize in favour of ~ise, British writers assume that ~ise is correct, when I don't think it is in this instance, IMHO. Either way, it doesn't matter if the title is ~ise or~ize, the rest of the page is already in BE and so should remain as such as per WP:ENGVAR at the moment, although if the page moves to a “correct” spelling of Iodize then either BE or AE spelling variants could be selected for the rest of the article.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iodised salt → Iodized salt – As the spelling Iodised Salt is not recognised in either American or British English this should be moved to the existing page Iodized Salt. Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Be bold and just do it. (I would, but the process is complicated and I got chastized last time I moved an article). We have the redirect Iodised salt --> Iodized salt, and I'll make another one for Iodized --> Iodized salt. SBHarris 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Iodized salt exists and has a history, only an admin can perform the move. Powers T 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - have to wait for a bit as well, as there is a backlog on the moves too.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just list it under WP:RM#Current requests? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Look under the entry for May 9--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean under the uncontroversial requests. You can just ask an admin to move it if you don't expect anybody to object. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Partly cos I screwed up! lol. I was also playing it safe, as there had been some discussions going back a long way on this. I'm fairly sure that the ~ize spelling is correct in all forms of English, but if someone from Aus, or Singapore uses ~ise then it should remain as it stands with the ~ise (as it is I can't find any one who uses ~ise, but thought I'd better go down the safer route!). That's my half-arsed excuse for not going straight to the uncontroversial list.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image of iodized salt is deceptive

I dont think that I have ever seen yellowed iodized salt. The image of iodized salt shown in this article is not representative of the stuff that I eat or have ever seen. The sample looks to me like an old sample NaI, which can appear yellowish. Maybe the image was selected to make some point, but to me it seems misleading.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iodised salt is used in Australia in the Macquarie Dictionary, in the Journal Salt Matters, and for iodised table salt - move should be reverted

The Macquarie Dictionary has iodised as the first alternative not iodized. See Salt Matters (Menzies Research Intitute/University of Tasmania, I also have a container of Saxa Iodised Table Salt. -- Paul foord (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat mate, we'll just note it as an alternate Australian spelling. SBHarris 06:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine lost through oxidation?

The statement, Iodide-treated table salt slowly loses its iodine content through the process of oxidation seems dubious to me. Iodine is an element, it isn't lost or changed through oxidation. You might get it incorporated into different salts through oxidation, but the Iodine itself hasn't been altered. The statement needs further explanation. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is true. Iodide is oxidized to elemental iodine, which has a high enough vapor pressure that it simply evaporates into the air and is effectively gone from the salt. Nobody is suggesting that the element disappears. But it is effectively removed from all consideration, and it might AS WELL have disappeared. SBHarris 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That being said, I'm going to remove the statement, but only because it turns out (upon more careful reading) that this is already explained in the next section (Iodized_salt#Chemistry.2C_biochemistry_and_nutritional_aspects), with an appropriate reference. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please memeber that the stuff you're removing is in the article LEDE/LEAD, where it's perfectly okay to repeat information. One of most important things about iodized salt (if iodides are used) is that it doesn't STAY iodized. Yes, information in leads should be summarized, but then we have the problem that people who don't read any farther than leads are confused because the qualifier statements and full explanations are left out. You're making this very difficult! SBHarris 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iodised

