Talk:Prunus mume/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Plum or apricot?

Aren't ume plums, and not apricots? Also, what is the difference in making ume-juice and ume-shu?

Yes, but apricots are plums too, so are peaches, if we are to stick to scientific classification. Ume-shu is alcoholic. — Zeimusu | Talk 00:42, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Ume is often called Japanese plum in English but it is actually of Chinese origin and a kind of apricot. On the other hand sumomo (Prunus salicina Lindl.) is also called Japanese plum and it is plum. --163.139.215.193 17:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Plum" is a not a species specific word, it could apply to any of the Prunus genus except the laurals. Ume are not apricots (P. armeniaca), nor are they true plums (P. domestica). Certainly they are closly related to both. Ume may be more closely related to P. armenica (this could be noted if true), but to call them apricots is wrong and misleading. Sumomo are also Chinese according to ja.wikipedia) Zeimusu | (Talk page) 05:54, 6 June 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page needs to be split, the recipe needs to be moved to wiki cookbook, and the introduction needs to be expanded to mention range, season, ecolology and human uses: decorative, pharmecutical, and for eating. see also umeboshi, which also needs to be taken to the cook book — Zeimusu | Talk 00:42, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Ive created a sumomo article, it needs work.

Someone just added in a sentence stating that Moy Yat lineage Wing Chun uses a red plum blossom as its symbol. Does that really fit there in that paragraph? It seems out of place. Kind of cuts the flow a bit. Maybe we can add it on that last sentence after the paragraph? Actually many martial art schools use the plum blossom as a symbol, but it is well known with many Wing Chun lineages. Ponsau (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This article vs Plum

Can someone clarify the link/difference between this article and Plum, both here and there? This article presently says that the Ume is a form of "asian plum". But the plum article does not meantion the word "mei/ume" at all.

I've posted this here because obviously there are people who know a lot about this species of the plum.

Also, the "plum" article keeps talking about the Republic of China's national flower being the "plum blossom". However, would it not be more accurately the "mei" blossom? Should that information be excised and perhaps moved to this article instead? Or should it be clarified over at plum? --Sumple (Talk) 12:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing. This article covers a species of Prunus native to East Asia: Prunus mume (known as ume in Japanese, maesil in Korean, and mei in Chinese).

Although it's referred to as a "plum," the ume is apparently more closely related to the apricot (another Prunus species) than to the European plums.

The blossom in Taiwan is mei/Prunus mume so that change should be made in the plum article. There are other plums grown in China and other East Asian countries, including European plums and li/sumomo. If you have more questions, just ask. Badagnani 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yabai and hibai

If the names "yabai" and "hibai" translate as "ume" then why isn't it "ya-ume" or "hi-ume"? What does "bai" mean? This should be explained and hiragana/kanji given. Badagnani 17:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "bai" is another reading of 梅.

• yabai 野梅 やばい
• hibai 緋梅 ひばい

"Bai" is mainly used in compound words (jukugo), not usually by itself. So you can say "Bai means ume" but I don't think you can say "Ume is also called bai". Does that make sense? --163.139.215.193 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

The article is written in a very Japanese-POV way. The article seems to take Ume as a Japanese flower (for example, all the names are given only in Japanese. "Cultural significance refers only to its significance in Japan"), while actually it originates in China and is the national emblem for the Republic of China. I suggest the article be re-written so that its significance in both the Chinese and Japanese culture can be expressed. Aran|heru|nar 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article again? Every section discusses something about this fruit vis-a-vis China and/or Taiwan. We can't help that the best known name in English, like many other foods, is the Japanese name, but the Chinese origin of this fruit, as well as Chinese uses of it, are certainly already acknowledged in the article. If you can be specific about the POV you see in each paragraph, we'll take it from there, but your criticism is vague as it stands now. Badagnani 05:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

E.g. this paragraph:

"Ume juice is extracted by preserving the fruits in sugar. It tastes sweet and acidic, and is a refreshing drink, often enjoyed in the summer. In Korea, maesil juice, which is marketed as a healthful tonic, is enjoying increasing popularity. Umeshu (梅酒, sometimes translated as "plum wine") is a Japanese alcoholic drink made by steeping green ume in shochu (燒酎, clear liquor). It is sweet and smooth. The taste and aroma of ume-shu can appeal to even those people who normally dislike alcohol. A similar liquor in Korea, called maesilju, is marketed under various brand names including mae hwa su, and mae chui soon.

