Talk:Prunus mume/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Prunus mei

According to the laws of the Republic of China, the species specified for the national emblem is the Prunus mei, seemingly an "alternative name" invented to avoid any association with Japan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's sourced, it should be added to the article. Did they invent that name? Siebold and Zuccarini (the authorities who gave the species its binomial name) lived hundreds of years ago. Badagnani (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The name is already in the article. The fact (?) that it was deliberately concocted to avoid any association from Japan is, however, not noted.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was speculating as to the reason for the concoction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of usages of various names in English

Based on the sources cited in the article and in this discussion:

• Prunus mume: standard scientific name.
  • Mume: alternative name used in Australian governmental and academic sources.
• Ume: Japanese name; secondary name in American English (Merriam-Webster); appears on product labels in North America.
• Plum: appears on Chinese/Taiwanese/Hong Kong product labels; Japanese-English translation [using online dictionaries, e.g. [1]. Can anyone please check a proper Japanese-English dictionary?]
  • Chinese plum: secondary Chinese-English translation (according to major Chinese-English dictionaries)
• Japanese apricot: primary name in American English (Merriam-Webster); name used in Australian governmental and academic sources.
• Mei: Chinese name; appears on labels of Chinese/Taiwanese/Hong Kongese products containing the fruit[2]
  • Chinese mei: primary Chinese-English translation (according to major Chinese-English dictionaries)
  • Prunus mei: species name as used by the Republic of China in the context of its national flower.

In a topic search (default search) for "prunus mume" on ISI Web of Knowledge I found 134 results; I refined the search within these 134 by further searching for the following names. These were the results:

• "Japanese apricot": 56
• "Japanese plum": 8 (two others used "Japanese plum" to refer to P. salicina)
• "Chinese apricot": 0 (one other used "Chinese apricot" to refer to other apricot cultivars grown in China)
• "Chinese plum": 0
• "plum": 13 (includes "Japanese plum" hits; three others use "plum" to refer to P. salicina)
• "mei": 14
• "ume": 15

Here is a sample of the title and citation for the first ten results that showed up among the 134:

• Title: S genotyping and S screening utilizing SFB gene polymorphism in Japanese plum and sweet cherry by dot-blot analysis; Author(s): Kitashiba H, Zhang SL, Wu J, et al.; Source: MOLECULAR BREEDING Volume: 21 Issue: 3 Pages: 339-349 Published: APR 2008
• Title: Application of omija (Schiandra chinensis) and plum (Prunus mume) extracts for the improvement of Kimchi quality; Author(s): Kim YS, Kim YS, Kim SY, et al.; Source: FOOD CONTROL Volume: 19 Issue: 7 Pages: 662-669 Published: JUL 2008
• Title: Genetic relatedness and genetic diversity of ornamental mei (Prunus mume Sieb. et Zucc.) as analysed by AFLP markers; Author(s): Yang CD, Zhang JW, Yan XL, et al.; Source: TREE GENETICS & GENOMES Volume: 4 Issue: 2 Pages: 255-262 Published: APR 2008
• Title: fAFLP markers to characterize three mume genotypes selected as rootstocks for peach tree; Author(s): Wickert E, Lemos EGDM, Pereira FM, et al.; Source: PESQUISA AGROPECUARIA BRASILEIRA Volume: 42 Issue: 12 Pages: 1741-1746 Published: DEC 2007
• Title: Identification of self-incompatibility (S-) genotypes of Chinese apricot cultivars; Author(s): Zhang LJ, Chen XS, Chen XL, et al.; Source: EUPHYTICA Volume: 160 Issue: 2 Pages: 241-248 Published: MAR 2008
• Title: Isolation and structural determination of squalene synthase inhibitor from Prunus mume fruit; Author(s): Choi SW, Hur NY, Ahn SC, et al.; Source: JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY Volume: 17 Issue: 12 Pages: 1970-1975 Published: DEC 2007
• Title: New anti-proliferative agent, MK615, from Japanese apricot "Prunus mume" induces striking autophagy in colon cancer cells in vitro; Author(s): Mori S, Sawada T, Okada T, et al.; Source: WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY Volume: 13 Issue: 48 Pages: 6512-6517 Published: DEC 28 2007
• Title: Fruit set after self-pollination at different floral stages and its relation to pollen-tube growth and stylar S-RNase content in Japanese apricot (Prunus mume Sieb. et Zucc.); Author(s): Du YH, Wu HQ, Zhang SL; Source: JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE & BIOTECHNOLOGY Volume: 82 Issue: 5 Pages: 786-790 Published: SEP 2007
• Title: Medicinal flowers. XVII. New dammarane-type triterpene glycosides from flower buds of American ginseng, Panax quinquefolium L.; Author(s): Nakamura S, Sugimoto S, Matsuda H, et al.; Source: CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL BULLETIN Volume: 55 Issue: 9 Pages: 1342-1348 Published: SEP 2007
  • (full text search did not reveal any mention of "Prunus", "ume", "mei", "plum" or "apricot". Suspect miscategorisation)
• Title: Micropropagation of six Prunus mume cultivars through axillary shoot proliferation, and issr analysis of cloned plants; Author(s): Ning GG, Fan XL, Huang WJ, et al.; Source: ACTA BIOLOGICA CRACOVIENSIA SERIES BOTANICA Volume: 49 Issue: 1 Pages: 25-31 Published: 2007