I'm reasonably certain wikipedia's policy on the spelling is unless the article refers to country specific topic then the spelling should used should be consistently that of the original author. Therefore if the article was first written as iodised that is how it should have remained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.168.175 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Original author" only applies where a word is spelled differently in different countries. Per the above discussions, it appears that the "official" spelling is the same in both the US and the Commonwealth. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. The move in May was not based on a stronger consensus than that supporting ENGVAR, and was therefore an improper change between regional variants of English. Article is now restored to previous long-standing title, and per ENGVAR, there it shall stay. If we want to override ENGVAR, that will take a pretty strong showing of consensus to do so. - GTBacchus(talk) 05:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Iodized salt → Iodised salt – Relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Request to revert move made in May, per WP:ENGVAR. The assumptions made to justify moving this article were incorrect: iodise is a valid spelling in British English, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary does recognize iodise, and iodise/iodize is not an exception to the -ise spellings that are, on balance, preferred in British English. Additionally, -ise is even more strongly preferred in a number of other Commonwealth countries (for example, see the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language: "New Zealanders like Australians use -ise as in centralise, not -ize"). Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on the above:
  • British usage: While most British dictionaries prefer -ize (although note that they do recognize -ise in -ise/-ize words including iodise; this [1] reflects its treatment under the entry for iodine in Concise Oxford ["iodize ( or iodise )"] and under iodize in Oxford Dictionary of English ["iodize ... (also iodise)"]) and British publishers are divided (for example, refer to Pocket Fowler's), UK-published dictionaries and English usage guides make it clear that not only is -ise a valid spelling in British English, but it is typically preferred in general use. The Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd edition) acknowledges that, in British English, "-ise ... is in common use"; Cambridge Guide to English Usage describes -ize as "the alternative spelling ... in Britain" and shows that -ise is more prevalent than -ize in British corpus data. The British media is behind -ise (see BBC [2], The Daily Telegraph [3], The Guardian [4], The Times [5], etc.), as are organizations where the UK is the dominant English-speaking member (notably the European Union [6]).
  • Other Commonwealth usage: While Canada typically follows the US with its preference for -ize (for example, Canadian Oxford gives "( also esp. (Brit.) -ise )" under its entry for iodize), most other Commowealth countries—at least those in the southern hemisphere—are strongly behind -ise. Australia's Macquarie Dictionary prioritizes -ise spellings and states that "Australian practice favours consistent use of –ise", contrasting it to American (-ize) and British (variable) usage. Cambridge Guide to English Usage shows that -ise is dominant in the Australian corpus. The New Zealand Oxford similarly prefers -ise; that "New Zealanders ... use -ise ..., not -ize" is noted above. The South African Oxford also prefers -ise, as does the style guide [7] published by the Government of South Africa (it calls for "-ise not -ize").
Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: If that's the case then fine, revert, although the OED (the full version, not the concise version) does not list iodise at all. If it is a valid spelling in other territories with their variants of English, then the change should not have been made, although there was no defence of the spelling at the time, although some came in afterwards. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The (full) Oxford English Dictionary does not list any -ise forms of -ise/-ize words under their entries individually, instead expecting readers to refer to the entries for -ise and -ize. (That aside, if we were to strictly adhere to the "latest" edition of OED, being published in 1989, it would have us move Haemophilia to Hæmophilia!) Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of how the dictionary works, thanks and the titles (or rather the sub-titles) in the OED tend to show all variants of a word. This is not the case with Iodize, which is the correct form in British English. If you are arguing on the basis of use of other forms of English (be that Australian, Singapore etc) that the word "IODISE" appears in their dictionaries, then you will have my continued support. If, however, you are simply arguing that the preference in British English is for ~ise over ~ize then I'll have to re-consider. Do you have any dictionary evidence of Aus / NZ / Singapore English that would support the use of the word "IODISE"? - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to emphasize is that the full OED does not treat other -ise/-ize words any differently. The divide between -ise and -ize in British English means that both iodise and iodize are correct in British English, as with all other -ise/-ize words, but it is apparent that -ise is typically preferred in contemporary use. There is no such ambivalence among the standard reference dictionaries for Australia (Macquarie), New Zealand (New Zealand Oxford), and South Africa (South African Oxford), all of which prioritize -ise (including iodise individually). Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language and the Macquarie Dictionary make it clear that the preference for -ise in Australia and New Zealand is comparable to that for -ize in Canada and the United States (see the quotations above). I cannot find reliable references regarding the usage of -ise/-ize in other English-speaking countries such as Singapore. Regardless, this RM is not based on what the preferred usage is in any country or by any dictionary: it is based on the fact that the article was established in British or Commonwealth usage using -ise and that the move made in May contradicts WP:ENGVAR, given that -ise is acceptable in British English and very strongly preferred in several other countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand. Some standardized rigour (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If you have to get into this kind of minutia to detect a barely-perceptible preference one way or the other, it's not worth the trouble. Powers T 12:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have gone into this detail, using reliable sources, to show that the British preference for -ise is evidently far more than "barely perceptible". This requested move is simply based on WP:ENGVAR, not on whether one of two equally valid spellings is considered "more correct" by a given individual: the justification for the move made in May was flawed (a statement such as "Iodised Salt is not recognised in ... British English" is simply not true; indeed, it should have been ringing alarm bells given that the British preference for -ise is well established and well known). I could have just pointed to here, here, here, and here, but I would rather provide a proper analysis to show that the complaints the iodised→iodized move has attracted are well founded (the description of the spelling used on the salt shaker in one's possession did elicit a smile!) before requesting such a move. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that since both spellings are recognized in Britain that ENGVAR becomes less important than WP:COMMONALITY -- and both are less important than "this is not something worth arguing over". Powers T 15:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONALITY cannot apply given usage in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa; even using WP:COMMONALITY to justify moving an article to -ize considering British English alone would be problematic, given there are numerous other articles written in British English using -ise such as Fertilisation. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that the Canadian Oxford, which navigates between American and British spellings (and describes -ise as an "esp. (Brit.) var. of -ize", in line with US dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster's Collegiate which describes -ise as "chiefly British"), states that "the British now prefer the -ise variant" and describes the use of -ize as "former British practice". Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize the use of -ise/-ize in English-speaking countries where usage can reliably be determined:
  • -ise: Australian, New Zealand, and South African English.
  • -ise or -ize, with -ise typically preferred: British English.
  • -ize: American and Canadian English.
Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I'm a strong supporter of WP:ENGVAR, I can go either way here. Perhaps I was wrong earlier about not leaving the spelling as the original author had it, if iodised is in fact the correct Commonwealth spelling. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: English is spoken outside of the Commonwealth, by about 250 million people. I don't put iodised salt on my eggs Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is beside the point whether an American has a shaker of "iodized salt" or an Australian has a shaker of "iodised salt". This is a request to revert a move per WP:ENGVAR. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ENGVAR. Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move back to iodised.... Hard to know why we have WP:ENGVAR if we don't apply it to such an obvious case. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe because the case isn't as obvious as you think? Powers T 11:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the choice of whether to use -ise or -ize in British English can certainly be confusing: the preference for -ise in British English is not as strong as some would appear to believe, falsely polarizing -ise as "British" and -ize as "American" when in fact both are acceptable in the UK. What is clear, however, is that the move made in May should not have been made: iodise is a recognized spelling in the UK and, more conclusively, iodise is the standard in many other Commonwealth countries which were completely disregarded in that page move. Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -ize is the predominant form in the U.S. and Canada, and, apparently, the preferred form in the UK. However, the previous unilateral move was clearly a violation of ENGVAR as -ise is preferred in some Commonwealth varieties of English. If we want editors to abide by the rules, then we need to consistently (and swiftly when possible) revert behavior that is in violation of our rules (whether it was intentional or not). Leaving this article at Iodized salt is an open invitation for others to make controversial moves unilaterally. I urge the closing admin to use the only effective redress we have: revert the inappropriate unilateral move of a potentially controversial title. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC) --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see now that the previous move did go through the RM process and was moved properly by a closing admin, so no redress is required. That means our task here is to determine whether there is a good reason to move it back. Regardless of how sound the reasoning was (or not) at the last move discussion, they did go through the correct process, so moving it now would be a violation of ENGVAR. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM decision questioned

