Talk:Maize

Template:Food portal selected

The Nutrients Table does not add up

It's more than 100g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.201.200 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right it adds up to 108.561

69.136.72.16 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Detail was removed

The following very detailed material was removed from the genetics section. Certainly it was out of place there. Perhaps it belongs somewhere else, or perhaps it is related to how inheritance in maize is studied? It seems a pity to just dump it.

In the maize kernel pericarp, the red pigments called phlobaphenes are synthesized in the flavonoids synthetic pathway from polymerisation of flavan-4-ols by the expression of maize pericarp color1 (p1) gene which encodes an R2R3 myb-like transcriptional activator while another gene (Suppressor of Pericarp Pigmentation 1 or SPP1) acts as a suppressor.

Nadiatalent (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

GMO Monsanto

Over 80% of the corn produced in USA is GMO by Monsanto. GMO corn has been shown in lab studies to cause internal organ failure (liver etc) and has been linked to Morgellons' disease. GMO corn is found in derivatives such as HFCS (high fructose corn syrup), fructose, vitamin C (aka ascorbic acid), flour, maltodextrin and a host of other products. Currently no labeling is required for GMOs. Mention ought to be made. Please don't reply asking me for a source. You can google that for yourself. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.149.101 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't reply asking me for a source. Sorry, that's not the way things work around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories run rampant where GMO corn and soybeans are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure: A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health -Atmoz (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the reference to glyphosate residue. Glyphosate is a herbicide. It's not part of the plant. Maybe they didn't clean the grain very well? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't actually read it. I just assumed that's what the IP was talking about since it's being passed around the Internet like a $2 whore. Plus, I wouldn't be able to evaluate a medical study if I wanted. Plus, aren't like 50% of all medical studies wrong? -Atmoz (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean the grain? Any suggestions? Of the three, one is specifically intended to be used with Roundup (glyphosate-based). Since it's Roundup tolerant, what tends to happen is farmers add overly-heavy doses of the herbicide, seeing as it has no effect on the maize. It's not possible to clean this residue, or at least, in practice it isn't. The other two produce insecticides as part of the grain. Greenman (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, they could always abandon GMO's and go back to using Atrazine. I note the study was done in connection with France or some other European country. Europe does not like GMO's. China has no such concerns. Not that China is exactly a sterling example in the area of consumer safety. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many people who search for "Corn" will never find this page

This is not an attempt to dredge up the old Corn vs Maize debate. I have read the archives, and both sides have made good points. However, the fact remains that a large percentage of native English speakers, especially in the US and Canada, have never heard of the word maize. If a ten-year-old child (or even an adult) types in the word "Corn", he will hit a disambiguation page containing a couple dozen links related to the word or name "Corn." The first section refers to cereals and grains such as wheat and barley, a usage of corn that will be confusing and unfamiliar to a large percentage of readers. In addition, the child might not realize corn is a cereal or grain, and even if he did, maize would very likely not even register as a word he has heard of, much less the common food he calls corn. To him, maize is probably an exotic grain used in other parts of the world. At this point, a large portion of people would give up and assume Wikipedia did not have an article on what they think of as corn. Are we being so pedantic in the corn vs maize debate that it has made Wikipedia unusable for many? Ironically, if that child ever did make it to the maize page, it does a pretty good job of explaining usage of the terms maize and corn around the world. --97.113.71.49 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone adjusted the entry at Corn since this was written. Rmhermen (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Corn is much more commonly used than maize so I don't see how this article is named Maize. Gune (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that's what it is. And the first item on the disambig page Corn is Maize. If you want to get into "common names", check the Edelweiss link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Maize isn't the scientific name. It's the second most common name for it. Gune (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Why isn't this the first page that "corn" goes to, with a sentence link at the top that goes to the disambiguation page for other meanings of corn? Because, most likely, if someone types in corn, they are looking for this article, so it should probably be immediately linked. Silverseren^C 00:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Because that's too America-centric. This has been debated at length before. In Europe it's known as maize, and that's it's proper, unambiguous name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting the search word "corn" to send readers to this article is America-centric? How? Silverseren^C 03:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Because outside of America, corn means other grains. See the Corn page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to play that game then Maize is too European-centric. Actually maize is not the "proper" name just because you are from Europe. Gune (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm American, and I recognize that maize is the proper term. "Corn" is short for "Indian corn". As I said, this debate has occurred before. Check the archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats why WP:COMMONNAME plays an important role. The name in American English name may be one thing, but generally speaking the name used world-wide by the English-speaking community seems to be Maize. That said, if there is much disagreement, perhaps the article should be placed under its latin name, like has been done at Epazote. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

but generally speaking the name used world-wide by the English-speaking community seems to be Maize. This is the whole argument, as US, Can, AUs, NZ etc. readers see it the other way.