Umeboshi 梅干 are pickled ume. Flavoured with salt and purple shiso (perilla) leaves, they are red in color and quite salty and sour, and therefore eaten sparingly. Umeboshi are generally eaten with rice as part of a bento."

Ume juice is rarely seen in China and is popular in Japan, and yet it makes only one small reference to the country it actually refers to. "Often enjoyed in the summer" is not only POV for a country, but is POV as a whole, and so is "can appeal to even those people who normally dislike alcohol". Thanks.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. I was just in a local Chinese supermarket (in Cleveland, Ohio, USA) and there were several brands of China-produced "mei" (梅) juice (both smoked and unsmoked) in plastic bottles and canned. The summer reference you mention can probably be fixed with one or two added words like "in Japan." I still don't see what the problem is, and you're free to add to the article to make it more descriptive of Chinese and Taiwanese uses of the fruit. Badagnani 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Another example is that it states its uses and significance in Japan first and foremost, without even mentioning which country it refers to, and then add "Also in China" at the end of the sentence, e.g. "The tree was also well loved and celebrated in China", "it is also the national flower of the Republic of China)".Aran|heru|nar 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be too hard to fix. Do you agree that the fruit is more popular in Japan (and Korea) than it is in China? If not, then it should be balanced somehow. Badagnani 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Is there "mei" liquor in China or Taiwan? Badagnani 07:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Mei/Ume is more popular in Japan than in China. Mei is one of the traditional four flowers of China, and its significance is immense (i.e. it is mentioned many times in Shijing). Ume is probably more well-known in English as the US tends to import a lot of Japanese merchandise after WWII. By the way, the Mei blossom symbolizes nobleness and being "men of honour" (君子) in Chinese culture [1]. Some also deemed it lucky [2], and it has, probably in the modern era, been used to symbolize revolution and struggle [3].

All of this is interesting and important information. You should add it into the article. Probably whoever wrote most of the article was a Japanophile, and knew most about Japan but not much about China, like you do. So we all can strengthen articles from the knowledge we have. Badagnani 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added some information concerning it being a symbol for nobleness, though I don't yet have an English source that can be put there. Thanks for the work. Aran|heru|nar 07:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a little more information. I've tried to make the opening more balanced by listing the Jap, Chn, and Kor names in parallel. I've put the Japanese name first because that seems the most common name by which the fruit is known in English. I've also made some other edits to make sentences sound more universal in tone. --Sumple (Talk) 10:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, guys. There's a minor problem - half the "梅" in the article links to Wiktionary (while half doesn't). Don't you think one link is enough? Or should we link every Chinese word to a Wiktionary? It seems strange we're just linking some of them (randomly).

Another thing - aren't Umeboshi and Huamei sometimes called "prune" in English? Should we include the word along with a link? Aran|heru|nar 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A few things: 1) I think the additional "mei" wikilinks were for words containing "mei" like "wumei," or "maesil," or whatever. You're right, a wikilink for "mei" should probably appear just once in the first instance, but it looks funny in a multi-character word like "wumei" to just wikilink one of the characters. 2) I never heard umeboshi or huamei called "prune" in English. Where did you see that translation? 3) a question: do Chinese make any kind of "mei" wine or liquor or is it just Japanese and Koreans that do this? One does see something called "plum wine" in North American Chinese restaurants, but I think it's usually a Japanese-produced thing, not so much for Chinese tastes. Badagnani 06:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the plum liquor question: I've seen/read about plum wine or plum liquor mentioned in books and tv shows set in ancient China. I don't know how widespread that was, though. In the Romance of the Three Kingdoms there's a famous scene between Cao Cao and Liu Bei which involved plums and wine - but separately - the plum, I think, was eaten while drinking wine. In any case, I've never seen made-in-China plum wine here in Australia - usually they are Korean-made.