See Does WP:RETAIN go too far? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ENVAR also mentions "Opportunities for commonality", and -ize is the international form. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving beyond just questioning the RM decision to actually challenging it

The closing admin states, incorrectly: "The move in May was not based on a stronger consensus than that supporting ENGVAR, and was therefore an improper change between regional variants of English. "

This statement is incorrect because the change in May was not a "change between regional variants of English." The established English variant of this article is British English, and both of the spellings being discussed here are widely used in that variant. Therefore, this is not an ENGVAR issue at all.

Whether the article is at Iodized salt or Iodised salt, the established variant remains the same: British English. What is applicable here is WP:COMMONALITY which states: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." and "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms".

There is no question about whether the -ised for is "less widely distributed" -- clearly it is. The -ized form clearly meets WP:COMMONALITY much better, and the change does not violate ENGVAR. This is essentially the argument made by Powers, and, apparently, ignored (at least not addressed), by the closing admin.

Above, I questioned the closing decision. Now I challenge it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appealing to WP:COMMONALITY is flawed, B2C (and so is Kwami's brief note earlier). Two reasons:
1. American English does recognise -ise forms, and apparently no major American dictionary considers them exclusively British (or Commonwealth). The matter is amply covered earlier on this page; but some evidence right here will be handy. Random House Webster's, Merriam-Webster's, and Webster's New World all in their current editions have an entry for -ise, and classify it as "chiefly British". The very comprehensive American Heritage Dictionary (current edition) has two relevant entries, with no mention of Britishness:
-ise / variant of -ize
-ize or -ise / ...
2. WP:COMMONALITY makes only this mention of spelling:
"If one variant spelling appears in an article title, make a redirect page to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and in linking."
The rest of the guideline concerns choice among various "terms" or "words". Iodised and iodized are not different words; they are variant spellings of one word. In other words, they differ in no other way at all: including pronunciation, register, shades of meaning. (Artefact and artifact in fact can theoretically differ in pronunciation, but both forms are normally pronounced either with a schwa, or some sort of /i/, not with any sort of /e/. Wikipedia titles appear to be consistent in using artifact, not artefact. That's healthy, despite artifact being almost exclusively American.)
I was not involved in this RM at all; but I support the decision – a difficult call, obviously made with great care after scrutiny of the evidence and arguments.
B2C, I advise you to put your abundant energy to better use. A pattern is emerging. Your refusal to accept duly taken decisions is wasting people's time, including your own.
NoeticaTea? 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noetica, your first argument fails out of the gate. In practice there is no such thing as any particular spelling being exclusive to a particular variant. For example, aeroplane is recognized in American English as a chiefly British spelling, but in WP we still consider it a British variant. Your own example artifact is no more "exclusive" to the American variant than is the -ise form "exclusive" to the British/Commonwealth variant.

As to whether iodized and iodised are different words or different spellings of the same word is a matter of semantics and varies by context (in contexts where the emphasis is on spelling, like in Scrabble, for example, they are typically treated as distinct words). Technically, you're correct, but whether that technically correct interpretation applies to the wording in the MOS is not so clear. Hanging on to that distinction is pretty weak.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether trying to reverse consensus-ignoring decisions is a waste of time.

You have not been involved in this particular RM, but you have crossed paths with me before, and you have seemed to develop a predilection, perhaps subconsciously, for rationalizing positions like this just to disagree with me. No? Well, then, show us where have you agreed with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, you introduced the notion of meeting WP:COMMONALITY as a matter of degree. I, though, have taken it as a mere hurdle requirement. In this case, both spellings plainly meet that requirement, so it is reasonable to move on to other considerations. Here there are two: consistency within the article, and consistency between similar articles (a desideratum according to policy at WP:TITLE). The article is written in British English (for example with goitre, not goiter); so a spelling that tends the British way gives internal consistency. Do you find that other titles include semantically related forms beginning with "iodiz-", or "iodis-"? I don't. I therefore think there is no problem with consistency between articles, either.
As for the definition and individuation of words being a "semantic" matter, I agree. Of course! Much that is important in RMs, and in the proper reading of guidelines and policies, is inevitably "semantic". That is simply to say that we have to attend to meanings. Surprised by that? Alarmed? Now, WP:COMMONALITY refers to "variant spellings". It does not refer to "distinct words that are exactly similar except in that they differ in spelling, along with differences that are minimally and necessarily consequent on that primary difference". So the guideline is naturally to be interpreted in the way I show above.
NoeticaTea? 03:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of my argument is that ENGVAR does not apply since both spellings in question are acceptable in the established variant of the article, which alone completely undermines the stated justification for GTB's closing decision to move.

