| Revision as of 22:50, 14 September 2006 editKP Botany (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,588 edits →Pellagra Citation Needed?: Modern people with ancient diets.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:31, 15 November 2024 edit undoChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,318 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2024: reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{GA|09:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)|topic=Agriculture, food and drink|page=1|oldid=1213325688}} |
|
{{FAOL|Czech|cs:Kukuřice|lang2=French|link2=fr:Maïs|lang3=Portuguese|link3=pt:Milho}} |
|
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|topic=]. See ] in the article itself for current and historical background on the subject}} |
|
{{WP Mesoamerica|class=A|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
==Pellagra Citation Needed?== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=High}} |
|
When maize was first introduced outside of the Americas it was typically welcomed enthusiastically by farmers everywhere for its productivity. However, a widespread problem of malnutrition soon arose wherever maize was introduced. This was a mystery since these types of malnutrition were not seen among the indigenous Americans under normal circumstances.{{fact}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Plants|importance=High}} |
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Mesoamerica|importance=High}} |
|
Commenting on the {{fact}} tag here: Are you asking us to prove that indigenous Americans did not suffer a specific form of malnutrition? Ancient societies are not generally known for writing down every ailment that they did not suffer from. Perhaps the burden of proof should be on the person who asserts that the indigenous Americans DID suffer malnutrition, as this is much more likely to be documented. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mexico|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old move |
|
|
|from1=Maize |destination1=Corn|result1=No consensus|date1=20 June 2007|link1=Talk:Maize/Archive 2#Requested Move |
|
|
|from2=Maize |destination2=Corn|result2=No consensus|date2=21 February 2011|link2=Talk:Maize/Archive 3#Requested move |
|
|
|from3=Maize |destination3=Corn|result3=No consensus|date3=11 August 2013|link3=Talk:Maize/Archive 4#Requested move 3 |
|
|
|from4=Maize |destination4=Corn|result4=Not moved|date4=22 June 2015|link4=Talk:Maize/Archive 4#Requested move 22 June 2015 |
|
|
|from5=Maize |destination5=Corn|result5=No consensus|date5=11 September 2022|link5=Talk:Maize/Archive 5#Requested move 11 September 2022 |
|
|
|from6=Maize |destination6=Corn|result6=No consensus|date6=9 February 2023|link6=Special:Permalink/1139672773#Requested move 9 February 2023 |
|
|
|from7=Maize |destination7=Zea mays|result7=Not moved||date7=25 September 2024|link7=Special:Permalink/1247847273#Requested move 25 September 2024 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Maize/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 6 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 25 September 2024 == |
|
::There is no need to prove whether indigenous Americans of the past suffered from a form of malnutrition or not as there are plenty of indigenous peoples in the Americas today who eat very traditional diets similar to those of 500 years ago. Do these folks suffer from pellagra is probably available in the medical or public health literature? Pellagra is one of the pet nutritional deficiency diseases and, as such, has been studied extensively. ] 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''] close as not moved.''' <small>(])</small> — ] (]) 10:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Clarity of the subject == |
|
|
|
---- |
|
Maybe I'm just a silly-silly, but the first bit of the article that establishes that "maize" is referred to as corn in America but possibly not in other cultures sets a confusing precedent for the whole rest of the article. I may be mistaken, but the author(s) never says whether this particular article is about "corn" or something else. |
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Zea mays}} – Why not the ]? As is the case for many other notable plants—the ], ], the ], the ], the ], etc., ]—just use the binomial/scientific name. If even a species as ubiquitous as the Tea plant uses ''Camellia sinensis'' for its article title, there's no doubt it would hold up here. The "grass" family itself uses its taxonomic name, ]. Also, the change would ideally put an end to the longtime haggling over this article, ought to be uncontroversial among users and readers, and I think would actually cause less confusion. I hereby put it to a vote. ''''']'''''] 05:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
] 07:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Lets not make a confusing situation even more confusing. We use common names for countless species, and until there is project-wide consensus to use scientific names for all species, I think the status quo is best. "Coffea arabica" introduces no confusion. "Ginkgo biloba" is in everyday use. "Cacao" is not confusing because all literate people know that several different food products are made from cacao. Redwood species are commonly called "Sequoias". Nobody will get confused by "Juniperus". As a visit to a tea shop or a website selling teas would show, many species other than ''Camellia sinensis'' are actively marketed as teas. As for "Poaceae", there are about 12,000 species, many of which are not commonly described as "grass", so the scientific name is appropriate for such a broad group. ] (]) 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:What about Black Cherry '']''? European ash '']''? There's plenty of taxonomic names on Misplaced Pages not easily connected, at first glance, to the plant they refer to. ''''']'''''] 06:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::''Prunus serotina'' has many common names, not just two, as in the case of corn/maize which are clearly differentiated between (broadly) American English and British English. ] (]) 06:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Ok, but there's still more than one common name in both cases. What inherent difference does it make if there's "many" different names, or just two? ''''']'''''] 06:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::As everyday experience and common sense should inform you, there is a dramatic difference between "many" and "two". ] (]) |