On the prune question - I thought prunes are preserved plums - the other kind. They certainly look different. --Sumple (Talk) 09:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Osmanthus/chrysanthemum

The article says that Chinese mei juice is commonly flavored with guihua (Sweet Osmanthus) flowers. But photos on the Internet show juhua (chrysanthemum) flowers floating in cups of what appears to be boiled wumei. Can chrysanthemum thus be added to the article in this context? Also, isn't wumei boiled (sometimes along with red hibiscus flowers) to create a refreshing drink? This should be clarified as it's not only for medicinal purposes, and the "sour plum juice" then wouldn't really be a juice, but a kind of herbal tea, as it's made from boiling dried plums. Thanks in advance for your expertise with these questions. Badagnani 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I guess so. Sour plum juice is probably a tea rather than a juice. I've never tried (seen) mei/plum juice with chrysanthemum. Osmanthus flavoured plum juice/soup/tea is darker than the one in the picture - it's more of a Coke colour. Could be different regional varieties. --Sumple (Talk) 09:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I just tried some of that dark-colored osmanthus/mei juice and wanted that photo for the article but none of the ones I found were as good or clear as the light-colored juice photo I ended up adding. I described the color of the dark one as "purplish-black" or something like that. Badagnani 09:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what appears to be a photo of wumei tea with floating juhua flowers. Is that traditional? http://info.agri.hc360.com/zt/050622/index.shtml Badagnani 09:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The weird thing is if you click on the photo of the wumei tea with juhua, you get a closeup photo of what looks like yangmei, not wumei! http://info.agri.hc360.com/2005/06/23091413194.shtml Badagnani 09:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha. I wonder what happened there? Pretty sure yangmei is something else entirely.... --Sumple (Talk) 10:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

At the time the plant was introduced to Japan and the name borrowed, the Chinese pronunuciation would not have been the modern méi. I have added a reconstructed pronunciation given in Kodansha's 『語源辞典』(山口佳紀, ed.) --RJCraig 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that the pronunciation is similar to the Cantonese pronunciation. Cantonese and Korean seem to retain many of the old Chinese pronunciations, including those with consonant endings. Badagnani 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't go ahead and hazard a guess at Old or Middle Chinese because of the missing date of introduction. Since someone else had already quoted the modern Chinese there, I just put it in parentheses. But I felt the section was misleading as it was originally.

I don't know very much Cantonese or Korean, but your observation chimes with my own. Probably has something to do with the greater phonetic inventory in those languages? Modern Japanese is a bit poor in that respect! --RJCraig 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Prunus?

I don't accept the current assertion in the article that "Ume" is the "most common" name by which that fruit is known in English. If you try a google search of Ume, the only results which are actually about the fruit/tree is this Wikipedia article, and a few websites about Japan which tend to parenthesise Ume after "Japanese Plum".

By contrast, either "Chinese plum" or "Chinese plum" bring up many more relevant results. Also, I'm reading Yu Zhuoyun's Palaces of the Forbidden City (great book, btw, if anyone's interested in that kind of thing. very big and heavy too, so worth your money in paper) (Viking:New York, 1984; Chinese version: Commercial Press:Hong Kong, 1982), and it refers to this plant as "Prunus". I wonder how common is that usage in English? --Sumple (Talk) 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's extremely widely known in English as "ume" (particularly in its use in "umeboshi," or translated as "Japanese pickled plums," which are well known in health food stores and in the macrobiotic diet), as well as related items such as ume maki suchi and umeboshi vinegar. Chinese fresh "mei" aren't generally available and the pickled and/or dried versions are not well known among the general population, nor are Korean "maesil." "Chinese plum" can refer to li (李) as well and isn't the most commonly used name in English to refer to this fruit. "Prunus" is a Latin name and would be used to refer to the species as a whole by botanists. We don't usually refer to dogs as "canis," for example. Badagnani 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you supply some evidence that "ume" is commonly used in North America as you claim? The use of "ume" in "umeboshi" etc is a different matter because that refers to a specific product. As used in English, umeboshi is a single word and not separable into "ume" and "boshi" parts. To give an analogy, that "bonzai" is the common English name for dwarf shrubbery does not mean that "bon" is the common English name for pots.

