Jump to content

Talk:Daikon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mooli In South Asia

I notice that not a lot is mentioned about white radish in South Asia. Mooli paratha, mooli achar, various sabzis with mooli...it's an important vegetable in India and I'm sure in other parts of South Asia too. It would also be nice to clear up whether South Asian mooli is the same as or different to daikon, as generally mooli is smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchosamor (talk • contribs) 10:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Daikon beans

heya Daikon fans, what's up?!?!?!?

you know, I gotta ask, does anyone out there know if you can eat the daikon beans? they look just like sweet peas or soybeans, and I was wondering if they're any good. -Jiesen- July 2004

  • Um, to the best of my knowledge, Daikon has no beans. Where did you get that info from? -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was looking at a daikon plant, and saw the beans on it. I want to know if they're edible. At least I assume it's a daikon plant, because I was told that that's what it was. -Jiesen- July 2004

They are seeds, and they are not eaten. —Tokek 2 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

I think most beans are, aren't they? The daikon seed pods do look just like beans, but I've never heard of anyone eating them. --DannyWilde 05:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The pods are eaten, sometimes as pickles, just not often. [1] -- WormRunner | [[User talk:WormRunner|Talk]] 05:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for clearing that up for me WormRunner. Next time I see a daikon seed pod, I'm going to pickle it, then eat it. -Jiesen- 3:55 pm Pacific, July 21 2006.

  • Daikon seed pods are excellent eaten fresh in salads, stir fried, or pickled. I have grown "rat tail" (Fedco seeds in Maine), a type of radish that is left to go to seed, but the daikon seeds are much better--larger, more prolific, and very tender. I've quit growing rat tail and now just use the daikon seed pods. Gandydancer (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

China

The article is in the category Chinese cuisine, but makes no reference to China. Burschik 16:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this is one of the essential Chinese vegetables, but no Chinese information.
I will try to add something
Pekinensis 00:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for more Chinese cuisine content here, as long as it's actually about daikon and not some related plant that isn't the same radish. —Tokek 2 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)
Hey yes you can stir fry daikon seed pods with seasoning and add small chunks of potatoes. It's widely eaten in south Asia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.163.2 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mouli

One sometimes sees "mouli" mentioned in Tibetan recipes -- I believe that this is "daikon" ("mouli leaves" = "daikon greens"). However, Google seems to show more hits for mouli as a Japanese vegetable. Can anybody sort this out? -- 200.141.232.227 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mu (daikon) greens are also eaten in Korean cuisine. This should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the Origin

I wonder the origin of White Radish? Can somebody throw light on this?

As mentioned in this wiki page, it is known as 1. mooli in Hindi, Punjabi, nepali, bihari, 1.1 moorro (Gujarati), moolah (Bengali) 2. mouli in Tibeatan 3. moo (Korean), 4. monla or something similar in Burmese 5. daikon radish, Japanese or Chinese radish, winter radish, Korean) or 6. lobak, loh bak, lo-bok, or lo bok (Cantonese), labanos (Tagalog), 7. rabu, phakkat-hua, and củ cải trắng (Vietnamese).

It appears that in the indian subcontinent (that is south Asia) and adjoining region (Tibet) and then in Korea, it is referred by similar names: mooli, mouli, moo, monla . Does it mean there is any connection between these names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.238.56 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Color

The carrot-shaped Japanese variety is totally white but the Cantonese "lo bak" and Korean "mu" have a green top and a white bottom. The colors of these varieties should be discussed in the article. Badagnani 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to note the same thing. The opening led me to think all daikon were white. I was working on the radish article, and just came here for some background. I haven't yet found any good Reliable Sources on the web about non-white varieties, but here are some clues if someone else wants to look: This non-reliable website shows what it calls "Green daikon," which it says are "like regular Daikon, but it sometimes comes with a deep purple flesh. The deep purple variety tastes juicier, and sometimes so sweet that the Northern Chinese treat it as a fruit."
This non-reilable website shows what it calls a "Watermelon radish," white exterior and pink/red interior, described in a Fresno Bee article as a sweet variety of daikon.
This New York Times article, while not specifically saying their colors, mentions two varieties they call "Masato Green" and "Masato Red," but I can find no information on the terms elsewhere. An excerpt from that article, which may prove a useful resource for other details about daikon radishes:
"The daikon or Oriental radish requires a longer time to mature than its American kin. The crop is recommended either for early spring or fall planting as most radishes bolt, or go to seed, in hot weather. One of the best known of these Oriental radishes is April Cross which has smooth white roots. This one is not supposed to bolt if the seed is planted as soon as the ground can be worked in the spring.
Two daikon radishes that are especially suited for fall planting because the colder weather enhances their flavor are Masato Green and Masato Red. The roots of these two radishes are extremely long and they store well.
Another intriguing possibility is the Sakurajima, claimed to be a hot flavored radish that can weigh as much as four to five pounds when harvested. If that isn't enough, leave it in the ground, where it apparently will continue to grow till reaching 70 pounds."
-Agyle 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

English?

