Talk:Maize/Archive 3

Maize vs. Corn controversy

It should be CORN not Maize. A redirect from Maize to corn. Corn can mean other things, so what? So does a lot of words. The most common definition in ENGLISH is CORN. It's ludicrous that in Canada, USA and Australia which account for an overwhelming majority of English speakers who use the word CORN not maize to have this article direct toward maize. It's illogical to say Maize is anymore scientific because we have an exact scientific name for corn. So why not use the technically correct scientific name for all plants, minerals and animals and redirect maize to that. I mean the article is Gorillas not the scientific name for Gorillas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.214.11 (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see archive 2. this corm output of 2005 has to be bullshit. the green dot located in the northeast of America does not represent the enormous amount of corn grown in the midwest. It's strange, since the colors indicated in other countries seem to specify the location of maize production in those particular regions of those respective countries.

anyone who's ever driven through (or lived in) Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, etc., will testify to this...

The dots on the maps appear to be centered on the various nations' capitals, not on the specific places where corn is grown in those nations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, given the US produces by far the most 'corn', it's called 'corn' in most English-speaking places on the planet and, interestingly, even all the corn-related diseases on this page tend to have the name 'corn' in them, that the article still commonly refers to the plant by the outdated 'maize' term. Perhaps the article should begin with the sentence: "Corn, historically called maize, yadda, yadda?" This is the English Wikipedia, after all, and the English-speaking places where 'maize' is used are few and far between. Unless anyone's partaken of 'creamed maize' or 'maize on the cob', or 'pop-maize', that is... 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.157.129 (talk)

Actually "corn" means many things in many different parts of the world. The definition of corn is "the main cereal crop". So in North America that is maize, but in England it means wheat, and in Scotland maybe barley. In England we call maize "sweetcorn" sometimes or "corn on the cob" (if it is on the cob), but never just "corn". Other parts of the world would have the same confusion. "corn" already redirects (misleadingly, in my opinion) to maize, so just be happy with that. Rachel Pearce (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Australia where corn refers to maize too. Being that that is a pretty big chunk of the native Enlgish speaking world, I don't think the redirect is such a crime. pschemp | talk 14:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Maize" is not outdated, it's the formal name of the grain in Europe, as well as being its proper name in general. "Corn", short for "Indian corn", is its name in America and in some other English-speaking countries. Wikipedia's usual approach is to take the predominant usage, if there is one, and direct other usages to a disambiguation page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell calls it maize in the UK? If you said can I have some maize to the average British person you'd receive a blank stare. Who are the idiots who sourced this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.60.203 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally bother to reply to ill-mannered and anonymous messages like that, but It might be helpful to clarify UK usage from my own experience:

If you buy a tin (that's a "can" in American) or ask for it in a restaurant it's called "sweet corn".
If you buy the vegetable raw, it's "corn on the cob".
If you walk around a field where it's more than head high, trying to get lost, it's called a "maize maze". Everyone understands those words.
It's never normally referred to just as "corn", because that word has too many other meanings.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the ill-mannered and anonymous message in question originated in the UK. —David Levy 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SamuelTheGhost you just helped prove my point. The term Maize is not in common usage in the uk. Yes we do call it sweet corn. I am sorry I didn't make myself clear but again the word 'maize' is not in common usage in the UK! Look at these links for example, do you see the word maize mentioned at all you twat?! http://www.vegetable-gardens.co.uk/guides/Corn.htm http://www.rhs.org.uk/Advice/profiles0505/sweetcorn.asp http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/gardens/article3721181.ece And lastly note this link where 'maize' is only used because it is an amusing play on words. The page describes a field of... you guessed it, CORN!! http://www.fernyhillfarm.com/Maize%20Maze.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.75.107 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be helpful, honest and polite. Since these qualities, in combination, seem to be beyond you, I have nothing more to say to you. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your moral high horse you self-righteous little so and so and provide evidence that the term 'maize' is in common use in the UK. You are wrong, admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.60.203 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please either keep it polite or keep quiet. I've never heard maize referred to as just plain "corn" in the UK, always "corn on the cob" or "sweetcorn" or some such where the word "corn" is used at all. The OED defines maize-derived items, such as cornflakes, in terms of maize, not corn. Whereas "corn" is often used as part of the decription of stuff you eat, I have never heard the crop referred to as anything other than maize within the UK. To me "corn" means wheat. 81.174.211.99 (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the most commonly intended meaning of the word "corn", it doesn't exclusively mean maize. As an encyclopedia we should be reporting proper, technically correct meanings, rather than colloquial meanings. Hence the Root canal article describes the anatomical structure, not the medical procedure (endodontic therapy), even though the term 'root canal' is normally used to mean the medical procedure. At another article I had an editor just change the word 'corn' to 'crops' because it was in the context of medieval Europe, before maize had been introduced. It was, s/he claimed, an obvious error. But such terminology is neither incorrect, nor is it uncommon. It's a handy term, applying as it does to not only wheat, but also barley, rye and a number of other crops. So I was going to link to Corn, so that this editor could see what I was on about, and I discovered that Corn is a redirect to Maize. Surely it should redirect to Corn (disambiguation)? It's misleading as it currently stands. Compare with the America article, which doesn't redirect to United States of America, despite that being the popular usage of the word. I'd like to avoid entrenching ignorance here, and change the redirect to point to Corn (disambiguation). Does anyone disagree? Fuzzypeg ★ 23:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, and I've modified the Corn and Corn (disambiguation) articles accordingly. I'd value your comments. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please examine the archives. There are quite a lot of people who would just as soon have the Maize page moved to corn, and they can make a pretty good case based on WP:common name. And look at all the links to corn. The vast majority of these are intended for Maize. It has been a long-standing compromise for corn to redirect to Maize and other uses to be handled with a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You're entitled to disagree, but you haven't actually addressed Fuzzypeg's points.
- I have examined a good deal of the previous discussion, and I'm aware of the arguments being put forward. The arguments for the current status quo do not convince me.
- I'm aware that many people have wanted to move the maize page to corn, but as that hasn't been done, and I presume you're not currently trying to do it, I can't see that it has any relevance. One of the stupidities that has made this discussion so sterile is the way that it has been posed as a straight battle between US usage and UK usage. What I, and I presume Fuzzypeg, are trying to do is to find a structure which recognises all usage, in all countries and, even more importantly, in all eras.
- I have looked at the links to corn. A majority are for maize, a substantial minority for grain. To bring them to a page which caters for both seems to me to be the most helpful.
- The current "compromise" is not satisfactory, since it means that a substantial number of links are simply wrong. What I proposed was a genuine compromise, in which no link would be wrong, but some would require a further click. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a better look at the archives. I can't as yet, however, see how an argument can be based on the WP:common name guideline which explicitly and clearly states that we should use the common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Related guidelines are WP:PRECISION and WP:NC(flora), and WP:SET describes some of the limitations of relying on search engine results. See particularly WP:PRECISION#Conflicts over precision, WP:NC(CN)#Do not overdo it and WP:NC(flora): "In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used.".

I would, as per normal, defer to a dictionary to sort this one out, and another editor just happens to have conveniently linked a couple of examples of dictionary entries for 'corn' above in this discussion. I don't see why this encyclopedia should throw aside dictionaries and established language conventions for the sake of people who only want to look up "corn dog" or "popcorn". Fuzzypeg ★ 23:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked through the archives and they seem to be chockablock with people who indignantly defend their own perceptions of usage but don't bother to do the obvious and look at a dictionary. That, and straw-doll arguments about no-one saying "maize on the cob" etc. A lot of wasted typing as far as I can tell. This isn't about conflict between US and UK English, as the dictionaries make clear; it's about colloquial, imprecise usage vs. more precise usage. I'll wait a few days before I restore SamuelTheGhost's edits, to allow other editors time to point out to me (with clear references to their evidence and the relevant WP policies/guidelines) the vital part of the picture that I'm missing. I can't imagine what it is... Fuzzypeg ★ 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So having said all that sensible stuff, why have you overwhelmingly prioritised maize over all other meanings on the disambiguation page? I don't see what was wrong with that page at all. Rachel Pearce (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think my arguments are sensible, and I honestly couldn't have told you what was prioritised over what on that page. I don't believe I've ever edited it. Fuzzypeg ★ 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main change I made to that page was just to add a whole lot of uncontentious extra dab material. As for the lead bit, with the maize, I'm not sure which version you're referring to, since two other editors have had a go at it since I put it up less than 24 hours ago. I don't in the least mind if you become a third. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most persistent argument I can see on these pages for making 'corn' refer to maize only, is that 'corn' meaning other types of grain crops is a historical and/or Anglo-centric usage. This is incorrect on both counts, as shown by the agreement between English and North American dictionaries, and the absence of any 'historical' markings (usually a † sign) attached to this meaning in said dictionaries. I'll also express my opinion here, that anyone reasonably literate in the English language (yes, American English too) should realise this, since it's not an uncommon usage. i.e. the dictionaries are not mistaken. Fuzzypeg ★ 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the links to dictionary entries were not on this page as I said but at Talk:Corn (disambiguation). I'm copying them here for those interested:

"Corn". Merriam Webster's Dictionary. Merriam Webster.
"Corn". Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford University Press.

Fuzzypeg ★ 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a few people can't override a long-standing consensus. older ≠ wiser 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out above, the historic arguments in these talk pages are largely based on misconceptions. Consensus can change. The "few people" who are setting out to change this consensus happen to be the only people talking at the moment, and I have asked for comments/arguments. I thought I'd left quite sufficient time. If you feel there's a problem with anything I've said then please, speak up and explain what your problem is. Fuzzypeg ★ 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion by a few people of at the end of what had been a stale discussion is not exactly evidence of any significant change in consensus. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no-one has voiced disagreement is, though. They either agree (grudgingly or not), or they're not interested, or they're all away on holiday (irony)! I'm not going to wait forever just because everyone's suddenly gone silent. You, Bkonrad, you're the only one so far who obviously seems to disagree with us; care to explain why? Fuzzypeg ★ 02:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a well read American college graduate, I believe I qualify as "reasonably literate". This page is the first place I have ever seen the word corn mean anything other than a synonym for maize. I believe our priority should be ease of access to the proper information for which users are searching. As it is now it is very confusing to Americans who have never heard any other meaning for the word. I support corn going to a disambig page, but maize should be featured very prominentely with an explanation of the American usage, at least equally as prominent as the "main grain crop of a region" definition. This seems to be the most accessible solution. I'm going to add a see also from the corn article to this article-- Mad031683 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been doing a bit of a search: Shelly, Keats, Wordsworth, Masefield, Tennyson, W. B. Yeats, Shakespeare, Tolkein, all repeatedly use the word "corn" to mean wheat. In some books you can find this meaning heavily used, such as in James Frazer's famous Golden Bough (1922). This meaning has pretty extensive usage in the English language, and it still persists to the current day. I happen to be currently reading a book by Pamela Berger, an American Fine Arts professor, about European grain goddesses; she doesn't bother to explain that "corn" means wheat in the contexts in which it appears in her book; she takes it as understood. But fortunately we don't have to rely on my own research to say what is and isn't established usage; we have dictionaries for that, such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Merriam-Webster.