In my experience, the fruit or tree is usually referred to as "Chinese plum" or "Japanese plum", and I think a Google search bears that out. Li (李) by contrast is usually just "plum", not "Chinese plum".

To start you off, ume does not appear in the Macquarie Dictionary, which is authority for Australian English, nor does it appear in the Oxford English Dictionary nor any of the Oxford English Dictionaries, which are authority for British and Commonwealth English. --Sumple (Talk) 02:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good discussion (and good recent edits on your part). As I stated earlier, the plant is known in North American mainly through its Japanese version: umeboshi and related products. Eden Foods, perhaps the largest marketer of Prunus mume products in North America, uses "ume plum" (see link; see link; see link; see link; see link; see link; see link. In the general North American population, "li" is not generally just called "plum" as you say; the European variety of plum (which is commercially available for most of the year, either grown here or in Chile) is the one that's just called "plum." The "li," in fact, is virtually unknown and is only usually available in candied form in Chinese grocery stores; most North Americans have never heard of this species. The "mei" (Chinese variety) and "maesil" (Korean variety) in their Chinese and Korean forms are generally known only among those communities in North America (available only in Chinese and Korean markets) and among those who are friends with or married to Chinese or Koreans. Chinese and Korean plum wine is similarly generally unknown, but Japanese-produced plum wine is well known (although it is usually called "plum wine" rather than "umeshu"). So, like many other food products, at least in North America (and I assume also in the UK and Australia/Oceania) "ume" is the most commonly used term. Badagnani 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a revelation. We do find Chinese plums (i.e. li) here in Australia. What's more, plum wine here is usually a Korean thing - although it is also called "plum wine" and rarely as "maesilju".

Umeboshi and other Japanese ume products are virtually unknown - perhaps reflecting the fact that there isn't a significant Japanese population here compared to in North America, whereas there are large Korean and Chinese communities. I think you can find umeboshi in health food stores. But by far the most common ume-derived product is plum sauce - which of course is a Chinese thing - but it is just called plum sauce.

Anyway, thanks for the info. I feel though these things need reliable references rather than anecdotal evidence in the article. --Sumple (Talk) 11:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? That's fascinating. So there are some significant differences. I've never been to Australia though I play in an Australian bush band here in Ohio! When you speak of knowledge and availability of li, you're speaking of the general Australian population, not just those who are immersed in East Asian immigrant cultures there? So you say that the li is well known--are there li trees and fresh li fruit available? That's definitely not the case in North America. Probably a sentence or two about the differences in Australia could be added, as another significant English-speaking nation (one that is on the Pacific Rim and thus with a heavy East Asian influx). Badagnani 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, wow, Australian culture spreads far and wide.

I'm not sure how well know is the li, but it is definitely available as a fresh fruit in mainstream markets. I'm not sure but it might be imported like Ya pear, which is also (perhaps much more) widely available.

(after a Google search) In fact, it says here that Japanese plums (Prunus salicina) and Asian plums (Prunus simonii) are grown in Western Australia, with Japanese plums dominating stonefruit orchards! --Sumple (Talk) 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's really incredible. I've never seen either mei nor li fresh anywhere. It's a shame because many of the Asian fruits will grow here; one of my favorites is the loquat and I've only seen one such tree, in Tallahassee, Florida. More traditional (read: less sweet) ume shu and maesil ju (with whole green fruits inside) are beginning to show up in non-Asian liquor stores, so there's one thing that's beginning to become better known here. Question: is Chinese "plum sauce" made from "mei"? It always just says "plum" in the ingredients, so I always assumed it was the Western large purple/reddish plum that was used. Here is my band's website, in case you want to have a laugh. Our accents need some work, I suppose. Badagnani 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Aisan plum sauce: I think it is, because it's called meizijiang ("mei fruit sauce/paste"). The European plum is usually called yangli ("foreign li"), or sometimes just li.

