Talk:Maize/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Requested move 9 February 2023

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus, yet again. I would suggest waiting longer than four months to open a new RM, if there is to be one (and I have no doubts there will be). But with that said, there is no harm in informally – and maybe after enough time, formally – re-evaluating the reasons why the article is titled "Maize" rather than "Corn"; as I mentioned in my close of the Iroquois RM a few months ago, a COMMONNAME is not set in stone for all time, and can very possibly change. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Maize → Corn – First, let me address that yes I am new and I do not have an account. I hope that is not a problem, and that I've used this template correctly. More info on that at the end after relevant discussion of the request.

Arguments that I find compelling for the move to Corn, in order most to least:

1. The original name of this article as mentioned many times was Corn. The move to Maize was made by fiat with no discussion. Since then, many many discussions have been made over whether to move it back, each time except one with 'No Consensus'. In the one case that the discussion was marked as 'Not Moved' no actual reasoning was given, but from the discussion the most common argument was "There's never been a consensus on moving this article" I agree, to an extent, but I think this supports my argument rather than detracts from it. To me, this is evidence that the move to Maize was controversial as best and likely would not have been made under modern guidelines. It seems to be common sense that moving it back to Corn will likely be in-line with consensus since there will be few if any reasons to move it from Corn to Maize afterwards.
2. This article is written in American English, complimentary to the above. Ambiguity of Maize in other English varieties (which I will address later) is not relevant as in common American English usage, the common name of Zea mays is Corn. There appears to be a long-standing Wikipedia guideline that the original English variety be respected in ALL edits, barring any egregious usage exception, which was clearly not the case here. Moving back to Corn will correct this disparity.
3. Aside from American English the most frequently used modern term (since 2019) in both common literature and academic papers is Corn. I will now use both Ngrams and Google Scholar, as recommended by Wikipedia:Requested moves to demonstrate this fact. I hope this is not considered 'original research' by specific editors who have claimed it to be in the past on this talk page.

   American English: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=maize%2Ccorn&year_start=2000&year_end=2019&corpus=en-US-2019&smoothing=0

   British English: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=maize%2Ccorn&year_start=2000&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=0

   Scholar Search for Corn (347,000 results) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_ylo=2019&q=corn&btnG=

   Scholar Search for Maize (150,000 results) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_ylo=2019&q=maize&btnG=

4. The ambiguity argument used previously does not hold up to examination. Even if sources can be found that use Corn as a broad term for all sorts of grains, this is clearly not the common-sense modern usage of Corn. Trying to argue against this with sources is difficult because it's trying to prove a negative. However, I would like to point out that all occurrences of the alternative UK "various grains" definition of Corn in this talk page and on Wikipedia in general have been put forward, as far as I can tell, by people from the UK. This should make it clear that this is a regional usage and should not be relevant to this discussion.
5. I disagree that no consensus was reached in the previous request. On reading it with a cool head (having come across it afterwards) there were many more users supporting the move with good arguments than not, but the people who did not support the move were more vocal and would apply the same arguments I have addressed above to every supporting comment. This seems to me to have created the illusion of a lack of consensus rather than an actual lack of consensus. I understand that some editors may have disagreements about this, but that does not outweigh common sense and general consensus even if that point of view is provided very frequently.

I invite all of those who want it to remain as Maize to please provide well-sourced arguments for their claims, especially for those about ambiguity. I have reviewed the entire talk page and it's archives and cannot find any references to why or how Corn is ambiguous. I do not mind being proven wrong here. I think the ambiguity argument is the only pillar of argument that has kept this page from being moved to Corn several times, and it never seems to be very well supported itself.

Lastly, yes I am new here. I have considered making an account before putting up this request, but honestly I'm not sure I want to contribute further in the environment shown on this talk page. I feel this discussion speaks to more than just Corn or Maize. This is about intellectual honesty and the Wikipedia editor community at large. I want to be part of a community that values common sense over winning an argument. I want to be part of a community that calls out and corrects individuals that use their credentials and status as a cudgel against others. I hope that the responses here will show the best of the editors and this community. Thank you.

Edit: Someone pointed out that it was silly to not have an account, and I changed my mind and now agree. I made one and updated my recent posts accordingly.

OuroCat (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move. It hasn't been long enough since the last RM, so this is unlikely to gain consensus. O.N.R. ^(talk) 12:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you clarify how this is an argument against the move? Seems like just opinion to me, is it referencing some sort of policy? OuroCat (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that American usage is universal and the rest of the English-speaking world is of no consequence. Wikipedia is an international site and doesn't work on that assumption. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Could you clarify which of my 5 arguments are guilty of such, and specifically where? This claim comes up under every discussion but usually seems to be a personal attack rather than addressing the arguments. OuroCat (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. Too soon since the last RM, and IP has been repeatedly told to work on article content instead of the dripping WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality / poisoning the well tendentiousness. The actual relevant section and sources at Maize#Names basically refutes common personal editor opinion, so there's no need to rehash this yet again. The IP is also aware that it's inappropriate to conflate this as solely US vs. British English topic. Sources are clear that maize can be used interchangeably in place of corn in the US, and it is preferred largely in part because of the ambiguity of the term corn worldwide. We go by sources commenting on this very subject, not personal WP:OR. This gives nothing new that hasn't already been discussed in the recent RM. KoA (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  - Too soon since the last RM

  Could you show me where in the guidelines I could have learned about the waiting time between RMs?

  - IP has been repeatedly told to work on article content instead of the dripping WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality / poisoning the well tendentiousness.

  By you and only you. I feel this is verging into a personal attack against me at this point please stop and address the arguments.

  - The actual relevant section and sources at Maize#Names basically refutes common personal editor opinion,

  I disagree. Could you please address my arguments directly?

  - The IP is also aware that it's inappropriate to conflate this as solely US vs. British English topic

  I didn't. I posed this as a rest of the English-speaking world vs British English topic, see the post by AjaxSmack above for an editor who agrees your edit to this page is not well sourced or relevant. You may want to update it with better sources, and provide those sources here. I would welcome them as that would actually make progress on this naming issue.

  - Sources are clear that maize can be used interchangeably in place of corn in the US Which sources?

  The usage we are talking about here is the common usage, not scientific or technical. I would like to see sources that speak to common usage, as that is relevant here and relevant to my arguments.

  - and it is preferred largely in part because of the ambiguity of the term corn worldwide

  This has never been proven with sources, not once in the entire history of this talk page. Please provide sources.

  - not personal WP:OR.

  This is the exact sort of incorrect usage of that guideline that I mentioned might come up in my arguments. If Wikipedia:Requested moves recommends using the sources that I have provided, how is this not personal opinion or a biased disregarding of my arguments instead of addressing them directly?

  - This gives nothing new that hasn't already been discussed in the recent RM.

  Firstly I disagree, secondly would that matter if true? The last RM closed "No Consensus" and it's been 5 months. I don't think one editor's opinion should restrict others from discussing this.

  Could you please lay out your arguments and statements more clearly and separately in future comments here so I can address them individually? OuroCat (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

IP, given the malformed RM being used for personal attacks / poisoning the well, this is pretty much dead in the water. There's no need for editors to respond to that. KoA (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please retract your statements regarding me personally? I feel they're inflammatory and trying to stymie legitimate discussion. OuroCat (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't retract your personal attacks and TPNO violations, that is on you to do. Again, RfCs, RMs, etc. are considered malformed when you use them to attack and misrepresent editors as it distracts from actual content, and poisoning the well is an issue when you've been attacking those on this talk page in the lead up to this. KoA (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• A source of the common-language usage of the word Corn, even in British English:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Language/zh7Ma1SCthQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=corn+vs+maize+english+-dictionary&pg=PA122&printsec=frontcover

"Thomas Hutchinson, discoursing to George III in 1774, used corn in this restricted sense, speaking of "rye and corn mixed."

"But gradually the adjective fell off, and by the middle of the Eighteenth Century maize was called simply corn and grains in general were called breadstuffs.

Surely anyone can agree that 1) this source is pretty definitive that Corn entered the common lexicon of British English in 1774 at the latest and 2) that this source at least matches the quality of the other sources in the 'names' section if not exceeds them in some aspects. OuroCat (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ourocat, don't blatantly misrepresent sources, you left out some very key sentences. The section of that source on the development of the American language as it separated from the British Empire's English, and in this case, it highlighted the confusion when Hutchinson (governor in an American colony) used the term corn to King George (British English) who was confused (my highlight):

Corn, in orthodox English, means grain for human consumption, especially wheat, e.g., the Corn Laws. The earliest settlers, following this usage, gave the name of Indian corn to what the Spaniards, following the Indians themselves, had called maiz. . . . But gradually the adjective fell off, and by the middle of the Eighteenth Century maize was simply called corn and grains in general were called breadstuffs. Thomas Hutchinson, discoursing to George III in 1774, used corn in this restricted sense speaking of “rye and corn mixed.” “What corn?” asked George. “Indian corn,” explained Hutchinson, “or as it is called in authors, maize.”