Your "proper" term is actually the wrong one. I don't have to check the archives to know when somebody is wrong. Gune (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I live in Australia, and we call it corn.110.33.11.19 (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC) If you look in the dictionary its called corn in every freakin english language variant. This article is ridiculous. Someone move it to the correct name, what a joke!--Львівське (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This frustration is quite widespread. I am not currently convinced we have the article at the proper title. But as a compromise, I have changed the dab page Corn to look like this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I disagree with how it's worded on the disambiguation page but for now that's good. I say a move to corn is best but if not then scientific name is the way to go. Gune (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to present a "worldwide" view, and corn has different meanings in different places. However, the first sentence after you search for Corn says "Corn is the name used in the United States, Canada, and Australia for the grain maize." That seems sufficiently clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well until a week ago, it read like this, which was not nearly as clear. HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any real reason why corn couldn't be a straight redirect here? We already have a top-of-the-page notice (semi-disambiguation) here on this article that implies that it is. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maize is the proper name of this item. Corn is the common term in the USA, but not necessarily throughout the English-speaking world, as my British and other European colleagues always remind me. It needs to stay "maize". Speaking of "common names", check what turns up when you put in the common name edelweiss. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't answered my actual question. Is there a meaning of the word "corn" that is comparably common to this meaning (maize), one that would preclude redirecting corn here and keeping disambiguation in a separate page? That is, like it's done with edelweiss - the term points to an article, rather than a disambiguation page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're in England and you look for "corn", you might expect to hit wheat or barley rather than maize. So the disambiguation seems the fairest way to handle it. With "edelweiss" there's no need for disambiguation, because there's only one kind of "edelweiss". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but that still doesn't really answer my question :) If an English user looks for corn and sees maize, are they surprised not to see wheat or barley, or could they reasonably be expected to proceed to click on the disambiguation link without a sense of a problem? Disambiguation can never be absolutely fair to absolutely everyone, but the balance of fairness isn't always on the side of full disambiguation, sometimes partial disambiguation is appropriate. Lastly, with "edelweiss" there is apparently some need for disambiguation because otherwise we wouldn't have edelweiss (disambiguation). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A few points:

• Maize is the proper name of this item. Says who? I keep hearing this, but I don't see it being proven anywhere. And if Americans, Canadians, and Australians call it "corn", that means the overwhelming majority of English-speakers call it "corn". By what rule are we bowing to the Englishman's sense of "proper"? I don't get it.

See the earlier debates, and remember Africa, India etc. The Australian and other growers' associations use "maize" as do the world's scientific bodies, and the great majority of American scientific uses. Maybe you should direct your complaints to them. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking of "common names", check what turns up when you put in the common name edelweiss. If anything, Bugs, you've proven the other side's point. I type in "edelweiss", and while the article I get is Leontopodium alpinum, it is the article I want, and it even starts the opening sentence with Edelweiss is one of the best-known European mountain flowers. As a reader, what more can I ask for? How on earth does that support your point?
• Another point needs to not be forgotten: Even Englishmen call it "popcorn" and "sweet corn", etc. Englishmen know what most of us mean by "corn". Most Americans do NOT know what Englishmen mean by "maize", and are thus confused by this.

Don't bet on the former; corn to the ill-informed English is normally wheat. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hell, Corn/Maize is FROM America, so how about I say that gives us priority?