|
|
*::::: That 100% depends on context, and how often the "many" or "two" are actually invoked in common discussion.''''']'''''] 07:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose move.''' This is possibly even worse than the {{-r|Corn}} suggestion. No one calls this "Zea mays". ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Does anyone call the Sugar Maple '']'', or the European Yew '']''? ''''']'''''] 06:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::The problem with the "sugar maple" comparison is that the name is not dominant, except in the context of ]. I have worked in the cabinet, countertop and millwork industry for 40 years, and in that context, the tree and its lumber is far more commonly known as "rock maple" or "hard maple " or "birds-eye maple" or "curly maple". ] (]) 06:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Ok. I think "Sugar Maple" is actually one of the most common types of trees laypeople know of. I'd guess it is, probably, one of the top five most widely known tree species names. Perhaps it's different where you are. Also, I think far more people in general are familiar with the tree though the context of maple syrup than through woodworking, so I'm not sure what the more niche names prove. If these more obscure names are enough of a reason to use the scientific name for "Sugar Maple" it's definitely enough to use the scientific name here. ''''']'''''] 06:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::Where I am is California with a population of 39 million people, which is not exactly a linguistic backwater. Our population is greater than Australia and New Zealand combined, and only slightly less than all of Canada. ] (]) 07:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::Neither England or America are "linguistic backwaters" either, but there's a dramatic difference in the plants that grow in either place, to give just one example. I live in a place where "Sugar Maple" is common. Someone in Greece probably wouldn't have heard of it. Not sure what you're trying to say. ''''']'''''] 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::This lay person from Australia has never heard of sugar maple. Surely it's rather inaccurate too.] (]) 07:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::I mean you're saying the scientific name is justified for "Sugar Maple" because there is more than one everyday name. But isn't that the exact issue we're discussing for this page? ''''']'''''] 06:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::Here, there are only two common names. Corn is almost universally used in everyday speech in the United States and Canada. Maize is almost universally used in other English speaking countries. ''Zea mays'' is used by nobody except scientists. Scientific names are entirely appropriate for lesser known species and for species with many common names. This is a widely known species widely discussed in everyday language, and no consensus has emerged for anything other than "maize", although as an American, I would much prefer "corn". But I respect consensus and oppose rocking the boat. I can happily live with maize. ] (]) 06:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Farmers in Australia might call the commercial crop maize. I don't actually know. But the rest of us here call the stuff corn. Nobody calls it zea maize. 06:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::I don't know how a formal renaming request is "rocking the boat," but that's neither here nor there. And the fact that "nobody except scientists" uses a scientific name hasn't prevented their use on a huge list of Misplaced Pages articles, so I don't see the strength of that point either. Lastly, you say no consensus has emerged against "Maize," but this is also not the whole picture, as there are many people opposed to this title also. I am one of them—but I'm opposed to corn also. The reasons given thus far to use scientific names are very clearly applicable to this article, also. ''''']'''''] 06:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Alright, look people, the Common Marigold is called '']'' so let's at least dispense with the notion that common plant articles don't use scientific names. You can go through Misplaced Pages and find a bunch.''''']'''''] 07:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:'''Reply''' ] is a term applied to several species in English, so that comparison lacks validity. The fact of the matter is that you need to gain consensus for your proposal and so far, you are not succeeding. Things can change as other people join the discussion, but the examples you have selected so far have major logical holes in them. ] (]) 07:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Maybe, but "Sugar Maple" is not a term applied to several species in English, so that point has a logical hole in it also. ''''']'''''] 07:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Oppose''' Does anybody actually call this ze mays? The most common names I see for this plant are corn and maize, and both far surpass the scientific name in usage. ] (]) 07:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'']'', as in the scientific name, friend. It already links to this page if you type it in. Does anyone call the Giant Sequoia '']''? But that's the page name. ''''']'''''] 07:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
==''Zea'' or ''Zea Mays''?== |
|
|
|
::Logically invalid example. In California where I live, that tree is also called the "giant redwood" and "Sierra redwood". ] (]) 07:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, and "Maize" is also called "corn." This is exactly the point being made. ''''']'''''] 07:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is all about consensus and you do not have it yet. In California where I live and where the two main types of redwood trees flourish, we have several common names for them. There is only one common name for maize in California, and that is corn, although educated people are well aware that maize is a synonym. If you want to gain consensus, you must be more persuasive. Good luck. ] (]) 07:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Oppose'''. This has been exhaustively discussed and rejected repeatedly, and should not have been started all over again. The article explains very clearly why. Maize is the internationally used name; it is a shame that the general term for grains, "corn", has via the obsolete names "Indian corn" and "Turkey corn" been co-opted in the US to mean maize; in other countries "corn" means wheat, or sometimes oats or other grains. Please see the many old discussion threads above on this page: a move to "corn" here is a non-starter. ] (]) 07:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