I would be amenable to Corn redirecting to Corn (disambiguation), and moving some of what's currently in the Corn article over to wiktionary. Perhaps we should hear what others such as SamuelTheGhost think. Nonetheless, I don't believe Corn should redirect to Maize, which would seem to merely entrench ignorance. Fuzzypeg ★ 00:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Mad031683. I simply feel the degree to which English-speakers outside of the UK and probably Ireland understand corn to mean grain rather than maize is being vastly overstated. Fuzzypeg, I appreciate your concern that this is a matter of "colloquial, imprecise usage vs. more precise usage" rather than a trans-atlantic tiff, but I would submit to you that the usage of corn to mean maize and nothing else is neither colloquial nor informal, but the established usage in most of the english speaking world. If it once wasn't it now is; the English language is in no need of an Academy to protect it from dastardly colloquialisms. There was a gentleman writing in the archives who laid out painstakingly-detailed evidence for this; I believe he established beyond a doubt that to most of the world corn means maize, and no other meaning for the word is readily understood outside the UK. How can it be more "precise" to use a word to mean something that a majority of educated english-speakers will not recognize. As for Shelly, Keats and the rest, they're are all well and good, but I don't think they best illustrate current global usage of the word. Not to sound like some radical student, but they're all dead white englishmen. I'd be far more interested in how both the Times and the New York Times understand the word.

Because I'm lazy (as shown my unwillingness to dig into the archives at the moment) I just took a look at the dictionary I have the quickest access to: the one built into my mac. It defines corn as maize, but DOESN'T EVEN USE THE WORD MAIZE (not screaming, just can't figure out how to do italics) only the scientific "zea mays." The SECOND definition was as you understand it, but it was marked with "Brit" to denote it as a regionalism. Please guys, show a little flexibility, and take a look at it from the perspective of one of the many dissenters here, that's all I ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandtanzarian (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple days after posting my above comment a few weeks ago, I went to a 21st birthday party and someone there was talking about "corn" meaning wheat. He was talking about some kind of whiskey-related beverage, a precursor of Baileys Irish Cream, apparently, but with the creamy texture and flavour achieved through some process of boiling grain rather than by adding milk. The details don't really matter, suffice it to say that he used the word "corn" to mean wheat, and expected his audience to understand. And they did. I confirmed that this was his meaning, just because we'd been having this debate here and I was intrigued to have heard this usage so soon after.

This is not such a common use of the word today, I'm in total agreement on that. But it is far from dead, not even rare or obscure. My experience as a native English speaker and reader gives me no reason to doubt the Oxford and the Merriam-Webster, which are generally considered definitive when it comes to British and American English respectively.

And I think the analogy of "America" is a good one. Just about everybody assumes that the country, the United States of America, is intended when someone talks about "America", but it's not actually the correct, unambiguous name, and in fact can denote all of the northern and southern American continents and their surrounding islands. When people look up "America" in the dictionary we should (and do) give them correct and precise information about the word and its usage, rather than simply making it a redirect to United States of America. This is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to educate and inform, rather than simply catalogue the beliefs of some 'lowest common denominator'. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote for corn has changed [1] since Mad031683 wrote that, and perhaps meets his needs. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, and it is clear from what he says that it has been successful. The current structure seems to be working. Moving things to wiktionary would have the disadvantage that people often don't use that link even when they would benefit from doing so. The numerous "see also" entries are amusing (I find) but also informative, and help to consolidate the point in a way which can hardly be disputed. I'd be very pleased if Fuzzypeg added another example of the use of "corn" to the article, perhaps from Tolkien? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SamuelTheGhost that fixes most of my concerns. FuzzyPeg I now realize that everytime I read the word before I simply glossed over it and assumed it referred to maize, even when further consideration of the context would have made that impossible. This is the cause of my concern, I just want 14 year olds in Nebraska to be able to find the articles they are looking for as easily as someone in London. In my experience the word maize is used only in the context of Native Americans, usually as a joke. I'm happy with the current state of the articles, it allows an easy way to find the maize article while informing of the multiple definitions of the word corn. -- Mad031683 (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is even an issue. In the USA --the largest English speaking country and the largest producer of this crop in the world-- it is ALWAYS referred to as corn. There's nothing colloquial about it, it's simply it's definition. Farmer's call it corn, cooks call it corn, ethanol production plants call it corn, consumers call it corn, the President calls it corn, my grandmother calls it corn. It's corn. So why is the article not called "corn"? This is mind-blowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.176.136 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that google has 85 million hits for corn and only 9 million hits for maize. The sixth hit for maize is in reference to a city in Kansas, the tenth hit is for a restaurant in New Jersey. It is noted earlier in this discussion that maize is not common usage in the UK and it is certainly not even passing usage anywhere else. If the usage of corn is confusing to an incredibly small minority of people then to me it seems obvious that the article should be called corn and it should be noted in the article that it is sometimes called maize. Then put a note under the article name that says "Corn may also refer to other cereal grains." Jhayes94 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That this article is still titled "Maize" while the term "corn" is in overwhelmingly greater use and overwhelmingly understood to refer to the substnace we all know as "corn" shows one of the obvious failings of Wikipedia. Some small editing uber-class is able to enforce absurdities like this, further lowering the already damaged credibility of this resource.

I'm surprised they haven't gone over to the "Gasoline" article to retitle it "Petrol". Certainly "petrol" is in greater use for "gasoline" than "Maize" is for "corn" so it's pretty clear that a biased standard is being applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.68.43 (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. "Gasoline" is used much more than "petrol". On the internet, or in the real world, the word is just shortened to "gas". You're making an unfair and unlike comparison; you're comparing a formal word with an unformal word, like apples to oranges. "petrol" is like "gas", not "Gasoline". There is no such bias. (Sorry for my anonymity, I'm too lazy to log in). 76.122.102.100 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the start of this article should be changed from "Maize, known as corn in some English-speaking countries..." to "Maize, known as corn by most English-speakers..." (I make this statement based on the fact that it is invariably called corn in the U.S., Canada, and, apparently, Australia.) As it stands, the opening makes it seem like only a misguided minority of English-speakers calls it corn. At the very least, I think making the change would be only fair as a way to point out how ridiculous the title of this article is. In fact, it wouldn't be incorrect to start the article "Maize, known as anything but maize by damn-near every English speaker on the planet...", although maybe that wouldn't be quite so appropriate. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the American Heritage Dictionary gives as its principal definition for corn: "Any of numerous cultivated forms of a widely grown, usually tall annual cereal grass (Zea mays) bearing grains or kernels on large ears." The definition that has been labeled the "correct" definition elsewhere in this section (seemingly by Brits) - "the principal crop cultivated in a particular region" - is listed as a British regionalism. I bring this up out only to refute the arguments made above that the American usage of the word corn is just a colloquialism. Instead, it is a dictionary-recognized usage commonly used by the majority of English-speakers worldwide. I can't see any good reason, therefore, why the title of this article shouldn't be "corn."Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather shocked by all people screaming "Corn is Maize!" Even American Academic and Scientific works often refer to this grain as maize. Anyone reasonably literate person knows the term maize. "Corn" short for "Indian Corn" is an American colloquialism. I will point out the merriam-webster defines "corn" as grain; "the seeds of a cereal grass and especially of the important cereal crop of a particular region (as wheat in Britain, oats in Scotland and Ireland, and Indian corn in the New World and Australia)" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corn (Doktor Faustus (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I will also add Maize is the common term used in English in South Asia and Africa not "corn." And Maize is the most commonly used tern in English press around the world. I note the industry in Australia is the "Maize Association of Australia." And Maize gets 18300 hits on a search of the USDA website. (Doktor Faustus (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Hmm I seem to have walked into a big argument here. But I think that I echo what has just been said... the term corn as a word referring to maize is indeed colloquial to North America. Etmylogically the term corn is very old... it can be traced to Old Norse korn meaning seed, hence the generic meaning of corn as any grain which is the meaning I know. Even earlier forms are seen in gothic and germanic forms and indeed back into Sanskrit from a word. Kernal is a related word from the same root. The weird thing is that mayz is actually a word of caribbean origin from where it went to Spain and the rest of Europe (info from Oxford concise dictionary of English Etymology). Of course, the american product cornflakes has gone around the world and most people outside of the U.S. will understand that this product is made from maize.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked. The pack of Kellog's cornflakes in my kitchen puts "maize" as the main ingredient - not corn. :) --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we call "corn" in the USA is actually a shorthand way of saying "Indian corn", as in American Indians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any reasonably literate person should know the term maize (it's British for corn). But they should also know the term corn. The simple fact is that a majority of the world's English-speakers know the substance as "corn," and thus there is no good reason why this article should be called maize. Everyone keeps saying that "corn is an American colloquialism," as if any term originating in America must only be a colloquialism. If everyone in the U.S. (and Canada and Australia) calls it corn; if, as I pointed out a few posts above, the primary definition for corn given in a number of dictionaries is (to paraphrase) "the plant zea mays," then why should it be called a colloquialism? The meaning of words can change...