This type of radish has been known in Europe since at least around 1500. Surely there must be a native English name for it somewhere.

Peter Isotalo 08:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, it is also known as Japanese or Chinese radish, and a NY Times article and dictionary.com says they're also known as Oriental radishes. Daikon seems to have been the canonical English name since the mid-19th century. Some casual googling of non-reliable sources suggests that's around the time of their introduction. Were they grown in Europe around 1500, or only known of from travels? A books.google.com search for daikon before 1880 returns a few dozen results; it seems like daikon was typically used as the name, often describing (not naming) them as a Japanese root vegetable or radish. A 1761 french book of a Japanese voyage refers to them as daikon or rei-fuku. Daikon seemed to be used casually in this 1849 Journal of the American Oriental Society article, and was used in a couple 1830 dutch books.
More info: it seems a number of new radishes, including winter varieties, spread in England in the 16th century. There were long varieties called "white turnip radish" and "white spanish radish" in the early 19th century in britain and the US that sound rather similar, but I'd think if they were the same as daikon, that would be mentioned in 19th century references to daikon. -Agyle 11:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Winter radish - citation?

"Winter radish" is listed as an alternate name in the opening paragraph. I think that's a description of common daikon varieties, as radishes are often referred to as summer and winter radishes depending on planting seasons. While some (not all) daikon are commonly considered winter varieties, I don't think "winter radish" is properly a synonymous term. I could be wrong though. Can someone cite a reliable source that it is a synonym? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: I noticed that the whole sentence on alternate names currently lists a citation: "Charmaine Solomon, Encyclopedia of Asian Food, Periplus 1998." I remain skeptical, but assuming the original author who cited the source was accurate, and nobody added the term after the sentence and citation were originally written, then a reliable citation already exists. -Agyle 06:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Subspecies?

According to Swedish sources I found (including Swedish Wikipedia), this is not a subspecies of Raphanus sativus, but merely a variety (Raphanus sativus var. longipinnatus). On this discussion page there also seem to be some confusion with white variants of the "original" variety (Raphanus sativus var. nigra) of mediterrainian origin. One of the oldest cultivated plants in Europe. I'm not a botanist, but Swedish sources is usually more accurate, then English ones, when it comes to botanical classification, probably because we invented the system ;-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.12.63 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section "Daikon in the arts"

The section "Daikon in the arts" was removed, with the comment "formatted poorly, belongs in a different article, poor citation", to which I respond

  • If there's something amiss with a section's formatting, the formatting should be fixed
  • There is no basis on which reference to "X in the arts" should be excluded from a comprehensive, encyclopaedic article on X
  • The citation in question refers to the website of a renowned scholar, respected by informed opinion

This is the fourth instance today across various articles, of that particular editor reverting my edits which were in each case attempting to broaden the scope of the article. Such stalking behaviour conflicts with the spirit of WP, and a little more responsibility and respect would be appreciated.
--Yumegusa (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If formatting and poor citations (see WP:SPS) were the only problem with this then I would have course acted accordingly, however the section is entirely inappropriate for this article. It belongs in an article that deals with poems or kigo not in an article dealing with a vegetable! It is not appropriate to add indiscriminate information (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE) into a wikipedia article. Just because a poem has the word Daikon in it, doesn't mean this article is the appropriate place for it. I urge you to assume good faith and I suggest the article List of kigo would be more suitable for the information and could wikilink back to this article. Polyamorph (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your reasoning (and for the implicit assurance of good faith), though your stalking behaviour still seems bizarre, to put it mildly. A couple of comments:
  • I am familiar with WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and indeed all of WP:WIN), and find nothing therein to support your contention that there is no place for an "X in the arts" section in the article on X. Kindly be more specific.
  • As to specifics, we are not talking about a poem that simply "happens to have the word daikon in it"; we are rather dealing with a significant cultural phenomenon (which hopefully will be clearer if you care to read the kigo article) wherein the daikon takes on meaning and resonance beyond its merely being a vegetable, in a literary tradition of stretching back some thousand years. Think Shakespeare rather than limerick.
  • Thanks for the pointer re citations. I could have cited (non-self-)published books, but chose the website for ease of reader-accessibility.
    --Yumegusa (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to Talk:Sumo for the resolution of this issue. Polyamorph (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix7777's edit