The sidebar contains several Zea genus, but the main article is highly focused on Zea Mays, especially ''Zea Mays subsp. mays''. Think we need a seperate page for Zea? ] 17:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*::{{u|Chiswick Chap}}, this discussion is not about moving the article to "corn". That being said, it is by no means a "shame" that the largest predominantly English speaking country by far uses "corn". That crop has been cultivated in what is now the United States for over 4000 years, has been literally worshipped by many Native American cultures, even until today, and Native Americans universally call it "corn" when speaking in English. I have no problem with "maize" as the worldwide term, but please do not disrespect the common usage by hundreds of millions of English speakers living where the crop has been grown for millenia. ] (]) 08:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Indeed it isn't. But the rest of your post wasn't at all my point; the pity is simply etymological as a cause of confusion. As for the worship, that was for a plant with a name close to "maize" in their languages. And see my note below. ] (]) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:A move to “corn” isn’t what was proposed. Not entirely sure what you’re saying. I’m proposing a switch to the scientific name, not to “corn.” To my knowledge, this hasn’t been voted on yet. ''''']'''''] 07:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::That too should be vigorously opposed; Misplaced Pages policy states quite clearly that the ] is preferred; and the common name for this species is maize. ] (]) 07:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's not where I live. ] (]) 01:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per ] and others. ] (]) 11:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per ] and others. -- ] (]) 11:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per everybody. ] (]) 20:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2024 == |
|
Should this article provide information about corn is grown now rather than relying on an article that is over 100 years old? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Maize|answered=yes}} |
|
] |
|
|
|
There is NO mention of the spread of, nor the existence of, maize through what is now Northern Mexico and then into North America. ] (]) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== In what country? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Many thanks. We can only go on what the sources cited say. The spread that is well-documented is from the Americas to Europe. The lateral spread, as it were, is a lot more obscure, as is its timing and extent. As far as any edit request goes, the idea is to propose an exact new wording, supported by an exact new source (or sources), so that the intended change is unambiguous. Many thanks. ] (]) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
"The corn will ripen in October or early November;" in what country? should this be replaced with seasons instead? - --] 22:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I agree. Mate. ] 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== unrelated sentence?? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed this sentence because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
In ], ] received the ] in ] for discovery of ]s while studying maize. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 15:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is an article about maize and someone got a Nobel Prize for studying maize. I don't see how it is unrelated. ] 22:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In Ontario corn is used exclusivley, outside of an academic environment, see . I do not feel that the BBC can be used as a proper source in this regards since this crop is not a staple in the UK. Rather, in areas where it is a staple it is called corn. I grew up on a cash crop farm. Farmers do not use the term maize. People do not go into the grocery store to buy maize. Road side stands do not sell maize. |
|
|
|
|
|
In an antropological context, however, maize is used exclusivley. In this discipline the crop in discussion is usually not the modern variant and, because the development of maize is of great importance in central and North American archaeology, the distinction is necessary. So, academics use the term maize while the common vernacular is corn. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Maize? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've never heard anyone call this maize? It sounds made up. - ] 22:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Are you trolling? The second para gives a fairly good explanation of the different names used globally for this crop. The common name in America is corn, but maize is the Spanish name used in much of the rest of the world. External validation can be found at , or some 3 million other web references on Google. -- ] 23:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I don't see how an article writting by the BBC, for UK audiences who use maize instead of corn provides external validation when the US, Canada and Australia all refer to it as corn, and using the other link provided returns 2 more entries for corn than maize.] |
|
|