Of course, I'll admit that there is another definition of the word "corn" - the principal grain of a region. To the best of my knowledge, however, that definition is not the primary definition outside the British Isles (and a few other ex-British colonies, I'm sure). In fact, many American dictionaries give that definition with the caveat "chiefly British." Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "corn" is the principal cereal grain of a country, which is why maize is called "corn" in America; or more properly "Indian corn", as in American Indian; or sometimes "American corn". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, the term does not derive directly from the old definition for corn, but is actually a shortened version of "Indian corn." (Wheat was for a long-time the principal crop in the U.S., but was not called "corn".) In any event, the term has by now long-lost it direct connection to the old meaning of corn. For example, if wheat were to overtake corn as the principal American grain crop, we would not suddenly cease calling corn "corn." Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary. It was the cereal grain that was unique to the Indians originally. That was to distinguish maize from other usages of "corn". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little ridiculous. Whatever the reason why Indian corn became known simply as corn, clearly that is its name now throughout America. That fact alone makes corn the predominant term for approximately 60% of English speakers throughout the world, without counting Canadians, as well. The result is that corn could easily be the title of this article according to WP: common name. However, whether it gets renamed or not, there is NO REASON why typing in corn should lead to a disambiguation page instead of straight to this article. "Corn" should link straight here, and any others meanings should be settled by a hatnote. This is a simple solution, but I doubt it will be implemented. Can't let those American "colloquialisms" infect Wikipedia, right? Jrt989 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious what's going on here; our friends in the US are all upset because they've had their ignorance pointed out and are in denial. It's not just the UK in which "indian-corn" is called by it's proper name, but also the entire rest of the world outside of the US, including Australia, Africa and Europe. It's not called corn in China, or Mexico (where it's from, btw) so stop taking the typical American attitude of "USA=the whole world". And stop pretending you've never heard of maize before. Wiki is not exclusively american, so lets err on the side of correctness rather than pandering to the ignorant. Corn means cerial grain, and while it is not incorrect to refer to maize as corn, it is also fine to refer to pepper kernals as corns (pepper-corns, anyone), and corn-circles are usually in barley fields. Why be so resistant to the simple facts? Corn can be alot of things, maize is maize. Ignorance of this fact does not make it untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.13.221 (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't being American-centric. You are being UK-centric - first off - We call it "corn" here in Canada, too. Secondly, you are wrong, they call it "corn" in Australia. "Maize" is simply an archaic, now dead word. A simple look at Google results can prove this, as demonstrated above. You're simply being pretentious and condescending to the "ignorant" non-europeans. We outnumber you. It's our language now, too.

The majority of dictionaries define "corn" as the vegetable we all know and love - saying the older definition of the word is a British-only use. I personally had never heard the term used unless used jokingly when refering to Aboriginal North Americans - That, or it being used as a pun when referring to corn mazes as "maize mazes". Basically, nobody uses the word unless they want to come off as funny or pseudointellectual.

Maize is mostly dead in common usage, even in the UK, they'll usually refer to the vegetable as "sweet corn". the meaning of words changes over time. For instance, "Amuse" comes from the Latin root "muser", meaning "to stare stupidly". At one time to "amuse" someone meant not to entertain them, but to stupefy them. This sort of thing is a natural product of an evolving, liquid language. Get off your high horse and get used to it. 67.158.67.4 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zea or Zea Mays?

The sidebar contains several Zea genus, but the main article is highly focused on Zea Mays, especially Zea Mays subsp. mays. Think we need a seperate page for Zea? Mackerm 17:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should this article provide information about corn is grown now rather than relying on an article that is over 100 years old?

Propagation

Maize cannot self seed, right? It depends upon cultivation for seed dispersal. This should probably be mentioned. Perhaps along with domestication history of maize in the first paragraph.

Maize is pollinated by the wind, so it can self-pollinate, but is not very likely to, just because of the odds. A few grains might happen to self-pollinate, but many pollen grains will come from neighboring plants. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by 68.47.125.142

Ó:nenhste Mohawk for corn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.47.125.142 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 January 2006.

domestication and alkali treatment

Wasn't alkali treatment important in the domestication of Maize ? Why was it necessary, and is it still useful today beyond making Homney ?

Chicha

I removed the following because there is already an article about chicha, to which it should probably be incorporated:

Sweet Chicha, which is maize flour and honey fermented in earthen pots, drunk in "totumas", is still made to this day since ancient times when it was considered sacred.
Since colonial times, chicha culture has suffered discrimination, prohibition and rejection by church and goverment parties, up to this day, because it is a strong bond to native culture and rural unity. In some places it is still used everyday, it was traditionally used in native religious and spiritual celebrations.
In some places of central america like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and south america like Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Panama and Colombia it is still used as a refreshing alcoholic beverage as well as a small meal, but the name and preparation of this fermented drink varies by location.
Maize chicha is drunk in large quantities at celebrations, which usually are native cultural events or rural festivals, sometimes about both, in these times, chicha is drunk all the time, and many times people drink continously until very drunk, in some cases, "finally" throwing up to "open up space" to continue drinking.
Some members of society, usually in groups, use various etheogens like mushrooms, mixed with the drink, to have visions and revelations. Those who have experienced it, say it is like a "spiritual voyage", because of the personal revelation experiences. These practices go back to Amerindian roots.
Chicha is not easy to make, it becomes sour if not consumed in the right moment, a type of vinegar is prepared this way.

--Curtis Clark 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic

It should be noted somewhere in the article about the use of corn materials to make biodegradable plastic, which I know of one bottled water company that does so. Someone should do a little research and add it under maize uses.

"corrected for solar variations"

This phrase is really not clear in context -- does it have to do with carbon dating? AnonMoos 08:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. carbon dating#calibration Rmhermen 04:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yield

I came here looking for info and found the article rather lacking. In "Cultivation" there should be discussion of yield. [2] shows for Indiana, stable yield of 30 to 40 bushels per acre from the 1860's until the 1930's, then increasing yield up to an average of about 150 bushels/acre, due perhaps to irrigation, hybrids, fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides. At [3] yields up to 351 bushels/acre are reported, perhaps where winning a prize is more important than maximizing return on investment. How does this compare to other countries? What chemicals are applied at what stage of growth, and what are the societal implications as well as costs? What are the implications and controversies of genetically modified corn? How have corn prices varied relative to the cost of production? Thanks. Edison 17:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "herbicides and pesticides" is a mixing of categories, a factual error, unless one is permitted to write his own definitions, which degrades the language. "Herbicides and pesticides" is akin to "Catholics and Christians" or to "oranges and fruits", since herbicides ARE pesticides. Pollinator 15:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herbicides and pesticides

Herbicides and pesticides is a mixing of categories - an error of fact that can only be ignored if anyone is allowed to write his own definition. Herbicides ARE pesticides. It's akin to saying "Catholics and Christians, which of course is either a misuse of the language, or an idiosyncratic definition. Normally I am reluctant to edit comments on the talk page; however this is not a matter of opinion. It's an error of fact; and, as editors, we are duty bound to correct factual errors. Pollinator 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct errors in articles. Talk page comments are not edited in this manner. Rmhermen 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of manners; since nothing offensive is intended. Editors are duty bound to correct errors of fact wherever found, or the entire project becomes suspect. Pollinator 15:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who cannot distinguish the difference in purpose between articles and talk pages should be cautious about editing in general.

Let me try another approach. Changing a signed comment introduces an error of fact. The original author signed his/her own words, and a reader might well hold that the signer is the author. Changing those words, however wrong they might be, without explicitly noting it on the talk page, creates a misattribution, and the fact that someone carefully researching the history a year hence could discover the change does not mitigate that. I could have edited your remarks above from "since nothing offensive is intended" to "an inference of offense is completely unwarranted". The meaning is the "same", but it's not what you wrote and signed.--Curtis Clark 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of maize production

The article appears to be somewhat lacking with respect to the economics and application of maize production. As I understand some farmers previously received subsidies not to produce maize in periods of oversupply. With the advent of bio fuel production this may be something of the past. As an important commodity the article may be improved by graphs showing the price, or pie charts showing the different applications. JMK 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers where? Central Africa? China? /this is a global article and it would be hard to integrate that level of detail for every country. Rmhermen 05:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency of maize sunfall energy conversion

I wish that I could cite a reference -- but promises are not to be broken lightly : I do not wish to embarrass my source. So, then -

I have it on the best authority, from a US source, that the annualized efficiency of the conversion of sunfall to chemical energy (starch & cellulose) of the maize plant in the US corn belt (got you there "corn" bashers -- that is the official name) is but 0.70% -- that is, 0.007 of the available incident energy. This figure falls so low, in part, because the average growing season is but 51 days -- despite the fact that maize is one of the most efficient existing plant energy converters.

Biofuel Advocates, Listen Up ! -- Bear in mind further that maize production requires enormous quantities of water and of synthetic fertilizer from petroleum in order to thrive at such "high" levels of conversion efficiency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.183.102 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not true on some points. "Corn belt" is not an official name. The corn growing season is not 51 days in the U.S. Midwest but 120-150 days.[4] The conversion factor might be correct though - remember solar panels only convert 0.07% of incident energy. See this abstarct which lists 1-2% or lower.[5] Rmhermen 05:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke on the "growing season". However, for the starch component of corn, the "grainfilling period" is about 51 days.

For the cellulose component (totally dried stalk and leaves) -- Over the long growing season you mention, the cellulose production varies from near zero to some peak and then declines. I have no references on the details of cellulose production by corn over the "growing season", do you ?

Your typo - Photovoltaic devices convert from 5% to 30% (0.05 to 0.30) of the incident energy, not "0.07%". Of course, from this must be subtracted the "area overhead" of the physical facilities, just as one must for agricultural crops.

Photovoltaics (PVs), too, suffer a bit from the effects of a sort of "growing season", related to the effects of ambient and device temperatures, but conversion is only somewhat degraded and never ends or even comes close to ending over the year.

Cost has not been discussed for either corn or PVs-- but corn production efficiency has pretty much topped out, where there is still enormous room for improvement in photovoltaics. Thus raising corn can be viewed as an unnecessary, unproductive and costly step for converting the energy of sunfall to a more convenient form of energy.

Agricultural operations are for growing food, soon not all of that or even fiber and certainly not fuel. Eventually, not even basic products like starch and cellulose will be found "on the farm" -- artificial photosynthesis or another bulk industrialized solar-powered process will assume that role, driven in part by water scarcity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.59.188 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maize is a facultative long-night plant ?

That phrase is a bit of jargon that needs explaining, or linking to an explanation as the paragraph it is in rather depends onthat phrase having meaning to the reader. "Facultative long night"?

I added links to explanatory articles. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby corn

The information on baby corn throughout wikipedia is somewhat confusing. Baby corn suggests many varieties can be used. This article suggest baby corn comes from special varieties which produce multiple ears. Sweet corn used to suggest babycorn comes from immature sweet corn until I changed it based on the baby corn article. Someone who knows more about baby corn and which varities it comes from needs to correct the articles Nil Einne 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to answer the question. Two types are predominantly used for baby corn. Sweet corn varieties and prolific starchy corn varieties (which produce multiple ears). As these are the most productive, they are the varieties most commonly used for baby corn [6]. Someone with time might want to update the articles as appropriate Nil Einne 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? Chicken butt?