Either way, that source is a great historical example of the ambiguity of corn that we already describe in the names section, but also some of the history of the name. That definitely helps show why we stick with maize when following the entirety of WP:COMMONNAME. KoA (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please retract your statement about misrepresenting sources, you're not assuming WP:GF or WP:NPOV.

This article isn't written in "orthodox" English, whatever that means, and even if it were the "orthodox" English referenced here is English from the sixteenth century. In addition, just because George III had to ask for clarification in 1774 does not mean that the statement is ambiguous today. I have provided a source speaking to the non-ambiguity of corn, it's right between the two sections you highlighted. Could you now please provide a similarly sourced reference to the ambiguity of corn if you feel strongly about it? OuroCat (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You already provided the new source. Orthodox just means what American English mainly originated from within that source, British. Either way, it's a great source showing the historical ambiguity issue when relevant text and context isn't omitted. No one is disputing how the North American language morphed as the source describes, which leads into the confusion the source also describes when going outside North American English. You citing the very source of the ambiguity and saying the source says the opposite we're done adding more text here. KoA (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose based on content, ranking is Maize, Zea mays, then as lowest rank Corn (splitting out from above comment for clarity). I'm mostly going to reiterate my summary comment in the last RM that this proposed (yet again) move would violate WP:COMMONAME policy. The short is that maize is the preferred name by sources and not ambiguous in places like the US (to say otherwise without sources is placing personal opinion against sourced content at this point), but if there was consensus against it, we'd then fall back to the species name Zea mays per WP:FLORA when there isn't a clear common name to use as a title. Corn would be last in the hierarchy and isn't a valid option here under common name policy due to comments from sources themselves and ambiguity. Corn would have to get past the hurdle of being better than not only maize, but also somehow coming out ahead of the species name, which has never even been close to happening in any RM discussion so far.

Remember WP:COMMONNAME is not whatever shows up most frequently in Google searches. There are five criteria, and the overriding criteria in this subject has been in past discussions (and still is) 3. Precision. Just a reminder than in any organism naming related articles, that criteria usually rules the roost. We also have WP:FLORA, a guideline which specifically addresses plants, which focuses on using the names formally described by reliable sources as preferred.

We have a whole sourced section of the article that addresses this very topic on the use of maize vs. the ambiguity issues with corn, and per article title policy Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Here is the text from Maize#Names:

Extended content

The word maize derives from the Spanish form of the indigenous Taíno word for the plant, mahiz. Linnaeus included the common name maize as the species epithet in Zea mays. It is known by other names including "corn" in some English speaking countries. Maize is preferred in formal, scientific, and international usage as a common name because it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region. International groups such as the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International also consider maize the preferred common name. According to Ohio State University, the US and a handful of other English-speaking countries primarily use corn, but the rest of the English-speaking world calls this maize or maíz. The word maize is considered interchangeable in place of corn in the West; during early British and American trade, all grains were considered corn. Maize retained the name corn in the West as the primary grain in these trade relationships. The word "corn" outside the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is synonymous with grain referring to any cereal crop with its meaning understood to vary geographically to refer to the local staple. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, corn primarily means maize; this usage started as a shortening of "Indian corn". "Indian corn" primarily means maize (the staple grain of indigenous Americans), but can refer more specifically to multicolored "flint corn" used for decoration. Other common names include barajovar, makka, silk maize, and zea. In a 1999 journal article, Betty Fussell wrote that "to say the word "corn" is to plunge into tragi-farcial mistranslations of language and history." Similar to the British, the Spanish referred to maize as panizo, a generic term for cereal grains, as did Italians with the term polenta. The British later referred to maize as Turkey wheat, Turkey corn, or Indian corn with Fusell commenting that "they meant not a place but a condition, a savage rather than a civilized grain", especially with Turkish people later naming it kukuruz, or barbaric. The word maize is used by agricultural bodies and research institutes such as the UN's FAO, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center based out of Mexico, and the Indian Institute of Maize Research. National agricultural and industry associations often include the word maize in their name such as the Maize Association of Australia, and the National Maize Association of Nigeria. In Southern Africa, maize is commonly called mielie (Afrikaans) or mealie (English), words possibly derived from the Portuguese word for maize, milho, but more probably from Dutch meel or English meal, meaning the edible part of a grain or pulse.

Maize

The second paragraph is maybe the best summary. The take-home is that maize is the preferred name internationally, and we are an international encyclopedia. The term is not "just" a British spelling, but also one used by those of us in the US without issue in place of corn, again per sources. Reliable sources of higher tier than just newspapers, etc. specifically state this, while you aren't going to see sources claiming corn holds this this level of preference or precision. We are expected to globalize articles rather than create a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. If you just focus on what shows up in the US, Canadian, Australia, etc. in newspapers and the like, it's going to be an NPOV violation. Maize is used both in those typical English speaking countries, but as the article shows, when English is used in other countries like India, Mexico, many African countries, etc., but not the main language.

As to why maize is preferred, I'll pick out from the article it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region. Again, full stop, the article already calls out that sources say what the best common name is, not anonymous editors. That speaks to WP:COMMONNAME in that WP:PRECISION is the key issue in this topic. Generally WP:SCIRS sources are going to be higher quality than newspapers or media websites, and we don't have any equivalent or better sources saying corn is instead preferred. It also doesn't limit itself to just niche uses of formal name or scientific uses. It just says universal use.

WP:TITLEVAR is also an issue here, Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa. . . Those supporting changing the title to corn are in direct violation of that policy. That is usually one of the most frequent complaints because a subset of editors are used to the term corn in their respective areas if someone mistakenly tries to pin it as just an British vs. American thing. In the end we are bound by sources here. Instead, we follow the latter part of the policy and use the universal term maize (or Zea mays if needed) per Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties.

There is also an argument to be made that maize (or that iteration at least) is the more original North American term that predates corn and has spread to other countries in usage. It does need to be stressed that maize is a North American term originally rather than "just" British. The historical aspect does come into play when we're talking about long-term usage in civilizations that predate European colonization because sources discuss how Linnaeus chose the species name because maize was already the common name back then.

Corn

Corn however, is ambiguous, and has no such endorsements of specifically being on par with maize by sources. For a concise quote from one reference The word "maize" is preferred in international usage because in many countries the term "corn", the name by which the plant is known in the United States, is synonymous with the leading cereal grain; thus, in England "corn" refers to wheat, and in Scotland and Ireland it refers to oats. The issue has never been that corn is used more or less than maize. There was a time that this was called Indian corn, which differentiates itself from other corns mentioned above. That would be similar to how Association football is handled, except that Indian becomes ambiguous here too, so that really isn't an option. Corn really can't ever get consensus as a common name because sources are pretty explicit that there is a better name and corn is too ambiguous. In the end, even in the US, Australia, and other frequented mentioned "corn" countries, maize is still a recognized synonym, contrary to repeated claims in all the previous RMs. This usually is taught in school, especially if someone grows up farming, but if someone is that much out of the loop or just doesn't remember, corn will still lead them to the maize page without any real issue. There is no technical reason even for corn to supersede the common name of the plant either. Even the third RM close was explicit that It hasn't been adequately demonstrated that maize is sufficiently unrecognizable to counter the point that corn is ambiguous in some parts of the world in some contexts[1] That corn gets use frequently in countries (even using Google search results) has been constantly weighed as not an overriding factor for COMMONNAME in each close so far, and nothing new has been presented as of this post that would change consensus. Even if there was something new, WP:FLORA still cautions against that metric. In practice, WP:FLORACOMMONNAME means taking the name that is used universally, either a vernacular name, or more commonly, the species Latin name.

On WP:DAB

WP:DAB is a slightly different topic of discussion that frequently gets confounded with the article title discussion here. That would be more of a discussion of whether the redirect should go to the disambiguation page rather than here. However, it's currently handled as a WP:TWODABS situation where corn has significant usage in terms of maize, but there is so much else going on that you can't treat it as an absolute WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That is why the redirects and disambigs are set up as they currently are. WP:OTHERNAMES already gives guidance on this. All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term.. The current setup is merely following that policy because corn is a significant, but much more ambiguous, alternative title.

There is a similar example of this WP:DAB vs WP:AT issue too. Here, the primary redirect for corn is to maize instead of a disambiguation page. That is not an indication the article title should be corn, but is instead very similar to Lady bug in that it redirects to Coccinellidae rather than Lady_Bug_(disambiguation). The only major difference is it's a case where the scientific name Coccinellidae was used as the title instead of trying to weight lady bug vs. lady beetle common names. There, lady beetle is the preferred term among scientists, but it is a term a bit more isolated to scientists. Maize instead has both the scientific community and widespread public usage, which in part led to it being the WP:COMMONNAME here. If it were more a niche term like lady beetle, then we'd be at the WP:FLORA baseline of scientific name Zea mays like that article.