:::You've named 3 countries... Out of over two hundred in the world. Maize is a very common term. In fact, some native americans called it maize, and they're the ones that gave it to your three countries in the first place. ] 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It would seem more appropriate to have the title of this article as 'Corn.' The reason being that it really doesn't matter what you call it in another language, because this is an article on en.wikipedia.com, EN meaning English. In English speaking countries it is referred to as corn, in the nation that produces more of it than any other it is refered to as corn, and the 'Maize' page belongs on the spanish language version of wikipedia. --] 15:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
It's not the number of tonnes that the US produces that matters in naming the crop, it's the number of consumers around the world that matters; you may have know it as corn all your life, but the rest of the world calls it maize - the term is even adopted as a legitimate English noun and so the topic title is right for this English section of wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the article you mention that in Southern Africa maize is known as "mealies". I live in Namibia, Southern Africa and corrected the spelling. Here maize is known as "mielies" and not "mealies". The term come from Afrikaans (Kitchen Dutch) which was formed by the various European cultures that settled in Southern Africa. User: Piet Retief. 16:20, 10 July 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Propagation == |
|
|
Maize cannot self seed, right? It depends upon cultivation for seed dispersal. This should probably be mentioned. Perhaps along with domestication history of maize in the first paragraph. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Baby Corn == |
|
|
Can somebody add some information (or write a new article) about ] please? I love that weird little freak of nature and would love to know more about it and its relation to regular corn. |
|
|
:'']] 20:54, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]'' |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tallest corn == |
|
|
|
|
|
the internet is an excellent source for fake information from lazy humans. the tallest stalk of maize that was ever grown was probably the "31'-even" stalk that was grown outside washington, iowa in 1946. the day that it was measured, the washington newspaper reported this precise height. look it up for yourself. end the circle of august ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
|
According to "Don Radda of Washington grew the world's tallest corn stalk in 1946; it was thirty-one feet and three inches high." -- ] | ] 21:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As interesting as this factoid is, does it really belong in an encyclopedia article?--] 22:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I put that in talk because the latest edit of the article was to remove a reference to 30 foot tall corn because ] could not find any source for it. I could have just reverted the article, but felt that putting it in talk first was more politic. -- ] | ] 22:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Terminology == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I agree with all of the recent changes you made to the article. I thought the terminology section was informative and important but you removed it. ] 23:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I removed that section mostly in the spirit of "Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary", so that the article ] should be about the thing maize, rather than the word "maize". Furthermore, most of that text wasn't even about the word "maize", but about the word "corn", and redundant with text from the article ] (which unfortunately is also mostly about the word, but with perhaps more justification, because it is trying to be a disambiguation page). |
|
|
|
|
|
: Clarification of terminology is crucial when it is an aid to navigation or understanding, but the paragraph in question was not that. Language is a thing in the world, and can be encyclopedic, but that's why there are articles like ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
: — ] 00:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I disagree also and returned it. It is important to explain what we are talking about before we go into details. ] 02:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Why is it necessary to say that "corn" means "oats" in Scotland in order to talk about maize? — ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am beginning to see ]' point and have changed the article to acknowledge the variation in terms. Yet, I tried not to duplicate what the ] article says. ] 23:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Informally known as corn == |
|
|
|
|
|
When reverting my insertion of the word "informally" into the first sentence, ] wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
:''I dunno about Canada or Australia but it is almost exlusively known as corn in the U.S., which merits more than an "informally known as")'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I won't put it back, but I believe that in technical usage in the US, the plant is generally called maize. For example, a google search for "maize genome" turns up around , most of which seem to be from US research institutions such as the hosted by the University of Missouri, compared to around for "corn genome", many of which seem to be from the popular press. Google also believes that the word "maize" appears times on US government web pages, so I disagree with the phrase "almost exclusively". I can believe that it is almost exclusively known as corn at the market and at the dinner table, but that is why I used the word "informally". Perhaps a better wording would have been "in non-technical usage", but that puts even more undue emphasis on the question. If it were my article, it would read "Maize, often called corn,", and leave the regional usage trivia out altogether. |
|
|
|
|
|