Terms that become English is treated in the same way as other similar terms. I hastily wrote MoS instead of general guideline. However, Phoenix7777 does not get this point at all. Since he is a newbie according to his registered date, he may not know all necessary things that he should be aware for editing plant-related articles. He insists on using Japanese language in the intro by engaging in edit warring instead of "initiating "discussion", I guess we need to fetch other editors who have been working on similar subjects. Regards.--Caspian blue 01:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified to native English speakers and WP:PLANT for more input and neutrality.--Caspian blue 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I initiated the changes to this article today by moving the various translations of Radish to the Radish article. I offer some things to consider:
  • I think moving the list of names out of the lede to a new names section was a very good change. Thank you for doing so.
  • I made the original change as the meaning of the text (to me, who has English as my first language) was that the various names referred to radishes in general, not "this radish". As I understand it (my understanding of Hindi is limited to terms used in cooking), the term "mooli" (and its alternate English spelling, "muli") does mean simply "radish".
  • I also thank you for starting a discussion here, rather than reverting Phoenix7777's most recent edit. I want to be helpful, but I'm not sure I understand your concern. What do you mean by "Terms that become English is treated in the same way as other similar terms."?
  • Perhaps you could post here your suggested change to the current text? I am insufficiently and expert in "this radish" to say that the lede is incorrect as is.
Thank you again. Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation on your edit. I have not added the information into the intro, so can not say I have 100% certainty over other countries. However, the article of Radish encompass all subsubspecies, and Western radish differs from this one. As for radish eaten in Korea, this is the one, so I don't think that naming info should go to Radish. Badagnani (talk · contribs) who is familiar with Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese eatery and plants as well as Japanese subjects, seem to have inserted the information. So I'm waiting for his input on Chinese and Vietnamese ones.--Caspian blue 02:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I always appreciate having this sort of information in an article, but I think in this case it belongs best in the Names section.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have a preference, but in this case the section "names", which could also be titled "etymology" or something similar, is the proper place for such information. --Rkitko (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Etymology would be a good subsection title. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen native names in intro on other articles whose name derive from non-English speaking world have been removed or reverted by numerous editors for the reason of "terms becoming English words do not need the native spelling in intro" if somebody tried to add them, so I've assumed there would be MoS or guideline for plant-related articles. However, leaving only English terms in intro is common as far as I've known. The naming section explained the etymology in more a detailed way, but well Phoenix7777 deleted it.--Caspian blue 02:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well... it's a stubby article. Those sections really shouldn't exist (sections become viable if two paragraphs exist in each section). If you got rid of the sections and combined paragraphs with decent flow, you'd have a three or four paragraph article. I, for one, would be happier if this was titled at Raphanus sativus var. longipinnatus and treated "Daikon" as one of the more prominent of many common names. --Rkitko (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "those sections". Are you referring to all sections in the article such as Names, Culture, Storage, Nutritional information? The cultivarvariety is one of important crops in East Asia, but the article is in such the poor status. As for the naming change, that is too lengthy and difficult to remember. However, if "daikon" is not a common English name, that could be an option, but I wonder how many people would be happy for that.--Caspian blue 03:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the sections of the article. They're too short to be viable at this point and should be combined. Forget I said anything about the name change, but read WP:NC (flora) for reference. I honestly don't know anything about this variety; is "daikon" used to refer to a specific cultivar or is that the generalist term for this variety? --Rkitko (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This time I made you confused you. Daikon refers to "variety", not one specific cultivar. It has also various cultivars. As for the naming convention, I'm aware of it, but the term, daikon seems to be fixed (Japanese radish and Chinese radish are also commonly used though) and many people would oppose for the naming change I guess.--Caspian blue 03:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


Please take a look at the article "List of English words of Japanese origin". There are many English words of Japanese origin in the list and almost all of their articles include Japanese scripts in their lead. I don't know why you stick to the plant-related articles, however I picked the articles with taxobox from the List of English words of Japanese origin. I found eight articles as shown below.