Nice site. And wow, you're very multi-talented! =D --Sumple (Talk) 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, OK, so meizijiang needs to be added to the "Ume" article, then, and probably merits its own article. By the way, are you of Chinese heritage? You're obviously into Asian culinary things, so might I ask if you could check out my additions to Buddha's delight and see if it fits with what you know about this dish? There are some good Chinese articles I've linked that have good source info, particularly on the Guangdong version of this dish, but I'm not sure I'm interpreting it correctly. Badagnani 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One more question: do you know the fruit yangmei? I'm trying to get it in the Asian grocery store but although I've seen it before (in a bottle, whole fruits immersed in a reddish liquid) none of the stores seem to have it now. I'd like to try it. Just picked up some canned longans today. Badagnani 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question: is duck sauce different from plum sauce? In my experience, it is: duck sauce is apricot- or peach-based and light orange in color, whereas plum sauce is a deep purplish brown, and not as translucent. If different, we should eliminate the redirect from plum sauce to duck sauce and make a plum sauce article. Please check the addition to Ume where I added about plum sauce and make sure it's accurate. Badagnani 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! I've also had a look at Buddha's delight but I don't know much about the dish, so can't really contribute ther. I am of Chinese heritage; I'm enthusiastic about food in general and Asian food in particular, as I see you are too!

Yangmei: in my experience yangmei is usually sold fresh (when in season), bottled/canned (the version you saw: it was probably sugar water, the red colour being from the strong natural colour of the fruit), or preserved or dried.

I doubt you'd be able to get fresh ones. If you can't get canned/botted ones, see if you can find foil bagged ones, which are close to being fresh - they should be sold alongside the non-dry variety of Huamei (preserved ume).

There might also be dried versions - sometimes they are sugar coated. These might be near the dry variety of Huamei.

I don't really know what "duck sauce" is; I don't think we use that name here. But I agree with you that the sauce served with roast duck is sometimes the light orange kind. More later. --Sumple (Talk) 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

rename?

I propose that this article be at Prunus Mume or Chinese Plum. The fact that "In North America, the fruit and tree are generally known by the Japanese name, ume." seems to ignore that the majority of English-speakers, who are outside North America, don't know it by the Japanese name. InfernoXV 09:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe they do. Badagnani 10:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Think we've been through this many times. I don't believe ume is generally the common English name - I think "Japanese plum" or "Chinese plum" or just "plum" is more common. But the problem is a lack of verifiable sources. We can't just debate on anecdotal evidence. I think the article should stay put until there are enough reliable sources to indicate something else (other than ume) is the common English name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a Wikipedia guideline ([4]) that says plant species should be found under their scientific name. In fact, the guideline says: "Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Example: coffee. Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships. Example: Coffea. Perhaps it could be moved to Prunus mume, as suggested above to break the deadlock over "Chinese" or "Japanese" ownership. (Actually, a lot of this is modern-day nationalism. Before modern nationalities started fighting over the spoils, East Asia was one cultural area.)

Bathrobe (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your opinion.--Appletrees (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The fruit is commonly known in English as ume--primarily in its use as umeboshi (pickled ume), as well as umeboshi vinegar and ume makizushi (a type of sushi). This is similar to the English use of the term enoki mushroom, tofu, nori, or other similar foods, which do exist in other East Asian countries, but which came into the cuisines of English-speaking nations via Japanese, and often specifically macrobiotic cuisine. "Chinese plum" is not used in English-speaking regions and "Japanese plum" is confusing and misleading because that can refer to Prunus salicina. In fact, the term "ume plum" is sometimes used in marketing in English-speaking regions, but "Japanese plum" is misleading because the ume is closer to an apricot than a plum--and the Asian plum is Prunus salicina. Badagnani (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Bathrobe's proposal. It is both NPOV and consistent. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline I gave above leaves a lot of leeway for both practices (one article on the botanical species, one article on the fruit), and thus, of course, plenty of room for further disputes :)

Let me make another suggestion. Try a Google search for each English-speaking country and see what kind of results you get. For instance, this search: [5]