A secondary point is that COMMONALITY suggests the -ized form be preferred. COMMONALITY states, "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms". And for examples of "less widely distributed terms" it uses two different spellings of the same word: "aeroplane" and "airplane", saying that "universally used terms" are preferred to these.

Well, like "aeroplane" and "airplane", "iodised salt" is a "less widely distributed term" (language that suggests a matter of degree, by the way), while "iodized salt" is a "universally used term". Even if you want to seriously pick the nit that it's not actually universally used (because it's apparently practically unused in some Commonwealth countries), let's recognize that the meaning of "universally", like all words, depends on context, and does not necessarily mean "without exception" (e.g., "People universally agree rape is wrong" doesn't mean without exception - our jails are full of exceptions). Further, the language in COMMONALITY itself suggests making these decisions based on degree of compliance with the "less widely distributed" wording.

ENGVAR does not apply here, so GTB's basis for reversing the May move to the -ized form is without foundation. That alone justifies putting the article back to the title where the consensus in May unanimously decided it should be. Further, the -ized spelling complies better with COMMONALITY than does the -ised form. Even if you think that's weak, against the complete absence of argument for having the article at the -ised form, it's still plenty strong, especially in addition to the first point. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, we can talk about this for ten thousand words, if you want. Do you think that's a good use of your time? Do you think this is "another horrible closing that flies in the face of consensus"? It's that bad - not just something you disagree with, but "horrible"? Do you think the encyclopedia is being harmed?

I see this as a difficult call, where a good case could be made for either side. I considered the arguments, and I made a call. It's defensible, and the other call would be defensible, too. We could go ten thousand words over either call, if someone just decides they're unhappy enough. Is that a good use of those ten thousand words?

You know - and you do know this from experience - all you have to do is ask me once, and I'll post to AN requesting review of any and every close of mine that's challenged. I'm off to do that now. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community review requested here. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my comment: rather than personalize this and go after the closing admin with pitchforks and torches (criminialize vs. criminalise this?), can we not just all get along? And move it back to iodize? The reasons have been stated: "iodized salt" gets 4 times the google hits as "iodised salt" and the ratio of hits for "iodized" vs. "iodised" is even more staggering. Both forms are correct. Both are synonymous. Only "iodized" is phonetic, which makes it better. Thus, I much prefer it. Why would anybody fight for the other? SBHarris 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the whole talk page (which should answer your question), and, if you're so inclined (and I hope you are), make a formal proposal via WP:RM, taking all of the above discussion into account. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it. My eyes glaze over. Cargill, Compass Minerals, and Morton Salt dominate U.S. salt production, which dominate world production in the English-speaking world (the possibly largest salt producer is China, but these two are very close so it's hard to tell which is largest-- neither dominate). These North American companies all use the spelling "iodize". As does the U.S. Salt Institute they belong to. See the Salt Institute FAQ [8] [9]. Morton in 2009 was bought out by European giant K+S: [10]. This now makes K+S the world's largest table salt producer, but you know what? They spell it "iodized" also. [11]. Finally, if you want to talk about China, all salt production in China is monopolized under the umbrella China National Salt Industry Corporation. They iodize China's salt and are proud of it. And they spell it "iodize" when they use English: [12]. So, the major guys who make the world's table salt, and who iodize it, use "iodize," not iodise. Why the hell should Wikipedia do otherwise? SBHarris 01:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the answer to your question is above, but it can be summarized as WP:ENGVAR. That said, I think the closing decision of the previous proposal could have easily gone the other way. I again urge you to make the strongest argument you can that acknowledges and addresseses ENGVAR, and put forth your RM proposal accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you didn't read WP:ENGVAR. Did you miss the "strong national ties" part? The articles on Tolkein and his works are written in British English because he was British. A number of other examples are given. Most of the world's salt production, and iodization thereof, is in North America and China, and these nations and companies both use "iodize." That's a strong national ties thing. The nations that do most of the iodizing, spell it "iodize." England and Australia frankly do not count. The fact that this article was started by an Australian does not count, any more than if the article on Tolkein had been started by an an American Tolkein lover. SBHarris 20:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really not get that I'm on your side? If you don't get that out of reading the above, then you have not read the above (not to mention my own arguments about why ENGVAR does not apply here). If you're not willing to help yourself that much, then I'm not willing to help you. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you're not helping very much when you suggest that I make an argument that acknowleges and addresses ENGVAR, when I just did that. Your place, at this point, is to say "look, another guy has noticed that ENGVAR has another important clause that I missed." Who is on whose side at this point, is something you can't tell without a libretto. I'm trying to keep from noticing who is on which side. Okay, I'm looking above and see that User:GTBacchus was the closing admin. Okay, perhaps we should indeed report GTB on WP:PREMATUREADMINACTIONS. The arguments, however, should stand on their own merits. I can't be the first person to notice that iodized salt on planet Earth comes mostly from countries that called it iodized (not iodised) salt, can I? And that this makes a crucial difference in re ENGVAR? User:GTBacchus, we're waiting to hear from you. SBHarris 00:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck waiting to hear from GTB. He retired from WP. But his argument was simply that each version is acceptable in some variety of English, therefore it is a violation of ENGVAR to change from one to the other; that that is exactly what ENGVAR is supposed to prevent.