From South/Central America originally, and guess what they call it there... Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A clever point, to be sure, but this is en.wiki, not es.wiki. So it's not really relevant.HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about "Americentrism", it's about what most readers are familiar with. Isn't there some policy that dictates that the most common term is the preferred term? Look, I've actually accepted that this article will be at Maize. What I will not accept is this kowtowing to supposed European superiority knowing what is proper and what is not. So you can keep it here if you can sustain a consensus on the matter, but don't go telling me that I'm somehow using an "improper" term. HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is. And at least we don't have to put up with people coming here & asking how there is "corn" in the Bible before America was discovered... Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to agree with the notion that Baseball Bugs is "nobody".[1] HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think there is some case for redirecting Corn here as the primary usage, though this will cause confusion to many readers from several parts of the world - not just the UK and Europe. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think it's clear that there is a case for that, but I also acknowledge that there is a case for the status quo. What has me worked up is the eurocentristic outlook (yes, I know some supporting this are American, but so is Barrack Obama) that all forms European are inherently correct, and which cause them to deny that there is a case to make for having corn redirect here. I've explicitly stated in the past that I will accept things as they are, but again, I resent the implication that I'm yielding to the obviously correct viewpoint. In point of fact, I am yielding despite the fact that I believe I could easily marshal enough others to overturn the status quo, because I believe in wikipedia's rules, because I believe there are more important things to fix, and because I'm a nice guy. But even a nice guy does not like someone else's ass shoved in their face.HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• The top of this page says "Corn" redirects here. It doesn't, it leads to the disambig page. That said, although I think it's probably futile to even argue against entrenched wiki editors on this, I have to point out the ludicrousness of "worldwide usage" as an arguement for "maize." The article itself says it's called corn in the US, Canada, and Australia, which is the vast majority of native English speakers worldwide. The UK is in the minority here. I'm also unclear what "the UK and Europeans" means, how many European countries other than the UK are native English speakers, and what is their population? Non English languages don't even bear consideration on an English wikipedia (well, Latin possibly, but that's for binomial nomenclature purposes). Never even mind that "America-centric" is a weak argument when Canada and Australia, both commonwealth countries, use "corn." - OldManNeptune (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it will even get changed. It's like how yogurt is more common but yoghurt is the spelling used on Wikipedia. Gune (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that one was changed. It was originally yogurt. Jonathunder (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Corn. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a gripe about the introduction which says "Maize.. known in most English-speaking countries as corn,.." It isn't. I come from Scotland and I was always understood from when I was very young that "corn" was barley (the main grain crop in Scotland). I could never understand the pictures on the front of Corn Flakes packages. Those grains sure didn't look like barley to me. It was only later I found the English down South meant "wheat" (the main grain crop there) when they said corn. And much later I found the Americans meant maize (the main grain crop there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SylviaStanley (talk • contribs) 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

While your experience doesn't disprove the claim that maize is known as "corn" in most English-speaking countries, I would like to see some citations of specific evidence from reliable sources. In particular, I wonder what we're counting as "English-speaking countries" (and whether we're counting England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland individually or combined).

Lacking the aforementioned source citations, it would seem prudent to revert to the earlier "many English-speaking countries" wording. —David Levy 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change David Levy. To me that new wording makes a lot more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SylviaStanley (talk • contribs) 09:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Why is a chiefly English-language encyclopedia utilizing a European word for a basic staple crop instead of the standard term used in the country that leads the world in producing it? I'm tired of anti-American bias on the Net. Britain is not the "king" of the English language anymore. Alexandermoir (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bottom line is that majority of the English speaking world calls corn, corn. Heck, until finding this wiki article I always thought "maize" was the french word for corn (or after Modern Family today, the native american word for corn).--Львівське (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The name of this page hilariously sums up everything that's wrong with Wikipedia. 12.237.84.216 (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Really - a long-standing compromise to use a term acceptable in the U.S. instead of using a term ambigous in some other countries "sums up everything that's wrong with Wikipedia". Perhaps the opposite, in fact. Rmhermen (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Irony

You know what's ironic? I always assumed "Maize" was the American name for Corn, from some mesoamerican root, as I only ever saw it referred to as Maize on the Simpsons... It wasn't until I entered my third year of my degree that I began to see it regularly referred to as "Maize", the common name throughout the UK is "Corn". As found in corn on the cob, popcorn, corn flakes, sweetcorn, and as it's named on every single grocer's signage. Then again, grocers are the greatest abusers of the possessive apostrophe known to man, so what do they know about language? But I am still dumbfounded by the people claiming that it's British English favouritism, when the VAST majority of English people use the name wikipedia doesn't. Sunyavadin (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well I've always been of the feeling that pretty much 90% of Brits would understand calling this "corn", whereas 50%+ of US folk would be confused by "maize". But the issue has largely been settled by the willingness of the Eurocentrists to allow Corn to redirect straight to this page, so the point is largely moot now. But thanks for contribution; if the issue gets hot again, your comment will provide fodder for those of us on the cornside. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hahhaha! Did I just make a pun in my comment above? I'm not sure if its a pun, strictly speaking, but I've definitely amused myself! HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This one might go to the brits, but it's easier than riding af bike to find uscentric articles on WP. Ohh and when counting native english speakers, don't forget the huge amount of people in India, Africa, and the Caribbean who got english as there first language.94.145.236.194 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think 90% of Brits would actually struggle to define what they understood by the word 'corn'. I don't think most townies would know that wheat is corn. They would probably think it something similar. But we certainly don't naturally associate the word with maize, either. Ask an English schoolchild what a cornflake is, and the chances are they won't know. The ingredients will say maize. Same goes for popcorn. And we always spell sweetcorn as one word. We don't think of it as sweet 'corn'. Hence some varieties are marketed as "naturally sweet sweetcorn", and no one thinks it a tautology.Grant (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dent corn