"The stems superficially resemble chicken hips..." with a link to the fowl. Looking at the picture, I don't really see anything that appears to have claws, a tail or eggs coming out of it. Where did this come from? Personally, I'd have said they resemble bamboo, with the nodes and leaves at the nodes... --StarChaser Tyger 02:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Sound Corn' and 'Port Corn'

Would any of you bright boys and girls have any notion what types of corn these are? They are recorded in a sixteenth century English fiant-nay, about 100 of them that I've seen so far. Google is of no use whatsoever, which is a rare event in itself. Neither is JStor other than to tell me that 'sound corn' was in use in the United States in the 19th century. An article on Elizabethan England does talk about 'separating the saints, who are sound corn from the sinners, who are chaff' [William Perkins: Elizabethan Apostle of "Practical Divinity" Louis B. Wright The Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Jan., 1940), pp. 171-196]. So it must have been of some good quality. But...? I am entirely surmising that the Port Corn might have something to do with the Portreeve, but there must be some historian of sixteenth-century agriculture reading? Any recommended reading on this would be much appreciated (I'm trying to link industries such as brewing and milling into these areas). Thanks. 194.125.110.240 07:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better to ask this at wikipedia:Reference Desk but "sound corn" in the quote above probably refers to grain, not corn. We do sometimes talk of chaff with maize but it is more common in reference to grains like wheat, rye, oats (all of which are called "corn"). And "sound corn" here probably simply means good, useful produce as opposed to useless chaff, not to a particular kind of "corn". Rmhermen 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I've just done that, giving more precise examples of the terms. Hopefully some more info will turn up. Thanks again. 86.42.98.153 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation.

Maize is two syllables, not one rhyming with maze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.189.250 (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always known it to be pronounced the same as "maze". Can you cite this assertation? Reginmund 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce it then? --86.137.155.142 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mize, with the i sounding like in mice. In fact it's written Mais in a bunch of countries and pronounced mice there. (Written Maïs and pronounced mice where i live. -- 86.87.28.191 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. In English it's pronounced to rhyme with "maze". In Spanish it's more like the proper Indian pronunciation, "mah-EES". I expect other non-English-speaking countries also pronounce it the right way, but in English it's like "maze". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism"

It seems somewhat remiss that there is no mention anywhere in the article (or at least a brief mention and link to another article) about the controversy over the economically-artificial corn-based food chain in the United States. The nature and magnitude of corn subsidies in the United States is, in many people's eyes, a big reason why we have found so many novel "uses" for corn (e.g. feeding exclusively corn to grass-eating animals, much to the detriment of the animals, the people who eat the animals, and the environment the animals live in). To talk about these uses without acknowledging the role that subsidies play in making those uses economically viable seems somewhat broken.

(Also note this is not a US-centric view, because the massive corn subsidies in the United States have a tremendous and sometimes devastating ripple effect on the food economy of the entire world. For instance, nobody outside the US can make a living growing corn anymore, because it's just way cheaper to buy US corn.)

If I have the time, I'll try and dig up some sources and maybe take a crack at it. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thai farmers are making a living growing it, at least for local consumption. Ten years ago locally grown sweet corn wasn't fit to eat, but nowadays is as good as it gets. BTW, khao TH:ข้าว really means any cereal grain, but is generally understood to mean rice, or a meal. Maize in my Thai-English dictionary is khaopod TH: ข้าวโพด pronounced to an American ear like cow poat; but the entry also says, See corn. Pawyilee (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tendency to make these articles over broad. The above criticisms may have a place, but in a different article. This article should be about Corn (maize) not about the politics or environmental and ethical issues of how corn based the U.S. economy and U.S. Ag world has become. There is probably much to be removed and much to be added to this article but not criticism of U.S. Ag policy, justified however they may be.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an intersting issue, but I would urge great care to check facts and maintain neutral POV in the face of political movements and misleading "documentaries" being made about food and corn. In other words, don't just believe Monsanto and don't just believe Greenpeace. DonPMitchell (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lime is probably NOT Calcium Carbonate, but Calcium Hydroxide...

The 'Lime' is probably NOT Calcium Carbonate CaCO3 at all, but Calcium Hydroxide Ca(OH)2.

The 'Ash' is probably a weak Sodium Hydroxide NaOH derrived from ashes and water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_Hydroxide

"In Native American and Latin American cooking, calcium hydroxide is called "cal". Corn cooked with cal becomes nixtamal which significantly increases its nutrition value, and is also considered tastier and easier to digest."

I do not seem to be able to edit the Wiki directly, so would some one correct this text within the Maize/Corn Wiki???

TIA! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.237.40 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this is small potatoes for someone more Wikipedian than I, but I see on all the rest of the grain pages: rice, oats, etc, a list of other grains as a handy navigation tool that seem to be indexed to all other items in the Grain category. Why isn't it showing here? Shouldn't it? Andy_N.

It's there the purple header "Cereals and pseudocereals" but the content is hidden. on the right side there is a link "[show]" that will cause the list to be displayed. Jeepday (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki

Hello! I´d like to add an interwiki to the Hungarian version of the articel. Since I am not an "established" user in the English wikipedia, I cannot do that myself. Would anybody be so kind and add this: hu:Kukorica? Thanks,Feloidea en (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All set. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular notions on Biomass corn use and the impact on prices

Popular media and even wiki commonly attribute rising corn prices to increased demand due to biofuel and biomass uses. I've been searching for statistics that show this in some way. My instict is that the biofuel/biomass market is so small and so new that they could only be using a small fraction of a percent of the world supply. I suspect that rising fuel prices and rising demand in Asia and South America have had a much bigger impact on the price of corn. Any help uncovering these notions to be either true or false would be good. Jageryager (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within the midwest U.S. the use of corn for ethanol production indeed affects the price of corn, It is one of the top uses of corn. Higher petroleum prices means that gasoline producers can economically mix in a bit more ethanol, increasing demand and driving up prices for ethanol. This translates to higher prices for corn. So the biofuel industry indeed has an important affect on corn prices (but not the varieties for human consumption). Other main uses of corn are livestock feed, and for production of High Fructose corn syrup. When China/East-Asia imports more corn to feed local livestock, this has an effect as on prices as well. The amount of biofuels in proportion to motor fuels is quite small, but the amount of corn used for biofuel production as a proportion to total corn use is larger.

Corn grown for human consuption is a different variety of corn, and constitutes a small fraction of plantings. When commodity analysts, grain traders, and midwesterners talk about corn. They are referring to the type of corn used for livestock feed, ethanol production, HFCS, and other industrial uses. They are not talking about the corn used for human consumption, unless its specifically mentioned. --71.214.223.133 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BC/AD vs BCE/CE

This article has gone back and forth several times over the past year but on researching the history I find that the first use of either was of CE in this edit. Therefore based on WP:MOS we should be using the BCE/CE style.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plato

I remember learning the history of corn as starting in meso-america and being carried to the rest of the world in the 15th century. Just like in the wikipedia article. I am reading the dialogues of Plato, Written in the 3rd century B.C. It contains several references to corn. One can only wonder if corn didn't get to Europe earlier than generaly accepted. Al Haney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.96.125 (talk • contribs)

See Corn (disambiguation) prior to it's use for Maize, "Corn" had many other meanings.

Maize is technically known as "Indian corn" in the USA, i.e. Native American corn, to distinguish from the European types of "corn", such as wheat, oats, barley, etc., one of which is probably what Plato would have been referring to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you find any Plato reference to "roastin' ears", then you'll be onto something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian corn" has nothing whatsoever to do with "Native American" vs "European". Indian corn refers to varieties that are multicolored (i.e., not plain yellow or white) and hard when ripe. The difference between Indian corn and other corn (esp. "sweet corn" and "field corn"), is that sweet corn is soft and juicy when ripe, and field corn is all yellow with a dimple on the end of each kernel when ripe. In North America, "corn" is never used to refer to wheat, oats, barley, spelt, rye, sorghum, millet, etc. The word used for these, collectively, as well as for corn (er..."maize"--a word that's very seldom heard in N.Am.), is "grain[s]". Tomer ^talk 14:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true today, but it wasn't true when maize was first encountered by the English colonists in what later became the USA. The origin of the usage "corn" does indeed come from the term "Indian corn", meaning "grain of the Indians". The indigenous Americans have always grown a wide variety of colored corn/maize while the types favored by the Europeans became limited to the yellow-white range. Thus the present usage evolved where the colorful types are now "Indian corn", and the yellow-white types are simply "corn". Tmangray (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corn life cycle?

Not sure if this has been mentioned previously (if it has, I couldn't find the discussion), but I think if more on the life cycle of corn would be included, it would fill in the biological gaps of this article drastically.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.54.251 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Africa

Maize and Grace - Africa's Encounter with a New World Crop 1500-2000 by James C. McCann ISBN: 0-674-02557-1, is reviewed by Danny Yee here. Snippets:

Maize -- _Zea mays_, or "corn" -- arrived in Africa from the New World around 1500, but has spread across the continent and become the dominant staple food in many regions.

...studies ...particular regions or topics but ...make[s] up a general history.

"...95 percent of its maize is consumed by humans..."

...diverse range of African names for maize...involved known grains ("sorghum"), the source ("from the sea", "Egypt"), or both ("India sorghum", "grain of the white man"), while some were based on the form of the plant ("stalk").

"...African maize is, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, overwhelmingly white in color."

An "American Rust" fungus was detected in Sierra Leone...sparking a global effort to develop a resistant maize strain -- which involved international science and other networks, but not African farmers.

The 1960 development of the SR-52 maize hybrid, by a little-known research station in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, was "a miracle of sorts, one that transformed African landscapes, racial politics, and diets over the next forty years. ... [B]y the end of the first decade of majority rule in Zimbabwe, virtually 100 percent of Zimbabwe's maize fields were planted with the hybrids developed in the 1960s, including the short-season triple-crosses suited to drought-prone areas".

Experiments show that maize pollen is excellent food for mosquito larvae, while epidemiology clearly links maize to a 1998 malaria epidemic.

...poorly regulated storage...risks... mycotoxins, especially aflatoxin.