Azuki bean, Daikon, Enokitake, Hijiki, Matsutake, Shiitake, Wakame, Wasabi

All the articles except Shiitake include Japanese scripts in the lead. In the case of Shiitake, it was you who blocked the edit which tried to add a Japanese script to the lead of the article.[2] So, there is neither implicit rule nor explicit guideline to exclude Japanese scripts from a lead of an article about a English word of Japanese origin. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you check more carefully the history of the articles, the "Japanese scripts" have been repeatedly removed by native English speakers and re-added by "Japanese editors" or "sockpuppeters" or anons. And you also agree with me that daikon becomes English term, that is called "loanword". If the article is all about Japanese thing, then the native script can be in the intro just like Japanese subjects, however, it is not that case. And you have failed to gain "consensus" so far, so until the matter is resolved, the native script would be taken out. And you have brought some of incompatible examples. Among them, I'm not sure that azuki bean ever becomes English, that's why we have Red bean paste instead of Azuki bean paste. Moreover, your example of List of English words of Japanese origin is also wrong. The list has references covering only 1/5 of the entries. As far as I've known if somebody argues that some word become English or loanword from non-English speaking world, each entry has at least two or three references from "English dictionaries" per the talk page, not just "books" about the subjects. And the article fails to provide such info. If Gyoza becomes English, why the current article is at Jiaozi? It is commonly called "Chinese dumpling", just "Dumpling" or "Pot sticker" actually. Since you're resorting to the unstable article, I don't see any valid point from your insistence.--Caspian blue 01:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what possible objection there could be to putting the Japanese (or Korean, or Hindi, or German) name in a Names section. I fully support foreign names that are encyclopedic (as 大根 certainly is), but I don't see any clear argument for it being in the lead.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I have supported the original native scripts in the naming section from the start, but not in the lead, because it is clearly a loanword that becomes English, and the naming section could explain its etymology better, and could prevent the lead messy and crammed along with other "commons names" from other parts of non-English countries. In addition, from my experience, many people in Anglosphere do not bother to set up their browsers with UTF or install foreign characters on their computers, so such characters looks like boxes.--Caspian blue 03:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That's why we have things like Template:Contains Japanese text, so people will know why they're seeing little boxes. :)
Also, why does the language tag at the bottom have jp:日本語 ? I can't read kanji, but it doesn't look like 大根. Do they mean the same thing? Indeterminate (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a ja:ダイコン, katakana of Daikon. 大根 is a kanji.
Any way, this is not a discussion about a preference where to place a foreign script in this specific article, instead whether there is any guideline to prohibit to place a foreign script in a lead of an article about a English word of foreign origin.
Caspian blue insists "As far as I've known, any term that become common English names/words, such native names are not stated in intro". See "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Daikon - Native spelling in intro" So please discuss the existent of such guideline on Wikipedia. If such a guideline exists, there is a great impact on existing articles as I stated above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives.
This description is not limited to foreign word. Beijing is an English word.
"The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is widely known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京. It is also useful to have multiple redirects to the main article, for example Sverige is a redirect to Sweden. If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead; see Freyr for an example of this."
Caspian blue; Please keep in mind that it is your responsibility to prove your insistence by providing the evidence. Untill then I am not bound by any of your insistence. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs), it is good for your "finally" able to present one guideline (I do not consider your linking of List of English words of Japanese origin valid at all. Many of them are "not English", but mere "transliteration" in Roman letters mostly unreferrenced) for "your insistence". It is "your onus" since you're following my step "immediately to revert" and so far the consensus has been against you. However, everything is case by case, and I've seen than non-English scripts have been deleted for the reason of "common English" by many others, so the practice have been done on many Indian and Arabic scripts. I believed that is an established consensus, but that could be not written or written. So I've requested input from WP:PLANT for getting objective inputs (most of them have no idea what species or variety daikon refers to). Just because the article of Beijing concerning "Chinese capital", a Chinese subject that is also English word has the native scripts in the lead, that does not mean that botanical articles shared by many culture and countries are standing on the same criteria. If you could have presented that botanical articles that have "foreign scripts" in the lead other than Japanese, that could be very useful. I'm sure you can do that. Moreover, keep in mind that if you can not immediately prove that your insistence could be backed up by "reliable sources" or guideline/policies, do not engage in "edit warring" as you have done so far, not only here but also many other articles. Since it is "guideline" that can be changed by discussion, and I think this matter still warrant for further discussions.--Caspian blue 11:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I am confused. All the names in different languages given for daikon are also listed at radish. If these names don't refer specifically to the daikon cultivar, they shouldn't be here.
Bathrobe (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Like many other East Asian foods, daikon became known in North America via the introduction of Japanese and macrobiotic health foods. Usually the one we get in supermarkets is the totally white "icicle" variety, which is more slender than the Chinese or Korean style daikons that have some green on their upper parts and are denser in texture (which the Japanese also have). I believe the English term "daikon" could refer to either the "icicle" or partly-green varieties. The Japanese script spelling should be given in kanji as well, but, if editors preferred, could be moved away from the lead to an etymology or names section, which could also describe how this word got into the English language. Badagnani (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of names

Please restore the names in East Asian languages that have been blanked repeatedly in unconstructive and non-collegial edits such as this one. Thank you for this consideration, Badagnani (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, by "discussion", I meant state your view, not an order to restore your edit simply because you don't like mine. I see no other article that has such a section like this, so why should this one merit it? There should be some consistency across Asian vegetable articles. Keep in mind Wiktionary is there for all the things that Wikipedia is not, like an international phrase list. GraYoshi2x►talk 17:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Tamarind, for one. In the broader scope of articles about plant foodstuffs, these sections are not uncommon.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That may be a special case due to inconsistent naming around the region and the relevance to the etymology, but there doesn't seem to be much encyclopedic value learning what daikon is called in a language spoken by a few thousand people on Guam. Such information would better belong at Wiktionary. Maybe the Chinese/Korean names can be kept as they are somewhat more relevant, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own section. GraYoshi2x►talk 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it's absolutely something worth keeping but the more irrelevant ones should be ported over to Wiktionary translation sections. The mess of foreign text is now big enough that it should be moved to an infobox, however. — LlywelynII 01:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Lo bok vs Daikon