What is Dent Corn? The link in the article redirects to this article. Other types of corn such as waxy have their own pages. 78.151.245.89 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Typical hybrid field corn is a cross between the subspecies of corn (i.e. maize) called "flint" and "dent". The "flint" type is so called because it has a hard surface. It also tends to have a rounded seed. Popcorn is a type of flint corn. Flint corn generates a lot of pollen, which is why the pollinator or pollen parent ("male") in a hybrid cross is typically a flint inbred; and is also why popcorn fields are kept a long distance from field corn production fields, to prevent contamination. The "dent" type is so called because it has a noticeable dent in its top surface once it has dried. The seed parent ("female") in a hybrid cross is typically a dent inbred. The kernels used to plant field corn and also sweet corn are typically of the "dent" type. If a specific type such as "waxy" has its own page, as do Flint corn and Popcorn, one would think Dent corn would also - although the flint corn article suggests where dent's name comes from. At the very least, dent should probably redirect to flint, rather than to maize. And in fact I have done that, as a temporary measure. Maize#Genetics is one place where dent is referred to and previously took you right back to the Maize article (this one). Note the Latin Zea mays indentada. "Dent" as a word has to do with "tooth", i.e. something that's "indented" appears to have tooth marks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, BB, I'm impressed with the depth of your cornstincts. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nothing if not corny. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Purple Corn

why is purple corn linked to here? this article really states nothing about the purple corn. Darksorce (talk)

Production Table Accuracy

The United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (http://www.nass.usda.gov) is an excellent resource for such data. For production year 2008, the NASS indicates 338,566,144 tons of corn were produced.

The United Nations' FAOSTAT service (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) - which this table references - indicates for the 2008 production year 307,383,552 tons were produced in the United States - a difference of 31,182,592 tons.

That is a significant difference.

Is anyone else concerned about this discrepancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mink Butler Davenport (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure of the reason for this discrepancy but the FAO is our only source which allows comparison of production of various countries. So it is important we stay with that single source which is expected to have consistent treatment of the data. Rmhermen (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Other uses

I recently noticed ground cobs as a cat litter substitute. (sold in the USA at Petco) Not sure how to reference this? has anyone else seen this or know how to add to the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.109.251 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename the article to corn

This is the English wikipedia. Maize is the Spanish word for corn, corn obviously is the English. Why do we have a Spanish named article on the English wikipedia? 72.197.230.199 (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As reflected in many past discussions (which you're welcome to read), "maize" is the usual English-language term in some countries (where "corn" can refer to other cereal crops). —David Levy 01:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And "corn" in America is short for "Indian corn", which it was called to differentiate it from other types of grains known as corn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Corn was short for Indian corn in the US, but now in the US Indian corn refers to multi-colored corn. Weetoddid (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is a colloquialism. "Maize" is the grain's formal name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If by formal name you mean British name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.168.11 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both "maize" and "corn" are formal names for the grain (depending on the country). —David Levy 00:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, corn is the more common usage and "Maize" is only used in the British Isles. I think that the tite of the article should be "Corn" as corn already redirects here74.105.167.148 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Anemia

Someone has added anemia to the article stating "There is a clear association between maize agriculture and high rates of anemia". One source was about prehistoric peoples and the other is about engineering a corn with bio-available iron. If there's a link between modern corn production and anemia it doesn't seem to be present in the largest corn producing areas like the US. Anemia may be a big problem in areas with corn based diets but there is not a clear association between maize agriculture and high rates of anemia. I am removing the section. If someone wants to add it again please rephrase it or find better sources.Weetoddid (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Production Table