Compound words

There is sometimes confusion due to terms like sweetcorn, etc. and people saying this should be why corn should be the title. WP:TITLECHANGES is clear not to do this: Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. As Peter Coxhead mentioned earlier: In the UK, we distinguish "maize" from the generic "corn" by using terms like "corn on the cob" for the fresh product, "sweetcorn" for the tinned kernels, or "popcorn" for the snack eaten particularly in cinemas. Corn is used when there is a qualifier to make it additionally clear what is being specifically talked about. If it's just generic corn, the ambiguity question comes back into play, which is where maize is used instead. This is also outlined to some degree in the article text.

Old move discussions

There have now been a total of 6 requested moves trying to change the title to corn linked above. In each of those, a move has not gained consensus and been rejected. It got so disruptive that in the next to last requested move in 2015, the page was move protected and a new RMs were banned for at least a year. Going into the archives of old move discussions, a frequent issue about those wanting corn is that maize is already established as the common name, and they bring nothing new to show a substantial change in usage. That is perhaps the easiest way for a closer to assess this without delving into the subject much. Generally arguments supporting corn offer nothing new and POV summaries that drift into WP:OR. Without high-quality sources showing a change or directly saying sources that do address what name should be used are wrong, we just stick with the previous version. Since this an attempt at a summary too, here are a few good comprehensive posts from previous RMs.

Extended content

Perhaps one of the best summary comments of the "meta" on this article came from Hires an editor: Despite the fact that "corn" has an older, non-maize meaning, and that people refer to it as corn, many of the arguments made in support are superfluous: there's the "Google" argument, there's the geographic argument (it's mainly the United States and others that call it this) - except that it's not encyclopedic, there's the majority of people do it argument: I think the total numbers cited are 2:1 in favor of "corn", but so what? Most of all, there's no effort to build consensus; this is an extensive set of arguments that seem written to browbeat others into submission. Lastly, I'm finding this discussion to change the page title to be disruptive - even though consensus can change, I'm not seeing that and haven't seen it. It seems instead to be one person's mission to make this change, never mind that it's been 4 years and consensus isn't changing. If anything, this repeated argument is preventing time and energy that could be devoted to making the article better is spent doing this - preventing a perfectly good article name from being changed. . . From Zzyzx11: The article's title has been stable for several years, even though this controversial issue has previously been frequently and heavily debated during that time, with no sufficient consensus yet to change it. Also, the third paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME outlines important exceptions such as "Ambiguous ... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable source". And "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". As stated in previous discussions, "corn" is a generic term in various English-speaking countries to refer to any cereal crop besides maize. Thus, it is not really a suitable precise enough title. Since various biological sources use "maize", it seems to be more common across multiple varieties of English. From Cynwolfe: The danger of astonishment for us Americans who call it "corn" seems exaggerated, as we generally learn the word "maize" in elementary school when we study Native Americans and Thanksgiving. If you search "maize" and "first thanksgiving" on Google Books, you get many children's books from U.S. publishers, so the word is hardly esoteric. "Maize" makes regular appearances in American popular culture, from the old Mazola margarine ads,[2] to homespun puns on "a-maize-ing" corn products or activities.[3] Increasing Spanish-English bilingualism in the U.S. also contributes to familiarity. Though used less often, "maize" is not alien to Americans. A move should yield a greater benefit, and I don't see one here, as "maize" offers encyclopedic precision and more educational value as a title.

Those three are good summaries that also cover some of the tailing arguments and misunderstandings that often come up. While I prefer to keep comments concise, this should illustrate just how much discussion and topic material tends to be glossed over in a typical RM wanting this moved to corn. In the end, those wanting corn are typically arguing editor preference or WP:OR against what reliable sources actually say. Our policies and guidelines say to rely on the latter. There is a reason why page regulars are growing tired to repeated attempts to move the page with superficial arguments. The only other solution at this point if editors so abhor maize is that we then go to the default Zea mays for the page title. If there was ever consensus against maize, then Zea mays would be next in line well before corn. KoA (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I may add additional summary here later if there was something I missed. KoA (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One additional bit on corn being ambiguous for Europeans: this is more of a commentary piece in a magazine, but it does illustrate how the confusion is still being talked about over there and why they don't interchange the two terms as much over there as we might in the states: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-cereal-ambiguity-of-corn/ KoA (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The article mentions the UK, USA, and Ireland. Doesn't really mention anything about continental Europe, unless I'm missing something? Why do you claim this is about Europeans in general? OuroCat (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Knock it off, I didn't make any such claim, just that it's an example of discussion going on in European countries right now (their context was discussions spurred by the war in Ukraine). The point was that the issue still gets discussed in European countries where English is the primary language. KoA (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Knock what off? Here's your first sentence: One additional bit on corn being ambiguous for Europeans

I don't see anywhere in the article that Europe is mentioned, only that conversations were started by the war in Ukraine, and if you want to say 'it's implied' then I can just as well say the meaning of Corn is implied in common language every day. OuroCat (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me that none of this is directly addressing the arguments I brought up, but rather addressing the arguments of the last RM. It also is restating the words of others who are not commenting on this RM, but on the previous one.

Also, this is a gigantic wall of text that may have the effect of obscuring other comments below. It was added in as a reply to your comment, which is above many other comments which disagree with the Maize position. Could you please add in a collapse or two and close the collapses you've put in by default so that it's easier to see other comments? OuroCat (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That's because I wasn't primarily addressing you (though I do mention tracking Google hits), in this WP:THREAD. RMs do not work by addressing the proposer, but ultimately by who addresses the relevant policy issues instead, which have been covered in serious depth in past RMs that can't be glossed over. It takes space to address commonly repeated policy-based issues here unfortunately, and those issues still remain regardless of how someone starts an RM. KoA (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this successfully and succinctly addresses any policy issues. This is just a reposting of part of the discussion that's already visible on this very talk page above.

To be clear, is there no way to more conveniently display this content so that it does not obscure other, more recent comments? Or is it that you would prefer not to do so? OuroCat (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Many of those things were glossed over here, which is why I posted the updated summary that constitutes my content-based !vote since that focus was lost in the way the RM was setup. Nothing is being obscured either (though I guess you can do that by clicking collapse on parts of my text after reading them). I get that you are newish, but please read WP:THREAD if you are unfamiliar with how replies and followup comments work. I've said most of what I intended to say now in mostly one spot (and would be repeating myself if I continued), so I don't intend to make changes or really additional comments for a bit. KoA (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Last addition on my comment, but for what it's worth even as a WP:EXPERT editor as a US agronomist (who btw would technically be biased towards "corn" and still can say corn/maize are used interchangably even when I'm working with farmers here), even I don't get any special privileges to use sources differently or rely on personal opinion over sources. I can't be looking at Google hits and say we have an obvious common name for any plant or just grab sources and say I have a bunch just happening to use the term maize/corn in passing for specific regions. As an editor, I need to look for sources deliberately discussing the exact subject of names, and that's the gold standard for our policies here.

That's behind why I mention how corn is ambiguous and maize isn't within sources; no sources presented actively discuss maize being ambiguous or unrecognizable, especially since North America is where the English term was first used even though it's often a secondary name here today. Maize isn't going to WP:SURPRISE anyone with that in mind if we follow what sources say on that, but we do have sourcing that would indicate corn would cause confusion for some English speakers like in the UK or countries related to the British Empire where the British variation on corn is used. KoA (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move. WP:SNOW early close and warning to IP. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• You don't seem to be assuming good faith. And this does not meet the threshold for a snow close. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP/OuroCat has been repeatedly cautioned about personal attacks here, so it's not really a AGF situation. Repeated RMs are considered tendentious, and the suggestion at the close of the last RM was that just repeating another RM like this wouldn't be appropriate. That's on the technical side without getting into content at least. KoA (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Could you clarify why you feel this way? Which guidelines do you believe I've stepped over? Why does this move have no chance? OuroCat (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support, clear COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - without repeating the arguments/evidence in the September 2022 RM, per those, "corn" appears to be WP:COMMONNAME. Levivich (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just disclosing that I also came here from val's user talk page, to pre-emptively cancel out her vote, muahahahaha. Levivich (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I see this as being basically on the knife-edge between two competing WP:CRITERIA: recognizability and precision. Between the two, I think corn is more recognizable, even if it's less precise, and I think that's OK because it'll help readers find the article, and they can learn more precise nomenclature in the lead/infobox/body. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Canvassed here Got here because of a question at my user talk, so take my opinion with that grain of salt. I prefer maize as more specific, so oppose. Valereee (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why does the specificity of Maize have more weight here over other considerations? OuroCat (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Because WP:CRITERIA is policy, specifically The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. That was covered ad nauseum in the last RM that it is a major issue in this topic, especially because sources themselves, which overrides personal editor opinion. KoA (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The only sources in the article that mention any potential ambiguity of Corn both reference British English. Do you have sources that speak to the ambiguity of Corn more widely? OuroCat (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If you believe there is dispute in sources on the ambiguity issue, then the burden would be on you to provide such sources stating that. Right now it's not difficult to find sources talking about the ambiguity related to the British variant of corn, and I'm not aware of any mainstream sources saying essentially "No, they're wrong." KoA (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. Firstly, the sources do not prove an ambiguity in usage, just that multiple usages are possible. If I ask for corn soup in England I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get cream of wheat. If you have sources that prove an ambiguity in usage, please provide them. Aside from that, a narrow regional ambiguity should not be the presiding concern on an international wiki. The ease of finding sources regarding British English is not a problem, it's that there's nothing to speak of a wider ambiguity that would rise to the level of needing to be addressed. That is part of what has never been proven with sources here. OuroCat (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