I suggest that your point that iodized salt comes mostly from countries that use the z is stretching that aspect of ENGVAR, but I suppose it can't hurt to mention that, in your actual WP:RM proposal to move it. Why are we wasting time preaching to the choir instead of making an actual proposal? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help but notice this by User:Sbharris England and Australia frankly do not count. The fact that this article was started by an Australian does not count. However, Basil Hetzel, an Australian, appears to have been instrumental in identifying the need for dietary iodine supplementation. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/147428.php Paul foord (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, I don't mean that Australians don't count from any point of view. I don't think that an article on insulin production should be written in Canadian English because Canadians did most of the basic discovery. However, production of stuff does count and when Australia and England produce most of the world's iodized salt, I'll allow them to choose how "iodized" is spelled. At present, WP's argument on this boils down to "Most people do it one way, but we're doing it some OTHER way, just because we always have." That's sort of the military view. I suppose I can propose something on WP:RM but I'm not going to waste much time on it. WP has many WP:LAME polities, which arise simply because it is written by a certain group of people who want to see the world their peculiar way, rather than the way in which most of the people of the world see it. When it comes to truth, the majority cannot rule, but when it comes to custom (iodize vs. iodise) surely world popularity and world practice should overturn something that started by random chance on Wikipedia! (Such as where the person who expanded a stub to an article happened to be born-- cripes.). The entire WP:ENVAR section has a metaproblem, because in some cases it seems to endorse doing just that. Which is nutso. SBHarris 21:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iodised was the natural spelling for me when coming to this page, as a British English speaker. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2F42486_C062E073640EA71C2DB979760A8E7D18_journals__PNS_PNS70_OCE4_S0029665111001686a.pdf&cover=Y&code=cd8180fa8f1a3ff891802b67ab63f032 this academic paper also uses Iodised. It could be that like sulphur is sulfur in international chemical discourse, iodized is the accepted norm, but that doesn't mean this has filtered down to everyday usage in Britain and Australia etc.. From my perspective the differentiation appears to be whether the American English is to be preferred over the other english variants (I've seen no mentions in the discussion whether iodized is the preferred international chemistry version, and if it is it should be re-named to comply, if not then I guess it's a simple american or other english argument.Lacunae (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of dextrose?