When I was growing up (in Toronto, Canada), my (western european) father would every so often bring home some Lo bok. (Our green grocer would give you the same thing if you asked for "white radish" or "Chinese radish".) For grins, I tried looking up Lo bok in Wikipedia, and got redirected to this Daikon page, which didn't mention Lo bok at all. So I googled "Lo bok daikon", and found: http://www.foodsubs.com/Roots.html#daikon which says: daikon = white radish = Japanese radish = Chinese radish = icicle radish = lo bak = loh baak = loh buk = mooli = Oriental radish = lo pak

I didn't think this would for sure meet the criteria for a reference, so I kept looking. There are many informal pages implying that Daikon is another name for Lo bok and vice versa. But two pages caught my eye. One, from the University of California, page at http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/research/AsianVeg/crucifer.htm in the section on Daikon, says: Lo bok is a separate cultivar that may have some green coloration

The other page that caught my eye was: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=123124 because it said: "Lo bok and daikon are only slightly different fron each other and can be used interchangebly. Here's a link to more info on the two: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/fo...l/cfo01s03.html"

Since that link was toast, I searched the entire Government of Manitoba site, to see what they had to say. It turns out that they're researching new crops for their province. And... buried in their 2003 report at: http://gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/vegetablecrops/pdf/2003_oriental_vegetable_report.pdf they say: "Daikon: (Japanese radish) Approximate days to maturity is 60-70, mature roots average between 30-50 cm in length and 5 -10 cm in diameter depending on variety, and weigh between .5-1.5 kg. Harvest / Storage Information: Care must be taken at harvest to avoid damaging roots which break quite easily. Storage is recommended at 32-34°F and 95-100% relative humidity. Lo Bok: (Chinese Radish) Approximate days to maturity is 35-60, depending on variety. Mature roots average between 10-30 cm in length and 4-5 cm in diameter, weighing anywhere from 40-300 grams again depending on variety. Harvest / Storage Information: Lo Bok varieties are more compact and oval in shape compared to the Daikon varieties. Storage is the same as the Daikon radish."

Clearly they think these are different.

So I tried to research the history of this article as to why Lo bok redirects here, but all I found was a revert war about the unsuitability of including alternate names. Even one of the name references given (note #4), http://www.plantnames.unimelb.edu.au/new/Raphanus.html#longipinnatus points out: "IN CONCLUSION : Because I refuse to believe that the true Japanese daikon is the same as the "Black Spanish winter radish" or the Chinese long green radish", I have proposed some group names for each of those, purely for the sake of separating the groups of common names. In the future taxonomists will have to come up with a distinctive epithet or an official group name to separate each of those from the others. A natural plant that can grow a smooth-white-skinned root with a sweet flesh of up to a meter in diameter cannot be labeled with the same words that would describe a similar plant but with an average-sized rough black skinned-root with the pungency of horseradish, nor with a green-fleshed or red-fleshed small radish from Japan or China. Taxonomists the ball is in your court !"


So......... I don't want to start or restart a flame war.

But, I'm uncomfortable that the Lo bok page redirects here without explanation. Given that many people (references #2 & #3, and whoever created the redirect)) think they're the same, something in this article should say that.

If there weren't an earlier name controversy in this history and discussion page, I would have added a name section with links referencing people who think they're the same, and more links for those who see distinctions between Lo bok and Daikon. (It the only thing I could think of to acknowledge both points of view regarding name equivalence.)

As it stands, we have books written by people with unknown (to me at least) academic qualifications are being used to support a single point of view that doesn't match University and Government publications. And that the University and Government publication viewpoint is absent from the article. (Feels un-neutral to me, but I could be wrong.)


Perhaps one of the people who are adamant against a name section could suggest an alternative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.111.142 (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Daikon v. White Radish

Daikon seems like a varietal name for the group of what the radish is... which is white radish. I know people are going to say this is OR, but I can prove it with pictures and sound... the varieties of radish from the Chinese to the Japanese to the Korean (which are the ones I've experienced so far) range widely within the variety. I think it would be more constructive to move the article to a more general universal name such as "White Radish" rather than putting it under a single sub-varietal name.