I don't have access to this book, but someone who does, please do an update on African maize. Pawyilee (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corn redirect

The word "corn" redirects to "Maize". This seems wrong and very US-centric. As the "corn" disambiguation page states, the word "corn" can mean many different grains. Could "corn" not go straight to the disambiguation page? Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation policy is that termx not be reirected to termx (disambiguation). It's not just US centric either, but in Australia, and Canada corn refers to maize also. These three countries make up a pretty big chunk of the native English speaking population. Also, the current state is a compromise after much warring and gnashing of teeth. In cases where there is a constant British vs. American terminology fight, we generally leave things at a stable configuration, and this has turned out to be the most stable configuration so far. The other uses are clearly marked with a link to the disambig page, this page is not actually at corn and everyone can get to where they want by following links. Another fight about moving things is not worth the drama. Leave it be. pschemp | talk 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK that seems fair enough. I didn't know the history when I wrote the above and I didn't know the Disambiguation policy either, which is interesting. So we should always make a "guess" as to which term is meant. I could swear I've seen contraventions of this policy, though of course I can't actually think of any. Rachel Pearce (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "corn" is also the preferred term in India, which also has a sizable English-literate population, but I'm not totally sure about that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If true, that would certainly contribute a substantial percentage of the English-speaking population. I would be surprised if maize were the principal grain in India, though. Rachel Pearce (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I should have studied the history before I made the recent edit which pschemp reverted, but I'm not happy with the implication in his protection statement that it was "random redirect issues/vandalism", since it was neither random nor vandalism. It arose from my discovery of a [[corn]] link which had nothing to do with maize. There are several such links, as "What links here" for "corn" will show you.

The reason is that "corn" historically meant "grain in general" in English. It preserves that meaning in English-speaking Europe, but also needs to be understood that way in older documents wherever they are read. One particular important example is the King James Version of the Bible, which has a high reputation, perhaps especially in the USA, where indeed many people regard it as a divinely inspired translation. The word "corn" occurs about 70 times there (yes, I have counted, using a concordance) and none of those occurrences means maize. Thus "corn" must be seen as ambiguous even for Americans, unless they are willing to disregard historical and religious language. It is therefore a very narrow view which redirects "corn" to "maize".

From a purely pragmatic view, many wikipedia articles on religious and classical topics have been based on old encyclopedias which refer to "corn", and, unfortunately, editors have sometimes just stuck the link brackets round the word without checking where it went. They shouldn't have done that, but on several occasions they have. Redirecting to a disambiguation page at least makes clear what has happened. Redirecting to "maize" is just confusing and wrong. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to only your actions, but the history of the redirect and the controversy. People need to look into things like that before capriciously making changes. The consensus here is pretty well established and abides by the disambiguation guidelines. Second, your original research based on the bible and random guessing about what you think Americans do, doesn't count as a reliable reference. Corn isn't ambiguous at all in the US, Canada, or Australia, and if you lived there, you'd know that. I don't feel any further response is warranted. It's been explained numerous times on this page. pschemp | talk 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's striking how in some parts of wikipedia there is an atmosphere of co-operation and politeness (WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF), and it's a pleasure to edit in such places, whereas in others there's rudeness and frequent reversion of good faith actions. If I'd realised that this was one of the latter I'd have kept well out of it. I made a mistake in not studying the history before I edited, and I apologise for that. I object to the description "capricious", however. I was responding to a real problem, namely that there are many wrong links to "corn". This problem remains. I note that you have not suggested any solution. It's also striking how often people assert the existence of a "consensus" where there clearly isn't one; and this case is no exception. The disambiguation guidelines would equally well be respected if corn (disambiguation), which I think is a very good article, was simply moved to "corn". I'm sorry if you know nothing about the King James Only movement, or don't like the idea that it's mainly an American phenomenon, but perhaps if you read that wikipedia article you might fill in this gap in your knowledge. I don't need any further response from you; I have better things to do. I must say I have been surprised to find an attitude like yours in an administrator, but we all make mistakes. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corn (disam...) used to be at corn. We do irregular sweeps of corn to sort out the mislinks but this is common on any disputed term. Rmhermen (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had said "maize" was an out-of-date term and not used in the U.K. A check of Google says otherwise, and this random example [7] quotes the London Times about genetically modified maize. Not corn, maize. But what do they know? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC) The most recent manifestation of this discussion is now at the top of the page, #Maize vs. Corn controversy. Fuzzypeg ★ 00:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent manifestation of this discussion is now at the top of the page, #Maize vs. Corn controversy. Fuzzypeg ★ 00:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allergy

No mention of maize allergies? They affect a lot of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.14.48 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do? I've never heard of it. Can you provide some sources? Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes spent on Google yielded this [8], for example. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like pretty good, detailed writeup. It sounds like maize allergy is rare, but it's worth putting in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm about to go on a week's holiday, so I'm not standing in your way ... SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section. Further sources would be nice to have. Rmhermen (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more possibilities:

http://allergyadvisor.com/Educational/March04.htm A case study of one individual, but with a wealth of relevant discussion material.
http://no-corn.blogspot.com/2006/11/corn-allergy-or-corn-intolerance.html Lots of information about the difference between an allergy and an intolerance in general, and as applied to maize
http://health.mweb.co.za/dietnfood/Allergy_intolerance/15-3110-3111-3115,30584.asp A bit about symptoms and more about avoidance (and how hard that is)

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation in Europe

Does anyone know when maize was first cultivated in Europe?86.0.203.120 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calorific Values

The calorific value entries are totally wrong. I can't imagine 100g of maize only giving 90 calories of energy. It would be more like 350 cal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.55.27 (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the corn - maize mess

The several articles on maize and corn are terribly confusing to readers in most in the world. This mess needs to be untangled and made reader friendly. Yes, there is an “Olde English” term for “corn” being any type of grain, but that is not what most people in the world use the term for. Various people have labeled corn/maize as fruit, grain, and vegetable. Lets not try botany but rather think of what people do with the end product. In actual usage, field corn is treated as a grain while sweet corn (fresh, frozen, canned, or corn on the cob) is clearly treated as a vegetable. There have been lively discussions on this in the archives but the issues are far from being resolved.

the present article on corn only treats the Olde English “any grain” definition. A better title would be “corn (grain)”
corn should redirect to either the corn disambiguation page or to the vegetable, sweet corn.
OK, we can let the Europeans keep the maize article but dealing mostly with the grain, field corn.
The corn disambiguation page should start with the most common world usage of the word “corn” and route readers to maize, field corn, sweet corn, or whatever type of this particular grain/vegetable they are interested in.

This will not satisfy all editors but it will make readers of Wikipedia much less confused. Grantmidnight (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this has been cross-posted on various talk pages. To make the discussion easier, I suggest all comments be made at Talk:Corn#Fix the corn - maize mess. -kotra (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation guide?

Why is it that we can't just say "pronounced like 'maze'" for the pronunciation guide? Does anyone seriously believe that there are people who know what that cryptic pronunciation stuff is but don't know how "maze" is pronounced?--24.130.128.99 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that has been asked many times in the past, yet SquiggleTalk rules supreme. I guess most readers just automatically skip it by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.48.218 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because in some accents of English "maze" and "maize" are pronounced differently. See Pane-pain merger. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding a very practical rhyme to explain pronunciation because a tiny minority of English speakers still distinguish "pane/pain" seems a bit excessive.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The missing piece is that someone needs to find and post the authoritative IPA in the maze article. If it's the same as for maize, then the rhyme works. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't go farther than Dictionary.com to find the answer.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. They say "meyz". And for maize [9] they also say "meyz". The article here says "meɪz". Is there any practical difference? Does this settle the question? Are "maize" and "maze" verifiably homophones? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking at the "Spelled Pronunciation", the standard format Dictionary.com uses to illustrate pronunciation for the majority of readers who aren't familiar with IPA. Click "Show IPA" to see the IPA transcription. It's identical to the one used here.

I don't quite see the need to actually specify the IPA transcription for maze, though, since it can hardly be regarded as an unfamiliar term.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except you've got some of these folks claiming that it's not a homophone. If they both have the same IPA, then by definition, they are homophones. That's why it's needed in both places. P.S. When I posted it earlier, there was a square between the me and the z. I have an old computer. Does it look normal to you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks normal to me and is the same IPA transcription as here. Apparently, Dictionary.com handles display of IPA differently than Wikipedia. I should add that Oxford English Dictionary is in agreement on this on both British and US pronunciations. It should be considered an established fact beyond question as far as I can see.

The sources discussing the "pane/pain"-merger are claiming that these kinds of word pairs are differentiated only in very specific dialects, and that's it. We're talking about rather specific linguistic information that is relevant primarily for articles on phonology, not pronunciation guides. The pronunciation of both maze and maize is not really in question and is easily referenced by using any standard dictionary. The issue here is that the term "maize" is unfamiliar to people who are more familiar with the term "corn", and the hands-down simplest way of explaining this in a manner that is understandable to the overwhelming majority of our readers is to say that it rhymes with "maze". Adding IPA to common English-language terms for the sake of mere cross-reference is the business of Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then I'll put it back in this article, and we'll wait for the endless loop to come back again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency

This is ridiculous. Imagine if in the article "Japan", we went back and forth with the term "Japan", used by English speakers, and "Nippon", used by Spanish speakers. Who would deny that confuse would result? We need to be consistent. Personally, I don't care if this is called "corn" or "maize", but it needs to be consistent. If it is to be "maize", then it needs to be so everywhere except when it is being explained that there are two different uses. Period. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. It only needs to use Common names - which popcorn and corn smut are. And it needs links to other articles to not be broken which you are doing. Rmhermen (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I have all links working. I know that in the interum, there were some I messed up, but I fixed them all.