— ] 02:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In common usage in the U.S., I suspect that most people would not readily recognize the term "maize". And among those who did know, many would see it as somewhat exotic or even pretentious. I've no problem with the current "often called" phrasing, but if it is accurate, I think the description of regional variations is worth including, though perhaps it doesn't need to figure so prominently as the second paragraph. ]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>] 02:14, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This does not appear to be an active issue at this point, but the current phrasing ("It is called corn in the United States, Canada, and Australia") is correct, at least as far as the United States is concerned. Other than possibly in purely technical usage, "maize" is not used to refer to "corn" in the United States. When I was a child, we used the term "maize" to refer to what was also called "Indian corn," which is the decorative, multi-colored corn used for Halloween decorations. Since Misplaced Pages is not a U.S.-only encyclopedia, however, it is appropriate to use the more international term "maize" in this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:-- Bob (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Contradiction== |
|
|
The "Maize" article states that "Worldwide production was over 600 million metric tons in 2003, just slightly <b>more than rice or wheat</b>." |
|
|
|
|
|
The "Sweet Corn" article states that "Maize is the third most grown cereal crop in the world <b>after rice and wheat</b>." |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure which is correct, (or if 2003 is the most recent year for which data is available) but the articles should agree on which crop is grown in greater abundance. 16:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sweet corn is wrong. The most recent numbers are from 2004, million metric tons: Maize 721, wheat 627, rice 605 ] 18:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Indian corn == |
|
|
The species as a whole is called "corn", plain and simple, IMHO as a native speaker of North American English from the midwestern corn belt (though not a farmer). "Indian corn" is used colloqially and loosely to refer to multicolored varieties only. If others have/know of other linguistic traditions for the use of the term Indian corn, it may warrant a ''short'' paragraph in the article. However, good, concise, to-the-point introductory paragraphs should not be loaded down with tortuous sentences trying to nuance things too much. -- ] 17:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Limited scope== |
|
|
User:Ezeu has complained that this article is too focused on the U.S. |
|
|
:I don't beleive that the article is as biased as he claims but the uses of corn section could be expanded to include other countries. Are there places where corn is the dominant food grain? Are there unmentioned significant culinary tradition? Are there unmentioned places where corn plays a significant cultural/ritual/traditional role? ] 16:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Yes. See ]. --] 17:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Edit by 68.47.125.142== |
|
|
Ó:nenhste Mohawk for corn <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) 06:35, 11 January 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== domestication and alkali treatment == |
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't alkali treatment important in the domestication of Maize ? Why was it necessary, and is it still useful today beyond making Homney ? |
|
|
|
|
|
==Confusing== |
|
|
I've visited this article several times, and it is still rather disappointing. There are large areas of North American POV, with little concession to Latin American or world perspectives. Why does the section on 'Uses for maize' start with modern uses of 'corn' in the United States rather than its use as a traditional staple food source in Latin America. Why is it spending so much time mixing up terms by discussing 'corn' rather than 'maize'. Why is there no discussion or even redirect for ], which AFIK is a fairy common term in ] and other latin influenced states of the US. We should be able to do better and be more internally consistent and encyclopedic. -- ] 21:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oh and there is no explanation of what an 'ear' is, nor any link to ]. Simiarly, no explanation of what a cob is, although the disambig for ] links here. -- ] 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ear (botany) is a poor sub-stub that has existed for 6 days so it is hardly surprising that there is no link. The "Origin" section has a paragraph on the spread of corn in the Americas. I do not see large sections of North American POV. I do see a concentration on the majority production and uses. I have to agree that the "Uses" section is poorly organized but feel I have to point out that while corn/maize is a staple in much of Africa and we can describe that better here, worldwide, human consumption is the minority use of this grain. Blue corn is not common anywhere. It is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of specialty varieties. Corn is called maize in larger portions of the English speaking world, so we are not "mixing up terms". We are using the correct term in both cases. ] 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Where is the proof for the claim that Maize is used in more places than corn?] |
|
|
http://teejer.net/chat/lofiversion/index.php/t10446.html ] 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
As my link states, 'corn' refers to only the most common cereal grain in a region. In the US, where you happen to be, it happens to refer to maize. The rest of the world says 'corn' means something different, depending on what they eat the most. This species is called 'maize' except colloquially. ] 06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:By the way, for the record, I think this article has improved quite a bit in the last six months. Things like the table of 'Top Ten Maize Producers' and tidying up of the Origins section has helped significantly. -- ] 11:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== wikification of corn == |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that everything covered in the dab for ] is covered in this article. ] 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:No mention of wheat here. The corn page also used to have more content. I may have to restore some. ] 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would agree with wikification if corn was expanded a bit.] 21:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== use/uses == |
|
|
|
|
|
say "use" in ...furnaces have been developed which uses maize... |
|
|
|
|
|
Changes 2/11/06: |
|
|