For example, Korean version of white radish is not rough to touch (I have pictures. PM me if you want it). Is stout, dense, and halfway green. The most common use is pickling, which means that the radish is much more dense to hold up to large amounts of salting.

Daikon, the Japanese version, has much more water, is much more common in soups than pickling and is also used in braising, the leaves are rough, but aren't as frequently used as in Korean pickling. They also are dried.

And you already have a long explanation for the Chinese variety up there.

It seems to me, this argues that the title of the article is wrong. The group itself should be called "White radish" and then the Korean, Japanese and Chinese versions should be considered sub-varietals since they range in growth and texture. Much like the carrot article isn't called say, "Sweet Nantes" which is a sub varietal.

Objections? Thoughts? If you need the photo PM me, I'm not sure if it would be useful in the article which definitely has a bias towards the Japanese varietal.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2013 (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. 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 move. Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Daikon → White Radish – This article is naturally biased towards the Japanese varietal, even if the Japanese variety did not come first. To remove bias, White Radish is more neutral. I would also be open to mooli as it is a world wide term for the radish, whereas, "daikon" is mostly confined to the United States and Japan. Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The name issue has also been extensively debated in the sections above. Please read those for enlightenment. —  AjaxSmack  20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of issues here. WP:UCN: What is the most common English name? Probably "daikon". WP:COMMONALITY: Which name would be recognised by the most readers? Probably "daikon". (I disagree with the nom, User:Hitsuji Kinno, that "mooli" is a "world wide" term.[3] It is practically unknown in North America and East Asia whereas "daikon" is known at least in the UK[4] if not South Asia.)
However, in English-speaking countries, "daikon" and other terms such as "Korean radish" can be mutually exclusive terms for two different varieties of this radish. (Koreans almost never use the term "daikon" for the root in markets in English-speaking countries no doubt due to chauvinism but also possibly because the Korean versions look and taste different from the typical icicle type. Ditto to a lesser extent with Chinese.)
Faced with this, a more descriptive or encompassing name that is also widely used such as white radish (no caps) or Oriental radish might be in order. —  AjaxSmack  20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The title of this article is what the English speaking people call a plant Raphanus sativus var. longipinnatus. Daikon is not one variety of the radish. Daikon refers to a wide variety of winter radishes from Asia i.e. Raphanus sativus var. longipinnatus although the name came from a Japanese variety. So we cannot classify the variety of the radish, Daikon, Lobak, Korean radish and so on.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    Sakurajima daikon. The Japanese variety?
  • Oppose The following Google Book search shows the most common name is Daikon.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Not really in common use. Have a look at the ngram results for it. Also not accurate if taken to mean Far East. After all, some cultivars of longipinnatus are more commonly grown in Africa or India. Ibadibam (talk) 23:55, 1 April 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.

WP:ENGVAR

Per this edit, this page's usage was established as American English. Kindly maintain it in the absence of any new consensus. — LlywelynII 04:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

The USDA Plant Fact Sheet & Plant Guide recently linked have more information on its cultivation, uses, behavior, &c. — LlywelynII 14:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Bailey's original discussion of R. sativus var. longipinnatus is worth a look and could be included to explain some observed differences between daikon and the common radish.

This book has an generally excellent chapter on daikon by Japanese scientists, which distinguishes north & south Chinese forms and the oilseed radish. (Sadly, it misspells oleifer and fails to explain the distinction; oleifer forms still need a treatment here given that they are known as "daikon" but a truly separate variety should have most of its info split off to a separate page like Sakurajima.)

The Larkcom book has a great deal of information still not added about daikon and its Chinese forms. — LlywelynII 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerns

LlywelynII, while that plant sheet does include "daikon" as an alternative common name for that variety of plant, I would not extrapolate that to indicate synonymy with other varieties that are also called daikon, or equate it to the term as described in the article opening. This article has undergone a lot of changes recently with extremely poor sourcing for what is a difficult topic to discuss taxonomically, and I think is increasingly including fringe info and excluding more mainstream views.