For a narrow regional ambiguity I was worried that was what you were insinuating earlier, but was trying to AGF. Saying British English does not mean we're talking about just England or even the current UK. We've already discussed policy that should have guided you away from that attitude. KoA (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Insinuating" feels quite charged, as does "we've already discussed policy that should have guided you away from that attitude" Could you please rephrase and focus on my arguments? I am not seeing anything here that is addressing the arguments I've made, and I would very much like to see sources that prove your position on ambiguity in common usage internationally so we can move on to other topics. OuroCat (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Had another thought here: Could you clarify which sources use British English to mean something other than "English spoken in the UK or England?" All the sources I've seen treat it that way. There's also Canadian English and Australian English and Indian English for example, but where else are you saying that British English is used? OuroCat (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RETAIN. As the nom points out, this article was improperly moved without discussion and should be moved back to its original title. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:COMMONNAME is why the article title is maize, so we can't just namedrop the policy at this point to the contrary. That's covered plenty in the last RM though. For RETAIN though, maize is the long-term consistent title and has been maintained in many RMs now. From that part of policy When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. Making the change would increase ambiguity instead, so there are areas where a support would be going against RETAIN instead. KoA (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The RETAIN section you referenced reads to me as about a change in the variety of English used. Is that correct? If so that has never changed, and this discussion is not about changing the variety of English used. We can have that discussion separately, and it may be quite interesting, but the current variety of English is American and in American English the name is Corn.

"As a reminder, WP:COMMONNAME is why the article title is maize, so we can't just namedrop the policy at this point to the contrary." I made arguments to why this isn't the case, and the article itself only has two sources about the ambiguity of Corn, both referencing British English. Could you please address my arguments directly or provide further sources? OuroCat (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Per sources, the American English version is corn or maize. The British variant is just maize with corn having other meanings. Either one works here in the US. Again, please be more careful about WP:OR. We defer to sources on that matter. KoA (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What part is WP:OR? You've made multiple references to no original research but don't point out what you're referring to. If you make it clear that may help.

"Per sources, the American English version is corn or maize." Yes, and Corn has been shown to be the overwhelmingly more common term. This is why I think WP:COMMONNAME is relevant.

"The British variant is just maize with corn having other meanings."

Are you saying that corn is never used to refer to maize in British English? I have read sources on this very talk page that disagree, let alone in the article, but if you have sources to support corn only being used for usages other than maize I'd be happy to see them. OuroCat (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is a British paper on best practices for teaching English in British schools that uses 'corn' in a common language sense without any reference to 'maize' or any clarification on 'corn'. Is this a sufficient source?

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/74959502/0346-251X_2886_2990046-120211121-21447-t27l72-libre.pdf?1637499653=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DBut_can_your_students_read_the_diagrams.pdf&Expires=1676029167&Signature=F8A6N2YAwld4gFZqi5gVUHEZf-uRW5CF1ZJaEcULP5WEQzIGxawM1RCvcSlVGpgnzLR00tV2sGzANf4cMONzkH8jpDkvv0bYOOMC-akaO2xI2iSXG8VDMi1c0GRabVcOJXvto3RkMslIuA2F1f4IKAHccJBy5s6A09A92WeGnP1DlsvWZPAahEqqGVXmQOzUhgeUQAYZ1oaLAdj1GR7fBWWWhVhEXBtrQOmZtUQ4w8ywKcskPJ8ja3Lqh11N-UUEeMfZam~RH8YdaIYQbjiIiuQMO0Lr78H-3rYtelE3QuCa1s6HI~3ATATOrBlglBkPV2tHUEwv1rZs-UcqBWdlnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA OuroCat (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The link doesn't work, but for those that can access the paper, no it doesn't address anything relevant here. These really were the kinds of things to ask/learn about before making a RM. We're talking about sources that actively discuss the name's use, not ones that happen to namedrop corn or maize in a graph, especially because we cannot cherry-pick things like that. Otherwise I'd just pull up a bunch of more relevant agronomist journal articles that use the term maize in the US in a much more purposeful manner instead of someone without crop expertise. We have plenty examples of what ideal sources are in the related article content. KoA (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't putting that forward as a source about usage of corn in general but rather usage in British English unambiguously. But, fine, I'll re-examine the sources that you aded to the article to support your position here in a comment later on to show why I feel those articles are cherry-picking as well. Hopefully a third party will be able to sort out the cherry-picking between the two of us. OuroCat (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Reminder on the last RM. Just a reminder we just had an RM back in September that folks should reread so folks know just the depth that's already been covered.[4] We have a "round in circles" notice at the top of talk page because people frequently aren't familiar with the various aspects involved in the article title when many first make comments. KoA (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support as WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:RETAIN and partially by WP:TIES (U.S. being the major world producer as opposed to UK). And no, I don't buy the argument that "corn" is ambiguous, since corn redirects here, we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a thing, and cereal is over there should any reader gets astonished by Zea mays being at "Corn" . As I predicted earlier, this is the same area as the infamous Talk:Yoghurt – in each round a new set of people will get irked by the alien-looking title and begin a renaming discussion, only to be met by gish gallop argumentation by the same group of opponents. The only way this can stop, and the talk page freed to be used for something, well, useful, is to rename the damn article and get it over with. Since it is, you know, obvious that "Maize" does not fulfill CRITERIA. No such user (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This has all been debunked multiple times as violating those very parts of policy, and it's a never-ending onion peeling endeavor in terms of policy issues with corn. Every time we get editors holding personal opinion over what sources have to say wanting to change to corn, and those just get repeated each time getting us into the Brandolini's law problem (and then being painted as a gish gallop for trying to deal with the problem). The way for this to stop is to go with what our sourced content says and stop trying to make a special case for corn that circumvents our policies. As has been discussed before, maize is considered recognizable worldwide (including the US) according to sources, which means we cannot be making assertions otherwise without equivalent sources. Instead, common name policy is very clear (my bold) Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Like it or not, corn is considered ambiguous in sources, full stop, and maize is directly mentioned as the preferred universal. That shouldn't have to be repeated nonstop and we're well past the point of needing to be bludgeoned with the unsourced idea that corn does not have ambiguity issues.

RETAIN and TIES would mean we'd go back to the North American term maize as well (historically and current use), so it's never as simple as has been painted to just change it to corn. Since it's obvious according to sources at least that maize fulfills CRITERIA better than corn (and a little better than Zea mays), that's why there's been repeated thorough discussion based in policy on why we're at maize right now. We've already discussed that the way you're trying to apply PRIMARYTOPIC is incorrect and ignoring article structure here too. Instead of just copy-pasting that again though, others can scroll up to where I mentioned DABs that starts with WP:DAB is a slightly different topic of discussion that frequently gets confounded with the article title discussion here.

I'll say it again though that if someone actually does have policy-based reason (that does not contradict sources) that maize does not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, then the move goes to the species name Zea mays if we're following our policies and guidelines on plant names at least. Corn is an even higher bar to make it the article title, so someone would have to show a massive sea change in source use and policy to make a valid support !vote to the extreme end of using corn instead. Until then, all support votes are functionally only support to move to the species name instead. KoA (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

KoA: If you don't stop WP:BADGERing this discussion like you did with the previous one, I'll seek to get you topic-banned at ANI. You are WAY over the line of a reasonable debate. We are entitled to express our opinions freely, you do not have to drown us in those repeated piles of bullshit. No such user (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Normally I ignore comments like that, but I feel stuck responding because of the framing and aspersions going on at an article talk of all places. First, please strike your personal attacks and follow WP:TPNO so those of us who want to focus solely on content can do so. I sure don't consider reliable source statements on this subject and policy issues bullshit, and the gish gallop comments are definitely out of line. I honestly wasn't planning to be back here today or even maybe the weekend until your ping for what's it worth. I have mentioned procedural issues with this RM with poisoning the well and personal attacks, but if you read closely, I am not the one advocating for you or others doing that to be blocked but instead just tolerating the potshots. I sure would have had a lot fewer comments here if it wasn't for having to juggle that. Most of us regulars here were trying to ignore those issues before this RM rather than escalate it. I'm afraid the tone is already set in to this RM, but I'd still rather people redirect to actual content discussion.

