Talk:Maize/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Contents

Source for other countries where corn=maize?

Currently, the lead says, "known in many English-speaking countries as corn" while the body says that "corn" means maize in the United States. I searched the archives for a discussion about this, and I only found this, where people agreed to "many English-speaking countries" but no source was found. Our current lead has an unsourced claim that (sort of) contradicts a sourced claim in the body. I don't know whether "known in many English-speaking countries as corn" or "known in the United States as corn" is best, but whichever way we go, we should have a source and the lead and body should be consistent. Does anyone have a source for countries other than the U.S. where corn=maize? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This gets very tiring. Check the archives before we go through this debate for the 40 or 50th time. U.S., Canada and Australia just off the top of my head. Rmhermen (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I've given the impression that I'm trying to revive an old debate; that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to fix a present flaw in the article. I did see in the archives that people had said that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also have corn=maize. It would be nice to include this in the article (probably in the "Words for maize" section) with a source. I've googled a bit for a reliable source, but I haven't found one yet. Do you know of one? (Added bonus: usually once something like this is spelled out and solidly sourced, recurring debates about it slow down or stop.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That has never been the experience here. As an aside, Archive 1 is part of the talk history of Corn, Archives 2 and 3 are parts of the talk history of Maize but earlier parts of the Talk:Maize are only in the history here. Talk:Corn (disambiguation) is not represented here but the earliest parts of all three pages talk history are completely missing. Rmhermen (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
And now I see that archive 2 is only a partial and refactored archive of the period it covers. Rmhermen (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you comfortable doing a history merge?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nutrient content of major staple foods[57]

Could someone please include another column called Human requirement ?

If you mean like the RDA, that is a U.S./Canada system and also varies by age and gender. Rmhermen (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent article

This is one of the best Wikipedia articles I've ever read, and it's on a very important topic too.99.112.157.156 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Field, Pop and Sweet

These although all are maize or corn they are different. Sweet corn is nor just immature field corn and pop corn is not raised as cattle food. If someone more knowledgable on this topic could add a paragraph it would be hekpful. Nitpyck (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead section mentions it as does the genetics sections. Is that not sufficient? Rmhermen (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking for corn.

Can some one please link me to the corn page, I can't find it. --108.193.165.166 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the corn page, if you are talking about the vegetable. If you are not talking about that, please specify.Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Look for it under Corn. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Google Search Display

The text displayed for the Wikipedia "Maize" page on a Google search reads "MAIZE MAIZE MAIZE MAIZE MAIZE MAIZE MAIZE TAKE IT UP THE BUT YOU MONKEY LOVIN HOMOSEXUAL."

Will someone please do something about this? I have no idea how to remedy it.

149.160.222.63 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh that is interesting. It is because that is how the page was, when Google cached it -- see here

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_sGbvJ3_cTEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I don't how to get Google to re-cache it, or how often Google naturally re-caches...Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yea should be a auto fix when google updates. 216.81.94.76 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It has already fixed itself. Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

More counterarguments regarding maize vs. corn

These were inserted in the summary section above, so I moved them here. That section is for succinctly summarizing arguments that have already been made, not for back-and-forth conversation.

That is not the point. The point is that the phrase "corn" is more familiar or common than "maize", as evidenced by the number of internet searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Note: "Corn" is not just the US usage. It is also the most common usage in other English-speaking countries such as New Zealand, Australia and India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add New Zealand and Australia to the list of English-speaking countries in which people do not use the word "maize". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't. I write professionally for an international audience and I use "corn" without exception. What is your source for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
All of these have been addressed above. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Change to "Corn"

  1. Popularity Australia, America, New Zealand, etc. all use "Corn". Only the UK uses Maize, and they are starting to say "corn" instead. It is Wikipedia's policy to favor no nation's English as the "most proper", and go by what most people say, which is "corn"
  2. More universal There are some phrases that always use "corn" andd not "maize". No one ever says "Sweetmaize", "Popmaize", "Maize syrup", "Maize-on-the-cob", or "I have maize in my poop". "Corn" is more consistent and can be used in all positions without sounding weird.
  3. Familiar As someone said above, if you ask for "maize" (even in Britain), people will be confused. Sure, "maize" may be the original Indian name for it, but WP:NAME says to use familiar names (i.e., "Christopher Colombus" (not Cristoforo Colombo), "Water" (not Dihydrogen Monoxide)).
  4. Less confusing Most people have never heard of "maize". This can be confusing when doing a Google search for corn. If you see "corn", it's more direct, but if you see "maize" you may not get to the information you are looking for. There are probably corn farmers out there who have been farming this crop their whole lives and have never heard of its "real name".

Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

  • No. Almost everything in the above is wrong - every single part of the first point for example - and has been covered plenty of times before. Let it go. Johnbod (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New (?) arguments about maize vs. corn

Some folks have started to argue back and forth in the "Summary of arguments" section. As noted there, that section is to summarize only the leading arguments that have already been made, not for back-and-forth signed arguments or commentary. No harm done, though; I'll just move the new stuff down here. Once things have gotten hashed out, if anything genuinely new and important emerges, I or someone else can summarize it in the "Summary" section. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Historical reference

Such are potatoes and maize, or what is called Indian corn, the two most important improvements which the agriculture of Europe, perhaps, which Europe itself, has received from the great extension of its commerce and navigation. - Adam Smith (1776), Wealth of Nations[1]:206

Prior to the 19th century, the term "corn" was often used to refer to wheat (such was when Adam Smith refers to "The corn of Poland")[1]:13 whilst the term "Indian corn" was used to refer to "maize" (see quote box).--Discott (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Objection It is no longer prior to the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shicoco (talkcontribs) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a very small point to me. 18th-century usage might be worth mentioning someplace in this or another article (especially Corn laws), but, as Shicoco suggests, the name of the Wikipedia article in 2013 should reflect usage in 2013. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Shicoco's objection is a fair one and I agree withe Ben Kovitz that it might be nice to have a historical mention of previous use of the word some where. However I also feel that although it is indeed a very small point it is one still worth taking into account. Historical precedence does count for something. Even if it isn't very much. --Discott (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Missing the point completely. As the article said last time I looked, "corn" remains the standard collective term for grain crops (of the wheat type - not rice etc) in British English & that of much of the world. Furthermore, maize is excluded from this - a field of wheat, barley, or oats is a field of corn, but a field of maize is not. Even American translations of the Bible still tend to use "corn" in this sense, to the bewilderment of some less well-informed Americans - see this search (the first link is quite informative). Does one have to keep repeating these basic points forever? Johnbod (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Objections regarding WP:ENGVAR

Objection to the objection Just because, if counting L2-English speakers, the majority does not live in the US, it does not mean that the did not learn American English English. For L2 speakers in many parts of Asia as well as virtually all of South America, American English is exactly what they learn, therefore the term they use is "corn". Your objection simply isn't cogent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.61.31 (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't really address the objection. WP:ENGVAR says that we should prefer to avoid privileging one national variety of English, not that we should favor the usage with the majority of speakers. I don't know whether the British or the American usage has more speakers, whether native or as a second language. As Newzild points out below, British English is what usually gets taught throughout the world. If you want numbers, you could look List of countries by English-speaking population, but it really doesn't matter, because maize is the international, unambiguous word, and corn is a word with peculiar geographic subtleties. So, maize accords with WP:ENGVAR, and corn doesn't. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Another objection to the objection From Wp:ENGVAR: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms." 'Corn' is used in America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and is understood virtually everywhere else. Maize is misunderstood by a large population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.135.21 (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The situation is peculiar, because the word corn is better-known than maize, but maize is international and unambiguous, whereas corn has a complicated variety of meanings that vary from country to country and context to context. Maize is the word used in English writing for an international audience. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Objections to various objections First of all, while it is true that the United States has the greatest number of English speakers, it is not true that the majority of English speakers live in the US. Therefore, US English is not automatically the default variety of English based simply on numbers of speakers. Secondly, while it is true that some Asians do learn American English, the majority of Asians do not. Countless millions of people in India, Malaysia (where I live), Indonesia, Hong Kong, Turkey and Thailand learn and speak British English. Thirdly, nobody in Asia uses the word "maize", whether they speak British English or American English. Asian English speakers universally say "corn". As for myself, I am New Zealander. I had never even heard of "maize" until I was in my 20s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talkcontribs) 04:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Corn with a qualifier outside the U.S.

It's just wrong to say that people outside the US "usually" use a qualifier with the word "corn". People outside the US just say "corn". A lot of people outside the US don't even know what "maize" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talkcontribs) 04:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see more data about this. In my own experience, I've usually seen British writing put corn in a compound form or otherwise use a qualifier, such as "sweet corn" or "corn-on-the-job", but I would defer to experts who've systematically surveyed the variations in usage. I understand that New Zealand follows the U.S. convention (though we still don't have a good source for this!). Perhaps the objection should be reworded to refer to the U.S. usage rather than just the U.S. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Not true. I have never heard "corn" referring to maize in the UK. I live in a rural area and corn invariably means either wheat (usually) or barley (occasionally). Maize is referred to as "corn-on-the-cob" or "sweetcorn".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Granted, the UK seems to prefer "maize". However, the UK appears to be the ONLY country that prefers maize! So far, comments from Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and Americans have all favoured "corn". It seems to be only a few Brits who are objecting to the use of "corn" at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
UK-born and raised, US-resident here. For me, "corn" in an agricultural context unequivocally means wheat. In a culinary context it could mean maize in some uses, but only in combinations such as "sweetcorn", "corn on the cob", or "cornflour". Grover cleveland (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
That may be a common UK view, but are you sure you can tell the difference between a field of wheat & one of barley? I certainly couldn't. There's no question that historically "corn" meant any long-stalked cereal crop, which is why even American Bible translations stick with "corn", as they can't know which of the various possible cereal crops was meant. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I could definitely tell the difference between a field of wheat and a field of maize :) Grover cleveland (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Objection to the dictionary

Someone inserted this in the middle of the pro-maize argument:

Objection 'Corn' is the only word used in the United States (the area from which this plant originated), and the word 'maize' is confusing to many people. 'Corn' can also means 'maize' in most other varieties of English, and the confusion it may cause to those readers would be less than the confusion it is causing to greater-in-number American readers.

This doesn't seem to me to be a real objection to the pro-maize argument, but rather a denial of what's in the OED and opposition to WP:ENGVAR. According to the article, the plant was first domesticated in Mesoamerica, but I don't think it matters where the plant originated. Confusing readers does matter, but we have to weigh that against other factors. The summary addresses all these factors already, so I guess I just have to say, "This has all been argued before. Please read the summary, and then if you have something new to say that hasn't already been refuted or outweighed, please bring it up in a new section." —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Corn is most widely used (?)

Someone added this as a new pro-corn argument:

Corn is the term used in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Neither corn nor maize is used in South Africa, and corn is understood in the UK (according to what I've read).

That more people know the word corn than maize is already covered in another pro-corn argument, and it has no objection. Unlike the other pro-corn arguments, it has not been refuted. It simply has to be weighed against the (one) pro-maize argument. That corn is the term used in the U.S. is covered in another pro-corn argument, though not the other countries. The objection (WP:ENGVAR) still applies, though. We have a pro-corn argument called "Usage data", but it actually talks about Google searches. If you have some data about the frequency and locations of the different usages, that would be informative. Maybe it could even go in the article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Corn flakes box South Africa.jpg
A picture of a South African box of corn flakes
In South Africa the word corn is commonly understood to mean mealies (as it is commonly known in the country- see picture). However the terms "corn" and "maize" are pretty much equally interchangeable in the country. " Mealie" remains the most common name for maize in the country.--Discott (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Corn" is not understood in britain as maize. If I hadn't been to the US I would never have heard of the term.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Need a source for corn=maize usage in Australia and New Zealand

The article currently says that in Australia and New Zealand, corn means maize, but we don't have a source for it. I've looked, and while I've found enough to convince me that the fact is correct, I still haven't found a reputable reference work to cite. I deleted claims that corn=maize in Asia (even India?). I've found no source to support that. I also deleted a similar claim about Canada. If you a reliable source for any of these, please add it to the article, or post it here and I'll add it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Canada - you can't have looked very hard. Rmhermen (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't look for a source for Canada. Do you know of one? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Take any of the first page of hits on Google - really we don't need top cite or remove non-controversial information. The sky is blue, man! Rmhermen (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Holy moly, I found a legitimate source for Canadian usage! (I really didn't know which usage Canada has.) Just added it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do you need a source? I'm a New Zealander who has also lived in Australia, South Korea and currently in Malaysia. "Corn" is the prefered usage in all four of those countries (including South Koreans using English as a second language). I've never heard "maize" being used in any of those countries, although my experience in Australia is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Because all facts in Wikipedia need a source. Wikipedia is a summary of information already published elsewhere in reliable sources. Please see WP:V. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That isn't true. Only disputed or obscure facts need sources. Rmhermen (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The nature of the discussion below suggests that there is still a geographic split on the use of the term corn. It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable to counter the point that corn is ambiguous in some parts of the world in some contexts. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