The article claims that, over time, the iodide gradually leaves the salt. But I don't believe that's necessarily true. Morton salt has dextrose added to stabilize the iodide, which effectively keeps it in the salt. Why wasn't this mentioned in the article? (I don't know how effective this stabilization is. Does it completely prevent the iodide from leaving? Does it simply slow down the rate of iodine loss? These question need to be considered as well.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iodide or Iodine?

I'm a little confused, and maybe this has been addressed elsewhere, but... does iodised salt contain "iodide" or "iodine"? The first two lines seem to be at odds with each other.ShadowsGathered (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iodide is the term used for iodine as part of a compound with no oxygen (in which case it would be iodite or iodate), see Chemical_nomenclature and Ctrl+F for "-ide". I'm not familiar enough to say when if at all "iodide" should be used on its own. Like putting "fluoride" in the water doesn't mean bubbling pure fluorine F2 gas through potable water but instead means ionic compounds like sodium fluoride or whatever it is in toothpaste...
In any case I've been more of a physics person when it comes to science, but I'm almost certain iodine and iodide are interchangeable for most situations, unless you're trying to decide between "something iodide" and elemental iodine for supplementing your diet, in which case the article on Iodine#Toxicity clearly recommends against elemental iodine in your diet.Mattman00000 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iodised salt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

I have added a short section on Australia regarding the use of Iodized salt. I believe that the references are sufficient but can add further if necessary HaraldW1954 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iodised salt. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iodizing caused deaths?

Near the bottom of the article there is a quote lifted directly from the abstract of the cited paper which reads, "The study also found a large increase in thyroid-related deaths following the countrywide adoption of iodized salt, which affected mostly older individuals in localities with high prevalence of iodine deficiency."[27]" (emphasis mine).

I do not have access to the cited full article so I cannot check to see if the abstract contains an error but it is counter-intuitive to me that the widespread addition of a micro-nutrient to salt would have been continued if it caused a large increase in deaths. I'm not making a change because the "increase" word is an accurate quote of the linked abstract but ... really? Rengewwj (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I have received and read the original cited paper and, in fact, there was an increase in deaths. It seems that people who had very low iodine intake could develop a fatal over-reaction to the introduction of the tiny amounts of iodine in table salt. Authorities of the time (1920's) in the USA thought that the cost of approx 10k deaths was worth the overall benefit. Strange but true. Rengewwj (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People that have been iodine-deficient for a long time tend to develop some hyperthyroidism if you restore their iodine intake; doi:10.1111/cen.14368 also mentions this sort of thing. It's some very harsh calculus, but we are indeed reaping the benefits. Artoria2e5 🌉 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Rock Salt in the Indian section

This section includes the following, "In India many people use himalayan rock salt,which it imports from Pakistan . It is also recommended by many intellectuals,as it is a natural form of salt." Can someone add something to explain what relevance this has to iodised salt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alant (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with the "Chemistry, biochemistry and nutritional aspects" section

"Four inorganic compounds are used as iodide sources, depending on the producer: potassium iodate, potassium iodide, sodium iodate, and sodium iodide."

> Sodium iodate is toxic. I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source.

"Salt is an effective vehicle for distributing iodine to the public because it does not spoil and is consumed in more predictable amounts than most other commodities.[citation needed] For example, the concentration of iodine in salt has gradually increased in Switzerland: 3.75 mg/kg in 1952, 7.5 mg/kg in 1962, 15 mg/kg in 1980, 20 mg/kg in 1998, and 25 mg/kg in 2014."

> The "for example" does not make sense. Ok, salt is consumed in predictable amounts. Why does it follow that the Switzerland iodine concentrations has been increasing? Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine? Jgrov8 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium iodate is toxic. Basic chemistry dictates that it must be comparable in toxicity to potassium iodide. Like KI, NaI becomes Na+ and I- ions in water. And really we only care about the I-, because living animals have Na+ everywhere. I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source. Sodium iodide § Food supplement has a source.

Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine? They probably are eating less salt (and especially home-cooking salt); this stuff has been mentioned as a risk in assessments of the UK. We do need a source though. --Artoria2e5 🌉 05:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Iodised_salt"