Anyone is welcome to post an opinion, but if it is blatantly false in some cases (like personal opinions contradicted by our sourced content) or excluding something major, you have to expect that someone is going to correct it too. At this point as a long-term contributor here, I'm really only chiming in if someone is directly contradicting our sourced content/sources or they introduce a major policy contradiction. In the early stages of this, of course us regulars are going to comment a bit more as the core issues are re-established. Your comments had a lot of policy issues they opened up, and that's why I commented here and didn't respond to others. If you read WP:SATISFY, we don't need to be addressing everyone or getting everyone to agree, but key issues or concerns are going to come up in some individual comments and be discussed. Those of us who've actually been working on the content are obviously going to have a bit more ground to cover initially. That's about all I have to say for the foreseeable future. KoA (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit far afield from the RM or topics being discussed, wouldn't a user talk page be better for this, KoA? Of note: I asked you to retract a statement above and you ignored it, and I haven't replied back to that because I felt it would be better addressed on your talk page later. I'd like to keep things on topic so that this doesn't turn into an epic poem of an argument. OuroCat (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I also see this as very similar to articles like Yoghurt, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chairman, and Kiev ... my theory is that whenever there are these big, decade-long, repeated WP:RMs, it's because it's at the "wrong" title. As long as it remains at the "wrong" title, there will be an endless stream of editors coming along year after year trying to "fix" it. However, once it gets moved to the "right" title, then the disputes more or less quiet down. That's why we don't have an endless stream of RMs trying to move Yogurt, Hillary Clinton, Chairperson, or Kyiv; those four are stable. Corn will be stable but Maize will never be stable. Levivich (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Are we sure corn is where we're headed, though? I feel like there may be a development here. Is common name moving corn>maize, or maize>corn? I feel like if anything we're moving corn>maize rather than the opposite. Valereee (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(it took me five minutes to find this comment in the middle of this giant thread) How do we measure that? These are very imperfect tools, but FWIW, I look at NGram 1999-2019 and GTrends 2004-2023, and I see no trend at all, it's corn > maize by a healthy margin and flat? (I know, not every instance of "corn" is referring to maize, and vice versa.) Levivich (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If anything--and, again, these are imperfect tools--but the trend is in the opposite direction. For example, the NGram, in 1999, corn was >2x more hits than maize (.0008% maize v .0020% corn); by 2019, corn is >4x more hits than maize (.0004% v. .0017%). Similar with GTrends; I can't figure out how to get it to show a trendline, but it looks like corn is moving away from maize (becoming more popular as a search term) over time. Levivich (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It too me a bit to find this, too. I'm not actually sure how to best measure it. I kind of feel like this needs more time? Valereee (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about time being the issue. AFAICT there were a series of no-consensus RMs up to 2015, but then we didn't have another one until Sep 2022, 7 years is long enough. The Sep 2022 was bludgeoned to death; I think this one is likely dead for the same reason. The way I see it, we haven't had a proper RM on this since 2015. So I don't think more time is the issue, I think the need for some kind of word limit is the issue. Possibly posting this on WP:CENT. Maybe this RM will gel into consensus despite its length but I'm not hopeful. Levivich (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I could see trying a RM in six months with a limit of 250 words total per participant. That might help. Valereee (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Why six months? Meaning, what is the benefit of allowing time to pass?

I'll never make it under 250 words, but even a limit of 1,000 or 2,000 would be a huge improvement over unlimited.

One benefit of time is if it's used by editors to conduct research. We don't have a good measure of common name yet, and a number of editors have put forward a number of different sources. Maybe (I'm not sure) it would be useful to have a subpage collecting RSes. The reason I'm not sure is because this is such a broad topic.

I'm reminded of Chairperson which required, IIRC, broad advertisement and a lot of people participating and just gritting their teeth and getting through the discussion, plus a masochistic volunteer to close. Levivich (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

More on the GTrends: at its highest point in 2004 (Oct 2004), corn was 66 and maize was 6, a 11:1 ratio; at its highest point in 2022 (Sep 2022), corn is at 100 and maize is at 6, a ratio over 16:1. (It's funny how the searches increase around harvest every year; who is growing corn that needs to google it at harvest time? It's too late by then to look it up, no?)

All that really means, though, is that the word corn is more popular than the word Maize in the English language (and worldwide), but it doesn't necessarily mean that's because people are calling maize "corn". It could be due to the increasing popularity of corn syrup or cornhole, etc. Levivich (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking. Maize is very specific. Corn is used in a ton of things. Valereee (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the specificity argument is really strong -- the strongest one I've read in favor of "maize". But it has this one flaw that, for me, just undercuts the argument, and that's the redirect argument: we don't use the title "Corn" for anything else. We call it "Cereal". If we had Cereal at "Corn", then it would make sense to have Corn at "Maize", but if nothing else is at "Corn", it makes sense to me to have Maize at "Corn". By analogy, "automobile" is more specific than "car", and there are things that are "cars" that are not automobiles (e.g. streetcar, railroad car), but still, the most common name for automobile is "car", and that's the title of our article. (I know, OSE.) Levivich (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

We do have Corn (disambiguation). Valereee (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

...a page that begins with Corn refers to maize, a large-grained crop native to the Americas and the principal cereal crop of that region. :-D Levivich (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Another way I think about it is WP:POLA: if somebody types in "Corn" and they end up at any article other than Maize, they'll be surprised. I think. Levivich (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Corn oil, Cornstarch, Corn syrup, Corn dollies. Corn is everywhere. It's a commodity used for everything. We can't measure it by mentions. Valereee (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Would the use of Corn [noun] in the articles where Maize [noun] is the British English variant be an argument for consistent usage in titles or is that not exactly what that guideline's referring to? OuroCat (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@OuroCat, I'm not sure what you're asking? Valereee (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Specifically about Wikipedia:TITLE Consistency, mentioned at the top of the guidelines and at WP:CONSISTENT. Since it's Corn oil, not Maize oil, and Cornstarch, not Maize starch, could it be argued that Corn is more consistent with other article titles? OuroCat (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I understand your argument, but it doesn't convince me. We seem to be talking past one another. I'm not saying people don't use the word corn for a lot of stuff. I'm saying maize is the better title for an encyclopedic article. Valereee (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Could you let me know if there's any reason for your position other than specificity? Just trying to better understand the arguments presented and the guidelines involved. OuroCat (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - "maize" is a globally used identifier that is unique to the topic. This is preferable to an equally widespread identifier that requires disambiguation, hatnotes, or similar. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Maize already has hat-notes at the top of this article, and Corn redirects to the article directly. Doesn't that go against your argument, or do you feel Corn would be different and Maize wouldn't redirect to Corn? OuroCat (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, Ortizesp, Levivich, Rreagan007 and No such user. As has been pointed out a number of times, the main title header of this article, upon its creation on October 18, 2001, was "Corn". Through the succeeding years, the header was unilaterally moved a number of times according to the article's move log. "Corn" is indeed the clear WP:COMMONNAME but, although there was never a consensus for the move to "Maize", the header is currently frozen at "Maize" and there is insufficient consensus for either form, thus it remains at "Maize". Judging by the positioning of votes in all previous discussions, had the main header been able to remain as "Corn", there would be likewise no consensus for a move to "Maize". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION ("titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"). —  AjaxSmack  05:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:PRECISION Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.

  To me this suggests that both Maize and Corn meet the precision guidelines since Corn goes directly to Maize, and there's very little argument that Corn should not redirect to Maize directly.

  Could you explain your view on this guideline a bit better, and why it should supersede WP:COMMONNAME? OuroCat (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'll let this picture do it. —  AjaxSmack  07:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that explains anything at all. I think this is the sort of thing that other very vocal editors here have said doesn't constitute a good argument or source. But, aside from that, even if I concede this does demonstrate ambiguity how does that address my questions? OuroCat (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what else to say. The article from a reliable source (BBC) mentions "corn" in the title, text and in a caption for a photo where there is no Zea mays in sight. I used this as an illustration of the ambiguity that other editors have explained clearly above. As far as corn redirecting to Maize goes, I don't really care what's done. I will note that the status quo of a title favoring precision is unusual, but not unprecedented either with plants (sunflower redirects to Common sunflower) or in other fields (motorway redirects to Controlled-access highway). —  AjaxSmack  20:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC) —  AjaxSmack  20:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's a fair point about the other article titles. What I was trying to say is that just because 'corn' can be used as part of the phrase 'corn field' does not mean that 'corn' on it's own is ambiguous. 'corn field' is a phrase and could have easily been replaced in the article by 'field' 'farm' 'wheat field' or anything else. I agree that 'corn field' is a bit ambiguous since it doesn't describe what's growing in the field, but 'corn' is not in the same way that if I ask you for a mint you're unlikely to hand me a building for producing coins. OuroCat (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support With corn already being a primary redirect, there seems to be little reason not to move the article to the common name. If corn was a disambiguation page in the primary namespace, I'd probably think differently, but apparently people don't consider the other definitions of corn nearly as important. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There appear to have been no discussions on any other topic since the Requested move in September. In some way this Talk: must remain usable and these repetitious threads make that impossible. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Even though 5 months has passed, the only real topic of discussion here has been Corn vs Maize, mostly started by editors uninvolved in the move request last September. I think the best way to make sure this isn't the case in the future is to move the article to Corn, so that there's no longer any reason to discuss the article title. See Roman Spinner and No Such User's comments above for more context, but essentially this has happened several times and this article isn't the first time. When there's this much contention from uninvolved editors over and over then moving the article has resolved the problem. OuroCat (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You have mischaracterised what I said. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Uh, all I said was I agree with you. Then I spoke to what I believe is the best way forward. How did I mischaracterize what you said? OuroCat (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of ways to tackle that since the last RM. Nothing is foolproof but in order of relative importance/chronology first:

1. Develop content on the subject. I've been working on this a bit, but to some degree it should help if we just direct people directly to content instead of needing to repeat things on the talk page so often.
2. Update a FAQ. We used to have a pseudo-FAQ that stayed unarchived, but it had its issues. Probably better to start a FAQ from scratch, but use similar ideas from it. It could include answers to policy questions directly from our content too. The "round in circles" template at the top of the page warning about commonly asked questions didn't seem to help much in the past few months, but maybe a FAQ right there could help more.
3. A structured RM. I actually had a RM proposal in mind after the last one, but thought it would be disruptive to post without waiting awhile because our last one in September was so recent. The key here though would be instead of just the opened ended maize -> corn proposed move we see all the time where the proposal often doesn't cover key issues, structure it so it asks which one is the best article title when considering our relevant policies and guidelines, article content on the subject, and sources that directly address the subject of names: 1. Maize 2. Zea mays 3. Corn. It would need to be fleshed out a bit more, but basically something to actively direct respondents to comment on the name options and how policy applies to them. If it draws a clearer picture of consensus by attempting to navigate this complex topic ahead of time a little and focus down to key issues, it may cut down on wiki-controversy at least.
4. Consider move protection again. In the 2015 RM (two years after the previous RM), moves and RMs were banned for 1 year. We're in a much shorter timeframe with this most recent RM (handful of months), but this option also doesn't really cut to the heart of the matter either. I believe WeijiBaikeBianji first suggested it here, and they make a really good point on us working on content first and showing if there are sourced substantive changes in name use before any move/RM.

Things to maybe talk about outside the RM at some point anyways. KoA (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I've eaten Corn on the cob, but never Maize on the cob. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, I've never eaten a roast cattle sandwich. Do we have to move cattle because of roast beef sandwich? —  AjaxSmack  03:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    • The key difference, of course, is that Wikipedia has two extensive articles — one titled Cattle and the other titled Beef as well as two other articles — one titled Roast beef and the other titled Roast beef sandwich — that do not even point to one another via hatnotes. Corn, on the other hand, redirects to Maize, but there are two dab pages — the five-entry Maize (disambiguation) and the ten-entry Corn (disambiguation), which would lead to the conclusion that there should be two separate Wikipedia articles — one titled Corn and the other titled Maize — especially in view of the arguments posited by supporters of Maize that cornfields are general fields that grow corn, wheat or other cereal crop, while presumably maizefields / maizefield [the former is currently a redlink and the latter points to a historic house called "Maizefield"] are specific fields that solely grow corn, thus blurring differences between a cornfield, a wheatfield or an oatfield. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia should serve readers by using the same term that the largest portion of the English-speaking population uses - full stop. I note that the article was created using "corn", as well. We need to oppose nationalistic motives that lead to use of minority terms. -- Netoholic @ 14:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Maize" is unambiguous, precise and clear to all readers. "Corn" is only used by a small proportion, and introduces ambiguity and confusion. The conclusion imposes itself. Walrasiad (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Walrasiad what is your source for "Corn" is only used by a small proportion? It's used by a majority of English speakers. (All of North America.) Levivich (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You're my source. North America is a small proportion of the world. Walrasiad (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(North America is where most native English speakers are: 350 million.) So you have no source that says corn is only used by a small proportion of world? Levivich (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Who cares? They're less than a quarter of Wikipedia readers. And the term "maize" is familiar in North America too. To reiterate, it is a choice between a clear, unambiguous, universally-recognizable term, and a confusing, ambiguous term used by only a small proportion. It's a no-brainer. Walrasiad (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

They're less than a quarter of Wikipedia readers? What? That's easily disproven, just look at the list: the US alone, and it's 3 billion monthly page views. looks like as much if not more than all other countries combined. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Shrug. The statistics I came across were less than a quarter. Not sure what percentage your numbers are (and I presume a lot of them are VPN'd - China is missing after all). Anyway, numbers don't much matter. I never find numbers arguments particularly entertaining (much less convincing). Clarity and communication to readers is what is most important - and the universality and precision of maize easily trumps the more limited use and ambiguity of corn. I often have a hard time making decisions in RMs. But this is not among them. This is one of the easiest cases I've come across. Walrasiad (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's assume you're right, and a bunch of those are China VPNs. Well, in China, they call it "corn": [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Tell me, in what country besides the UK do you think "maize easily trumps the more limited use and ambiguity of corn". We've so far excluded all of North America and China. You want to do India next? India calls it corn: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Between North America, India, and China, I think that constitutes a majority of English speakers in the world, even non-native English speakers? But if you disagree, tell me in what country outside of the UK you think "maize" is more popular than "corn"? Levivich (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

And just to add to that: the UN calls it "corn" [18] [19], the IMF calls it "corn" [20] [21], the World Bank calls it "corn" [22] [23]. They sometimes call it "maize", too, but the notion that "corn" is not commonly used worldwide is totally unfounded. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I should not have conceded the UK. Even in the UK, it's at least sometimes called corn, by the BBC [24] [25] even in their recipes [26] [27]; same with The Times [28] [29] and also in their recipes [30] [31].

Let's do Australia, too, where they also call it "corn": [32] [33] [34] [35], also in recipes [36] [37] [38] [39] and gardening tips [40]. Even when they use "maize", they use "corn" [41].

What's that I hear? You suggest South Africa next? :-) They say "corn", too: [42] [43] [44] [45], also in recipes [46] [47] [48], even when they say "maize", they also say "corn" [49].

Finally, let's check the global English-language news wires: Associated Press [50] [51] [52] [53] (and recipes [54] [55]), Reuters [56] [57] [58], AFP [59] (France), [60] (Australia). It's corn, corn, corn. They use "maize" too, of course, but this idea that corn is in the minority, or is not used worldwide, is easily disproven. Just run a google search for site:[website] intitle:corn. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Damnit now I have no more free article views like anywhere in the world for the rest of the month Levivich (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this in a different way, I get slightly different results. I searched the websites of various news media from around the world for "corn" and "maize" in their titles (headlines) (site:[website] intitle:[corn/maize]), which produced:

• US: nytimes.com corn 3,310, maize 176; cnn.com corn 189, maize 4
• Canada: cbc.ca corn 374, maize 5; torontosun.com corn 102, maize 1
• Australia: abc.net.au corn 888, maize 37; heraldsun.com.au corn 26, maize 0
• UK: bbc.co.uk corn 649 or 525 idk what's up with that website, maize 125; thetimes.co.uk corn 129, maize 9
• China/Hong Kong: scmp.com corn 99, maize 5; chinadaily.com.cn corn 603, maize 95
• India: timesofindia.indiatimes.com corn 462, maize 511; thehindu.com corn 57, maize 141
• South Africa: timeslive.co.za corn 38, maize 61; iol.co.za corn 84, maize 651

The usual caveats about usage that apply to Ngrams and Google Trends apply to this method as well. Please check my work. The raw hit counts might vary from search to search, but the ratios should stay the same. Levivich (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The ingredient lists for the BBC recipes call for "sweetcorn". That is a UKism (as opposed to sweet corn with a space), and they are calling it "sweetcorn" because of potential ambiguity in UK English (I'd expect a recipe written by an American to just call for "corn", and would assume any such recipe is calling for sweet corn, and not another type of maize). As for what the UN calls it, I'd look specifically to the FAO. Reported Google results (with the usual caveats) when searching the FAO website are 232,000 for maize and 120,000 for corn (many of which have corn appearing as "maize (corn)"). Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• support this isn't UK wikipedia, 'corn' is what its's called in the rest of the english spaking world—blindlynx 18:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • As established in the previous discussion, this is rubbish. For instance, India, which is a very large producer, uses "maize". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - the argument about native speakers is misleading. If List of countries by English-speaking population can be trusted, there are over 400 million English speakers in Asia, almost 200 million in Africa, and over 250 million in Europe. It's also understood pretty widely in the US (compare "maize genetics" (21.8k) with "corn genetics" (1.1k) in GScholar, for example, despite the bulk of the research being done in the US), not to mention the non-trivial portion of the US population that prefers maíz. Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - To repeat, Corn is a generic name for any cereal, as in Corn [kɔːn] noun, often referring to the chief cereal crop of a district, e.g. wheat in England, oats or barley in Scotland. "Fields of corn" does not refer to maize. In Europe generally, korn and it cognates refer to grain. In "corned beef" it refers to grains of salt, not maize. In medicine it refers to thickenings of the skin of hands or feet. 'Corn' needs disambiguation. 'Maize', on the other hand, refers unambiguously to the plant, Zea mays, which is what this article is about.Plantsurfer 18:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as usual, per the usual arguments (and as too soon after the last outing). Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as usual. Nothing has changed since the last discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:WORLDVIEW. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 08:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Corn as human food vs. Maize as crop