For your consideration, guys. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is excellent Wiki-research. My hat is off to you. Badagnani (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reply - Thanks! Much appreciated :) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, let me second Badagnani's comment. It takes a lot of time and intelligent searching to put together something like that. Bathrobe (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the New Age Chinese-English Dictionary, (1) 梅 is "Chinese mei flower or its tree (Prunus mume); Chinese plum". (2) 梅花 is "Chinese mei flower, Chinese plum flower". However, most entries just use "plum" (e.g., 青梅 "green plum").

Bathrobe (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For Japanese-English translation, Exceed Japanese-English Dictionary gives

《木》an ume [a plum] tree; 《花》an ume [a plum] blossom [flower]; 《実》an ume [a plum]; a Japanese apricot[3]

--Kusunose 08:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo for lead

I think it would be better to choose a more pink-colored blossom for the lead photo, as in East Asian art that's how it is usually depicted. There are a few here. Badagnani (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This one is particularly good, and if you look very closely, the face of this haegeum has a similar depiction. Badagnani (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are three photos of pink to red blossoms.

Let me know if you don't find what you want. I may have something useful. Fg2 (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In its intro, the article says "The flowers are typically white, ". So, some white ume sounds more appropriate to me. By the way, the 3rd one in the gallery above looks like sakura to me. -- Taku (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani asked for pink, so I uploaded pink. Got lots of white too. (I don't know how much I agree with the statement about typically being white.) The third one does look like sakura, doesn't it. But it was taken minutes later. I'm sure it's ume. Fg2 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment regarding the colors of the blossoms. Most ume I've seen have been varying shades of pink (very light to about the color of the darkest one above). Very few I saw were actually white. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Plums"

Out of curiosity, I checked out the article on plum. I find it very strange that "plum" is essentially defined as "a stone fruit tree in the genus Prunus, subgenus Prunus".

According to this definition, both apricots and ume are defined as "plums".

This is quite messy, because the normal language use of "plum" does not include apricots, and only marginally includes ume.

The article also includes various information on the plum blossom and the use of plums (ume) as food.

Bathrobe (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was move to Prunus mume per consensus and WP:NC(flora)--Yannismarou (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another case of where a vast consensus to move an article ran into the reality of WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE. The slight complication of some users proposing a split of the article (notice nothing was ever actually done about it) vetoed the wishes of a majority of users. User:CES summed up the results previous debate this way (copied from above):

• 1. Keep article at Ume (1 vote - Badagnani)
• 2. Move article to Prunus mume (7 votes - AjaxSmack, PalaceGuard008, Appletrees, Kusunose, CES, Rkitko, Jasy jatere)
• 3. "Split" article into one on Prunus mume plus another, with name to be determined ("Ume", "Japanese apricot", etc.) (3 votes - Fg2, Septentrionalis, Endroit)

Possibly using the "v-word" killed the nomination before so, against my better judgement, I'll try again. All previous participants will be notified.