* It is maize grain, not seed, that is converted to ethanol. This is a discussion of the uses of corn as a grain, not of its botany. Seed is what one plants, by definition, in agriculture. |
|
|
* It is incorrect to write "ethanol is a form of alcohol". That is like writing "H2O is a form of water". Ethanol is the predominant chemical constituent of grain alcohol. |
|
|
* Switch grass may be of interest as an alternative engergy source, but does not belong in the discussion of maize. |
|
|
* Furnaces that burn maize grain are also not directly of interest here. They also do not have any significant impact on the maize economy. |
|
|
* I suggest that these topics be treated elsewhere, as they are of interest to many people. --] 14:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The repeated change to refer only to high fructose corn syrup is needless and misleading. There are other kinds of corn syrup. It is '''not''' "incorrect to write 'ethanol is a form of alcohol'". Ethanol is only one of hundreds of kinds of alcohol. The mention of corn furnaces here is at least as valuable as a unique use as the mention of bourbon. The mention of alternatives to corn sourced ethanol is valid as it impacts the market for maize. Seed is a biological description, not "what one plants, by definition, in agriculture" (for instance, onion growers and potato growers do not plant seeds to produce market crops) Grain refers specifically to seeds of family Poaceae. Using either grain or seed is possible - they refer to the same thing. Quickly dated U.S.-centric material is not appropriate for the ] ] 16:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I largely agree with ]. I want to point out, though, that a grass grain is a ''fruit'', not a seed (although the pericarp is but a thin layer adhering to the seed coat). Inasmuch as the pericarp is not removed when maize is fermented (nor is it removed in any other commercial use except the production of ], where the seed coat is removed as well), technically speaking it is the grain that is fermented.--] 17:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* Although Rmhermen is correct that there are other corn syrups, it is the high fructose syrup that is sweet. The common corn syrup is just a hydrolyzate of corn starch and is primarily glucose. It is not sweet. |
|
|
* Yes, ethanol is one specific alcohol, but it is not a 'form of alcohol'. The other alcohols are distinct chemical compounds, not different forms of the same thing. My version of the text is less misleading. |
|
|
* The use of corn furnaces is rare and impractical. It is much more energy-efficient to burn the crop waste than the valuable gain. |
|
|
* This section is not a biological (I used botanical) description. Grain is much more apt a description in the context of the uses of an agricultural commodity than seed, which implies what is planted. |
|
|
* The definition of grain is the fruit of any cereal, not just the Poaceae, although farmers often refer to other crops in this way. |
|
|
* The best way to understand the impact of genetic engineering on agriculture is to cite the preponderance of the US crop, for which statistics are readily available. --] 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::This smells of an edit war to me; I'll comment here and let you two duke it out in the article. To say that glucose is "not sweet" is POV. Maize is used to produce both glucose syrup and high-fructose syrup; leaving out the former is misleading. "...grain ], or ]" is appropriate for this section: it disambiguates the alcohol and makes the connection to grains, the fruits of grasses. I agree about corn furnaces. Grain is a more apt description botanically, as well, which was my point. The part on genetic engineering could combine your sentences to read: "Maize is one of the first foods for which ] varieties make up a significant proportion of the total harvest. Over half of the corn acreage planted in the United States has been genetically modified using ] to express agronomic traits desired by farmers."--] 19:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My latest edit should assuage some of Curtis Clark's concerns, and (I hope) make it more palatable to Rmhermen also.--] 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chicha == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the following because there is already an article about ], to which it should probably be incorporated: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote style="color:#666;">Sweet ], which is maize flour and honey fermented in earthen pots, drunk in "totumas", is still made to this day since ancient times when it was considered sacred. |
|
|
|
|
|
Since colonial times, chicha culture has suffered discrimination, prohibition and rejection by church and goverment parties, up to this day, because it is a strong bond to native culture and rural unity. In some places it is still used everyday, it was traditionally used in native religious and spiritual celebrations. |
|
|
|
|
|
In some places of central america like ], ], ], ] and south america like ], ], ], ], ] and ] it is still used as a refreshing alcoholic beverage as well as a small meal, but the name and preparation of this fermented drink varies by location. |
|
|
|
|
|
Maize chicha is drunk in large quantities at celebrations, which usually are native cultural events or rural festivals, sometimes about both, in these times, chicha is drunk all the time, and many |
|
|
times people drink continously until very drunk, in some cases, "finally" throwing up to "open up space" to continue drinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some members of society, usually in groups, use various etheogens like mushrooms, mixed with the drink, to have visions and revelations. Those who have experienced it, say it is like a "spiritual voyage", because of the personal revelation experiences. These practices go back to Amerindian roots. |
|
|
|
|
|
Chicha is not easy to make, it becomes sour if not consumed in the right moment, a type of vinegar is prepared this way.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== How to pronounce maize? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please mention how to pronounce it, even if we are supposed to dig elsewhere for the answer. |
|
|
: I pronounce it just like maze. Is there another way? Wikitionary gives ]: /meɪz/ |