MaizeCorn – As per WP:COMMONNAME (see the ngram). This article has been in violation of the article naming WP:CRITERIA for quite some time, as evidenced by the talk page, where literally every entry as I type this currently deals with the article's rather silly title. The word "corn" originally meant the staple crop of any particular region (e.g. wheat in England) whereas "maize" was and is unambiguous (though not recognizable to many people outside the UK, see the 4-to-1 majority in American English, a greater ratio even than petrol versus gasoline for British English speakers!). Granted. However, the page corn has been redirecting here for three+ years, so apparently it isn't too ambiguous to use. In fact, check out the ngram over the past two hundred-plus years... See the word "corn" decreasing? I could be wrong, but I'd bet that the plant this article deals with is just as popular now as before. I think the dramatic decline of the word "corn" comes from UK-ers no longer even using "corn" to refer to wheat, etc. *goes and checks...* Score! I'm right! --see relatively stable U.S. mentions of "corn", versus a big decrease until about the year 2000 for British English. Anyway, all that aside, "corn" is clearly unambiguous enough, since it already redirects here. If there's a reason to blatantly ignore WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:RETAIN given the original version of the article, and arguably even WP:TIES given the strong connections between corn and the Americas), WP:PRECISION isn't it. The proposed title is far more recognizable and natural, and even more concise by one letter! smile Thanks for your consideration. Red Slash 02:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per the nominator and dozens of comments in threads above this one expressing similar sentiments above. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I would say that "maize" is recognizable in Canada, so saying it isn't recognizable outside of Britain is a mistake, since the French term is "maïze", and that is found on bilingual labels in Canada. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point. In areas where there is a strong influence from Romance languages, "maize" might be more easily recognized as being this crop. Red Slash 03:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I live in Canada. We have always called it corn. Does anyone call it maize?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME doesn't mean WP:USANAME; although the planet has more USA/Canada citizens than British/Aus/NZ citizens, India has more English speakers than all put together. "Corn" fails WP:CRITERIA per V. B. Rastogi Modern Biology 1997 "Ambiguity : A single name is often used for two or more animals or plants. Dhodak is the common name of many ... For example, corn is maize in U.S.A., wheat in England, oats in Scotland and Ireland." In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you please clarify? Canada = corn. I have been to the US and they = corn. What do they call it down under, UK, an India?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
How come corn is a straight redirect to here, then? Seems precise enough to me. Red Slash 03:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Nominator makes a good case, particularly the point that "corn" already redirects here. It appears that "corn" is overwhelmingly the name commonly used for this grain/vegetable in the US, Canada and Down Under. In ictu oculi raises a point about India, but this Google search shows that the word "corn" is very commonly used in India, and this search shows that when "maize" is used in India, the word "corn" is often used in apposition, as if to explain to the reader what maize is. It is clear that "corn" is the common name for the vast majority of English speakers. --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Because the dab corn (disambiguation) was moved. User:MelanieN it's called "maize" in India. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi, of course you can find references in books to "maize" in India (or anywhere); books are more formal, more legalistic, more inclined to use a scientific name rather than a common name. That's why a generic search of Google Books is not usually a good way to determine the common name. The regular Google searches that I did indicated that 1) the word "corn" is very commonly used in India (61 million hits for "corn" and "India") and 2) the word "maize" is also used (14 million hits for "maize" and "India"), but those links often have an explanatory note such as "maize (corn)", suggesting that even sources which use "maize" realize that "corn" may be more common or more recognizable. For a good illustration of the situation in India see http://cornindia.com/ ; it uses the word "corn" in most contexts and "maize" in the agricultural context. I really don't see where in the world the word "maize" is the common name, on which we are basing this article title. Not India, that's for sure. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
NB "maize in Arizona" - the name maize is also used in US. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't used commonly. Your example shows a grand total of five entries at Google books (notice that three are the same entry?) That is about very specific native varieties that no one grows in their gardens. We only know the word because of a misleading commercial. Native Americans don't commonly call it maize either but it helped explain the name of the product.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
"Maize in Texas" also gets results. The issue isn't about counting results, we know what is more common in US. The issue is proving that our American users cannot understand the word "maize" In ictu oculi (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose And the reason most of this page is about "corn" is because it is an attempt to make a FAQ so we stop rehashing this issue. Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: The earliest versions of this article do not exist. (I know I wrote line 3 of the earliest surviving version and probably part of line 4 but not lines 1 and 2). the early software did not preserve every edit. Rmhermen (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant, again the issue per WP:CRITERIA is proving that our American users cannot understand the word "maize" In ictu oculi (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it is the usual name. Hatagalow (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC).
I would treat any !votes from you with great suspicion considering your socking history. I note the striking similarity between this response and an IP's below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per million or so words wasted on this topic already. Greenman (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator; plenty of evidence that it's the most common name. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I didn't know what a 'maize' was before I leaned the word maíz in Spanish (recently). Where I live, it is, and has always been with no exceptions, corn.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do the pageview stats count re-directs as a separate view? If so we could see if corn gets more than maize. We could also go with http://www.googlefight.com/ at 17mil vs 2.5 mil, ~6:1--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
They do, unless the redirect differs only in capitalization. Now, a redirect will almost never outnumber a title in views; if it does, that's a pretty strong suggestion that you have a bad title on your hands. It's not the case here, but Corn's 13,552 views last month is quite a high number for a redirect. If I may invoke the doomed yogurt rule, it's very difficult to imagine Maize getting such traffic as a redirect, at least outside of legacy wikilinks. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the usual reasons. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Corn" is a common name for maize but is an ambiguous term. "Maize" is both unambiguous (or nearly so) and is commonly used in many parts of the world. "Maize" is usually considered to be a more precise, dare I say encyclopedic, term for corn. Application of WP:COMMONNAME takes this into account. For example, Wikipedia uses "flatulence" instead of "farting" and "vomiting" instead of "throwing up" despite the common usage of the latter terms. —  AjaxSmack  03:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, I do not see a very compelling reason to move the article over the redirect. The article's title has been stable for several years, even though this controversial issue has previously been frequently and heavily debated during that time, with no sufficient consensus yet to change it. Also, the third paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME outlines important exceptions such as "Ambiguous ... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable source". And "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". As stated in previous discussions, "corn" is a generic term in various English-speaking countries to refer to any cereal crop besides maize. Thus, it is not really a suitable precise enough title. Since various biological sources use "maize", it seems to be more common across multiple varieties of English. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose The use of "corn" for Zea mays is restricted to some varieties of English. As many others have noted above, and when this was discussed before, in many countries, "corn" refers to other grains, as it does in the UK. "Corn" thus fails the precision criterion of WP:AT. It's as unreasonable for Americans to try to change the title of this article as it would be for Britons to try to change the title of Association football to just "Football". Where there are clear ENGVAR differences in usage (as opposed to spelling) which lead to ambiguity, the solution is never to choose one variety of English over another. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Corn is ambiguous and not used to refer specifically to maize in every English-speaking country (or even most English-speaking countries). Maize is unambiguous. As to most British (or whatever) people not knowing what maize is, that's probably true. But they don't know what corn is either. They do know what sweetcorn or corn-on-the-cob are, but corn alone? Isn't that something you get on your foot? The only possible reason for this move would be to make us USApedia, which we are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Precisely. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm a British twat still angry Her Majesty isn't supreme ruler of the Unted States. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH. every user opposing above 15:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.35 (talk) [Geolocate to New York]
Not in the slightest true. Read what some of us wrote, e.g. my point about "Association football" as a title. "Sweetcorn" (the most common name in British English) would be an equally bad title for this article and I would oppose it just as strongly were it suggested. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems quite a pithy summary (if not entirely complete) of where many supporters are coming from. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It's "Wikipedia", not "Wikipædia". Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
And how is that relevant? Corn is ambiguous. This isn't an æ issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you've echoed Hataglow's argument above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support If corn is ambiguous, and the Brits "who invented the language so they are always correct" use corn for wheat, why does "corn" redirect here, and not to wheat? Maize is also an American discovery, and predominantly American things are to be referred to in the American way, whereas a British discovery (like Kale) or Australian one (like Vegemite) should be referred to in the manner of the place that discovered/made it. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
If maize/corn should be referred to in the language of those who discovered it, then why are we using any variety of English? The crop was developed by indigenous peoples long before European colonists arrived and long before "America" came into existence. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Reread - "Corn" means any grassy cereal crop in British English, and at least historically in American English too. Could be barley etc etc. Hence American Bibles using "corn" - see above. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The term "Corn" is used for different crops, depending (mostly) on location. It therefore fails the "precision" criterion of WP:AT. bobrayner (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN. This is also an established WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Corn," so I don't find the precision arguments convincing. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:AT. "Maize" is more precise. Citing WP:TIES is completely inappropriate; this is a subject of global importance. The first people in the Americas who were asked about the name for it called it "maize". The origins of a domesticated plant or an invention are not what WP:TIES is about (and the plant originated in Mexico, not the US anyway). Plantdrew (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. The danger of astonishment for us Americans who call it "corn" seems exaggerated, as we generally learn the word "maize" in elementary school when we study Native Americans and Thanksgiving. If you search "maize" and "first thanksgiving" on Google Books, you get many children's books from U.S. publishers, so the word is hardly esoteric. "Maize" makes regular appearances in American popular culture, from the old Mazola margarine ads,[1] to homespun puns on "a-maize-ing" corn products or activities.[2] Increasing Spanish-English bilingualism in the U.S. also contributes to familiarity. Though used less often, "maize" is not alien to Americans. A move should yield a greater benefit, and I don't see one here, as "maize" offers encyclopedic precision and more educational value as a title. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Style or Stigma

In this article, the "silk" on the ends of an ear are referred to as elongated stigmas. I assumed it would be the style. Can someone double check this? 63.152.120.74 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative retitling proposal: Shift it to "Maize (Corn)"

Maize (Corn)

In American English, corn is the word used for Zea mays. It is not a word used for Zea mays, it is the word used for Zea mays.

If corn were merely 'a' word used for Zea mays, this article wouldn't link to Corn production in the United States. This article would link to "Maize production in the United States," because the American article would have to use the word that is both fully American and still reaches the widest audience, in the same way that an article on eyeglasses/spectacles must instead use the word glasses that is correct in both regions. The US Corn Production article does indeed use the word that is fully part of American English; that word is corn, and that word is not maize. The terms corn and maize are not equally American (if they were, the article would have to default to maize); and therefore, maize is not the fully standard word that the opposition would like to have one believe. The fact that the word maize has been added to the American article at all is a gloss for non-Americans; the word corn is used as the primary and correct term, because that is its proper place in American English.

Yes, the term maize is used in scientific contexts to refer to all corn, even when those scientific contexts occur in North America. But scientists make up a rather small percentage of the population of the United States; and when they talk about their work, they usually talk about corn, despite the fact that they write about maize. While I cannot speak for those from other regions, I can attest fully that in the vernacular American English (and therefore in the relevant usage, since corn/maize is a culturally important vernacular topic) the term maize always carries a connotation of restriction to the corn cultivars grown by the indigenous peoples of America, which were and are distinct from the modern industrialized varieties we eat as sweetcorn and grow as field corn. "Corn" is not a simple convenience foreshortening of the phrase 'Indian corn;' it is instead a foreshortening that deliberately intends to open up the meaning of the term to refer to a different kind of corn grown by non-Native Americans. Again, the term maize alongside the phrases 'Indian corn' and the illuminating and more-politically-correct term 'Native corn' all preserve the connotation of original ancestral corn varieties. Because I am cognizant that this article is not talking about historical varieties of corn the way an American would, I must merely make an internal mental correction to avoid confusion; which is to say, I must make the mental correction that the opposition claims is unacceptable to force people to make (unless of course, those people happen to be from Canada, the US, Australia, or New Zealand.)

In any case, the primary claim that the term corn is ambiguous comes from the notion that the term is used to categorically refer to local staple crops. Corn named maize qualifies as a local staple crop, so there is absolutely nothing factually inaccurate about labeling maize in the title with the word "corn" in parentheses; because maize is a type of corn. End of story.

The rules of Wikipedia would roughly state that one should only categorize the title if the term is used to title two articles about different topics. There is no article about the types of corn originally grown by Native Americans, and there would be other ways to title it if there were; this label in parentheses that I'm proposing would indeed be officially unnecessary.