Move request
Ume → Prunus mume — per WP:NC(flora): "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except... " for three situations that don't apply in this case. Although the zeal to title Wikipedia articles by their scientific names can be excessive, this is a textbook case of when the scientific name should be used: a single species with multiple English names. In addition, it has cultural significance in a number of Oriental countries and is known under a different name in each. See above here, here, and here for previous discussions.

Although there may be good arguments for article splits or other content changes, please focus on the move requested here of the article as it currently exists so as not to confuse the closing admin. — AjaxSmack 16:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in one of the sections below with #'''Support''' or #'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support

1. Support as nominator. — AjaxSmack 16:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support The Latin name is the most neutral one and avoids favouring one culture (Japanese, Koreans or Taiwanese) over another Jasy jatere (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support per WP:NC(flora) and neutrality. I don't see any good reasons not to move.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support It is odd that the page remains at the current name because in the previous RM, the majority of editors supported for move with reasonable rationales and argument. Anyways, the binominal name itself is from Japanese name, not hard to remember compared to Vaccinium vitis-idaea (lingonberry) and meets WP:NPOV.--Appletrees (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support as above; this does not come under the exceptions of WP:NC(flora). Subarticles for such products as plum blossom still make sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support move to prunus mume per WP:NC(flora). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support per my previous arguments. Thanks for bringing this up again ... I grew tired of the digressions and had given up on this issue! CES (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support move to Prunus mume per WP:NC(flora). Kusunose 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support, partly because I admire the proposer's sense of humour but mainly because I agree with them on all counts. Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Need to move to a non-contentious name. Botanical name is an acceptable name as per Wikipedia policies. I believe the article could eventually be split into three (with separate articles on the flower and the fruit), but this should be regarded as the next step for consideration. At this stage, the general article on this plant, its flowers, and its fruit should be moved to Prunus mume. Bathrobe (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support for above reasons and because it commonly appears as such in commerce (probably because they don't want to fight the naming battle either). Mangoe (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I think that given the amount of space devoted to cultural significance in this article, relative to the amount devoted to botanical/scientific information, it makes sense to not push for the article to be named "Ume". As long as "ume" remains a redirect to here, I guess it doesn't matter. As it stands now, based on its content, this is far from a Japan-centric article, and should be named according to the standards appropriate to trees (i.e. WikiProject Botany or whatever). Maybe if someone wants to come along and write a good lengthy article on the significance of ume in Japanese art and culture, then maybe we can call that article "ume" or "Cultural significance of ume" or something like that.

In any case, tiptoeing around people's nationalistic sensitivities, and playing into political correctness is far more important on Wikipedia than doing what's common sense ("ume" being the common name for the tree, its blossoms, and its fruit, everywhere except in the Chinese/Taiwanese, Korean, and Vietnamese contexts, or at the very least a more common name than any one of the countless variations on Japanese plum, Asian apricot, Chinese plum, etc.). I can practically guarantee that if I used the word "prunus" in my Japanese history, art history, or language classes, or in regular everyday conversation with anyone, Japanese or English-speaking, they'd be confused and have no idea what I'm talking about. But, I'm leaving this as a comment and not a "vote" because I just don't care enough anymore to put up with the endless debates. (Note that I'm still on Wikibreak.) Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like you can easily prove ume is being used as the most widely used name in English speaking world. If you can, please do, but given the all info above, the word is only found in one abridged dictionary. For a similar example, I can't imagine that lingonberry, most staple fruit in Scandinavian culture being sold as Vaccinium vitis-idaea jam or sauce in English speaking world and people understand what it is or how to pronounce it, (I'm a big fan of the fruit), but the article here is named as such. You know the reason why.--Appletrees (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"...Playing into political correctness is far more important on Wikipedia than doing what's common sense ("ume" being the common name for the tree, its blossoms, and its fruit, everywhere except..." Trust me, if this were true, I would never have proposed this move. However, as User:Appletrees points out, there is no evidence from the copious previous discussions that ume is the most common English name. (I would nominate Japanese apricot for that position). With so many names and none predominating, this is exactly what WP:NC(flora) was devised to deal with. — AjaxSmack 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ume may well be the most common name for the sauce, or for other preparations of the fruit - not umeboshi, however; the liquor is commonly plum wine in English. But this is why WP:NC (flora) recommends subarticles for such prducts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above responses. I have seen no convincing evidence that a common English name even exists. I'm sure most people have never heard of "prunus mume", but I also doubt that the average English speaker (except those having familiarity with the Japanese culture) has heard of an ume, and most people would think the "mei flower" brought pilgrims from Europe. I see no problem with using the culture-specific terms (ume, mei, etc.) in subsections of this page or in related pages (e.g. umeboshi) but I think it is unfair to say political correctness is behind the rationale for this consensus. CES (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please actually read above discussion before commenting here, thanks.