You'll notice that 'ume' is definitely used in Australia, as well as 'ume plum', 'umeboshi plum', and 'mume'. But there are only 320 hits for 'ume plum'. Try a similar search on, say, "Japanese plum" and "Chinese plum", as well as "Prunus mume". A look around will also reveal usages like "Japanese apricot" and "winter plum". :) See this article: [6], although it's already 9 years old and may not represent the state of affairs at the moment. (I say this because these things are fast-moving. To cite an example, when I went to Japan in 1975, I'd never heard of or tried Japanese nashi pears. So I naturally translated nashi just as 'pear'. Fast-forward 20 years, and I found that Australian TV fruit market reports were calling them 'nashi pears'. So things can change. It just needs a kind of fruit to catch on under a certain name and all the previous names that were used for it become sidelined. (A prime example is the speed with which "kiwifruit" ousted "Chinese gooseberry").

At any rate, a few country-specific Internet searches might give you a better idea of what the usage is -- nothing definitive, but at least a basis for discussion that is a bit better than "I say it's called this in English!", "Not in my country, mate!" exchanges.

Also try this page: [7]

Bathrobe (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been looking around (Irish, UK, Indian, Philippine, New Zealand, Australian Google), and my second suggestion only reveals more confusion.

I do suspect that Badagnani is right. Perhaps 'ume' is the most widespread name for the fruit. But this tree is about more than just fruit. It's also familiar to people who like growing trees. What you call 'ume' in the supermarket might be called 'Japanese flowering apricot' in your plant nursery. And of course, 'plum sauce' and 'plum liqueur' are always there to remind us that the fruit is also known as 'plum'.

So perhaps we should revert to my original suggestion. Call the article Prunus mume. All the other names, including ume, mume, Japanese apricot, umeboshi plum, Japanese flowering apricot, winter plum (or is this 寒梅?) can redirect there. What do people think?

One other point: I think that we need to add a section on English names at the article - not Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese. Oriental language names could be put in a table at the top right-hand corner, under the photo.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's really a naming conflict issue, where we have no reliable sources as to the common name of the thing. Does the scientific name count as an "official" name for the purposes of WP:NCON? If so then the article should be there, with all other names redirected to it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, there is a Wikipedia guideline for plant species ([8]) suggesting the use of the scientific name. In this sense, Prunus mume certainly does count as an official name for the tree. The main problem is that Prunus mume is also significant economically or culturally, which entitles it to a page describing its use, history and associations, with the common name as a page title. But since there are so many common names, spanning several cultures, finding an acceptable one is not easy. Badagnani feels that in the US, at least, 'ume' is the name we want if we're referring to the fruit and things like umeboshi or umeshu. But there are enough other names for the tree, the fruit, and products made from it, that it's hard to say definitively that ume stands head and shoulders above the rest.

At any rate, I still feel that:

(1) The article should be moved to Prunus mume

(2) It should give greater coverage to the variety of names that are used for the tree and the fruit in English. That includes mume, Japanese apricot, Chinese plum, Japanese plum, and even umeboshi plum. In that sense, 'ume' is definitely one of the names that should be listed, because it is at this stage largely accepted as an English-language name. Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese names, on the other hand, are not yet English-language names for the tree and don't need to be listed here.

(3) There should be a list of names for the tree in those countries where it is culturally significant -- Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese. Chinese should come first in the list as the name in all these languages originally came from Chinese. However, this list of names shouldn't be given in the text itself; it should form a list at the side.

What I'm proposing is the scientific name as neutral ground, broader coverage of names in English to make it an English-language centred article, and good coverage of names in languages where it is culturally significant. Is this a valid compromise? Bathrobe (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As an addition to what I said above, I think that the conflict over which country the tree and the fruit "belong" to is misplaced. The trend of the discussion appears to be one of displeasure that ume should be used as the English name of the fruit when it actually "belongs" to China. This leads to everyone piling in to list their language's name for the ume -- if we're going to have ume we should have méizi. If we're going to have meizi, why not maesil? If maesil, why not mai and mơ? So all these foreign names get listed in the article on the principle that none should be discriminated against.

A similar nationalistic sentiment underlies the claim that "Chinese plum" is more appropriate. What most protesters seem to agree on is that the Japanese aspect shouldn't have prominence.