However, the rules of Wikipedia also state that the rules may be ignored whenever an alternative that would be against the strict-form rules would in fact improve Wikipedia. Labeling this crop in parentheses as "corn," as an alternative to keeping the title exclusively as "maize," would indeed improve Wikipedia. Once again, end of story. This alternative would not confuse anyone, but would rather specify that the subject is not restricted to Native corn. The notation itself would serve a double purpose; anyone for whom corn is always a category would intuitively interpret the parentheses as indicative of a category, and anyone for whom corn is always a crop would intuitively interpret the parentheses as indicating existence of an alternate word. It would not be inaccurate; heck, it would serve as a teachable moment inspiring readers to be curious why exactly the double specification, inspiring a search for knowledge of the formal distinction between the two terms, which is a more educational way of going about it than merely allowing Canadian, American, Australian and New Zealand readers to assume that maize is just some formal word being used instead of the usual kind of English. In all ways possible, retitling the article "Maize (Corn)" is superior to leaving the title as merely "Maize."

I do not think that American English is more standard than British English or any other form of English. I think that as per the rules, they are equally standard. Therefore, I am not asking that the page be renamed "corn" according to the only possible American standard. But I am asking that the page's title include the word "corn," in such a way as to represent the word jointly as the alternative name for maize that it is, as well as the category of crop that it is. Because that compromise would be better for everyone.

So I guess here's to hoping that there is someone else out there who sees intelligently radical compromise as preferable to stiflingly dogmatic bureaucracy.

130.132.173.196 (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering the first new idea to appear in this debate for years, and for putting some serious thought into it. A few comments:
1. Giving so much weight to American English violates WP:ENGVAR. The current title is "maize" mainly because the meaning of "maize" is unambiguous in all regional varieties of English, whereas "corn" has confusing ambiguities that vary from one geographic region to another.
2. The reason we don't have "(corn)" in the title now is because the plant species is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC named by the word "maize".
3. Regarding the teachable moment produced by adding "(corn)" to the title, Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia—a summary of facts, not a teaching guide. We summarize the facts in other published sources, and leave it to readers to decide how to use them. It is not Wikipedia's place to try to skew or shape the facts to create or take advantage of teachable moments. Please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.
4. I agree with you that "maize" is a somewhat technical term, and "corn" is more vernacular. This is indeed a strike against "maize". The current consensus is that this strike against "maize" is outweighed by the factors favoring it.
For a summary of all previous arguments about how to title this page, please see the first section of this Talk page. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a source on New Zealand usage

Someone inserted this in the summary section above:

The English language is not the American language. That is not however relevant here. What is relevant is that in the USA (primarily) corn has a different meaning to that understood by most other English speakers. As a native speaker of New Zealand English (49 years) I dispute the suggestion that "corn" in New Zealand means maize. Sweet corn is the term generally used in NZ - not corn- precisely because there are other types of corn.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know New Zealand English, but what you've said here agrees with most of what I've come across elsewhere. Can you suggest a published source on New Zealand English which we could cite in the article? Then we could get rid of one of the last remaining "citation needed" tags. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieving a little bit of old discussion from the archive, there's a comment by User:Rmhermen that I didn't address:

Why do you need a source? I'm a New Zealander who has also lived in Australia, South Korea and currently in Malaysia. "Corn" is the prefered usage in all four of those countries (including South Koreans using English as a second language). I've never heard "maize" being used in any of those countries, although my experience in Australia is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Because all facts in Wikipedia need a source. Wikipedia is a summary of information already published elsewhere in reliable sources. Please see WP:V. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That isn't true. Only disputed or obscure facts need sources. Rmhermen (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought the point about New Zealand usage was disputed by one or two people, but I could be mistaken. As an American, the point about New Zealand usage seems obscure to me. I feel uneasy putting a claim about New Zealand usage in the article without a source. But, if there's really no problem with it, I'd love to lose the "citation needed" and just describe the geographic differences simply and plainly. Can you point me to a policy or a fact that would make me feel less uneasy about making this claim without a source? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, because there isn't one. As soon as anyone queries whether a statement is accurate, then a citation is needed. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, full of information added by editors who sincerely believe that it is true, but who inevitably have only a partial, parochial view. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dent corn

Regarding this reversion, with the comment "when about 7% of the world uses the word, I think it could be classified as another word for it", can someone provide some information about usage of the phrase "dent corn" in culinary contexts outside North America, Australia, and New Zealand? The Oxford English Dictionary specifies that "dent corn" is a U.S. usage, and all its quotations seem to come from agricultural or biological contexts. Here's the full entry:

3. dent corn n. a variety of Indian corn having a dent or depression in each kernel. Also ellipt. (See also quot. 1909.) U.S.
1853 Trans. Michigan Agric. Soc. 5 125 The land..was planted..with the ‘Indian Yellow Dent’.
1873 Trans. Dep. Agric. Illinois X. 77 The Dent Corns—White and Yellow Dent, Large White, and Yellow Dent.
1909 W. Bateson Mendel's Princ. Heredity 264 According as the seeds [of maize] are opaque or semi-transparent, the varieties are distinguished as ‘Dent’ or ‘Flint’.
1950 New Biol. 8 37 Dent or field corns..are flinty with soft starch extending from the base to the tip of the kernels.

The first 20 results of a search on Google Books also turned up mostly agricultural usage. From what I've seen so far, it appears that dent corn is mainly used to feed livestock, to make corn syrup, and to make ethanol, and the term is seldom used in culinary contexts. Regardless of whether the "Words for maize" section should mention it, probably the main article should say more, since dent corn makes up 95%–98% of U.S. maize production.

Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. I misread the context it was in. Sorry for the confusion Bojo1498 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
No problem, Bojo1498. Thanks for double-checking. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

'In British English "corn" means any cereal.'

…what? Is there some source for this? Because I'm British and utterly baffled by that claim. 'Corn' in British English means 'corn', as in 'the stuff this article is about'. I don't know anybody who would use the word 'corn' for anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.239.248 (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Noun
corn (usually uncountable, plural corns)
:::   (uncountable) A cereal plant grown for its grain, specifically the main such plant grown in a given region, such as oats in parts of Scotland and Ireland, wheat or barley in England and Wales, and maize or sweetcorn in the Americas.  [quotations ▼]
 :::  (US, Canada, Australia, uncountable) A type of grain of the species Zea mays, maize  [quotations ▼]
 :::  (UK, uncountable) A grain or seed, especially of cereal crops.
:::   A small, hard particle.  [quotations ▼]
Yes, there are two sources given in the article. See also the first section of this Talk page for a long quotation from the OED. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I hadn't looked into the article itself, somebody just pointed me to the line at the top. I'd still dispute the accuracy of the sources. Regarding the book, speaking from personal experience of living there as a native speaker, the claim that 'corn' in England means 'wheat' is just flat-out wrong. If somebody asked for corn and you gave them wheat, they'd think you're some kind of idiot who doesn't know what corn is.

That definition from the dictionary… As far as I'm aware, that sense of 'corn' is effectively a bound morpheme: it's never used that way on its own. You can have "wheat corn", meaning grains of wheat, etc. But (today at least) when used alone, 'corn' means 'maize' and 'maize' only.

Of course this is all based on my anecdotal evidence, not something which can be sourced, so I'm not actually expecting the article to be changed based on this. But for what little it's worth, I checked with some friends from other parts of the UK, every one of them agrees that it's just plain weird to suggest Brits use the word 'corn' for anything other than… well, corn. 131.169.205.131 (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The situation is probably different for urban young people, thinking only in terms of retail shopping, but in country and farming use "corn" still maintains its meaning as any cereal crop, though certainly corn as maize is gradually taking over in the supermarket and kitchen, but then they don't have sacks of grain around. A "cornfield" is still a "field of corn", if only because then you don't need a close up-view and fairly expert knowledge (when it is young) to assess whether it is actually wheat, barley, oats, etc. A field of maize is called just that. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Since there are sources saying the same thing, I'm not going to doubt it when you say that in the countryside/among farmers it has this other meaning. I'm not suggesting that it should be ignored, but if this is a country/farming usage, it should be presented as such (I mean, 80% of the population of the UK live in urban areas, and it's not like corn is an obscure technical issue which is of no relevance to us city-dwellers), which I don't think is really the case currently. 131.169.205.131 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This is essentially a botanical and agricultural article about a single species, not eg one on cookery. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see what your point is there. Whether the article is about the plant species or its use in cuisine has no relevance to whether or not the hatnote is an accurate representation of the word's use in BrE, which I don't for one moment believe it is. It may well be used in some parts of society, but the fact this debate happens at all (pretty regularly, as was now pointed out to me) makes it pretty clear that the unqualified blanket statement "In British English "corn" means any cereal." is not a fully accurate reflection of how British English speakers on the whole use and understand the word. At the very least it should be reworded to reflect that a very large portion of BrE speakers do indeed use it in exactly the same way as the rest of the English-speaking world.
Regarding your reversion and stated reason for making it, while there's undoubtedly been a lot of debate about the article title, it's not clear to me that there was much discussion about that hatnote, which is badly-worded at best. If you really feel it must be there, I'd suggeset at least changing it to something along the lines if "In some varieties of British English, 'corn' can refer to any cereal crop", which keeps the information there without vastly overstating it in the way I feel the current version does. I'd alter this myself but the article's protected. 131.169.205.131 (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
"some varieties of British English" is too odd a phrasing for a hatnote, & "varieties" probably the wrong word - what "varieties" do not use corn in this way? This is after all not Corn. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
'Variety' is the term I would expect any linguist to use, but anything like 'dialect' or 'form' would be just fine as a substitution. As for which varieties don't use 'corn' in that way, I only have anecdotal evidence (based on asking friends from various parts of the country), but my guess based on that would be that the vast majority of BrE varieties spoken in urban areas of the UK do not use the word corn to refer to anything other than maize, and a brief (far from complete) sample of varieties not using it that way would be: Scouse, Mancunian, Geordie, Brummie, and whatever the variety spoken around Basingstoke is called. Which varieties do use it that way? With the sources provided I have no doubt that some do, but I've not managed to find any. Closest I came was a Scottish guy who said he's familiar with it, but neither he nor any of his friends would ever do it.
I once again fail to understand what your point is when you say this article is not Corn, mostly because it is (Corn redirects here).78.55.200.69 (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
So all your friends understand Constable's The Cornfield to show a field of maize? What nonsense; there is no significant regional variation here, but there is no accounting for people who think all food is made in factories. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You're talking about an 1826 painting by a man who lived in the countryside. This has no relevance whatsoever to the usage of the word in urban areas of Britain today. Are you going to actually address anything I say with some form of logic, or will you just continue sticking your nose up at me because I didn't grow up on a farm? (edit: but for the record, yes, actually I'm pretty sure that without examining it closely, we would indeed assume it was a field of maize, because that's the only thing corn means to us. Scoff at our ignorance all you like, it doesn't alter the fact that many native speakers of British English today know no other meaning of the word…) 78.55.200.69 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia might indeed be lagging reality here since we only reflect sources (WP:V, WP:OR), and the sources might take a while to catch up to contemporary usage. However, we've also had a number of Brits post to the talk page, insisting that corn doesn't just mean maize. See the archive. The "Words about maize" section tries to do justice to the geographic subtleties of the word corn without going into excessive detail; see the paragraph on culinary contexts. I doubt that there is any way to cover a word with such messy variations in usage in a way that doesn't seem wrong to a lot of people. I don't think the hatnote at the top belongs, though. I'll delete it right now. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
And I have reverted you - do you have any idea how much discussion there has been to arrive at the current consensus? Just because dozens of editors don't turn out to respond to every ISP query doesn't mean it doesn't still hold. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on the hatnote? The consensus about corn vs. maize took a long time (I summarized it at the top of this talk page to prevent rehashing what has already been discussed) and reflects a lot of thought and careful checking of sources. But the hatnote seems ill-advised. It's not entirely accurate, as explained in the "Words for maize" section, and it looks like it goes against WP:TRHAT. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a part of the agreed solution for the issue. It ("In British English "corn" means any cereal") is certainly accurate, but not the complete story, but then it is a hatnote on a complicated issue. I've never actually liked or believed some of the stuff in the text, like "any cereal crop, its meaning understood to vary geographically to refer to the local staple". "in England "corn" refers to wheat" is normally true, only because that is the main cereal crop, but barley is also grown a lot, and is also corn - the whole beauty of having the word is that you don't have to be able to distinguish the two species, which is rather difficult for a non-farmer with modern varieties, and nearly impossible until they are nearly full grown (wheat used to be far taller than it is, barley I think not). Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I would not agree that the hatnote is "accurate". It contains an element of truth, but it's misleading to present this as some overarching fact true of "British English" with no further qualifiers when so many varieties of British English do not accept this usage. I'm sure it is used this way in some varieties, but the fact this topic comes up regularly is a clear demonstration that a sizeable fraction of BrE speakers are entirely unfamiliar with that usage. Is there any actual reason you're unhappy to implement my suggestion of a change to something along the lines of "In some varieties/dialects/forms of british english, corn can refer to any cereal"? Because I really struggle to see what would be objectionable about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.146.156 (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's be entirely clear. Any and all British usage of "corn" for maize is entirely a 20th-century phenomenon, probably all post-WWII. The many British cities that have streets called "Cornmarket" etc do not do so because maize was ever sold there. The mentions of corn in the Bible & classic British literature never mean maize. This is true of all "varieties" of British English, which all have the word. Since raw grain has never played a significant part in British cookery some young people whose thinking about food stops at the supermarket shelf or takeaway door may now be unaware of this, but the traditional use remains part of all "varieties" of British English. And that's without touching on all the other non-American types of English, mostly from countries where agriculture is more important than it now is in Britain. What comes up regularly here is Americans complaining about "maize" as unfamiliar, not Brits or Australians etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You only have to take a brief look at the archive to see I am far from the only Brit surprised to discover this usage exists at all. Frankly, I don't care whether or not it's "entirely a 20th-century phenomenon, probably all post-WWII", the aim of wikipedia is not to describe things the way they were up until WWII. To suggest that all varieties (why do you keep putting quotes around that word? It's standard linguistic terminology) of British English retain this traditional usage is nonsense. Now, if you're going to continue, can you at least be less condescending towards people who don't know much about agriculture? Most people in the UK know nothing of agriculture, which is exactly why the hatnote's current phrasing is misleading. Your sense of superiority over those people doesn't negate their existence or the validity of their dialects. Whether you want to say the difference is between 'varieties', 'dialects', 'forms' or is based on common speech vs. agricultural/technical contexts isn't particularly important, (perhaps the latter would be more accurate, hard to say exactly where it pops up since in all my years in Britain as a native speaker of British English I've literally never encountered it) but the implication of the current hatnote is flat-out wrong.131.169.205.78 (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can equally truthfully say that I'm never aware of having used "corn" by itself to mean "sweetcorn" or "corn on the cob" or "popcorn", nor do I recall any other native British speaker of my acquaintance doing so. As a field botanist, I wouldn't consider "cornfield weeds" to be confined to fields of maize. (Try searching for "cornfield site:.uk" in Google and see what the term refers.) It may well be that British usage among younger urbanites will change to mirror US usage, but it doesn't seem to me that it has yet done so. However, Wikipedia is not based on any individual's view, but on sources, and the sources still say that "corn" in the UK refers to any kind of cereal. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