see link; see link; see link; see link; see link; see link; see link; see link; see link; see link. Badagnani (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (Merriam-Webster, 2002, http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com) suggests "Japanese apricot" as the primary English name and "ume" as a secondary English name. ("Prunus mume" is not even listed.) ::::::Here are the 2 definitions given for ume and Japanese apricot respectively:

• Main Entry: ume

JAPANESE APRICOT

• Main Entry: japanese apricot

a Japanese ornamental tree (Prunus mume) with fragrant white or pink flowers and yellow fruits somewhat smaller than those of the common apricot Badagnani (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We've already had this conversation. This is exactly why this discussion went nowhere last time. The consensus is clear, let's move the page. CES (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean you prefer voting *before*, or *instead of*, reading and commenting on the actual sources? That doesn't seem a correct way to proceed at a project that is supposed to be tended to by thoughtful individuals operating with the utmost care and consideration for the facts of the articles we write .Badagnani (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither. This issue has been discussed to death by you, me, and others. Virtually all of the people who have voted in the most recent poll have contributed to the discussion previously. I admire your tenacity in trying to keep this page at "ume", but it's time to move this page and move on. CES (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary of the above editor was highly inflammatory, dismissive, and un-Wikipedian, as have been the previous comments that show s/he has not actually read the sources before commenting. Badagnani (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I call them as I see them ... I have little patience for people who repeat their arguments and expect a new response each time. I've actively participated in this lengthy discussion over the last few months, so I don't know why you keep suggesting otherwise. Your attempt to support common usage through a collection of random links has been dealt with before (see PalaceGuard008's March 27 comment above). I did find the article titled "Ume (Japanese Apricot)-Induced Small Bowel Obstruction with Chronic Radiation Enteritis" quite amusing, however. I might now be persuaded that "ume" is the common usage in the case of prunus mume-induced small bowel obstructions. But seriously, the support for moving this page is overwhelming ... let's move on. CES (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I direct you to "Requested move April 2008," just above, in which light the editor just above apparently expects "a new response each time." I'm very familiar with "relisters" who are unsatisfied with actual sources, but who simply relist an article again and again, hoping that previous voters will fail to show up the next time, so that s/he may eventually get his/her way. Making strange jokes rather than actually addressing sources (which were very carefully chosen, and not random), does not bolster your credibility. Badagnani (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you'd like to be addressed since you gave no rationale for your interesting collection of "sources". What is there to discuss that hasn't already been addressed? You were the only user to oppose the page move then, you appear to be the only user to oppose the page move now ... the only debate then was whether new pages should be spun off to deal with cultural and other issues. AjaxSmack has nipped that opportunity for digression in the bud ("Although there may be good arguments for article splits or other content changes, please focus on the move requested here of the article as it currently exists so as not to confuse the closing admin.") and the voting is much clearer this time (and not fundamentally different from last time). I have nothing new to add; you seem to have nothing new to add. I have responded to your baits more times than I should have: anything else will only serve to confuse whoever closes the voting. I have nothing further to say unless a substantive issue is raised. CES (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The links given are mostly not convincing in support of ume.

4 don't use the name ume, they use "ume plum".

2 use the term "ume fruit", which suggests that ume by itself will not be associated with a fruit. It's like saying "pear fruit" or "apple fruit".

2 are menus which make liberal use of Japanese words like saba, tako, ika, etc. In fact, one menu actually says: "Ume Maki-Plum".

1 is by Japanese researchers and puts "Japanese Apricot" in parentheses, presumably to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.

1 uses terms like "umeboshi plum" as well as "ume", and in many cases there is an explanation underneath to ensure that people understand the meaning (e.g. "Umeboshi Paste 6 oz Glass Jar - Japanese Pickled Plum Puree".

From these examples, the word ume does not appear to be sufficiently established in English-language usage to be understood without explanation outside a very narrow context.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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