The production table is a little confusing. It is split up into countries but also includes the EU. It also doesn't clarify whether Italy and France(which are also both in the table) are included in the EU count or are separate from the EU total production. I was just seeking clarification on this and making sure there aren't any notes about this I was missing in the article. 24.20.247.33 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When I click on "flour corn", I end up in the same maize article containing the "flour corn" hotlink, but now it says "flour corn" at the end of the url instead of "Maize"

When I click on "flour corn", I end up at the maize article I'd just left, which contains the hotlink. Is that just a hotlink miscode, that I know nothing of the workings of? Did some additional information on flour corn end up on the cutting room floor? Chrisrushlau (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Weetoddid (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Not sure what exactly happened in this diff, but it seems that a lot of references were removed and replaced. Just wanted to bring that to the attention of anyone editing this article. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's either nonsense or self-promotion by a one-entry IP, so I've un-done it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Maize → Corn — Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UCN#Common_names Quotes from Wikipedia guidelines:

"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That is 300 million in the US, 20 million in Australia, and 30 million in Canada. A clear majority. Plus, corn originated from America, it is our food. (Yes, I know about the Natives.)

"An ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject." That is 300 million in the US, 20 million in Australia, and 30 million in Canada. A clear majority. Plus, corn originated from America, it is our food. (Yes, I know about the Natives.)

"Titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English."

The Oxford Dictionary as well as the Merriam-Webster dictionary both have entries to "maize" which direct the reader to refer to "corn". 99.9% of Americans, which is where the crop originated, use "corn". 300 million people live in America, which is a far greater number than any other country with native English-speakers. Every corn product uses the word "corn". Corn, corn flour, corn sugar, cornbread, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, sweet corn, Indian Corn, etc, at least in the US. Maize is never used by the vast majority of the English-speaking population. When you Google "corn", you get many more relevant results than by searching for "maize", at least in the US.