and I have no doubt that there are indeed BrE speakers who use it in that way. I'm not asking for this to be removed, only for the hatnote to be reworded to avoid the misleading suggestion that it's uniformly used in that way by all BrE speakers. 131.169.205.203 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What the OED says

The Oxford English Dictionary does not say that in British English, corn simply means any cereal. It says that as a collective singular, it refers to grain, and has different meanings that vary by locality, each locality using the word corn to refer to its own staple crop (see the first section of this talk page). It includes corn meaning specifically maize as originally a U.S. usage, but now a different sense of the word than the general sense, and this sense is simply part of English, not a locality-specific sense (also in first section of this talk page). However, cornfield has a broader meaning in the U.K. than in the U.S. The OED also lists the sense that Johnbod noted:

4a. Applied collectively to the cereal plants while growing, or, while still containing the grain.

So, the OED agrees with everyone who gave their first-hand reports of British usage above. But it does not agree with the hatnote.

Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for and against the hatnote

The hatnote in question:

In British English "corn" means any cereal.

From all the comments above, I've found these reasons for removing the hatnote:

1. Actual British usage is more complicated than that. "Any cereal" applies when speaking collectively of grains or when speaking of the grain plants while still growing, as in a '"cornfield'". British usage does countenance corn referring to maize, especially when talking about food.
2. WP:TRHAT suggests that a dictionary definition (even if correct) is a poor use for a hatnote.

And these reasons for retaining the hatnote [updated]:

1. More-common usage in the U.K. of senses 3a and 4a of the OED definition of corn.
2. The sources have not caught up to contemporary usage, so we'll just have to wait per WP:OR and WP:V.

Given that reason #1 is pretty weak, and reason #2 for retaining the hatnote now appears to be mistaken, the reasons for removing the hatnote now seem to me to have the most weight. Are there any further objections to removing it? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the original one, that this is a huge can of worms that finally has (thank God) more or less died down, and which you are now proposing to blunder in and re-open, just before the holidays too. All of these aspects (which you do not summarize very well) were known when the current, stable, solution was agreed. Comments from others please? Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Johnbod. Rmhermen (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding changing a long-established consensus, we can certainly wait for other editors to chime in. If my summary of the reasons was poor, please improve it. A good summary of the reasons for and against will help a lot. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The widespread usage of "corn" to refer to cereals in (but not limited to) agricultural and historical sources motivates a retention of the hat note. walk victor falk talk 09:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe I understand the motivation for retaining the hatnote. What's at question now is whether that reason is outweighed by the reasons for removing it. I've just updated reason #1 in the summary above. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
When a term that leads directly to an article (by serving as either its title or a redirect) has a significant alternative English-language meaning with a relevant Wikipedia article, a hatnote (leading to one or more articles and/or disambiguation pages) is called for.
Our goal is to accommodate readers seeking different content. Where this concern exists, we don't "weigh" it against other factors (though a wording change might be appropriate). —David Levy 15:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think this tweak should conclude the matter. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

One small oversight?

This article is in my opinion one of the best on WIKI.

However, I think there is one thing that gets lost in all of this, perhaps to appease certain activists?

Corn (or maize) as it exists today is totally a GMO! It was domesticated and selectively bred (its genetic evolution intentionally altered) by the native population thousands of years before Columbus was born. The original wild (unmotified, therefore non-GMO) form has long been extinct. This plant/crop and therefore, this article is the obvious place to make the point of how man has been "GMOing" plants and animals for thousands of years. The only thing that's changed is how much better and more successful we have become. ref: http://agron-www.agron.iastate.edu/Courses/agron212/readings/corn_history.htm

Corn would not survive now without man. Just like how sheep have been so motified over the last 14,000 years that they would no longer survive as a wild species. Corn feeds the world and is key the increase and survivability of the world's population. Without it, mass starvation. And the only reason it can do this is because starting with the original "Americans," we have spent over 6,000 years manipulating an modifying its genetics to create a supercrop that allows us to feed our world.1.229.130.160 (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, when making an argument, use spell check. (Modified, not motified). Second, we have not been able to modify DNA for 6,000 years. Third, we haven't been "modifying" sheep for 14,000 years. That just is illogical. I will agree that has become a GMO, however it's not like the article is denying that corn has become a GMO. Be bold and add it! bojo1498 talk 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
blech on the snooty spelling remark. outside that, domestication = genetic modification. it is definitely not direct in the way we can do it now, but when you breed for a desired phenotype over generations, you are definitely modifying the species' genotype. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sheep still do pretty well on their own - just ask Shrek (sheep). You also see small amounts of "volunteer corn" in soybean in fields using two-year rotation. Rare but not impossible. Rmhermen (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that the IP address overstated the case. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is true that you may see corn that manages to reproduce from one year to another and a sheep that managed to avoid shearing, although neither really disprove the point that the genetic makeup of corn and domesticated sheep have not been the result of natural untampered evolution for at least the last several thousand years. That was the point made by the research done and now included in course work at Iowa State and if you are really looking for corn experts, Iowa is the place to look. As for sheep, I would say the folks in New Zealand probably would know more than me and I would be interested in seeing any evidence they have that might prove any generational viability of sheep in the wild.(Bojo, check out History of the domestic sheep. Man started tampering with their natural selection between 11000 and 9000 BC.) The whole GMO issue has made it impossible for anyone to offer documentable evidence that runs counter to the politcal views of some being pushed elsewhere on WIKI. Any attempt to correct any of the myths or to present positive facts and outcomes is quickly deleted by self-appointed WIKI guardians. And that in part is why I did not want to come in and just slap a change into this very well written article that could cause a PC edit troll explosion that would destroy the authors' careful (and obviously collaborative) efforts here. "Talk" was designed for just the kind of discussion we are having now. And in cases where you have the kind of quality presented by the orignial authors' here (who are clearly experts), I say it is always better to present the concern and let them address it if they choose. I pushed the issue a little because I believe it is an important point given the attacks on GMOs and corn in particular, but I do not believe in rewriting and editing based solely on my own personal view of what is important. We all know WIKI already has enough pages loaded with uncitable personal opinions, political causes, general hearsay and outright lies that deserve our attention. Good feedback, BTW. 1.229.130.160 (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, thanks for your kind words about the quality of the article. On the other, please see the instructions at the top of this page, where you will find: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." If you have specific suggestions about changes to content or sources, please state them. And please do not hesitate to be bold and make them yourself. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Serious doubts about total world amount of maize/corn producers in 2012

I noticed that the Total amount of the World for maize/corn producers Equals that of the Sum op the Top Ten of maize/corn producers. This would suggest that in the year 2012 excluding the top ten producers nowhere else maize/corn were harvested! Well as I can hardly believe that that is the case I therefore have serious doubts about the total amount of 690,668,292 tonnes as stated. Besides in previous years the total amount of the world was always at least above 800.000.000 tonnes while the total of the top ten was always well below 700.000.000 tonnes, which shows a difference of approximately 110.000.000 tonnes that is not accounted for. 82.95.251.10 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Rob

I had the same question. I checked the FAO stats and it says 872,791,597 tonnes. I corrected the error. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if the note (No symbol = official figure, A = Aggregate (may include official, semiofficial or estimates)) makes any sense anymore. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where that number came from. They have the 2013 figures and I just updated the whole table. They have a new website and I updated the link too. (to get "world", select "world" from the country drop down and for years, put 2013 in both years. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Species

It is weird how when I click on the species of the plant Z. mays, I come back to this page, like f5. -- Ababcdc (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

fixed. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Rejection of Yellow Maize in Africa

I think I read that yellow maize was rejected in Africa in the book, Lost Crops of Africa: Volume I: Grains. Can anybody conform this [3], [4] Maize and Grace: Africa's Encounter with a New World Crop, 1500-2000? Komitsuki (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This book snippet provides some info. Greenman (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I found this article in "diaforetiko" but it is in Greek and it won't let me copy it. It needs someone with a fluency in Greek and English needs to translate it properly rather than just pressing "translate" as this tool is unable to translate the Greek correctly, grammatically or in syntax. It talks of Zia/Zeia ~ maize being an ancient grain, used and spoken about by the famous ancient Greeks, very impressive and disturbing in the fact that it was banned in Greece?! 121.222.146.23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • My shorter Liddell & Scott Ancient Greek to English says that Ancient Greek ζεία meant "a sort of grain, used as fodder for horses, prob. a coarse wheat, spelt"; but article spelt says that it may be emmer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this could also be helpful. Komitsuki (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Zea mays" is not the same as "Maize"

Zea mays should not redirect to Maize. The species includes several subspecies, only one of which (Zea mays subsp. mays) is the "maize" of agriculture. 173.73.232.183 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Maize is the generally accepted common name for the crop, so when people refer to maize, they typically aren't referring to the other species. "Wild" maize or those grown by indigenous are also referred to as Teosinte (disambiguation), which is where the distinction currently is made. Is this the issue you were ultimately getting at? Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The point is that the species Zea mays includes 3 wild subspecies that are NOT "maize" but rather are teosintes. The Zea (genus) article makes this more clear. Thus Zea mays should have its own article about the species and its 4 subspecies (only one of which is cultivated as maize), rather than redirecting to the Maize article. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see where you're going now. The one issue I can see is that when people are searching for Zea mays they are likely looking for the mays subspecies, which is probably how the redirect arose. What would need to be done is to probably make a small stub (i.e., The last species is further divided into four subspecies: huehuetenangensis, mexicana, parviglumis, and mays. The first three subspecies are teosintes; the last is maize, or corn, the only domesticated taxon in the genus Zea.) with a taxobox, and wikilink the mays subsp. to maize. Any thoughts on this from other folks. I normally don't like tinkering with things below the species level, but it seems like it might be the best approach in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The best solution is probably to have a short article on the species Zea mays which discusses all the subspecies. There can be a hatnote directing the reader to the Maize article for the domesticated species. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

General Discussion on Corn vs Maize

I'm puzzled by this debate. The article itself states that the word "corn" has a specific meaning for a certain type of corn in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand - in other words, most of the English speaking world. Isn't this an English language wiki? I think the common English word should be used here. It has nothing to do with favoring American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.151.63.64 (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Here in England "corn" traditionally means any cereal crop including wheat. The usage "corn" for maize arose as short for "Indian corn", where the word "Indian" meant "Amerindian". (Whoever first mentioned maize in the Swahili language mistook and thought that it referred to India in Asia, and thus the Swahili word for maize is "muhindi".) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that since Corn Flakes has become a staple, and American culture has increased its influence in England, there are very few people who would now find "corn" to be an ambiguous reference. If someone says "corn" I expect them to mean maize and any other usage should refer to the plant's name (e.g. wheat, rye, barley or oats as appropriate). As a coeliac, I really hope my experience continues to be true! Gavinayling (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If the context makes clear that a single kind of grain in a food product is meant, then I would expect "corn" to mean maize, but that doesn't alter my primary use. If I say "that corn field is full of poppies" I don't mean a field of maize. I've just read in a local magazine that corn needs a moisture content of below 15% before it can be combined; it certainly doesn't refer to maize! Corn dollies, a feature of many English harvest festivals, aren't made of maize stalks. And so on. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. For me, "corn" means "wheat" or other grains in an agricultural context, but sometimes "maize" in a culinary context. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There is confusion here between what terms are used, and what terms should be used. There may be logical arguments in favour of each usage, but isn't that irrelevant? Isn't the debate about what terms are actually used - rightly or wrongly? Incidentally as a New Zealander, I would say the term corn here almost always refers to maize - but is usually qualified as "sweet corn".101.98.188.150 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If searching for "corn" sends you to this article why not just rename the article "corn" and change this line

to this

Ya I know, beating a dead horse but I wanted to get my shot in. Dr. Morbius (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources to suggest?