As far as using "common names", you must be joking. If the most common name employed by the majority of English speakers is "corn", and not "maize", then you've got a much bigger concern than my small attempt to introduce consistency here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No the most common name for sweet corn is sweet corn and the most common name for popcorn is popcorn. Maize is another issue entirely and has been extensively discussed many times before. Rmhermen (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that people in England eat canned sweet corn? You're telling me that the English eat popcorn and not popmaize? I find that very hard to believe. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, though both are usually one word. Here's a tasty recipe [10] and here are popcorn best buys [11]. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Husky, there are still broken links, filenames and URLs in the blanket replacement you've been doing here. If your motivation is genuinely to establish some reasonable consistency, then you are going about it an odd and counter-productive way. However, your comments above give one the sneaking suspicion that your intentions are actually being disruptive to prove a WP:POINT, ie ur disagreement with the article being at 'maize'. Hard to tell, but either way what you are doing is not helping out any.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG SIR, WRONG. If you will look at this version of the page, which is from before I began editing, you will see all those "broken links" already existed. There were already a shitload of them, and it wasn't from me, it was from other editors whom I presume felt would someday make good articles. Indeed, I had one less redlink, as I fixed a link to cornsilk that someone had mistakenly tried doing as corn silk. I certainly can understand your confusion, but now that you've gotten the facts straight, I hope this matter is closed. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not quite. You appear to misinterpret what I and others here have been saying about broken links resulting from your edits. If you review for example this sequence of your edits, you'll see that you've done things such as altering a citation given from the OED to point to the wrong page, incorrectly changing the URLs of external links in cites and the Ext links section (eg, changing www.dekalb.ca/content/pdf/corn_stalk_lodging.pdf to www.dekalb.ca/content/pdf/maize_stalk_lodging.pdf, or www.ontariocorn.org/classroom/products.html to www.ontariomaize.org/classroom/products.html, and easily half-a-dozen more), changing a cite for an entry in a food allergens DB from "Corn (maize) Allergy" to "Maize (maize) Allergy", turning blue links into redlinks by arbitrary replacement of "corn" (mush (cornmeal)->mush (maizemeal), corn smut-->maize smut, etc), introducing spurious terms ("popmaize", "maize flakes", &c.), and even altering the filenames of images (File:CornKernelBox.jpg changed to File:MaizeKernelBox.jpg). So no, whatever your intentions your actions are causing more harm than good. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of filenames, if you carefully follow both my edits and edit summaries, I think you'll find that I was realized that I had messed up a few and therefore was trying to fix them, and, in fact, if you look at my final effort, all the pictures were in place because I had corrected the filenames. On the other hand, I must admit that I had completely overlooked the issue of the URLs. Yes, on that front, I totally fucked up. Megapologies. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, no worries. Only too happy to AGF on this as honest mistake; so long as they're all fixed up now, the matter is indeed closed. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate issue

Look at this page. By itself, the US has over 50% of the world's speakers of English as a first language. Even if you count the speakers of English as a second language, primarily in India, you're still at 50% of the English speakers using corn. So I am perfectly correct in saying that "most" English speakers use corn, and only someone with some European anti-American agenda would say otherwise. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baseball Bugs, your name must refer to the size of your testicles, because you've got to have some balls to make this comment in an edit summary, a) after I've already explained my edit's reason, and b) without taking the time to come to the talk page yourself and address the matter. Who the hell tells Editor X to see the talk page and read up on a matter that only Editor X himself has addressed? Are you just trying to be absurd, or was this an honest error? HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors stated the case well enough. You're making pointy edits for the sake of "consistency" which violate common usage. As for your insults, they fall on deaf ears. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one place, just one, where anyone else addressed the edit that you here called "inappropriate. No one but you addressed this point about whether or not "North American" needed to be there. Only you called it "inappropriate". There is no one else here, there are no other facts presented here, which support you on this point. You appear to have piggybacked on someone else's argument, without fully understanding the multiple aspects of it. As ignorance always blocks apology, I expect nothing more from you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me some stats of who says "corn" vs. "maize" outside of North America. Otherwise your claim that "most" English speakers say corn is just editorializing on your part. Restricting it to English as a first language is misleading. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, thanks for clearing that up Husky. With your most recent comments here, it's now abundantly clear that your edit summaries have been completely disingenuous and intentionally misleading, and you are indeed being wilfully disruptive to make a point over some imagined slight. I suppose it was too much trouble for you to actually read and respond to in some adult fashion the expansive prior discussions about article's naming. Too bad; given that attitude there seems to be little hope in further discussion. The article is not going to change just because you've got a bee in your bonnet about it.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cjllw, you are quite correct that I had not read this talk page. I have now read about the first half of it, and I must admit it is overwhelming. There clearly is no consensus, and what is worse, I can't see there ever being any hope of it. It doesn't look like there is ANY good solution, and I think it sucks.

And I am not trying to be difficult. I came to the article by random chance, and saw it was entitled "Maize", but the topo box picture said "Corn". I read the article, and assumed that I knew that the issue, namely that not all the world calls it corn. I first changed the topo box name, then noticed the other inconsistencies. I thought it made sense to change it, though I admit it seemed weird calling it "Popmaize". Anyway, I did get a little hot under the collar, as I don't like to be falsely accused of something, such as when I was accused of creating broken links (which I did not do).

I don't know how anyone knows what use is right. I read above that someone said that it is "popcorn" in England and that it is corn when it is canned, but it is maize when fresh. How can anyone hope to keep this straight? I don't know if what I did was wrong, but I think a reading of my edit summaries indicates that I have not been misleading. I am also upset that other people, such as BB, made outright fabrications in their edit summaries. But that is all done with. If I don't see a way to fix this (and I do think it needs fixing), then I'm leaving it behind me. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The previous "most" text gave no geographical indication at all. The proportion of English-speakers is rather useless information, the places where those speakers live is rather relevant. I think it is very clear who has a pointy attitude here. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, while I disgree that it is "useless" to point out the proportion of English speakers use the term, I definitely see your point about the geographical location of those speakers as being more important. Question: Is it just N.Americans? I thought Australians said "corn" as well. If so, another wording may be needed. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - this recipe suggests it, or maybe just sweetcorn, is "corn" in the kitchen, but this suggests it is maize in agriculture & science. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. As far as usage in Australia goes, sure, "corn" is the frequent common culinary name for the edible food(s) derived from it; that's what's written on the tins and frozen packets in supermarkets. But this article is about the plant, and not specifically the modern-day comestible end-products—see sweetcorn, corn on the cob, cornmeal, popcorn etc for those.

When we are talking about the plant, about this crop with its significant cultivational history and myriad of uses (only a small part of which is as a foodstuff found in the aisles of the Tescos and Woolworths of the globe), then "most common usage" is not quite what some may suppose it to be. The peak growers industry body for the crop in Australia is the Maize Association of Australia, for example, and it's "maize" to govt. agricultural bodies and research institutes like the the CSIRO.

This usage is replicated among the english-speaking countries of Africa too—for eg in Kenya (Kenya Maize Consortium, Maize Breeders Network), Nigeria (National Maize Association of Nigeria), Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe Seed Maize Association), South Africa (Maize Board, until its dissolution in the 1990s anyways); agricultural and farmers' federations in Burundi, Uganda, Botswana, Ghana etc all call it 'maize'. The same goes for relevant industry bodies in the UK. In India, there's the Indian Maize Development Association. It is usually if not preferentially called 'maize' in FAO and other international agricultural organisations. And so on.

That shld be sufficient to demonstrate it is not just the whims or linguistic imperialism of some clique of editors who unreasonably keep this article under "maize". Instead it should be seen as a reflection of the fact that in the places (barring Nth Am, presumably) where it is a very significant staple crop, "maize" is the usual term. It also reflects the fact that in fields of study - agronomy, agricultural science, crop and plantation studies, plant genetics, ethnography, paleoagriculture and cultivational history - the plant is very commonly called maize. In precolumbian and mesoamerican studies, it is almost exclusively known and written about as 'maize'. These are the kinds of fields and sources that provide the encyclopaedic input for the article; it is valid for this article to reflect the usage and terminology as seen in the sources it draws from.

No-one's denying that "corn" is also used, of course. But this is just one of those cases where "most common unambiguous name in english" has no simple or clear resolution, and moving the article from its long-established and at-least-equally valid unambiguous and recognisable name, is not really going to be a productive exercise. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right. One might add that for the purposes of bulk trading, futures etc it seems to be "corn" worldwide in English, no doubt in deference to US dominance in production & demand. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This distinction between "maize the plant" and "corn the food" really hits it home for me. I was having a hell of a time grasping the incredible inconsistencies in usage—why wouldn't Englishmen eat "sweet maize"? But this makes sense. It's almost like, in England, it's like the difference between "cow the animal" and "beef the meat". Would that reflect an accurate understanding? HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Corn is very well entrenched in the UK, which is full of "Corn Street"s and Cornmarkets, with a history of Corn Laws etc, but this means grain - usually wheat. Maize was hardly ever grown until very recently. Certain types of food imported from the US (or now Europe) - sweetcorn, corn on the cob, popcorn and corn flakes - kept their American names as types of food without causing confusion, though I expect many UK people who eat corn flakes all the time think they are made from wheat. And I've just discovered that what we call cornflour, cornstarch, is actually made from maize. But I think other maize-derived things in processed foods are likely to be called maize in the list of ingredients.Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me take a guess here, that maize was not grown very much in the U.K. simply because there are not enough hot, sunny days. Field corn likes 80 degree-plus weather with plenty of sun, water at the right time, and lots of nutrients of course. Sweet corn is probably easier to grow because it's picked at the milk stage, so there is no issue of needing to wait for it to dry on the ear before harvesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right - I expect what we grow is sweetcorn, thanks to global warming .... Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest that. Who says global warming is all bad? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or "hogs" vs. "pork", perhaps; or better yet, "hogs" vs. "pigs". The former is the typical business term, the latter is a colloquial term. And now I'm reminded of a cartoon panel from decades ago, featuring two pigs in a sty. One says to the other, "Get this straight: When hog futures go up, pig futures go down!" "Maize" is used in international business, because there is no ambiguity. Even in America, the alternate name for maize is sometimes rendered "Indian corn", in order to distinguish from other cereal grains (such as the old-fashioned term "barleycorn" for example). That's "Indian corn" in the generic sense, not the multi-color kernel stuff you can buy in stores at Halloween. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<reindent>Sure, "cow/beef", "pig/pork" are reasonable analogies. Glad to see that we are getting somewhere, no harm done. Hopefully we can be in agreement now that "maize" is an entirely suitable title for this article about the plant or crop, while acknowledging that "corn" is the widespread or common culinary name applied to the various by-products of the plant when used as a food. This article is about the plant; we also have various others about the specific food deriviatives that can happily be called "corn X". Wherever in this article we're talking about the plant or crop, we can readily call it "maize" in the text. When the article is talking about its end-products used as a specific food, the text can say "corn-something" as appropriate. Of course, there is also a common vernacular/colloquial/shorthand use of the word "corn" to refer to the plant/crop (in the same way perhaps as someone could be called a "beef farmer", or "dairy farmer", or even "hay farmer" or "egg farmer"—casual and informal descriptions focused on the end-product—but to be widely understood as substitutions and not really literal/formal terms for the plant or animal actually being farmed). This practice is probably most prevalent in Nth Am., but also not entirely unknown among other english speakers. But regardless, we determine to use "maize" for the plant/crop reflecting common regional, international and semi-formal usage, as the least-ambiguous, non-colloquial and recognisable name. Does that seem a reasonable approach?