Also, regarding the foreign names sidebar you added, while it's a very nice layout, it lacks any references, and lists of foreign translations of terms like this seem generally opposed on Wikipedia; the prevailing opnion with WP:PLANTS seems to be that it runs afoul of the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" principle. There is widespread agreement that it's fine to discuss foreign terms for a specific purpose, for example the English word mooli being derived from the Hindi and Urdu words for radish; it's the list of translations to other languages that is controversial. Agyle (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As illustrated in the large photograph on the page and the numerous references in the text, that USDA source most certainly is discussing the long white daikon. If you want to start creating subpages for all the non-"true daikon" varieties such as the Korean radish, you're more than welcome to (and I personally would support splitting off those varieties, especially for the extra info about the watermelon radish).
Your aspersion that there has been poor sourcing is verging on slander. The recent changes have been copiously sourced and have replaced such ridiculous sourcing as "see, for example, this anecdotal usage by the BBC" with sources from the USDA, the OED, and the initial publishers of the various taxonyms. (The OED, e.g., would remind you Urdu had nothing to do with the English term.) You're welcome to emend them with better sources, but I'll venture to say you aren't going to find any. Sourced mention of the disputed taxonomy is an improvement, not fringe; mention of the plant's North American use as a fallow crop is the opposite of fringe: it's the main function of the plant in the most productive agricultural economy on the planet. (On the assumption of good faith, it's possible that you were simply overstating your case about the synonym list: I mostly pared and adjusted the mess that came before for clarity and order. If anything problematic slipped through, by all means fix it, but it's all easily checked via Google and sourced via USDA-ARS GRIN, similar databases, or dictionaries. See also WP:BLUE.)
Your opinion that this page should not include the native terms for these foods has been discussed and rejected above. I strongly support its inclusion as well, given the usage of these names in English and the strong cultural components to its use in cuisine. Efforts by WP:PLANTS to limit foreign terms is going to run headlong into WP:BIAS and seems especially poorly placed here, where the topic name is a fairly uncommon Japanese loanword. (That said, I do support limiting the list of foreign terms to the cultures mentioned elsewhere on the page. I did remove an irrelevant Finnish translation and ported the info to Wiktionary.) — LlywelynII 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry "poor sourcing" was poor wording; what I meant was that much of the added material lacked cited references, or was not supported by the references cited. For example, the sidebar of translations has a lot of information but no cited references. You seem to be using "sourcing" to mean using a source, while I meant using and citing a source. I don't want to savage material while you're actively working on improving it, and I don't want to add "citation needed" and "failed verification" templates for every unreferenced/unsupported fact, but I also don't want to spend hours fact-checking added material, and if you or others don't plan on adding sources for it, I'll challenge/remove some of it. It's clear you're putting a lot of time into finding information to improve the article; adding the sources of that information seems like the easy part, and if they're reliable sources would provide the needed verifiability. If it's an issue of formatting references, just add a raw web link or a page number & ISBN number (or any other identifier) inside "ref" tags, and I'll dress up the formatting.
I didn't notice the discussion on foreign terms above. Please note that I wasn't giving my opinion on inclusion of native terms, but my opinion of Wikipedia's general consensus; perhaps I'm wrong on the general view, but a discussion on the topic in WP:PLANTS a few months ago was clear within the context of plant names (not that it necessarily applies here).
The issue with oilseed radishes is that while it's proper to call oilseed radishes "daikon" (given the nebulous definition of daikon), I don't think people generally, or the USDA particularly, refer to all daikon as oilseed radishes, and the sentence about an "official" name of the USDA is not supported by the reference (i.e. it says nothing like "daikon's official name is..."). It is a USDA document, and does use the name "oilseed radish", among others, in describing a variety/group, but the USDA uses different names to refer to different types of radishes in different contexts. The wording of the sentence is substantially different from when I commented previously, but "general official name" remains.
Taxonomy issues seems better left to a Talk section on its own. :-) As with many cultivated plants, there are a lot of competing views; I'm not sure there's a majority view among scientists beyond the species name!––Agyle (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"Given the nebulous definition of daikon"... and this page is about that nebulous category. If you want to split off sections to separate pages, peachy, but review WP:SPLITTING and (particularly) WP:POVFORK: this page should not avoid mentioning the plant's use as an unconsumed fallow crop in North America. (Even if oleifer is distinct, the English term "daikon" still applies to that form.) Meanwhile, if you plan on claiming that there are other official names at the USDA that cover the nebulous daikon, that's great but source your preconceived notion. I looked for better treatment of the edible plant and couldn't find one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist somewhere. That seems to be your main bone of contention along with the translations but, if you notice actual errors, point them out or fix them yourself. Better still, fix the actually-broken sections of the page that I haven't, like Cultivation or expand things with Taxonomy, Description, etc. sections using the sources above (now expanded some).
Apart from the discussion above, Wikipedia's general consensus is to include ("encourage") foreign names, both per WP:BIAS and MOS:LEADALT. If the nice people at WP:PLANTS got some separate idea into their heads, you're welcome to walk them through those policies & their friends or we can just have rolling edit wars owing to a well-meaning but uninformed WP:LOCALCONSENSUS running up against helpful information & SOP. I'm not saying they're well-formatted (they're mostly not pretty) but—just limiting this to comparable species pages—the first six Oriental species I checked all included native names (wolfberry, dragonfruit, jackfruit, bok choy, water chestnut, breadfruit); there's obviously many more & this is the general Wikipedia consensus. Again, this only applies to legitimately-connected names (the laundry list at breadfruit needs to go), but Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, Japanese, & Hindi certainly merit mention here. I'm open to moving the Korean variety to its own page but until it goes the name stays. (If you do split it, bear in mind that mu is the general word for radishy-like vegetables; the Korean radish is properly distinguished as Joseon mu, 조선무.) I'm open to removing one of Malay/Indonesian and/or Urdu as borderline-noteworthy duplicates but if you remove them only take one and make sure the info has been ported to Wiktionary.
As far as formatting, usually, relevant foreign names go into the lead sentence or a name section (as existed when I started improving the page), but the infobox is a better place to do this when there are this many cultures involved (and generally speaking very common when Chinese shows up since you need traditional & simplified characters, romanizations, dialects, etc. etc. etc.). And, no, we don't source the translations in the infobox. SOP is to just check the information and correct errors. If you really want to be that thorough, dictionary cites go at Wiktionary and you can link through using [ [ wikt : ~ | ~ ] ] or by using {{linktext}}. (The kind words were kind but, if you had checked the history, you would have realized that none of those names were "added" by me. I formatted the existing mess, removed irrelevant names, and linked through to the relevant Wiktionary entries to permit greater detail and sourcing for those interested. I do need to fix that link on "leafy-vegetable", though. Brb...) — LlywelynII 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I'm open to moving it out of the species box and into a separate section of the article but, even though there are very good authorities who use R. sativus var. longipinnatus (the OED for one), it looks like best scientific practice is still to simply state R. sativus L. for daikon (the foodstuff) and for oilseed radish (the fallow crop). (Google Ngram, meanwhile, doesn't play well with scientific names including "var." It thinks they're the end of the sentence and stops building phrases.)