I was amazed at first that an article with as many page views each year as this article receives has yet to be improved beyond B-class. But then I saw that the talk page here is just endless repetition about the name of the article. Let's try something different here. Leaving aside the issue of the name of this article, what reliable sources do you recommend that Wikipedians read to prepare for edits to the article content so that the article comprehensively covers the article topic? What sources have been put together to serve as textbooks for agriculture researchers, farmers, food producers, or other persons looking for accurate information on the plant and food crop that is the topic of this article? What have you read about the topic recently, and what would be a good source for the rest of us to read? I have very good library and online access for sources, and I'd be delighted to help fix this article, whatever title it has. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough Already, Move This Article to its Correct Title

More than half of the world's native English-speaking population is American. Does the fact that one country holds more than 50% of a language's native speakers not matter, as 'Wikipedia doesn't favor any national variety of language'? So, Wikipedia should totally ignore how the majority of native English speakers refer to this crop because they all happen to be of the same nationality, so it would be biased?? Seriously! From my perspective, it seems that calling this article "Maize" is favoring English speakers from the British Isles. Let's cut the nonsense and move the article to Corn. Who's with me? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

People use different common names, but maize is considered the universal common name (even in the US), which is why you'll see scholarly sources using the term maize. That the public uses the term corn is more than enough to say early on in the article that corn is another name for maize. However, maize equates to corn in English speaking localities, so I see no reason to change it. If someone's really that uncomfortable with maize being the common name, that's something for the academics to settle in their naming conventions before we try to argue about it here. This has been rehashed many times already, but there's no consensus to rename the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that the manual of style guideline was written to address exactly the argument you give. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Please review the long previous discussions. The issue is not, and never has been, whether "corn" is more commonly used than "maize" to refer to the topic of this article. All the criteria at WP:AT have to be considered, and "corn" clearly fails precision. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to contest that WP:AT actually is in favor of Corn over Maize. Corn is more recognizable, natural to a wider group of people, it is more precise, it is just as concise, and clearly consistent. I would argue that it is more precise because in American English, maize is Indian Corn. Whereas Corn is universally recognized as the general term for maize. Even the products from corn is known as corn flour/corn starch, corn meal, corn syrup, and corn oil. Jcmcc450 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, on what do you base the assertion that "in American English, maize is Indian corn" (by which I assume you're referring to flint corn)? This is news to me.
Secondly, your "wider group of people" argument would apply to almost any subject with different names in American English and other varieties (if we're counting persons for whom English is a primary language). Surely, you don't advocate that we make American English the default across Wikipedia.
The word "corn" means this article's subject more often than it does others, so Corn redirects to the page. "Maize" is less ambiguous, as its other meanings are very minor. The current setup works well, however much it might irritate you by failing to reflect your personal usage. —David Levy 20:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well said. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is my reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maize. Argue with Merriam-Webster if you want, but I would like to see some proper references to the notion that maize is more widely used. If the word corn means the articles subjects the vast majority of the time, it should be the title per WP:AT Also, Peter coxhead, this is not a forum, please only input relevant discussion to the topic at hand. Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No-one disputes either that in US English, "corn" is by far the most commonly used term for the topic of the article, nor that, as there are more speakers of US English than others, that "corn" is thus the commonest term for the topic worldwide. However, WP:AT does not say that this makes it the title to be used. There are a set of criteria to be balanced, amongst which is precision. "Corn" fails precision. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you click through to Merriam-Webster's "Indian corn" page? Did you check their "corn" page?
In case you didn't realize, "Indian corn" is the Maize article's subject (and "corn", in this context, is an abbreviated form of the term). "Indian corn" also can refer to flint corn in particular (hence Merriam-Webster's third definition), which is why I assumed that this was what you meant (because otherwise, you've drawn no distinction). —David Levy 09:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This page really needs one of those "settled" banners at the top, so people stop wasting their time like this. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of being told again that this is not a forum, I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Above, there was brought into this discussion something that I have often wondered, in the statement "Surely, you don't advocate that we make American English the default across Wikipedia." I've wondered why for a long time. The website was created in America by an American. It is owned by an American company/firm. Its servers, and technically its only tangible element, are in America. All these added together basically make it an American website, if there is such a thing. And, as mentioned before, America holds the largest percentage of native English speakers. My question is when did was it decided to ignore all these facts and choose wording on a per-article basis? I mean, for articles on non-American topics, sure. But "corn" is, percentage wise, largely American (as stated later.)
Bringing it back to the subject at hand, and adding to the aforementioned facts, the plant originates from the Americas, the word maize comes from a Spanish word derived from a word in a native South American language, the word maize refers to several different cultivars, most of which use the name corn (dent corn, flint corn, etc), not maize. Also, corn is universally accepted, even in places where maize is preferred. However, maize is not universally accepted, as not everyone knows what maize is. In other words, everyone who knows what maize is knows that it's called corn, but the reverse is not true. Additionally, the US produces more of the grain than any other two countries combined, making it the largest producer, and making the plant a largely American product and usually recognized as such. Given all of these issues, and everything stated before, it still begs the question... Why maize? The only solid reason I can see is that it's considered more specific in some places, but not by a majority of English speakers. One last thing, Americans don't meander over to articles about British English words or subjects and try to reword them. Or, if they do, they shouldn't. Just my $0.02. (and written at 2 am, so forgive me if I ramble.) 73.51.83.101 (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This issue is not settled. Wikipedia is an American site, but more importantly, over half of the world's native English speakers are American. While maize is understood, corn is the preferred term among the majority of the world's native English-speaking population. And corn itself if grown in the USA more than any other predominately English-speaking country. I fail to understand how this topic is "settled." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.141.21 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to repeat myself. Do any of you have any published, professionally edited, reliable sources to recommend on this article's topic? Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or just to sling opinions around? What we need to improve this article, whatever title it has, is well sourced information about the grain and how it is grown and where it is grown and how it is used for human food and animal feed and how it is traded in international trade and so on. If reliable sources have something significant to say about what the grain is named, it would be okay by all Wikipedia policies to mention what the sources say, with due weight given to the issues that the sources identify as most important. Otherwise, all this discussion about the name of the article is just wasted keystrokes, because users around the world are going to be looking up this article by using more than one search term, and this article already has redirects set up to bring readers here even if they don't search on the article name. (I know that, because I have tried it.) P.S. I don't think that this is a problem. I am a native speaker of General American English descended from ancestors who have lived in North America since before the Declaration of Independence. I have several relatives who are farmers in the United States who grow the grain that this article is about. None of them take offense if someone refers to the grain they grow as "maize"--they all know that word. Really, people should get a grip here and look up actually useful sources for improving the article, and stop treating the article talk page like it's an online forum. So, to ask again, what sources do you recommend for editors to refer to as we collaborate to improve this article and its coverage of the article topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Biblical mention of "corn"

Just curious about the America's being mentioned as first source of corn/maize. In the Bible in the old testament corn is mention many times and I cannot believe Europe was not exposed to corn from the Mideast. I ref KJV Deu 11:14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy CORN, and thy wine, and thine oil. Deu 33:28 Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of CORN and wine; also his heavens shall drop down dew.

Perhaps my confusion is that corn in the ancient Mideast is not anything close to corn in the Americas? DM Hendrix — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMhendrix (talkcontribs) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See the confusion caused by the American use of the word "corn" for "maize" here above in section "Maize vs. corn". - Takeaway (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
On the Bible reference, which version of the Bible are you referring to? Some older versions do use corn. This is actually very related to why we prefer use maize as the common name in agronomic circles because corn can be used to refer to grains in general. This is one of those cases, but it could be worth including as a one-liner somewhere with a Bible commentary as a source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the Hebrew word dagan occurs 39 times in the Old Testament.[5] The word is almost always translated as grain in modern translations[6], though the Complete Jewish Bible translation uses wheat for Deut. 11:14. Rmhermen (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In Biblical English and British English "corn" means wheat or barley or oats or rye. "Corn" for maize started as short for "Indian corn". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Shicoco argument summary 22 June 2015

Before I updated some the arguments, "maize" had only one argument for it, with a very strong objection, and "corn" had several arguments for it, with several objections, some weak, some strong. I understand both sides, but it seems everything boils down to this: "Maize" is used only in the UK. "Corn" is used pretty much everywhere else, and is understood and used to some extent in the UK. "Maize" is not widely understood and is not used outside the UK.

To summarize, "maize", while more proper, is limited in usage and understanding to the United Kingdom. "Corn" is almost universally recognized (though this is not always the case). Shicoco (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever read a more biased and inaccurate summary of a long-running argument! fortunately the matter has been settled for years, and the community has little appetite for re-opening it. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I am summarizing what is below. Please update below if you think necessary. According to below, the support is overwhelmingly for "Corn", but the request to move was left sitting for years. Shicoco (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Abnormal flowers

User Anthony Appleyard has written the section below for addition to the article. The content is not discussed in encyclopedic format but rather an internal wikisource reference is used (discouraged) and images are shown without using WP:CITE templates for exact references. I feel this is a lazy edit without encyclopedic context why it should be included; WP:NOTIMAGE and WP:NOTJOURNAL apply. --Zefr (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes in maize, inflorescences are found containing both male and female flowers, or hermaphrodite flowers. Article about hermaphrodite and feminized maize tasselsHermaphrodite maize inflorescence: cob on the end of a long tassel[7][8]Hermaphrodite maize tassels

in my view the source is fine (wikisources are just public domain articles) and the formatting in this dif is fine too. 24.90.102.192 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I had hermaphrodite inflorescences on maize on an allotment that I formerly had in England: usually (1) a lateral cob with a tassel growing out of its end, and (2) an apical tassel with a few seeds round its base, (3) a cob with stamens among the seeds.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I interpret this information as esoteric and WP:NOTJOURNAL, I suggest that the images be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons per usual and you apply the appropriate WP:CITE template for the Wikisource reference (which I still feel is not a WP:SECONDARY source showing the origin of information). Currently, none of the references you added is cited properly for the References list. --Zefr (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The first source is plenty fine as it is only being hosted on a wiki. The source itself is Popular Science, though it's a very old publication. Seed development on tassels is a relatively common sight for anyone who grows corn, so I would call it far from esoteric. Extension sources document this pretty well, so that should establish weight for inclusion: [9]. I do agree though that pictures should not be cited as sources as that is technically original research. We maybe don't need a whole section to this, but it's worthwhile to mention that yup, tassels to weird things sometimes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Moratorium proposal

Given a recent (failing) RM, we need to set up a moratorium on future move requests to prevent ourselves from having similar discussions again. Taking Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Proposal: Another moratorium as a precedent, I hope more than one year, probably twelve centuries? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir, It hasn't failed yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.212.141 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I almost never use WP:NOTBURO, but it definitely applies here. This is resulting in an RM roughly once every two years. That's not at all too frequently; it's probably just about appropriate for such a controversial title. If someone tried a new request a month later, they'd probably appropriately be told to wait. I don't think we need to bind this page to enforce that. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Move protected for 1 year and that includes RMs Mike Cline (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