In other words, not only should this page be moved according to every Wikipedia guideline in existence, "corn" is also the correct term for this food. "Maize" may have been correct, but it is not anymore, at least it is not in America, where the crop originated. Plus, "corn" is also used in Canada, and Australia, meaning most of the English-speaking population of the world uses this term. "Corn" is even understood in the UK. Plus, the general consensus votes for "corn". Shicoco (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. Here in Britain "corn" means, and always meant, any cereal crop. The change in USA happened by people shortening "Indian corn" to "corn": settlers found natives growing maize. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  All arguments should be based on Wikipedia policy, which yours was not. Policy states thus: "titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article" and "One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject." The number of people that use the term "corn" is VASTLY greater than those who use "maize". There is also a general consensus on Wikipedia that American articles, such as an article on the White House, should be written in American English, whereas an article on the British Parliament should be written in British English. Corn is an American food. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Shicoco (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As per Wikipedia policy, the more-commonly used name should be used in favor of any official name. "Corn" is more commonly used, and it is the official term in America, according to the The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, Second Edition, and Webster's New World Dictionary, 2002 edition, as well as most sources on the internet. "Corn" is also used in Australia and Canada. Furthermore, corn is an American crop, having originated here, and as such, the article should reflect American English. Shicoco (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Has been discussed and rejected multiple times before, and this attempt is based on the ludicrous claim that the grain is "American". It's not, it originates from Mesoamerica, where the predominant language is Spanish and the term for the grain is maíz. Greenman (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Corn is a generic term outside the USA. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  I oppose the requested move, but as noted above, this grain is known as "corn" in countries other than the United States. For once, can we please refrain from attributing the proposal to Americentrism? —David Levy 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well, considering the main basis for the nom seems to be "it originated in America and that's what we call it", I think my point was a fair one! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  In fairness, we do often consider a subject's geographic origin when deciding what English variety to use for its article. Shicoco's argument that the grain is American (in the sense implied) is incorrect, but it isn't tantamount to a belief that only American perspectives matter. —David Levy 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Corn is a multiply ambiguous common term. Maize is both unambiguous (or nearly so) and is commonly used in many parts of the world. older ≠ wiser 12:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rules have exceptions. In the case of WP:COMMONNAME, if the subject's most common name is more ambiguous than another common (albeit less common) name, we sometimes use the latter instead. Corn redirects to the article, so I see no problem.
  For the record, I'm an American and know the grain primarily as "corn" (though "maize," while not the usual terminology, is far from alien). I base my assessment on what I believe works best for Wikipedia's readers as a whole. —David Levy 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. (a) "Corn" is a generic term outside the USA as noted earlier, so this title is confusing to many English-speakers. (b) Common usage is not the only issue. Consider a different area which offers useful examples, in my view. The article on Association football is rightly titled, even though virtually no-one in any country normally calls it that, because "football" is ambiguous. Lack of clarity in article titles should rightly over-rule mere counts of frequency of use. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Corn redirects to Maize, so there is no problem. Stability is desirable. This discussion has been previously settled. And you can take Australia out of the list of places where corn is the name for maize. Corn flour frequently means a wheat product, as various wiki sources confirm for those outside the country. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• I understand the thinking behind the request, and initially was inclined to support; however after reading Corn#Naming_conventions, and noting that Corn redirects to Maize it seems that a) the situation regarding the uses of the names "maize" and "corn" are already adequately explained in the article, b)that anyone looking for "corn" is going to land first on Maize and if it is not maize they require, they are given appropriate links at the top of the page indicating where they might wish to go next, and c)changing the name of the article to corn would result in the same process - except that it would be people looking for maize that would land on the article called corn. I'm not clear as to what exactly would be achieved by changing the name, except a bit of administrative work. As corn is a broader term than maize, a Google search is going to be misleading as to which term for this specific crop is used more. While I feel the nominator might have a point that most readers would understand corn as a specific crop rather than the broader cereal grain, there is a strong possibility that the specific crop they are thinking of is sweet corn rather than maize. There is too much ambiguity about the term to justify a change. The current system works very well, and should be kept. SilkTork *^YES! 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Corn" is a generic term in historical literature synonymous with "cereal grain"; it is therefore an ambiguous name for the article and should not be used. Whether the redirect is appropriate as it currently stands is a separate issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY. "Maize" is unambiguous to all English-speakers, even if it sounds odd in the ears of some. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  I question whether the term even sounds odd to many people. While I always have known the grain primarily as "corn," I learned as a child that it also is called "maize." My impression is that this is commonly understood. —David Levy 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, even though I've never called it "maize", only "corn". This is a good example of why the naming policy is sometimes more art than science, trying to give proper weight to guidelines on opposite sides of the scale—recognizability and naturalness vs. precision in this case. First Light (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: As others have said, "corn" is unnecessarily ambiguous, whereas "maize" is only used to refer to this crop. Biological sources use "maize", presumably for this reason. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Levy and Thomas Kluyver. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Anthony Appleyard and many others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, I'm American, and I've always called it "corn". But I was all ready to Oppose this on grounds of ENGVAR and ambiguity, until I discovered that Corn already redirects here! Given that, it's silly to have the article at "maize" when so few people call it that. Powers ^T 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  But there are lots of English-speaking countries that call it maize. Nigeria, with a population of more than half that of the US, for example. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Very few of whom have English as a first language. Powers ^T 01:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Really? English is the only official language of Nigeria! Same with many other former colonial countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, really! It might be instructive, since this is an encyclopedia and all, to take a minute and read Nigeria#Language: "English as a first language, however, remains an exclusive preserve of a small minority of the country's urban elite, and it is not spoken at all in some rural areas." Powers ^T 13:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. We Yanks aren't stupid, and we can figure it out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose due to ambiguity. Maize has one meaning, but Corn is ambiguous. --Orlady (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Corn appears to be the more common name.--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I was on the point of opposing this, but on reflection, I'd say support - "corn" is the common name, and this is the primary topic for "corn", so what's the problem? No-one in real life calls it maize.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  "No-one in real life calls it maize." Pardon? —David Levy 17:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Well I certainly call it "maize", like most of my fellow Rightpondians. (Unless I'm eating it, then it's "sweetcorn".) 137.205.222.193 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed, Kotniski's claim is quite baffling. —David Levy 20:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  I have to assume that it just happens Kotniski doesn't know anyone who calls it maize. The statement that "no one in real life calls it maize" is patently untrue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  I note that the USDA refers to it as "Indian corn or maize".