Talk:Maize

Template:Food portal selected

Maize vs. Corn controversy

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

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

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

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

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diseases on this page tend to have the name 'corn' in them, that the article still commonly refers to the plant by the outdated 'maize' term.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Maize Links:

Maize production in Queensland http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/cps/rde/dpi/hs.xsl/26_3491_ENA_HTML.htm

FUNGAL ENDOPHYTES OF MAIZE (United States Department of Agriculture) http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=410158

Maize Association of Australia http://www.maizeaustralia.com.au/

(Doktor Faustus (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)).

Zea or Zea Mays?

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

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

Propagation

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

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

Edit by 68.47.125.142

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

domestication and alkali treatment

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

Chicha

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

Sweet Chicha, which is maize flour and honey fermented in earthen pots, drunk in "totumas", is still made to this day since ancient times when it was considered sacred.

Since colonial times, chicha culture has suffered discrimination, prohibition and rejection by church and goverment parties, up to this day, because it is a strong bond to native culture and rural unity. In some places it is still used everyday, it was traditionally used in native religious and spiritual celebrations.

In some places of central america like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and south america like Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Panama and Colombia it is still used as a refreshing alcoholic beverage as well as a small meal, but the name and preparation of this fermented drink varies by location.

Maize chicha is drunk in large quantities at celebrations, which usually are native cultural events or rural festivals, sometimes about both, in these times, chicha is drunk all the time, and many times people drink continously until very drunk, in some cases, "finally" throwing up to "open up space" to continue drinking.

Some members of society, usually in groups, use various etheogens like mushrooms, mixed with the drink, to have visions and revelations. Those who have experienced it, say it is like a "spiritual voyage", because of the personal revelation experiences. These practices go back to Amerindian roots.

Chicha is not easy to make, it becomes sour if not consumed in the right moment, a type of vinegar is prepared this way.

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

Plastic

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

"corrected for solar variations"

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

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

Yield

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

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

Herbicides and pesticides

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

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

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

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

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

Economy of maize production

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

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

Efficiency of maize sunfall energy conversion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maize is a facultative long-night plant ?

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

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

Baby corn

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

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

Say what? Chicken butt?

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

'Sound Corn' and 'Port Corn'

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

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

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

Pronunciation.

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

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

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

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

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

"Criticism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footer?

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

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

Interwiki

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

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

Popular notions on Biomass corn use and the impact on prices

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

BC/AD vs BCE/CE

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

Plato

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corn life cycle?

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

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

Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corn redirect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allergy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a few more possibilities:

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

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

Cultivation in Europe

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

Calorific Values

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

Fix the corn - maize mess

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

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

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

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

Pronunciation guide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separate issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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