|
|
]: /meIz/ ] 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Yes, the spanish word for corn is Maize. Mah-eez. ] |
|
|
:::Creo que no–es "maíz".--] 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: My bad, it's been over 10 years since I took spanish, sorry if I added an e at the end. Same thing though. The only time I every hear corn referred to as maize was when "primitive" Indian corn was talked about, around Thanksgiving. That, and Crayola used to have a Crayon color named maize IIRC. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why isn't this called CORN? == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The above graph is taken from ], indicating that the majority of english speakers speak American english. Furthermore, according to the ] & ] article, The Canadians and Australians also call it corn. |
|
|
Shouldn't this mean that only a small minority of English speakers refer to it by Maize? |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that this article and its contents be redirected to ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
The sun HAS set on the British Empire, it's time now to move on to more international dialects. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 21:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If I may summarise the below to save people the difficulty of reading through the fights, there is a good reason why Maize is not the same as Corn, and thus why they're not the same entry in the Wiki: ''Maize'', while a word of meso-American origins, appears to generally define all the types of Maize plants. ''Corn'' is a cereal grain, that is, the processed, ground-up stuff, and cereals include wheat, maize, millet, sorghum, barley, rye and oats. Corn is, however, a widely used word to mean the maize plant.--] 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Although I am a speaker of American English, I somewhat disagree, on the basis of ambiguation. Maize only has one meaning; corn has many, and making it the article name would require a pointer to the dab page at the top. I also suspect that the graph refers to birth speakers; there ar lots of English speakers in south Asia and Africa who probably call it maize.--] 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: The only disambiguation to corn that falls within the same context is used only in commonwealth contries, with the exception of Canada and Australia. While that graph does refer to native speakers only, I guess that data referring to all speakers of English by variant would be needed to put the final nail in the coffin. No one is going to confuse corn that you eat for the laymans term for a callus on the phalanges, but maize has it's own disambiguation, The American Heritage Dictionary gives the corn definition, in addition to the definition. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I think it's basically immaterial what it's called (I think it would be amusing to call it "corn" and use Canadian spellings, so that color would be spelt colour), but I don't imagine that the figures for all speakers of English will put nails in any coffins--I suspect there are more English-speakers in Asia that North America and Australia combined.--] 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm not sure how relevant that is. The vast majority of them aren't first language English, who I think are the main targets of an English language encyclopedia (remember this is EN.wikipedia.org). If 1/2 billion Chinese people learned the word "hand" but used it to mean foot, should we redirect hand to foot because they outvote native English speakers? ] 09:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::But isn't that the point, here, 67.70.41.10? That's what happened to the word "corn", the meaning of which I have listed above, but that now appears to simply mean "that stuff that Maize is also one of". --] 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Even in dialects where it is called corn, the term maize is also in use. So the statistics really fall apart. Leave it as it is. Although we all need to keep making sure to clear out the incorrect links to the ] article. ] 16:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::But in those dialects maize generally has a very different meaning than corn, or at least some very specific connotations. Play word association with an American or Canadian and you'll get maize=indian corn, maize=colo(u)red corn, or something similar. Maybe biogeneticists call the cereal maize, but to your average joe-on-the-street (who is an encyclopedia targeting, after all?) IT'S CORN. This is all related to a fundamental problem that wikipedia needs to address as a whole but will probably be eternally relegated to narrow discussions like this. You're imposing a taxonomy that's unnatural to the majority. It might be correct, it might not be. I ran into the same thing the other day while looking up ], which for some unfathomable reason redirects to ]. A bit of experience or a quick google of the two terms (don't forget to surround them with quotes) will tell you which is the more widespread term by a large factor. ] 09:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Your argument doesn't get us anywhere - Play word association with an Englishman and you will get ] = wheat, or barley, etc. This is a problem with writing for an international audience that we are well aware of and our policies have been developed over the last 5 years, not "relegated to narrow discussions" and still needing to be solved. ] 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: So the Englishman is right? The whole point of this section of the discussion is that the people for whom maize=corn greatly outnumber the others. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: No, the point is ''NOT'' who is right, dangit! It's that this encyclopedia should be culture independent! It should, of course, acknowledge that "corn" means something in the US, but it should also note the other '''English''' language meanings. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You are wrong. Just because someone speaks 'American English' doesn't mean they use the colloqualism 'corn' in the same way YOU do. The graph above isn't an example of 'what corn means where' - you are misinterpreting it in a misleading way. I will try to break it down for you: 'corn' is an -American- colloquialism for maize (based on the definition of the word 'corn', which means the most prominent cereal grain in a region). Just because it is an American colloquialism doesn't mean it is a common and intrinsic part of 'American English' across the world. Until you can prove that (which isn't proveable, because it's not true) then you're out of gas. ] 15:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::That simply isn't true - corn is the word for ''Zea mays'' in American English and Canadian English and Australian English. And maize is also a word meaning the same thing in those dialects, although less commonly used and then mainly in technical contexts. Corn is not "the most prominent cereal grain in a region". In British English it just refered to grains in general - wheat, barley, oats, etc. and then later by extension, maize. Corn for maize is not a ] because it is used in formal speech and so is maize. The point however is that this title for this article is correct for most English-speaking people - who use the term either exclusively or occasional to mean ''Zea mays''. ] 17:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::http://teejer.net/chat/lofiversion/index.php/t10446.html - Oops! It seems we largely agree on the correct placement of this article. But just FYI, you can have this link anyway. It traces the word origins, and you'll find that it does, in fact, colloqiually refer to the local dominant grain crop. ] 06:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Did you notice that there were two opposing opinions on that page? ] 17:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Umm, I wasn't aware that the study of word origins requires a 'second opinion'. Do dictionaries offer 'second opinions?' Some things are grounded in hard fact, whether people want to admit it or not. ] 15:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No I am saying that you pointed to someone's opinion - and one that is opposed by another writer on the very same page. ] 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't think it's just 'somebody's opinion' - and I don't think some anonymous and confused commenter on the article makes for an adequate opposing viewpoint. In fact, this definition of corn (as the most predominant cereal crop in a region) is repeated in the very article ] at Misplaced Pages, which I haven't touched. But I think you've long been arguing this just for the sake of the argument, so I'll leave it alone now. ] 09:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Mazola is a leading brand of corn oil in the Americas, and the name, of course, derives from maize. There was even an advertising campaign in the USA for Mazola products with the catchphrase "The Great Taste of Maize". If the average Joe doesn't understand the word maize, let Wiki educate him. ] 15:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Agreed! The same thing applies to Aluminum. It was a brand name in the US back in the 1930s. I have no issue that there ought to be an entry for "aluminum" in the Wiki, but it should also have a link to "Aluminium" to illuminate the reader. |
|
|
|
|
|
If this Wiki is ever to be taken particularly seriously as a font of knowledge, it must not succumb to merely rote repeating of whatever cultural language rules on the day. Of course, we must acknowledge that ''Corn'' and ''Maize'' appear interchangeable words these days, but we should also be clear that there ''is'' differing meanings behind the words, however overturned by popular use. Otherwise we should submit that wikipedia.com be renamed slang.com.--] 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:First you should note that you are trying to restart an argument that ended months ago. This page is not in danger of being moved. Second, your derivation of aluminum is incorrect (See ) as is your calling corn a slang word. It isn't. ] 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Graph is misleading== |
|
|
|
|
|
http://teejer.net/chat/lofiversion/index.php/t10446.html |
|
|
Corn just means whatever cereal grain is the most common in a region. In the US and Canada, it is maize. In the UK, it is wheat. Elsewhere it is different. This species is rightly called 'maize' and corn is a colloquialism. ] 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Well...== |
|
|
Let me ask a few questions, the answers may help put this in perspective: |
|
|
In the U.K. you call wheat corn, but if I said "wheat" to a brit, wouldn't you still know what I was talking about? If I said "maize", a significant number of Americans, I'm guessing over 60%, would think I was talking about a ]. If I clarified "the food", I think about 30% - and higher for children under 14 - would have no fucking clue what I was talking about, even if I spelled it. |
|
|
Also, do you alter other names and phrases that would include "corn" in the U.S.? Popmaize? Candy maize? Maizehole? Maizey? |
|
|
|
|
|
On a separate note... there must be a tasteful way to mention in the article that whole corn kernels are famous/infamous for passing through the digestive system intact. {{unsigned|24.218.198.104|12 April 2006}} |
|
|
:Then this wiki article serves as a public health and safety service as well. People who think maze is food need to be educated. --] 12:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::edited to say 'most English speaking people,' hopefully this will be acceptable to both sides in this corn vs maize debate. If not, then perhaps you could indicate that it is known as corn to most people who speak English as their first language.--] 15:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I removed this as unnecessary as we already explain who calls it what where in more detail. ] 16:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Plastic == |
|
|
|
|
|
It should be noted somewhere in the article about the use of corn materials to make biodegradable plastic, which I know of one bottled water company that does so. Someone should do a little research and add it under maize uses. |
|
|
|
|
|
=="corrected for solar variations"== |
|
|
|
|
|
This phrase is really not clear in context -- does it have to do with carbon dating? ] 08:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