I think we could split this. The article is extremely long, and corn as human food could pull out the section Corn as food, the Hazards section, and the section comparing corn to other staple foods. That might have the side effect of stabilizing Maize. Valereee (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A split would likely run into similar titling issues (what type of corn as human food?), and I'm not happy to say it likely wouldn't draw heat away from this article either (though do check out suggestions I had to Invasive Spices above). I've been going through the article though, I am finding other sections that do need pruning as some have become a hodgepodge. Food seems pretty decent though considering how closely it is tied to the crop itself in quite a few cases, so it doesn't seem like a great candidate for a split given the minimal size there. That and some pieces to specific foods are integrated with other concepts like varieties, history, etc. that it doesn't really seem like a low-hanging fruit as I think about content to make a split work.

Instead, I think there's a pretty good base to try to get this article to GA status as I started reviewing the rest of the content and sources here. There are sections like Maize#Evolution, genetics, etc. that definitely weren't written for an encyclopedic audience, so I do have a bit of a fire under me to want to clean up a lot of the article next month when I have more time (and a breather). I'd definitely invite others to comb through the content too. At this point, I'd say it's probably best to focus on improving the content/layout in this article itself, possibly for GA review in mind, and then reassess since the content could look pretty different at that time. KoA (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much everything related to corn as food for humans calls it corn. Sweet corn, both on and off the cob. Popcorn. Cornflakes. Dishes made from corn meal such a breads and muffins, polentas/mushes, pones/puddings. Ingredients like corn syrup, corn flour, cornstarch. Really it's a rare exception that English speakers don't use the word corn when describing a human food/ingredient/dish. Hominy would be the only one I can think of; even grits are frequently referred to as corn grits. I think it might be a natural division. I'll think about how to give it a go. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally that's because those all have additional qualifiers to distinguish what type of corn it is to indicate it is maize by association (e.g., sweet corn). What I was addressing though was the other name variations for corn, like what is harvested and used for food can also be wheat corn, barley corn, etc. There wouldn't be a simple single unifying title that would work well for a split in that case. I definitely see where you are going with the idea, but it still runs into some of the technical issues we run into with the name discussion. Personally I feel like it'd be better to avoid things that touch that 3rd rail for at least a little while on the meta/talk side and focus on article content, then move back to name related stuff after it's had time to breathe. KoA (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree about splitting food v crop, and it's a good use of both titles. Levivich (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It would get into being a WP:POVSPLIT if a main intent is to be able to use the corn title there. Maize as food as a title would get around that issue at least, but as to whether a split is actually warranted independent of the name issue seems pretty shaky right now, especially hot off the heels of the RM. KoA (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's not this clear a distinction and risks resulting in a POV split across sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Corn and maize word map

Hey, just to throw another spanner into the works, I found this great little word map tool that shows the distribution of different word usages by US geography, and the hilarious thing here is that there is literally a linguistic split by region in the US of the words corn and maize, as you can see here. It's a pity it's not available on a global level to build up a global picture of the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What's regional smoothing? If you turn it off the maps look completely different. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a map of tweets, so unfortunately not representative of actual usage. Levivich (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like something you could convince a Wiktionarian to work on. small jars tc 15:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

that map has people in most of the country using neither word Always beleive in hope (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Basically the places that use either of them a lot in tweets are places where they grow a lot of corn or maize. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the places that use "maize" on this map are most likely referring to the colors of the University of Michigan, the suburb of Wichita, Kansas, and the South Texas Maize (a gigantic corn maze) in Hondo, Texas, respectively. Not sure about that corner of Colorado-Nebraska. Dohn joe (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

And are there no similar alternative uses of "corn"? I doubt that. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Came across this map of names for maize in the Balkans. Not sure what license the image is under, but the source might be worth citing in § names. small jars tc 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "corn" in British English

The topic of the name of this grain has obviously been touched on a lot; I thought I would start a new section for gathering information on what specifically British English sources use, trying to find articles from a wide of a variety of sources as possible. If the sources back it, then it would be a good idea to make changes to the article such as changing the lede from "also known as corn in North American and Australian English" to "also known as corn in North American, Australian, and British English". Here are a few sources to start off.

• Encyclopedia Britannica entry - "corn" refers to maize
• BBC article from 2023 - "corn" refers to maize
• Telegraph article from 2022 - "corn" refers to maize; article acknowledges use of "corn" in British English for wheat in the past but not in the present
• Times article from 2018 - "corn" refers to maize
• Sky News article from 2021 - not clear from article

The conclusion I am inclined to come from given the information I have found is that in present-day British English general use, the word "corn" unmodified in a grain context refers primarily to maize and that the relevant articles should reflect this usage. If anyone has further sources to add to this, that would be appreciated. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI, there is a template at the top of the page because arguments like this are frequently repeated. One common issue is that sources people bring do not directly comment on this topic of names and quickly get into WP:OR territory. Instead, we stick with what higher quality sources say directly about the usage like in Maize#Names. In all of the above cases, none of them really reach this level. If there has been a sea-change in the UK that would warrant a content change, there should be some pretty apparent widespread sourcing on that indicating that the meaning of corn there has significantly changed suddenly. I'd expect dictionaries, especially UK-based, would reflect that change, but ones like Oxford or Cambridge[61] do quite the opposite and say usually maize is used. That does not mean you will never find a source that uses a different term, so we do need to be careful to use high-quality sources that summarize this for us.

If there's something additional to be fleshed out, the Names section would be the place to propose something for a start, but I'm not aware of any declarations in academic sources that corn use is now considered archaic for some definitions nor that maize is not the preferred universal international name in part because of the confusion corn to describe maize causes in places like the UK. KoA (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Your continued defense of british english for so many years is admirable. 2607:FB91:22E2:CE4D:DC6F:73D0:3223:F8FF (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not a defence of British English, but a reasoned argument to show that "corn" remains used with a wider sense in some English variants than others, so remains too ambiguous to use as a title. As a speaker of British English, I would be happy to see "sweetcorn" used as the title, but I'm told this has a narrower meaning than "maize" in North American English. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well these sources clearly do show that there has been a change. For example the 1994 source in the article states "In England, 'corn' refers to wheat.". That's wrong - the BBC article clearly uses corn to refer to maize rather than wheat. The 1994 source is unreliable and should be removed. Similarly the "All Corn Is the Same" source says "a few other English-speaking countries use corn" and the National Geographic source "[maize] in most countries", when it is clear from the Google information in the previous RM that the overwhelming majority of English speakers use corn. So again the sources are wrong, unreliable, and should be removed. The annals source says "In the Western world, the term maize is used interchangeably with corn", which is contrast to what the article says, which is that maize is the preferred term. And the rest of the sources are just arguments from usage and get into the WP:OR territory you are so worried about. So if it was up to me, I would just delete all that discussion, it is garbage except for the annals source which could be moved to the lead. I would rename the section to "etymology" or "history". But you seem to feel this section is full of "high-quality sources" so maybe you disagree. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

And actually there was the article [62] which discusses the shift from corn-as-wheat to corn-as-maize in the UK. It is written in an informal style, but it does state that the Oxford English Dictionary is out of date with current usage. And it has the traditional prescriptive "use the old words" advice at the end. Honestly unless a professional linguist takes an interest, I doubt there will be any more reliable source that points out that the meaning of "corn" in British English has shifted to mainly mean maize. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that’s enough evidence for the fact that corn is used for maize in the uk, while I think corn probably usually means maize, I don’t think we can say it’s the most common usage with that evidence. I think that it’s safe to add British English to use of corn though 97.126.89.248 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

How about that we call it "corn cob"?

So I know that a lot of wikipedians keep arguing about whether it should be called a corn or a maize. But how about we settle with "corn cob"? The name is common, and precise too, so I don't get it why no one has suggested it first place? And for "maize", I think that's something that is only used in universities these days, because most english-speaking people don't even use it, let alone the brits too.