For the most part, longipinnatus seems a little more common than hortensis for daikon (esp. in non-specialist sources); the oleiferus names show up talking about it as a fallow crop but are not actually talking about a different item (USDA & other databases still list 'daikon' as a vernacular name and display daikon's large white roots); and major varieties like the Sakurajima radish are usually listed as hortensis varieties (not because they are distinct from daikon but because Makino took the trouble of differentiating them using a separate name from Bailey's). So it's a general mess.

My sense is that the people who live with Daikon (Nakai, Makino) take the trouble to distinguish the separate Asian varieties and the people who don't either don't (Bailey) or treat it as only distinct owing to the oil-bearing seeds (Stokes, Persoon). Ideally, humanity would realize that and go with the Japanese and Chinese botanists, but the English-language sources are what they get their hands on more easily. So, for now, let's keep the main bolded name to Linnaeus's and just mention the synonyms as such. — LlywelynII 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Latinate scientific names really don't work very well for something like this. There are botanical varieties that have been published, but the general consensus among botanists seems to be that the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants code defers to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants in cases like this in determining a "scientific name". There may be a a cultivar group that would cover this plant (and the title "daikon" would probably correspond to a cultivar, with several other variants included in the cultivar group). Unfortunately, ICNCP hasn't been widely adopted for vegetables, and determining the cultivar group can be challenging. You've put some work in the taxobox, but it might be better to use a Template:Infobox cultivar in this article. Plantdrew (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1) There are a number of classifications that use cultivar groups. They don't show up in literature as much as long-standing approaches that use "R. s. var. longipinnatus" or "R. s. var. hortensis", or the current just "R. s. L.", but are gaining in popularity (e.g., "R. s. L. (daikon group)", "R. s. L. (longipinnatus group)", the geographically split Chinensis/Japonicus groups, PROSEA Foundation's proposed "Chinese radish group", etc.). Though switching to groups doesn't remove the "which to use" question, and delineations between them aren't always clear for particular varieties. I haven't seen an ICNCP suggestion. Agyle (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2) I've seen some mention of L. sativus (~ group) scattered around the taxonomy sources; Google Scholar pulls a few hits variously discussing (daikon group), (longipinnatus group), (Chinensis group), (oleiformis group) which we would need to back up with ICNCP cites, explain the differences between, and depreciate (given how much less often they show up as the scientific name for the plant versus R. sativus L. &c.). That said, if the ICNCP is the authority for these, we should at least mention whatever they're using. Cursory Googling only seemed to find dead-tree versions of their work and no one citing them concerning a name for daikon, but maybe one of you two can find it or have access to university libraries with a copy. Until we have an authoritative cultivar group, I'd say leave the Linnaean guys up. — LlywelynII 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

White Carrot Singapore vs China and Turnip cake.

Is this reference only for Singapore? 胡萝卜means carrot whereas 萝卜means radish. I've never heard anyone in mainland China call this white carrot, and since its literal translation 白萝卜is white radish. There is no carrot in carrot cake I assume is a mistranslation of there is no carrot in turnip cake (or daikon cake.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_cake

Bucknastay (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daikon/Archive_1&oldid=1136647499"