[2] The real American English name of this item is "Indian corn", and Americans typically call it "corn" for short. In countries where "corn" means something else, "maize" is the preferred term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Well all right, I obviously didn't mean literally "no-one". But as a Rightpondian myself (though one who moves in the circles that indeed do eat the stuff rather than grow it or whatever else you can do with it) I know that the everyday name for the stuff is sweetcorn or sometimes corn. ("What veg are we having with us tea tonight love?" "Oh, I can't be arsed cooking owt, I'll just open a tin of maize." I don't think so.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Sweetcorn is a specific variety of maize. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As per the nominator and the technical correctness of their argument - yes the species did originate in the Americas and, where it was first used, it is called Maize. Do not try and confuse the United States as having it before Europe, we have had Maize here since the 15th and 16th centuries and the United States has only been around for just over 200 years. Main issue though is that the species name is "Zea Mays". Chaosdruid (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Shicoco. –CWenger (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The proper name is maize. "Corn" is ambiguous. "Maize" is not ambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose . "Corn" is similar to football, which some might be surprised to find can apply to quite different games in different (English-speaking) countries. "Maize" is unambiguous, everywhere. It's not a long or unfamiliar word, so I don't see that it's an imposition to use it.Barsoomian (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as per many and WP:TITLE: "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." FWIW, I am USian, not English. Sharktopus^talk 20:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Lemme see. Corn flour, corn tortillas, corn muffins, corn on the cob, sweet corn, corn oil, corn sugar - maize is perhaps used in scientific and agricultural contexts but hardly ever in the more numerous culinary ones. I look at that picture titled 'maize heap in India' and can only wonder what our readers think we're talking about. Even Britannica, which tends to go with official rather than common names, has its article at Corn (plant). --rgpk (comment) 22:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per last time, and the one before... So far this debate has only scratched the surface - see the archives, which discuss little else. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I have mentioned before in this talk page, where I grew up in the Lothians of Scotland, "corn" always meant barley (the main grain crop there). It was always mysterious to me why a packet of Kellogs cornflakes had a picture of maize on the front - obviously it should have had barley. When I grew up I realised that the English referered to wheat when they said "corn" (the main grain crop in England). Only later I found out that the Americans called maize "corn."SylviaStanley (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- "Maize" is specific, "Corn" is ambiguous. Reyk _YO! 01:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Please note, this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of Wikipedia policy. The fact is, corn is an American food, and the number of people (including dictionaries) that refer to it as "corn" greatly exceeds the number of people that refer to it as "maize". This article must be renamed. Shicoco (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia's rules are set in stone, which is not the case. Exceptions exist.
  The argument that this grain is an "American food" is weak. Yes, it originated in the Americas, but not in the United States or Canada (countries in the Americas in which it usually is referred to as "corn"). —David Levy 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think the point here is an explanation of why "corn" is so much more common in reliable sources (per wp:COMMONNAME), not an argument that "we own it" or anything like that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  Shicoco's exact words:
  "Plus, corn originated from America, it is our food." (included twice in the move request)
  "There is also a general consensus on Wikipedia that American articles, such as an article on the White House, should be written in American English, whereas an article on the British Parliament should be written in British English. Corn is an American food."
  "Furthermore, corn is an American crop, having originated here, and as such, the article should reflect American English."
  —David Levy 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  Shicoco's basic premise is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Plenty of maize is grown (I have seen it in fields) and eaten in England also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sure, but it's not called "maize" in England when eaten by people (as opposed to animal food); it's called "sweetcorn" or "corn on the cob". The issue isn't a national/cultural one about counting how many people call it one thing or the other, but one of clarity and lack of ambiguity. There are lots of cases of generic terms being used with a specific but different sense in different countries (consider "football" and "hockey" as I've noted above; worldwide "football" overwhelmingly means "soccer", but the title shouldn't be changed to this). When this generic/specific usage clash exists, the article title will often have to be a term which isn't commonly used anywhere in order to avoid confusion, and this is clearly within Wikipedia policy, as ErikHaugen notes. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Cows and sheep are raised, but beef and mutton is eaten. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Article titles suggests weighing precision – "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." – vs. common name – we should use "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". To me, it's kind of a tossup; "corn" is overwhelmingly more common; I don't think anyone would dispute that? But it is also not precise, since, as hard as it might be for we Americans to imagine, it is used to mean other kinds of grains as well by a lot of people. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• See wiktionary:corn. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• WP:COMMONALITY was written exactly for this kind of situation. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• "in England ... it's called "sweetcorn" or "corn on the cob"": less often plain "corn". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Looking at the list of countries who speak English, can't we get a rough estimate based on the top ten and whether or not they say maize? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's entirely unambiguous (and if it was, we wouldn't be discussing it), I suspect that will devolve into scrapping over how we count English speakers and what people say in different contexts and different regions of large countries. For instance, India is #2 on that list, but if you include "English users" from the comments, it is far and away the biggest. You're welcome to try, though. Here in the UK, we call it sweetcorn as a food, but probably maize in the field. So cornflour is made from maize, but a cornflower is associated with wheat. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. And with that, I think it will be difficult to dislodge the article from its current name. And I'm quite happy with that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• The way I see it, there is no way we can have "Corn" without a disambiguation not of some sort, which just moves the problem around and we are likely to end up with corn (maize), which I suspect nobody will like. Circéus (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be a horrible title (just as Football (soccer) was). However, Corn already redirects to Maize, so this isn't really a navigational issue. It's a presentational issue, and Maize is the better title for presentational purposes (for the reasons discussed). —David Levy 19:00, 26 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is why Wikipedia is the laughingstock of the academic world. Oxford, Encyclopedia Britannica etc etc refer to it as CORN. Ask any TEFL teacher, they will tell you they teach it as CORN not maize. 184.4.120.30 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really, especially as EB is actually an American publication (and not surprisingly biased towards corn) and Oxford states "Maize" since 1565 and that corn is actually the husked seed of any cereal plant. Try to remember that this encyclopaedia is for the whole world, and in particular the English speaking parts of it. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They could have at least left a message on my fucking talk page. I didn't even know this was currently being debated to be moved. Gune (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And why should someone have done that? you are just as capable of watching pages, including talk pages, as well as keeping an eye on the moves pages which give info on all the current moves being proposed. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would I watch a talk page? If you noticed I was one of the people arguing against he usage of maize over corn. Gune (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to keep track of discussion about an article, you set the talk page as watched. Expecting other editors to inform you of discussions is unrealistic. (Hohum ^@) 15:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, such notification, depending on how it's done, could be considered "canvassing", which is against the rules. If you're interested in a topic, you need to keep it on your watch list, as I do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Turn this fucking article back to corn or else.184.4.120.30 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This article has been at Maize since June 2002. Rmhermen (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple change to end the dispute?