If agreeable, perhaps it would also be an idea to pin some statement to that effect conspicuously at the top of this talk page; it may save at least some further arguments arising, as the topic of the article name is brought up again and again with some regularity here. Thoughts? --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the term

I'm amazed at the amount of heat people have expended on their viewpoints on the corn vs. maize issue. In this amazing show of personal opinion, the dictionary definitions seem to have become lost. I've modified the introduction to mention the terms Indian corn and sweet corn, based on the Webster dictionary definition.

And for all you US-centric people out there: yes, corn means maize to most of you. But Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Groogle (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I must object to this thinking and the current wording in the opening sentence. As a Illinoisan since birth who has traveled to all parts of North America, I have never encountered anyone who would say that he had eaten "Indian corn". That term is reserved exclusively for a multi-colored maize that is used primarily for decorative purposes (in the Midwest). Sure, you can say that the use of the term "corn" in NAmerica is a shortened form of "Indian corn", and I'll not question that, but you also can't just say "sweet corn", because the terms "corn" (N.America) and "maize" (Europe) also include the grain fed to animals, which most certainly is not sweet corn. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're right it adds up to 108.561

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

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^[1] from polymerisation of flavan-4-ols^[2] by the expression of maize pericarp color1 (p1) gene^[3] which encodes an R2R3 myb-like transcriptional activator^[4] while another gene (Suppressor of Pericarp Pigmentation 1 or SPP1) acts as a suppressor^[5].

Nadiatalent (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suggest the article be amended to indicate that GM corn has been shown to have affects on mammalian health and use this article as a source: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sojournern (talk • contribs) 12:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to agree with the notion that Baseball Bugs is "nobody".[12] HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This page, and users like you who defend idiocy like it; that's what's wrong. That kind of "head firmly placed inside a dark rearward compartment" type of thinking, and circular arguments, and adherence to illogic, THAT is what's wrong with Wikipedia, and what drives good editors away. That and the obnoxious begbanners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.244.52 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In my experience "corn" in the UK is a generic term; it can be maize, it can be wheat, it can be barley. --129.11.248.42 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suggests that Brits use it as a synonym for "grain", which stands to reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this debate, back and forth ... with the title of the Article as "Maize", exemplifies why wikipedia is a joke among professional researchers ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airelon (talk • contribs) 01:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what's even more hilarious ... is when you look at the pictures in this article? Some of which are translated into other languages? The title on the .jpg reads "Corn" .... LOL ... Wikipedia ... good grief .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airelon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professionals know that "maize" is the proper formal term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No professional researcher should be using Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a primary or secondary source. Rmhermen (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. For example, wikipedia articles are not considered to be valid sources for other wikipedia articles. Wikipedia merely summarizes other sources. So a professional researcher would use wikipedia as a guideline and nothing more. And I say again, a professional researcher on the subject of maize would already know what it's called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Purple Corn

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

Actually, I think 'Purple corn', 'Blue corn', 'Red corn', and 'Indian corn' should all link to the same place. Purple corn is very briefly covered as 'variegated corn' in this article. --Aflafla1 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose per David Levy and Thomas Kluyver. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Anthony Appleyard and many others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Very few of whom have English as a first language. Powers ^T 01:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? English is the only official language of Nigeria! Same with many other former colonial countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. We Yanks aren't stupid, and we can figure it out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to ambiguity. Maize has one meaning, but Corn is ambiguous. --Orlady (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Corn appears to be the more common name.--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"No-one in real life calls it maize." Pardon? —David Levy 17:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed, Kotniski's claim is quite baffling. —David Levy 20:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I note that the USDA refers to it as "Indian corn or maize".[13] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sweetcorn is a specific variety of maize. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per Shicoco. –CWenger (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose- "Maize" is specific, "Corn" is ambiguous. Reyk _YO! 01:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
See wiktionary:corn. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONALITY was written exactly for this kind of situation. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"in England ... it's called "sweetcorn" or "corn on the cob"": less often plain "corn". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please. Every school child is taught that maize is another name for corn. Who cares whether corn or maize is the primary term used by the majority of English-speakers. That doesn't matter at all. The name of an article should be the most specific widely-understood name for that subject matter. Maize is far more accurate than corn, and everyone knows what maize is. Why are Americans always trying to delegitimize international points of view? Next you'll be arguing that "Karate" should redirect to "Martial Arts" or something equally disgusting. --74.73.110.61 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many supporters of the "Maize" title (myself included) are Americans, so please don't lump all of us together with 98.240.67.27. —David Levy 23:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sick of dumbed down titles, glad to see the title changed "Maize." (Doktor Faustus (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Troll? Rmhermen (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Troll?"?98.240.67.27 (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always detected subtle hints of anti-American sentiment on Wikipedia. To me, "maize" is merely a color. No one harvests "maize" in Jones County, Iowa, in the state where I once lived. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_harvest_2009.jpg ) Since a general consensus of the people who come here and choose to contribute generally defines what is truth on Wikipedia, I guess "maize" wins. Congrats, international perspective people! I guess you're correct. Now, scurry off and change the name of the popcorn article to popmaize! Crayonsman (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hilariousnesss of the "international perspective" argument is it's utter crap. Every British person I've asked has been baffled by the word "Maize", and insist they've never heard anything but "Corn" for Zea Mays. It's the common name in every bloody English-speaking country. The _only_ plausible argument is that "Maize" is somehow more technical, but if so, why not title the article "Zea mays"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.240.2 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things could be worse. Check out where the common name Edelweiss goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to other staple foods table should use dry weight

The "Comparison to other staple foods" table is hard to use because corn has 76% water and the others are down around 12%. Therefore corn seems to have only 3% protein, but that number would be much higher if the water were left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydoctor (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. For meaningful comparisons, the numbers for corn need to be multiplied by about 3 1/2. The other grains are boiled with water before eating. The corn as listed is not. --Aflafla1 (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that the table gives numbers for wheat GERM, hence the high protein content. To quote wikipedia's 'wheat' article: "100 grams of hard red winter wheat[clarification needed] contain about 12.6 grams of protein, [...]". Fat content, etc., will also be different for germ compared to entire wheat grain. Similarly misleading to compare white rice to whole-grain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfy (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corn

Come to the Corn Belt, where most of the worlds corn is made and you will see that maize is something you walk trough and get lost in. We should at least make a compromise, with Maize/Corn in the title, its really not fair for us the majority of people who call corn, corn. --108.193.164.231 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you surveyed the world to find that out? Or are you just generalising based upon your own life? Muskeato 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maize is grown in many places around the world, including the American midwest, where I live. We call it corn. But its proper name is maize. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Bugs. I'll expect you to lead the name change campaign for popcorn (aka popmaize), corn whiskey (aka maize whiskey), High-fructose corn syrup (aka high-fructose maize syrup), and sweet corn (aka sweet maize). You make the changes here, and I'll go to every grocery, food, and liquor store in the world that has for decades mislabeled maize products as corn...the very nerve! Well, what are you waiting for? Get to work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.244.52 (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we Americans can make a deal with the British. We could give them the articles on the colors Pink and Chartreuse where they can use that precious "U" they miss so much and we'll take this one as "Corn".

Origin and Domestication sections need updating.

It looks like a lot of the information in these sections based on last century's articles or information. I've updated the origin section a bit based on recent published results, but I'm no authority on the subject. Frankly, any information based on articles written prior to about 2002 should be considered as potentially obsolete and unreliable, as there is a whole lot of new info coming out based on gene studies of the plant. The wiki article needs to be updated by someone more informed about this subject than myself. --Aflafla1 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acreage

According to this site,[14] the US corn acreage for 2011 was about 92.3 million acres, with the overall being about 319.2 million acres. That's close to 29 percent, not 37 percent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it probably shouldn't be in the first paragraph, still. Perhaps elsewhere, though. Rmhermen (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What would be more informative is to find a list of the top US crops and include corn. The exact figure is liable to vary from year to year, and the lead summary could simply say it's one of America's largest crops. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By volume and by value is in Agriculture in the United States but I don't know about acreage. Rmhermen (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can get the number of hectares harvested of each crop by going to FAO Stat and selecting United States, by area, Crops Primary > (List) which produces an unsorted list of crops and areas planted (with an obviously erroneous pumpkins for forage). Rmhermen (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ resource

Corn Pops on South American Heat 27.December.2011 by Ian Berry; (page C3 in print) excerpt ...
U.S. corn futures have rallied recently on concern that hot, dry weather could persist in South America as the crop enters a critical phase of development. Corn futures had slumped for much of the last three months as the U.S. crop came out of the field and export demand dried up amid increased competition. But the focus is now shifting to South America to see if production there will fall short of expectations, leaving the U.S. to fill the gap. ... Southern Hemisphere's summer has been compounded by La Niña, ...
En Español, Clima quente na América do Sul sacode mercado do milho DECEMBER 27, 2011, 11:23 A.M. ET

99.19.45.37 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See es:Zea mays for the former. 99.19.40.123 (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing these things added to talk pages but I fail to see how this is helpful. If it were important, it should have been added to the article. Rmhermen (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sludge

I removed this line from the article: "In the United States many farmers use free toxic human sewage sludge as fertilizer ^[6] even though it has been proven time^[7] and time again^[8]^[9]^[10] to report high concentrations of metals from industry.^[11]"

^ Effect of grain colour gene (R) on grain dormancy and sensitivity of the embryo to abscisic acid (ABA) in wheat. Himi, E., D.J. Mares, A.Yanagisawa&K. Noda, J Exp Bot 53: 1569–1574, 2002
^ Flavonoid Biosynthesis. A Colorful Model for Genetics, Biochemistry, Cell Biology, and Biotechnology. Brenda Winkel-Shirley, Plant Physiol, June 2001, Vol. 126, pp. 485-493
^ The maize unstable factor for orange1 is a dominant epigenetic modifier of a tissue specifically silent allele of pericarp color1. Surinder Chopra, Suzy M Cocciolone, Shaun Bushman, Vineet Sangar, Michael D McMullen, and Thomas Peterson. Genetics. 2003 March; 163(3): 1135–1146.
^ Structural And Transcriptional Analysis Of The Complex P1-wr Cluster In Maize. Wolfgang Goettel, Joachim Messing. Plant & Animal Genomes XVI Conference
^ Suppressor of Pericarp Pigmentation 1 (SPP1), a novel gene involved in phlobaphene accumulation in maize (Zea mays L.) pericarps. Lee E. A., Harper V. Maydica, 2002, vol. 47, no1, pp. 51-58
^ "Sewage sludge used to grow corn".
^ "Metals accumulation in corn grown in sewage sludge".
^ "Mo update by corn grown in human sewage sludge" (PDF).
^ "Tissue accumulation of toxic metals of pigs fed corn grown on human sewage sludge" (PDF).
^ "Kern county sewage sludge toilet for LA - growing food for people".
^ "Metal concentrations from industry" (PDF).