So therefore, I propose "corn cob", because it is more specific, more precise and more common too. Gyroscopbill212 (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

A cob still refers to the head of grain whether it's maize, wheat, etc. so that wouldn't be any more precise. On a related note, when someone says corn on the cob, popcorn, etc. as a food dish, those qualifiers help specify that that we're talking about maize products as opposed to general corn. For the rest, I suggest reading Maize#Names. There's a lot of sourcing addressing common questions or misconceptions about usage that ultimately determines how the article approaches this. KoA (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputes on the Dating of Maize Domestication

Hey Wikipedia, long time listener, first time caller; I've read the talk page guidelines, but please be patient if I err on any of my Wiki etiquette. I've been on a bit of a research binge--and fell into a rabbit-hole of papers on corn domestication--in doing so, I believe I've found some errors on the material on this page. Additionally, I believe that some of the information here runs contrary to the sources that are cited to support it.

There is conflicting information within this article regarding the initial domestication of maize:

1) In the lead section, it's claimed that, "Maize... is a cereal grain first domesticated... about 10,000 years ago." Which is supported by the citations [3] (University of Utah HEALTH SCIENCES (January 2, 2016)) and [4] (Benz, B. F. (2001)).

2) In the History section it's claimed, "all maize arose from a single domestication in southern Mexico about 9,000 years ago." Supported by [15] (Matsuoka, Y.; et al. (2002)) and [16] (Matsuoka, Y. (January 22, 2003)).

While the second quote leaves some ambiguity--ie: was recognizably modern maize domesticated 9kya or does all modern maize merely descend from this domestication event--I believe it implies the former, but the cited literature seems to support the latter.

Further, I believe both of the above two claims are actually contradicted by the referenced citations. I'll cover each of the four sources:

-[3] With no ill will towards the folks at Learn.Genetics, this source seems the most tenuous. The claim it makes that, "maize begins... about 10,000 years ago," isn't directly cited and doesn't seem to show up in any of the listed references. While published through the University of Utah, this source seems more intro-educational in nature, as opposed to research-based. While this doesn't necessarily discount it, it does--in my opinion--somewhat weaken its reliability as a verifiable source. If this citation were supported by additional research, I believe it's a valid enough reference; however on it's own, I do not think it stands.

-[4] While this source has a great deal of botanical and genetic jargon that's outside my area of study, it does not seem to be implying that maize domestication occurred 10kya. The oldest date mentioned in this source is ~6.2kya; and furthermore, that date seems to be in reference to "domesticate teosinte". While teosinte is believed to be the wild ancestor of maize--and admittedly the line denoting speciation is famously blurry--however, the paper's author seems to be intentionally emphasizing this distinction when they claim that, "Dates of [~4.7 kya] for the earliest Tehuacán Valley maize cobs, together with the Guilá Naquitz dates [~6.2 and ~5.4 kya] on domesticated teosinte..." in their conclusion. Thus, this paper seems to imply that recognizably modern maze would have emerged at some point between these two time periods, which is significantly less than 10kya.

-[15] As mentioned above, this source seems to be referring moreso to the divergence of the ancestor of maize and teosinte (specifically a subspecies named "ssp. parviglumis") rather than specifically to the emergence of recognizable/modern domesticated maize. Further, the paper seems to be making a claim as to the oldest possible time that this divergence occurred (and with a fairly large time margin at that), rather than making a claim as to when it did occur, as evidenced by the following quote:

"ssp. parviglumis and Mexican maize have a divergence time of [~9.2kya] (95% confidence limits of [~5.96 – 13.09 kya]). This date represents an upper limit on the time of maize domestication... For this reason, the time of divergence between maize and... ssp. parviglumis will likely have a somewhat younger date."

-[16] This second source by Matsuoka--published a year later--is comparatively (and blessedly) much more straightforward with its claims regarding the domestication of maize. The author claims, "Maize was domesticated about 7,500 years ago in Mexico, and then spread to North and South America". Somewhat frustratingly, Matsuoka's citation for this claim is one of the two different papers in the reference list published by Matsuoka in 2002 on the topic of the domestication of maize. Even more infuriatingly, it's the paper above, source [15]. The very same one that I just explained did not actually give any date for the domestication of maize...

In summary, I'm not fully certain when the non-heavily-disputed date for the domestication of maize is--nor for that matter if there is one--I'll have to do some more research and come back to this at a later date. However, I can say, that the information given on this page regarding the matter do not seem to line up with the citations used to support it. Thanks for reading, and hopefully some discussion that's not about the "Corn v. Maize" debate can be had based on this. Looking forward to anyone else's contributions!

Also: The link to source [16] seems to be dead, I managed to find an archived version of the same citation on the "Cradle of Civilization" page (Reference 160) via Wayback Machine, however I am not able to correct the citation on this page at this moment, as my account is too new: https://web.archive.org/web/20170102041940/https://teosinte.wisc.edu/pdfs/YV_Directional_Evol.pdf KJGinger (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding "also known as corn" to the short description

Hi,

Now that I see all this talk page, I understand why user:Julietdeltalima reverted my edit - adding to "also known as corn" to the short description. While there's no consensus on changing the article name, I suggest adding this detail. Short description appears in mobile apps while redirects, disambiguation, and not to be confused parts are not. This is one step towards consensus. RanR (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Pest section edit warring

Chiswick Chap, I'm a bit concerned the article has been nominated for GA when there's been reverts going on. One of the requirements of that process is that the article is stable. Earlier the Pests section title was changed to Pests and diseases in this edit.[63] claiming diseases aren't aren't categorized under pests, which doesn't fit the definition of pests. That's despite pathogens and the diseases they cause specifically being a type of pest or target of pest management in addition to insects, weeds, etc. When pests are discussed in academic sources, the main three are typically going to be weeds, pathogens, and insects.[64][65], and integrated pest management never is just about insects.[66] There are sometimes misconceptions out there that pests are only insects, so you'll usually see reminders in school materials that not all pests are insects.[67] Decades ago, entomology used to take up the bulk of the discussion when saying pest, but even 25 years ago in reviews about plant pathology, Most IPM programs reflect a package of tools and decision aids for individual crop insect, weed, nematode, and plant disease management.[68] Most definitions are very clear A pest can be a plant (weed), vertebrate (bird, rodent, or other mammal), invertebrate (insect, tick, mite, or snail), nematode, pathogen (bacteria, virus, or fungus) that causes disease, or other unwanted organism that may harm water quality, animal life, or other parts of the ecosystem.[69] The short of this is that this shouldn't be a point of controversy.

I pointed this out in my edit on Jan 8 hoping that took care of it. Instead, the edit was restored again claiming diseases are not pests on Jan 9.[70]. On Jan 11, I tried to bypass the issue by changing the title to Insects and diseases and specifically asking to come to this talk page if there was still confusion.[71] Instead, the title change was restored again[72] with no comment in edit summary or here, and the Insects section was also changed to the broader term pests creating more issues.[73]

At this point, I suggest just simply going back to the long-standing status quo of having the main section be Pests, followed by separate sections for Insects and Diseases (or Pathogens). There's work I plan to do on those sections, but the section titles being repeatedly changed significantly changes where that material would go. There's no harm in simply saying insect either, and trying to say pest only for that one group is going to create ambiguity. KoA (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've undone the nomination and will wait a while for stability. However, it is not right to claim that diseases are "pests", that is in no way a normal usage; plant disease specialists do not consider themselves to be in pest control. As for "insects", there are plenty of non-insect pests, so I'll at least add one or two now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources do consider that normal usage as I already mentioned, especially the Role of plant pathology in integrated pest management source I already cited above. Even the pest control article you link mentions diseases from fungal pathogens. As a sidenote, I'd get some odd looks if I walked over to our plant pathology dept. and said declared they no longer work on pests. Remember that fungicides, etc. are a type of pesticide. Again, I suggest undoing your change to the titling and restore it back to Pests until there's consensus for that kind of definition change.

Also, could you explain the removal of Various pests in this edit for the main section. Because we're talking about various pests such as pathogens, insects, etc. there doesn't seem to be a clear reason for removal and putting it just in the insect section. KoA (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

All right, let's just call it pests. That edit was simply in line with my view that pests are animals, nothing more. Since we now have mentions of numerous kinds that would make a mass of very short subsections, I've grouped them all as a single chapter, which also solves the messy layout of the leaf blight image. As for "further work" on the section, it is about as long as it should be for the level of detail of the rest of the article; if you intend to add more, it will make sense in Pests of maize with a "main" link as a subsidiary article. Indeed, I'd like to see a subsidiary article for every chapter of this major topic (History of maize, Maize breeding, Agronomy of maize, Maize in human culture, and so forth). Hope all this is fine with you now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that takes care of any issues I was seeing in that section in the recent changes. KoA (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't initially see the later comments, but as for additional work on the pest section, I have a few minor overview pieces of text and some updates on the corn borer/rootworm sentence I plan to do in the near future, but nothing that would significantly affect a GA nom. I do think the pest section has additional work needed that would remain in this article rather than a split, but that's content reaching for FA status rather than GA. KoA (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)