Why don't we name the article Zea mays with redirects from "corn" and "maize" as we do with most plants. There is plenty of precedent for this. (fixed wing aircraft, not aeroplane or airplane, etc) It would also be much more scientifically accurate. Ronk01 talk 16:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Because of one of Wikipedia's basic rules: Use Common names. Which is rather abused by some of the WikiProjects (for example the porcini mushroom image on main page recently that was only mentioned by scientific name, until someone complained.) Rmhermen (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we have an issue of conflicting commonality, which is why, in many cases scientific names are used to replace contentious common names (see the above-cited examples) Maize and Corn are, it could be argued, equally appropriate as names for this article given that no international body with proper authority has ruled on the subject, as is the case with drug names, and that use seems, from the above comments, and from some quick research, to be about equal. Thus, as in the case of airplane vs. aeroplane, we must use an equally accurate and valid title that conveys equal meaning. At porcini mushroom, there is an absence of a true title controversy, thus the ability to use a common name. (Though as a scientist, I prefer Boletus edulis.) To summarize, COMMONNAMES is not a hard and fast rule be any means, especially when there are multiple equally valid "common" names. Abberations are absolutely allowable, especially when there is a precedent of established consensus allowing special-case exceptions. Ronk01 talk 04:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There's precedent for the practice of going out of our way to ensure that no one "wins" (i.e. that everyone loses) naming disputes. Let's not repeat that here.

I'm an American who travels by airplane, but I'd strongly prefer the title Aeroplane to an obscure term that almost no one uses in real life. Likewise, I eat corn, but I see no problem with the title Maize. It's downright childish for someone to derive satisfaction from a title change of no absolutely no benefit to him/her (on the basis that it eliminates a perceived benefit enjoyed by others). [To be clear, I'm not referring to you; I realize that your motive is to end a dispute.] —David Levy 04:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Maize / Corn

Corn is the common name used almost exclusively by the population of the most populous english-speaking country in the world, which also happens to grow more corn than any other nation. I don't expect this to generate any reasonable discussion, as the bulk of the discussion on this page is both ludicrous and hilarious. I would just like to do my part to ensure the future inevitability of the majority of content regarding Corn on wikipedia resides in its talk page, and more specifically in an unreasonable discussion of why the page should be named Maize. Please do your part to make this talk page longer than the article on Corn. Please no substantive discussion such as debate over negative environmental or health effects of corn consumption and production.98.240.67.27 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)