MaizeCorn – Much more support for this move than for staying. Corn is the predominant term. Please see top for current discussion. Shicoco (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • oppose Not even close to a consensus for this move, and the movetag is way premature. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC) (formatted appropriately Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC))
If there is not a consensus, then please add more support for "maize". Shicoco (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed repeatedly and the current name consistently upheld. The onus is on you to show what new arguments have appeared which would change the previous consensus. (The statement that "corn ... has a precise and single meaning, except in the UK" is simply false; you only have to look at the discussion above about the use of "corn" in translations of the Bible to see the potential for confusion.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That is for the KJ translation of the Bible, a British translation that is hundreds of years old. Also, I understand what you are saying, but it appears as though there is a big consensus for "Corn", but little has been done about it. Please see the arguments above. Shicoco (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to my fellow editors for what I had above previously. It was misleading, and I did not mean it to be that way. I have changed the reason for the move. I understand that this move is contested, and has been for years, but the arguments weigh heavily in favor of the change, even before I updated them. Please, if you disagree, edit the argument section above. I want to be unbiased and fair to both sides. Shicoco (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Look Shicoco, you have made it very clear that you feel strongly about this. But the issue has been discussed many, many MANY times on this talk page, even since the discussions you participated in way back in 2011. Please check the archives. There has been, and is, no consensus to change the name. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's use the argument section above to determine the state of the consensus. If there is an argument in the archives you wish to bring up, please link to it above. Shicoco (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
No, this has been discussed again and again with the same conclusion. There's no point in yet another discussion unless you have something new to put forward. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose Maize should remain the topic name; article name change has been discussed numerous times in the past by the nominator, yet no consensus has been reached. - nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Here in England "corn" means any cereal crop. "Corn" for maize started as short for "Indian corn". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Been discussed ad nauseam on this page already with no consensus ever coming up for corn as the primary common name to go by. Those supporting the use of corn here typically make arguments using original research or cite personal preference. Sources listed on this talk page show maize as the least ambiguous term and the preferred universal common name for English-speaking scientific circles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that is entirely the case. While maize is precise, users above make the point that it is not widely understood outside of scientific circles and the UK. On the other hand, they make the point that in other countries (US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand), corn is also precise, because it refers only to the crop, and nothing else, without modifiers (e.g. sweet corn, corn on the cob, etc.). In these countries, "corn", by itself, means only the crop/food. Shicoco (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe we should use Wikipedia guideline-making processes to propose a rule that no one can move this article to a different name besides the international, distinctive name for the grain until they have made several sourced substantive changes to the article text in the direction of improving the article to good article status. I am a citizen of the United States and a native speaker of General American English and have several relatives who grow the grain that is the topic of this article (as I have disclosed here before). I (and, more importantly, they, my farmer relatives) have no trouble with the title of the Wikipedia article using the most distinctive and specific term for the grain they grow. Everybody on the planet who actually knows something important about the grain knows that it is called "maize" in many places, and "corn" (an older English word that once had the same meaning as the current word "grain") in some other places. Big deal. Look up some useful sources for improving the article and leave off with this obsession. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there's nothing new here apart from a very pov misreading and summary of the arguments. olderwiser 00:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite the fact that "corn" has an older, non-maize meaning, and that people refer to it as corn, many of the arguments made in support are superfluous: there's the "Google" argument, there's the geographic argument (it's mainly the United States and others that call it this) - except that it's not encyclopedic, there's the majority of people do it argument: I think the total numbers cited are 2:1 in favor of "corn", but so what? Most of all, there's no effort to build consensus; this is an extensive set of arguments that seem written to browbeat others into submission. Lastly, I'm finding this discussion to change the page title to be disruptive - even though consensus can change, I'm not seeing that and haven't seen it. It seems instead to be one person's mission to make this change, never mind that it's been 4 years and consensus isn't changing. If anything, this repeated argument is preventing time and energy that could be devoted to making the article better is spent doing this - preventing a perfectly good article name from being changed. Hires an editor (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES – Wikipedia policy at WP:TITLEVAR is clear on this matter. It says that "all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles". There is no justification for changing the English variety, and doing so would be contrary to Wikipedia policy at WP:TITLEVAR, and also at WP:TITLECHANGES. In addition, "corn" is ambiguous, and refers to all grains, such as barley, wheat, rye, &c. RGloucester 01:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
"American English spelling should not be respelled", but this is another case where an editor did just that (earliest form). Fait accompli, anyone? --BDD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't be dense. What happened in the year 2001, when this encylopaedia was barely on its feet, and had no policy on the matter of English varieties, is irrelevant today. The present title has been stable for more than a decade. It has been upheld in numerous RMs. As WP:TITLEVAR says, we should not respell titles simply to change the variety, which is what you propose. There is no justification to change from the stable variety, and doing so would be directly contrary to the policy on the matter. RGloucester 16:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether the change in question is too old to be considered is debatable, but it's irrelevant either way. WP:RETAIN documents our practice of retaining an English variety in the absence of a good reason not to. Far too often, that last part is misconstrued as "no matter what". We can and do switch between English varieties when it makes more sense to assign a particular one to an article's subject. This is such an instance, for the reasons discussed. I have no idea why some editors' preference for calling this grain "corn" (which, as an American, I do in my day-to-day life) is so strong as to render the use of "maize" offensive to their sensibilities. —David Levy 17:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the October 18, 2001 edit is not the earliest edit of this page - merely the earliest preserved edit. There were at least two older edits, probably more that the early software did not retain. Rmhermen (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Rmhermen, I don't see any deleted edits on Maize. A few on Talk:Maize and Corn, but all well after the article was established. How do you know there were earlier edits? --BDD (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I remember adding the second sentence to the oldest surviving edit but know I did not add the first. The oldest Wikipedia software did not store edits like the current one does and many articles where Conversion script is an early "editor" are missing part of their early history. Notice that the second preserved edit (said to by Conversion script but actually by SJK) is a talk page argument that the page should be moved to maize. Rmhermen (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. "Corn" is the term used by more people, used by more varieties of English, and used overwhelmingly in North American English - that being where corn is from. Sure, nowadays corn is an important worldwide crop, but the same people supporting "maize" here insist on "football" for the international flopping exhibition - it's a situational argument, not a genuinely felt one. I'm mindful of the WP:RETAIN argument, but this looks like one of those cases where move requests will recur until the article is in the right place, and the excellent principle behind retaining stable titles has to take a back seat to that. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Objection Because "this looks like one of those cases where move requests will recur until the article is in the right place" is not a valid reason to move the article, and the article can currently be considered to be in the "right place" until consensus is reached.65.209.62.115 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't edit my comments, as you did here; that is disruptive. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You are hardly one to talk, bringing up the game hen. Take your trolling elsewhere.65.209.62.115 (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and since nothing seems to have changed in the past year and a half, I will copy my rationale from the previous discussion: "Corn" is a common name for maize but is an ambiguous term. "Maize" is both unambiguous (or nearly so) and is commonly used in many parts of the world. "Maize" is usually considered to be a more precise, dare I say encyclopedic, term for corn. Application of WP:COMMONNAME takes this into account. For example, Wikipedia uses "flatulence" instead of "farting" and "vomiting" instead of "throwing up" despite the common usage of the latter terms. To this I will add that User:RGloucester's arguments about WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES should also be kept in mind. —  AjaxSmack  02:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The article originally used American English. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per opposers, Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the last 3 move requests. "Corn" has a variety of meanings, including growths on the bodies of humans, and concerning a method of preserving meat, and a method of gunpowder manufacture. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should be considering the usage of the term "corned" in discussing the predominant usage of "corn". Should we be considering the Cornish Game Hen? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a reference to Cornwall. Dobn't be dense, you look like a fool.65.209.62.115 (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
So, you're saying that "Cornish" is a verb? Because it's not corned, it's the verb "corn" from which corned is the past tense. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This change request seems based entirely on personal preference and the requester has made only emotion-based arguments.65.209.62.115 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack and others. It´s a little like Association football, more people may use another word, but it´s preferable for WP-purposes anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the arguments above and those that I don't care to reiterate yet again. This request seems to be based on nothing more than a personal dislike of the status quo (retained through numerous discussions, with the nominator's participation included). Nothing has changed, and no new points have been raised. —David Levy 11:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RETAIN, and WP:TIES, in that order. While there are certainly weak arguments on the pro-corn side, such as the appeal to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the "'corn' is ambiguous" is incredibly spurious and ignorant of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Red Slash's nomination on the last RM is well worth a read. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If anything, the primary topic of the word "corn" is wheat. RGloucester 16:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure we can expect to see "Corn" at RfD, then. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The funny thing about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that its guidance is WP:NWFCTM, so even if "corn" is what first comes to your mind, it make sense to refer to maize, being more encyclopedic and all...Hires an editor (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
We don't disagree on that. I didn't use PRIMARYTOPIC as my main argument—just to show why all these "corn is ambiguous" arguments are bad. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither RETAIN nor TIES are policy, neither apply to article titles, and even if they did, they would not apply in this case (the crop in question does not have "strong ties" to any nation, and "RETAIN" does not support "retaining" a variety that has not been present for more than a decade). The relevant policies are WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES, as mentioned above. TITLEVAR tells us not to change from one variety to the other, and TITLECHANGES tells us to consider title stability as the most important factor. RGloucester 19:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI, WP:RETAIN applies to an article in its entirety (including the title); renaming is mentioned explicitly. This matters very little, of course, as the gist is the same.
Also, I don't know about "more than a decade", but the application of WP:RETAIN has led to reversions of moves that occurred several years earlier. (Off the top of my head, I recall an instance in which the duration exceeded seven years. Red Slash could tell you more about it, in fact.) But as noted above, this isn't that type of situation, as there were valid reasons for the switch from "corn" to "maize". The intent is to prevent moves based on personal preferences (which, interestingly, appears to describe the one requested currently). —David Levy 23:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It does not. RETAIN is a mere prose guideline. TITLEVAR is an article titles policy, and clearly trumps RETAIN with regard to article titles. RGloucester 00:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where you're getting the idea that "RETAIN is a mere prose guideline". But again, it doesn't matter. All of the advice in question is based on the same principle (hence the policy's link to the guideline for further information), so there's no need to consider whether one "trumps" the other. —David Levy 00:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The MoS is a guideline. None of it is policy. WP:AT is policy. WP:TITLEVAR trumps any MoS guidance for article titles. It is very simple. RGloucester 01:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to WP:RETAIN's scope, not to its standing in the event of a conflict between its advice and that of a policy (a discrepancy that shouldn't exist). —David Levy 02:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per RGloucester. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Why was this ever moved in the first place, violating ENGVAR, TITLEVAR, etc? Of course it should be moved back to the first non-stub version! If not, can we just willy-nilly move articles to another form of english whenever we see fit, as was done in this case? It should be moved back, there are 320,000,000 people that call it corn, vs 60,000,000 in the UK that call it by this name, and furthermore, maize is also commonly known as corn in the uk, but corn is rarely if ever known as maize in the USA. ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Your apparent belief that we retain an article's original English variety unconditionally is incorrect. The "first non-stub version" is considered as a last resort, in the absence of consensus that the use of a particular English variety is advantageous. —David Levy 10:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose: per hires an editor and RETAIN~~ip user ~~<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.5.13 (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) 174.236.5.13 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • comment So let me get this straight, this page was started as Corn, and was moved without consesus. This crop is known as corn in America, where it is native to. So we're using TIES and RETAIN to use a spelling that is both not used in the native land, nor originally how the article was spelled, to justify keeping this british spelling of the article? This isn't at all a case of a pro-british spelling bias? ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with the current title being "British" and everything to do with its appropriateness in a worldwide context. You needn't agree with that assessment, but please don't ignore it. —David Levy 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    If one insists on using the "it originated in America and should therefore have the American name" argument, the word "maize" is derived from one of the indigenous languages of the Americas, instead of being an import from the English language, which "corn" is. - Takeaway (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Who here has sources to suggest?

How about trying something completely different? Let's discuss here reliable sources that so far have not been used to update this article, sources about the grain itself, and sources that can be verified by main sources on the topic as sources on related subtopics like how the grain is grown, where it is grown, what its nutritional value is, what is unusual about it as a plant, and so on. This article could very readily brought up to good article status, something I have seen happen before to controversial articles, if only more editors here will look for and use good sources on the article topic. Who is on board with the idea of improving this article by improving article text with better sources? Who's ready to build an encyclopedia here? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the beginning of a list of current reliable sources about the article topic, for use in updating this article. You are welcome to add your suggestions of new sources. I'll eventually curate the list in this talk page section for addition to the article as new inline references for article text statements or as new further reading references.
Enjoy. Feel free to jump in with your suggestions of sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of color in table

The table of nutrient content has misused color in a way that makes it hard for normal-sighted readers to read, and even worse for visually-impaired readers. The color adds no information, and is just extraneous decoration that distracts from the informational content. Should we get rid of it? Reify-tech (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Some colour is useful, e.g. to distinguish headings from the rest of a table, but it should be discrete and not distracting, which I agree that the colours used in the table in question are not. So they should at least be changed to much lighter ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I suggest a much lighter pastel tint, which gives the general effect without drowning out the information content. There are guidelines in WP:COLOR. Reify-tech (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

How about adding Corn Silk to the list of "See Also's" at the end of article, and its not because its an article I just created, but because it might be helpful for readers to conveniently navigate to it. And thanks in advance for the reviews on that.