First it does not seems to be written in an encyclopedic manner, and may not to global enough but also the first reference does not seem to contain either the word corn or maize. Did I miss something in that source? Rmhermen (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to other major staple foods

This table includes a wheat germ column, but wheat germ is not a staple. This same table has been copied into several articles (see my contribs for some others I tagged). I suggest that all the data be verified and then make the table into a separate page which can be transcluded into this and the other articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mochica Corn.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mochica Corn.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mochica Corn.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the Page

Not sure if this goes here, but I noticed it when trying to click on a few pages, that when you hover over the article a hidden link will redirect you to a 9/11 Anti-Semitic site under an address under the pp4l.me tag, and after checking the page history I can find no such link that would allow me to remove it, and since I have Adblocker I have no idea if this is done because of a malicious ad or because it's been hacked into the page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.110.117 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like your computer has a virus98.240.67.27 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian corn image

this image, thumb|Multi-coloured corn - Flickr - exfordy, just uploaded, is a nice example of local cultivars in peru. might be good to add here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mochica Corn.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mochica Corn.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mochica Corn.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to corn

This maize crap has gone on long enough. its CORN and the sooner you idiots let go of your anti-American hysteria the better. 184.4.141.73 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through the extensive debates in the archives and then present some new useful discussion points. Rmhermen (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And note that you'll need to do better than name-calling and accusations of "anti-American hysteria". (Some supporters of the Maize title, myself included, are American.) —David Levy 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I dont post to this website but I am dying to know why yhe elitists of wikipedia are calling this maize? Aren't we in the English section of Wikipedia? Corn is corn to all English speakers. I was born and raised in America, never once called it maize. Also I see that that if you look up corn disabmbiguous it says corn is a synonym for wheat and barley???? I have never used corn in that context and no one in the U.S. uses corn in that context. Maize should be used in the spanish version only. If changes to common words like this continues in wikipedia I am afraid it will be Wikipedia's downfall as it will become an irrelevant source. Free doesn't equal better. What do other English speaking nations call this product? If it is corn than this article should be relabled. If they call it maize then I thing it is time for and English (American Version). Three hundred million people call it corn in America, I think that is arguement enough to relable this article corn. Majority rules. Otherwise it is just confusing to all. 12.8.64.26 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to read past discussions (or the relevant section of the article itself), you'd know that some English-speaking countries' conventions do differ from those of the United States. Your ignorant claim that "corn is corn to all English speakers" and assertion that "majority rules" (i.e. the U.S. rules) are the sort of behavior that makes Americans (myself included) look bad.

If the sight of unfamiliar terms and spellings offends you to the extent that you believe that there should be an American version of the encyclopedia, you're welcome to create one. —David Levy 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well excuse me David levy. The whole point I am trying to make is that an American or for more exact purposes a young American would type in corn and see maize. I didn't bother reading past post because frankly I think it is all leftist drivel. If I look up corn in Websters dictionary I can garuntee I'm not going to be told to see the definition for Maize. I believe if you are going to start substituting words or redirecting English words to Spanish words then I'm afraid it is time to separate English speakers by country. Otherwise an American kid looking this up will get the wrong answer. It isn't maize in America it is corn so says the entire population. You nor any of your leftist drones are going to change that no matter how hard you try. Why don't you waste you time having in god we trust removed from American coinage and leave the rest to Webster. You just proved my point, Wikipedia is a non factor, it isn't an academic source for this exact reason. We get your opinion and not fact. And thanks for flaming and calling me ignorant. You are the ignorant one trying to change English (american). Your not doing anyone service by editing lies into Wikipedia. I just pray that the right person sees this and finally agrees. Now go have fun burning your American flag. GOB BLESS AMERICA, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN AND DAMNED BE David levy. 68.44.243.123 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way levy. The ratings are poor for this article. Why do you think that is. Looks like majority agrees this is a biased article. 68.44.243.123 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to garner any support going on like this. I'm not sure why Anti-Americanism is the subject here. Not sure how that got worked in. Not sure that the ratings have anything to do with the name, either.

There are some Americans who call it maize. I believe that is where I first heard it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point I am trying to make is that an American or for more exact purposes a young American would type in corn and see maize.

He/she would learn that the grain has more than one name? The horror!

I believe if you are going to start substituting words or redirecting English words to Spanish words then I'm afraid it is time to separate English speakers by country.

As noted above, if you believe that a separate "American" version of the encyclopedia should exist, you're welcome to create one. However, you might prefer to simply read Conservapedia. They have a "corn" article (though even it contains statements that the grain is "also called maize" and that "in British usage, 'corn' can mean any grain or kernel crop, specifically the staple crop of a particular region").

And thanks for flaming and calling me ignorant.

No, I referred to your claim that "corn is corn to all English speakers" as ignorant.

Your not doing anyone service by editing lies into Wikipedia.

"Your" lecturing me on the English language. —David Levy 04:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it moderately humorous that while people have been adamant that "maize" should be used instead of corn, most of the citations, links, and pictures have been titled as referring to "Corn". Why is this being fought so hard? Is using the name Corn more or less confusing to most people that using Maize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.250.163.60 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that "corn" is ambiguous and "maize" is not, it seems obvious that the former is more confusing. —David Levy 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replacing "corn" with "maize" in my everyday vernacular from now on. "Hey, you want some artificial butter on your popmaize?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.209.239 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias are suppose to help people. The Articles in this Wikipedia were suppose to have been written to help students better themselves. Calling Corn Maize (While other Encyclopedias do not) does not help the general public. it CONFUSES them. Why oh why do you continue to insist on Maize? Is this a power trip? Yes I know about the policy of Wikipedia. If I were Wikipedia I would be making sure all policies and the articles are easy to understand and find. I can already second guess the authors of this article. "This has all been debated before." And the public lost the debate. "If you want to talk wiki policy do it elsewhere." That still doesn't change the fact that Articles should be named according to the audience in general and based on what is popular. Google corn and you will find there are far more results for corn from all over the world than Maize which is barely known outside academia. Those countries you say use Maize in fact, use Corn. I doubt I have changed your minds, but I hope you reconsider and reconsider based on is this the correct thing to do, or should the article be re-named so that the average citizen will not be confused. And yes, they are confused. Thank you Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"were suppose to have been written to help students better themselves". No, this has never been Wikipedia's purpose, nor even Simple English's. Rmhermen (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the editors who made the primary article for Edelweiss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to ambiguity

Corn, by itself, refers to, well, corn. Considering compound words tend to be longer than either of their component words, and anyone mistaking corn for barleycorn or peppercorn would probably not be the sort of person reading an article on English Wikipedia. 95.208.63.247 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection well, its ambiguous! "refers to, well, corn" - well, which corn? Shakespeare's corn:

"It was a lover and his lass,

With a hey, and a ho, and a hey nonino,

That o’er the green corn-field did pass,

In the spring time, the only pretty ring time,

When birds do sing, hey ding a ding, ding;

Sweet lovers love the spring. (As You Like It, 5.3.15-20)

That corn would be which? Which the corn of the Corn Laws of 1815? Rmhermen (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that it was 1815. Confounded time machine... 46.5.86.246 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Effect of grain colour gene (R) on grain dormancy and sensitivity of the embryo to abscisic acid (ABA) in wheat. Himi, E., D.J. Mares, A.Yanagisawa&K. Noda, J Exp Bot 53: 1569–1574, 2002

[2] Flavonoid Biosynthesis. A Colorful Model for Genetics, Biochemistry, Cell Biology, and Biotechnology. Brenda Winkel-Shirley, Plant Physiol, June 2001, Vol. 126, pp. 485-493

[3] The maize unstable factor for orange1 is a dominant epigenetic modifier of a tissue specifically silent allele of pericarp color1. Surinder Chopra, Suzy M Cocciolone, Shaun Bushman, Vineet Sangar, Michael D McMullen, and Thomas Peterson. Genetics. 2003 March; 163(3): 1135–1146.

[4] Structural And Transcriptional Analysis Of The Complex P1-wr Cluster In Maize. Wolfgang Goettel, Joachim Messing. Plant & Animal Genomes XVI Conference

[5] Suppressor of Pericarp Pigmentation 1 (SPP1), a novel gene involved in phlobaphene accumulation in maize (Zea mays L.) pericarps. Lee E. A., Harper V. Maydica, 2002, vol. 47, no1, pp. 51-58

[6] "Sewage sludge used to grow corn".

[7] "Metals accumulation in corn grown in sewage sludge".

[8] "Mo update by corn grown in human sewage sludge" (PDF).

[9] "Tissue accumulation of toxic metals of pigs fed corn grown on human sewage sludge" (PDF).

[10] "Kern county sewage sludge toilet for LA - growing food for people".

[11] "Metal concentrations from industry" (PDF).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Maize vs. Corn controversy

Zea or Zea Mays?

Propagation

Edit by 68.47.125.142

domestication and alkali treatment

Chicha

Plastic

"corrected for solar variations"

Yield

Herbicides and pesticides

Economy of maize production

Efficiency of maize sunfall energy conversion

Maize is a facultative long-night plant ?

Baby corn

Say what? Chicken butt?

'Sound Corn' and 'Port Corn'

Pronunciation.

"Criticism"

Lime is probably NOT Calcium Carbonate, but Calcium Hydroxide...

Footer?

Interwiki

Popular notions on Biomass corn use and the impact on prices

BC/AD vs BCE/CE

Plato

Corn life cycle?

Africa

Corn redirect

Allergy

Cultivation in Europe

Calorific Values

Fix the corn - maize mess

Pronunciation guide?

Consistency

Separate issue

Describing the term

The Nutrients Table does not add up

Detail was removed

GMO Monsanto

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

Arbitrary section break

Irony

Dent corn

Purple Corn

Production Table Accuracy

Other uses

Rename the article to corn

Anemia

Production Table

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"

References

Requested move

Survey

Discussion

Perhaps a simple change to end the dispute?

Maize / Corn

Comparison to other staple foods table should use dry weight

Corn

Origin and Domestication sections need updating.

Acreage

WSJ resource

Sludge

Comparison to other major staple foods

File:Mochica Corn.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Problems with the Page

Peruvian corn image

File:Mochica Corn.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Rename to corn

Objection to ambiguity