FindMeLost (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Don't think a link in the See Also section is necessary, it's already wikilinked on its first usage in the article in Maize:Ornamental and other uses Cannolis (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Maize vs Corn

I'm not native in English, but edjucated in British English. But I have always been under the impression that corn answeres to Swedish "majs". But now it seems to me that maize is British English while corn is American. How to choose between these words ? I usually mean that British English is taught world wide, and hence should be the base. But here is a plant, that to my knowledge is American plant. So perhaps the American word is better to use in this perticular case ? Elsewise I spell "colour", "petrol", "motorway", "railway" etc that way. But I still propose to use corn as primary name of this article. (And isn't corn is a bit to Americans what white beans i tomato sauce are to the British (?), and explains popcorn or pop-corn better. Boeing720 (taglk) 12:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the discussion at the top of this page. - Takeaway (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks I did. But too late. When old talk isn't visible, then it becommes easy to do the mistake I just did. OK it's not my first experience of this, but I think those yellow(ish) infoscreens takes a lot of space, and really should be located at the end of discussions. This was an explination, but of cource am I sorry as well. Boeing720 (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

Change the green lock to a {{pp-vandalism}} 115.188.191.246 (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: The page is move protected, so the current tag seems correct. Please explain why you want it changed.RudolfRed (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done All semi protected pages are move protected, so semi takes precedence when selecting the template. Stickee (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maize vs. corn: Summary of arguments

Here are the leading arguments on both sides of the maize-vs.-corn debate. In the future, instead of saying, "This has all been argued before," you can provide a link to this section so that new disputants can quickly get caught up. Contra the usual talk-page policy, I give you my permission to edit this section to make the arguments clearer or more persuasive, or to add arguments that I omitted. Please do not edit to weaken arguments, please do not add personal invective, and please do not sign your contributions. This section is for a clear and concise statement of the reasons for each position, not for back-and-forth arguing or conversation. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pro-maize

"Maize" is precise, "corn" is ambiguous

"Maize" is the vernacular word that means the species of plant that this article is about, in all regional varieties of English. "Corn" has a confusing variety of meanings that vary by locality. In particular, one common meaning of "corn" is whichever cereal crop is the staple in a given locality.

Objection "Maize" doesn't mean anything in Standard American English. Most educated people are well-read enough to understand it, just like most well-read people know what hola and bonjour mean, but you'll never hear someone using it naturally, and plenty of less-educated people simply won't understand it.

3a. collective singular. The seed of the cereal or farinaceous plants as a produce of agriculture; grain.

As a general term the word includes all the cereals, wheat, rye, barley, oats, maize, rice, etc., and, with qualification (as black corn, pulse corn), is extended to leguminous plants, as pease, beans, etc., cultivated for food. Locally, the word, when not otherwise qualified, is often understood to denote that kind of cereal which is the leading crop of the district; hence in the greater part of England ‘corn’ is = wheat, in North Britain and Ireland = oats; in the U.S. the word, as short for Indian corn, is restricted to maize (see 5).

5. orig. U.S. Maize or Indian corn, Zea Mays; applied both to the separated seeds, and to the growing or reaped crop. corn on the cob: green maize suitable for boiling or roasting; maize cooked and eaten on the cob.

Wheat, rye, barley, oats, etc. are in U.S. called collectively grain. Corn- in combinations, in American usage, must therefore be understood to mean maize, whereas in English usage it may mean any cereal; e.g. a cornfield in England is a field of any cereal that is grown in the country, in U.S. one of maize.

Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "corn"

Wikipedia's guidelines for naming articles about plants favor using the scientific term unless the plant has a significant agricultural (or other) use, as this plant does; then, discuss towards consensus, favoring both precision and a vernacular term.

Pro-corn

Corn follows Wikipedia guidelines for naming an Article

WP:Title lists these five traits for an article title.

  • Recognizability: "Maize" is not recognized by many non-expert English-speakers outside the UK. "Corn" is recognized by almost 400,000,000 English-speakers. See below.
  • Naturalness: See below. Corn is more searched for on Google. It is the term that is most likely to be used in a search on the subject.
  • Precision: "Maize" and "Corn" are both precise and refer to one thing where each term is used.
  • Conciseness: Not at issue here.
  • Consistency: Other similar articles include sweet corn, popcorn, corn on the cob, corn flakes, baby corn, dent corn, flour corn, flint corn, pod corn, cornmeal, corn oil, corncob, etc. Corn is the most consistent term.

Shicoco (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: A little research will show Corn is still a word with a similar - but different - meaning in other areas. Typically food, e.g. sweet corn like you said and also the raw product of maize, corn, which is traded, this is problematic since Maize specifically refers to the plant, like the scientific/latin name. A crude analogy would be to imagine calling this article "flour". Cypherzero0 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Corn is overwhelmingly more used than maize

English-Speaking Countries That Use Maize:

United Kingdom (population: 64,800,000)


English-Speaking Countries that Use Corn:

United States (population: 321,255,000)
Canada (population: 35,749,600)
Australia (population: 23,886,200)
New Zealand (population: 4,590,650)

English-Speaking Countries that Use Another Term:

South Africa (population: 54,002,000)


Population that Uses Maize:

64,800,000


Population that Uses Corn:

385,481,450


Population that Uses Another Term:

54,002,000


Additionally, corn was discovered in North America, where the term used is "corn". North America is the largest producer of corn and the largest trader of it. Shicoco (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Objection: By this logic all articles would be in US English. The current method of first-come-first-served allows a roughly proportional distribution, which is why Wikipedia uses this. Your list misses out India. The original term used in N. America was still maize, contrary to popular belief the existing population nor the Spanish spoke English natively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypherzero0 (talkcontribs) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Objection , both ways. This may be true, but the current status of English lanuage is number one. And in countries outside North America are pupils thaught British English. But my objection only deals with the addition part. I'm fairly certain that corn is one of a few exceptions from the British English as the standard of edjucation. And if "maize" isn't understood commonly in Britain and Ireland then my support of "corn" rises even more. It's interesing , however that closer to Britain, the British English word is more close. Examples Swedish & Danish-"majs", Norwegian & German -"mais", Dutch - "maïs". (French resembles neither), but m-a-i-s / m-a-j-s / m-a-y-z-e are all Germanic versions of the same word. But I still think "corn" should be given highst priority. And in a war of words between British English and American English, there are far better "battles to win". Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the plant to be of New World origin. That's a heavy argument for "corn", I think. Boeing720 (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Mais/Maize is not Germanic. It is derived from the word for this crop from one of the Central American indigenous languages, and the crop and its name were introduced to Europe by the Spanish. - Takeaway (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't really make that claim, did I ?. I didn't state that the maize/mais/majs/..etc word originates from any germanic language, I just made a comparisson between this Brittish English form for the plant in question and most other Germanic languages, and found it interesting. But I didn't say "maize" is of Germanic origin. But am I wrong in 1. the plant is comming from the New World ? 2. It's notably more eaten i North America than in Europe ? 3. And hence we perhaps should use the American form, which by the way, appears to be acceptable also in the UK and Ireland ? So once again - in this case my vote is "corn". Boeing720 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
How else could one interpret the sentence "but m-a-i-s / m-a-j-s / m-a-y-z-e are all Germanic versions of the same word"? - Takeaway (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
How can you say "French resembles neither"? French for maize is maïs (except in French Canada, where they call it blé d'Inde, that is India wheat, but they also understand maïs to mean that). And for your information, in French-speaking countries (maybe with the exception of Canada), pupils in English class are taught that corn means any sort of cereal, and that in North America it refers more specifically to sweetcorn.

Corn is name used by the CME

Corn, not Maize, is traded.

Objection CME Group Inc. (Chicago Mercantile Exchange & Chicago Board of Trade) is a US 'derivatives marketplace' based in Chicago and in New York, thus one would expect CME Group to adopt US English language and usage. There are, of course, many similar markets outside the USA.

Reply to Objection I agree with the objection. I would note that the USA is the largest producer and trader of this crop. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/trade.aspx, however, I find this section of pro-corn to be irrelevant, and I am pro-corn. Shicoco (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Maize" is a formal, obscure word

Many more people know the word "corn" than know "maize". "Maize" is a somewhat formal, technical word, not as widely known. WP:COMMONNAME says that article titles should not be "pedantic".

Objection WP:Article titles, of which WP:COMMONNAME currently forms a subsection, states that one of the five characteristics of a good Wikipedia article is 'Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects'. Unlike the term 'maize', the term 'corn' is ambiguous, therefore 'maize' is to be preferred.

Reply to Objection "Maize" is not precise, because it is rather meaningless where "corn" is used. "Corn" is extremely precise; where the term is predominately used, it is universally understood to mean only the cereal crop in question. Even in the UK, according to the article, "corn" is sometimes understood as the crop in question. Shicoco (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Searchability

Google searches show the word "corn" used much more than "maize". Consequently, readers are much more likely to look up "corn" than "maize". Titling the article "Corn" would make the information easy for most people to find. Titling it "Maize" makes it hard for people to find.

Objection On 1-Oct-2012, this article came up as the #1 result on Google and Bing, and the #2 result on Yahoo!. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn redirects to Maize. Calling this article "Maize" is not presenting an obstacle for people looking up "corn", even for people who don't know the word "maize".

Reply to Objection The same could be said for people who search "maize" and end up with an article entitled "corn". Shicoco (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The most prevalent usage in native English should be chosen

  • "Maize" is seemingly only used in the UK.
  • The U.S. has more native English speakers than any other country.
  • The U.S. produces a massive amount of this plant, more than any other country in the word. Within the U.S. itself, the U.S.A. produces more metric tons of "corn" than any other crop by far. Thus it's a relatively common subject-of-reference in U.S.-English conversation.
Among the top 9 countries in terms of "corn" production, the U.S. is the only one with English as the de-facto/primary language; so, the usage of the word "corn" over "maize" is not only dominated by the sheer numbers of U.S. English speakers, but also because people in the U.S. are, with good reason, more likely to reference this plant in a variety of conversations (e.g. "My first-ever job as a kid was detasseling corn" or "I'm sure the corn farmers will be happy with this rain") than people in other countries on average (as corn in other countries, and especially in English-speaking countries, is not nearly as ubiquitous).
  • Maize is an obscure word in the U.S.

Thus, titling this Wikipedia page "maize" seems a bit like titling a Wikipedia page "camellia" and then redirecting "tea" to that page. Or more precisely, it would be like if the Chinese grew a plant they called "foo", and (1) the most "foo" in the world was grown in China, and (2) China produced more foo than anything else they grew by far. However, the Standard Chinese Language wiki page for "foo" redirected to "paz", a word that most Chinese people were unfamiliar with. And the argument was that people in northern Singapore called spinach "foo" and people in the Borneo region of Malaysia called palm oil "foo" (not as the actual plant name, but in reference to the idea that they made a lot of it).

Objection The English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) does not favor any national variety of English; see WP:ENGVAR. The English language today is the world's leading lingua franca. English is a second language for the great majority of its speakers, most of whom do not live in the U.S. See English language#Geographical distribution and List of countries by English-speaking population.

Reply to Objection From WP:ENGVAR: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English)." "Corn" is used in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and is understood in the UK. "Maize" is only widely understood in the UK, and is not used elsewhere. Shicoco (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent with other usage

No one says "popmaize", "maize on the cob", etc. The WP:FLORA guidelines say to favor consistency.

Objection These examples actually illustrate the highly varied, ambiguous meaning of "corn". The definition below explains why no one says "peppermaize" or "barleymaize".

2. spec. The small hard seed or fruit of a plant; now only with contextual specification or defining attribute, as in barley-corn, pepper-corn, etc.

a. A seed of one of the cereals, as of wheat, rye, barley, etc.

Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "corn"

It isn't unusual for regional terminology to vary according to context. For example, small sweets are called "candy" in the U.S. and "lollies" in Australia, but Americans and Australians alike enjoy "lollipops" and "candy canes"; no one calls them "candy pops" or "lollicanes".

Reply to objection - yet the term lollies redirects to Confectionery while Candy has a dedicated wikipedia page.

2nd Reply to Objection Where used for "maize", "corn" means only the crop in question. It is only when a qualifier is added that it means something else. Using "maize" produces inconsistency, because "corn" with a qualifier has to be used so much. Shicoco (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Corn in non-U.S. usage

Some readers have offered anecdotes of personal experience, observing that if you asked for "maize" in a restaurant in England, the waiter would look at you funny. A reader offered a recipe from a British web site (no longer available) that listed "corn from 1 corn-cob, removed and toasted" among its ingredients. These show that in the present day, even outside the U.S., the specific sense of "corn" to mean maize has displaced its older, generic sense of any cereal grain or a local staple grain.

Objection These examples actually illustrate the complexity and ambiguity of the word "corn". The word "cob" provides context that shifts the meaning of "corn" to maize, even in England. People do refer to maize as "corn" outside the U.S., but usually with some sort of qualifier, such as "sweet corn".

Reply to Objection This is only true in the United Kingdom. Everywhere else, "corn" by itself means "maize". Shicoco (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply In London, the yellow kernels that you eat is always called corn. Sometimes it is referred to as sweet corn, but always called corn, never maize. You can't go into a Sainsbury's or Tesco's and get a can of maize, but you can get corn, creamed corn, corn and carrots, sweet corn, etc. This article most definitely should go by corn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:94C:1202:F8E8:9890 (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply This article is about the plant maize, not its kernels. What people call the kernels is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.196.250 (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias say "corn"

Britannica's article about this plant is titled "corn", therefore "corn" means the same thing in British usage.

Objection Despite its name, Britannica is an American publication, following U.S. usage.

Rename

This page should be renamed Corn because almost all people know it as Corn, not "Maize". Although maize is the technical title, we could put that in the beginning of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.87.52 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I grew up calling it corn. And as someone else pointed out, the word corn exists in a number of products derived from it: popcorn, corn-on-the-cob, corn starch, corn oil, corn meal, corn chips, & corn dogs. There are also the terms Indian corn and Blue Corn. The product is marketed and sold as corn. How can they ignore how a word is used? I think someone has some weird cultural agenda here. Maybe an anti-US bias or something. 104.246.47.236 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly – see above, including the archive box. No-one disputes that "corn" is the term used in the US, but this is an international encyclopedia in English, not an American encyclopedia, and article titles have to be unambiguous as well as common. That's the only agenda. Sometimes this means that the commonest term used in the US is best – like "sidewalk" for what I call "pavement". Sometimes it means that terms that are no-one's commonest are best – like "association football" for what I call just "football". "Maize" seems to me like "association football" – no-one's commonest, but the best compromise. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't discussed. I even stated "As someone else pointed out..". You're one person, and you can't speak to the absence or existence of an agenda. And some of those arguments in the above discussion are tenuous, to wit, pointing out the use of the word corn in peppercorn. That's the archaic use of the word corn, much like it's use in the King James Bible to refer to grain. No one uses the word corn in that sense anymore. It's noteworthy the word corn also meant horn, but probably from a different root, as in the word unicorn. No one uses the word corn in that sense either anymore. So where is this ambiguity? I think the word referring to corn (herein referred to as maize) is quite common globally. Here's a link to digest:

http://www.adm.com/en-US/_layouts/ContactUs.aspx?Id=14

The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation has a global presence with "32,300 employees serving customers in more than 160 countries." (a quote from their website). They manufacture a number of products derived from corn (herein referred to as maize). So when they do business in these 160 other countries, do they employ the word maize? No they don't. The word is known globally as corn.

Also, here's a quote from the en.wikipedia article on ethanol: "In the United States, the ethanol fuel industry is based largely on corn". How come it doesn't say maize there? Is the use of corn here unambiguous or uncommon? No. Your argument is tenuous. I'll stick to my guns on this one, there's a cultural bias at work here. Maybe that's better than saying agenda. Cheers (I mean goodbye) 104.246.47.236 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course ADM Corporation uses "corn" for "maize" on its US website. Did you investigate its websites for other countries? It doesn't mention corn/maize on the UK website, but on the South African website I see that it uses "maize".
much like it's use in the King James Bible to refer to grain. No one uses the word corn in that sense anymore – but that's the whole point; they do. You undermine your whole argument with this statement. It's the standard use of the word "corn" in the UK and also in compound words such as corn dolly or cornflower. If there's cultural bias here it consists of an attempt to force US usage on everyone else. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok as far as ADM using maize on it's s. African website, I'll take your word for it. No need to drag this on. I personally think it is a britishism much like loo or lift. But here maize rules the day. Best to you 104.246.47.236 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

"...but this is an international encyclopedia in English, not an American encyclopedia..." This is something I have a little trouble with every time . 1: It was created in America 2: by two Americans, 3: and it is owned by an American organization (Wikimedia Foundation). 4: The servers are hosted in America. 5+: A perusal of it's own article on itself reveals a lot of other small facts pointing to it be American in nature and origin, like the fact that 51% of its contributors are herald from here and only 42% are from Europe. The only place I find phrases like "This is not an American encyclopedia" is when Brits are wanting to use particular nomenclature, as in this article. Nowhere does it expressly state that this site is not American, and all the evidence, factual or anecdotal, point to it being so. Making such a statement would be just as incorrect about Google. Sure, Google has offices in all the major countries, hires workers there, pays them, pays taxes, etc, but it's origins are still American. As is Wikipedia and corn. Insisting that, on a site such as the English Wikipedia which is ran by an American organization with a plurality of it's contributors being such also, an article about an American-origin plant/commodity/product should be called by its non-American name is simply silly.73.51.83.101 (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It is a deliberate decision of the English Wikipedia that it "prefers no major national variety of the language over any other" (see WP:ENGVAR). You can, of course, attempt to have this part of the Manual of Style changed, but I don't rate your chances of success very highly. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
By not changing this to corn, you are clearly favouring maize over all the other native Englishes.Correctron (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Correctron: if we had chosen "maize" because of its use in one particular ENGVAR, you would be right. But it was chosen as the best-known unambiguous term, which is a different matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

production

in article : 2009 forecasts for production in Iowa were 11614 kg/ha (185 bu/acre).[72][Note 1]

  • bad link
  • not numerically valid since IA in 2009 was 182 not 185 as predicted. It have no sense to pin-out one year some 7 year ago even not the best year and best location. The average value for IA is 170bu/a[10]. I like to know what is the yield in kg/ha and what is the price, cost[11] and profitability[12] for agricultural product. . Most of presnt content may be beter moved to section =history=.

Instead the section =production= is overloaded by some peculiar hobbyists/gardeners and historical content with little universal data. There are 4 refs in section production: 2 of 4 ref refs refer to pre-columbian times third newest to observation of 1704 Louis de Jaucourt. Last last, forth and contemporary, is used to support 'ostensible defect' that energy is used to inhibit spoilage of entire harvested grain. (And this is smallest amount of energy used in whole production cycle, but the only one mentioned). The article is locked so someone(majority?) must insist to protect this off-topic pathetic prolixity/crap. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Corn mentioned Many times in the Bible

Corn is mentioned many times in the bible including Ears of Corn I don't agree with the historians that it did not exist in the eastern hemisphere before it was brought back from Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:F00:5230:3CC6:84A7:418C:F74F (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Corn is the English word for grain, not necessarily maize or what's called corn in the US today. Greenman (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the word "corn" in British English originally meant wheat, barley or oats – the grains grown in the British Isles – and still does, most of the time. So when the King James Bible and later translations use the word "corn" this is what they mean; absolutely not "sweetcorn", which was unknown in Europe until it arrived from the Americas, and did not grow at all well until cultivars adapted to the climate were developed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In the Pellagra section, there should be a link to nixtamalization

There's already a great article on nixtamalization, it should be linked from the Pellagra section, rather than just mentioning the alkali water. Possibly in "nutritional value", too. I'd do it myself, but, y'know... --67.85.100.197 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewording

The line that says "in the USA also known as corn" should be reworded to "also known as corn in the United States", as it is much better wording and makes more sense. Thank you. 173.68.25.111 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually undid the edit that introduced that text. There has been a lot of discussion over where corn is used, so rather than oversimplify it to just the USA saying corn, we can let the body of the article deal with the nuance instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maize. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maize. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 20:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Maize. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 19:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Title

Article on the English Wikipedia still stubbornly using a relatively obscure (and rarely used) Spanish-derived term instead of following its own guidelines and calling corn corn, I see. 24.149.37.233 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, we've been over this endlessly, but to correct the alternative facts above, it's only "relatively obscure" to North Americans, it's the standard term elsewhere; and the name ultimately derives from an indigenous American language, which seems highly appropriate for this crop which was developed long before Europeans arrived. Further, the title is in line with the full set of criteria in WP:AT, so the English Wikipedia is following its own guidelines. I suspect that what 24.149.37.233 means is that they believe that US usage should be followed regardless. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Well according to this very same comments section, "corn" is overwhelmingly used in American English, British English, and Australian English. So where exactly are these "other" places that use the word "maize"? This is not merely "US usage", which you seem to be taking some sort of moral stand against. It is used by the three most popular dialects of English, which makes up, by far, the vast majority of English speakers. So please, inform us, where is this "elsewhere" that insists that "maize" is the standard term, and why should these fringe outliers be taken as the standard? And when you say Wiki is following guidelines, you forgot to mention "Oh, except for the common name guideline. But who cares about that one, right?" 147.21.8.1 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

In Australia you will never hear anyone call it maize. This is an English language encyclopedia, it should conform to English naming conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.68.202 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me add a view of a foreigner ... Unsing English for about 30 years now I only ever heared it called corn, never maize. And I'm from Europe, learned British English first and only much later became exposed to the US variety. Here in Germany this crop is called "Mais" which is pronounced close to maize. And we use "Korn" as the word for all of them, like wheat etc. But I still fully expected to find corn listed as corn as I thought that not only in the US but worldwide native English speakers would use corn much more often than maize. I'm not in the position to judge if the last mentioned impression is indeed valid, but a quick check in the online version of the Encyclopædia Britannica shows that at least they decided to list it under "corn-plant" (I got that listed while seeking for maize, mind you). So if the UK people and the US people and the Aussi people all seem to prefer corn ... wouldn't that be a strong argument to reconsider ? JB. --92.195.106.178 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This gets rehashed all the time, but part of the problem is that corn is an imprecise term, whereas maize has clear meaning. Plus, the scientific preference for common names is also maize, even in the US. A lot of people come in here saying they've only heard the term corn, but there are higher level issues than just who uses corn vs maize more regionally that keeps the title of this article as maize. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I concur with User:Kingofaces43. Please read the arguments about this summarized in the first section of this talk page. See also Maize#Names, which explains why maize is preferred in formal, scientific, and international usage. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's so imprecise, Corn wouldn't redirect here, it would be the disambiguation page. Corn redirects here, because it is what the vast majority of English-speaking people mean when they say "corn" and "corn" is what the vast majority of English-speaking people say when they mean this. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Then if you feel the name "corn" is confusing, feel free to add a blurb at the start of the article asking if the user was really searching for "corn flakes", "popcorn", "cornhole", or whatever other nonsense they were definitely not being confused by. And why is this obsession with "scientific terms" only applying to this crop? Several food names are used in other words. When I look for "potato", am I looking for sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, potato chips, Mr. Potato Head? Am I looking for "potato" as in a slang for a comatose person, or a slang for low-tech computer equipment? And yet despite this, the Wikipedia article on the crop itself is still named "potato", and not "Solanum tuberosum". Now, while this article has always been good for a laugh, I think it's about time some people finally suck it up, admit they were wrong, and change the article name to the same word that everyone is actually searching for. 147.21.8.1 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Google searches work differently, I'm aware, for people in different locations, but it's interesting that when I do a Google search from the UK for "images of corn fields" about half are of fields of maize and about half of fields of wheat, barley or other kinds of corn. On the other hand, when I search for "images of maize fields" I get only images of fields of maize. So Google, from the UK at least, knows that "corn" = all kinds of grain, particularly maize, wheat, barley, and oats. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2017

change links to "Tortillas" to link directly to "Corn_Tortillas", since "Tortillas" redirects to "Wheat_Tortillas" 2A02:C7D:934:D700:8DE8:8C34:3E44:5DD4 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Done . --Zefr (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maize. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 20:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently corn was found in the "Old World" MUCH earlier than Columbus.

This is the link with caption from below photo of one item found in a 1st-2nd Century Roman Ship Wreck off east coast of Africa.

http://gristle.com/

Damien Hirst. Golden Monkey. Gold, silver, black and white opals. 2011. The accompanying text reads: “The large corn cob may indicate this simian sculpture is of Andean origin. Maize worship was an important feature of Mesoamerican religion, corn being emblematic of the synchronized human cycle of birth, death, and rebirth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.59.67.104 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

perhaps you missed that this is part of a a “gallimaufry of anachronisms.” Rmhermen (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maize. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 20:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005