This seems to me a completely mistaken approach. What we should be doing is presenting information that is interesting to the visitor and enriches his/her experience and knowledge. Rather than crying foul that the Japanese name is being treated as standard (in fact, compared to other Asian names, the Japanese name is standard for many people in English), the article should be leading to new discoveries. So when someone looks up ume, let him/her think "Wow, I didn't realise that the ume originally came from China!" "Wow, I didn't know that the ume in umeboshi is the same as the plums in Chinese plum sauce!" "Wow, I didn't realise the Japanese plum was actually a kind of apricot!" "Wow! I didn't realise that the fruit on the Japanese flowering apricot in my garden is the same ume you can buy in the market!" "Wow, I didn't realise that plum wine comes from a tree that's regarded in the Orient as a symbol of resilience and perseverance in the face of adversity!" Etc. Instead of competing to prove who the tree and the fruit belong to, we should be effortlessly directing people to a greater knowledge of the ume as a whole, and a greater knowledge of these cultures as a whole. The fact that people come to this article when they're looking up ume or "Japanese apricot" or whatever else shouldn't be an issue. If people come in through that channel, what's important is that they should come away with a deeper understanding of the tree, the fruit, and its cultural significance in general.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse your proposal for treating the various names.

On the second point, personally, I still don't think ume is the standard English name - cultural differences, if you will. If I'm talking about the tree or the fruit, I'd just call it "plum". If there's confusion, I'd call it "Chinese plum", "Japanese plum" or "Asian plum", or even "an apricot that's kind of like a plum". If I need to mention foreign language names, I'd call it mei. The name ume would only ever crop up if I was talking to someone who knows Japanese well, or in the context of explaining umeboshi. However, I do accept that ume is probably a commonly used name in some communities, e.g. in North America, where there is a much larger concentration of Japanese people, language, and culture. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia is, of course, not technically a "source", but if you look at [9] it says: 在西方，常把梅、李和杏而混淆，常以「plum」一词翻譯梅，但此字實為李，其正式名稱多稱作「Japanese apricot」或「ume」，ume是梅在日语中的发音，据傳这是因为梅是从日本介绍到西方的。

Bathrobe (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious about how it says it is "commonly" translated as "plum" but the "official" name is "Japanese apricot or ume". Especially the "official" bit. Sorry, but the Chinese wikipedia, when it comes to plants and animals, is too often a mangled translation of the English. That said, the comment about "plum" being a common but inaccurate translation accords with my experience. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the page, mainly to add the large variety of English names that is found. I've merged this with the former Etymology section.

I'm sure that it needs some fine-tuning, but overall I think it's an improvement. It does leave up in the air, however, what we should use as the "main" name. It would be nice to decide on one or two widely accepted names for the intro, and put all the alternative names in the "Names" section. But as that's the main bone of contention, I suspect that there might be a bit more moving around before everyone's happy.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move April 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 no consensus. One month has passed since the proposed move was originally requested and this is definitely one of the "livelier" WP:RM-related discussions of 2008 so far. There is a consensus that something needs to be done, but what that should be remains unclear. Some say to move, some say to split. At this point, the best solution appears to be to leave the article where it is, and if it ends up blossoming into two separate articles, so be it. JPG-GR (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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 and here for previous discussions. —— AjaxSmack 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey April 2008

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

• Keep at Ume. English name of this fruit, as has been pointed out. It's equivalent to tofu, bonsai, or karate. Badagnani (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The usual common name outside of Asia is Japanese apricot. Inside Asia, it's only known as ume in Japanese contexts. As the national flower of Taiwan, it's not called ume. — AjaxSmack 08:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Move. "Ume" as an English name is a regionalism. Everyone calls it "plum", "Chinese plum", "Korean plum", "Japanese plum", or "Asian plum" where I come from. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It's not a plum. Badagnani (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - whether it is actually a plum in a technical sense is irrelevant to the question of the common name for the fruit. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - There is a Chinese plum, and it is called li. Badagnani (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - Yes and that again is irrelevant to the question of what people are calling Prunus mume. Li is just called "plum" here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Move per the above extensive discussion. --Appletrees (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. While the points above are well taken, no one commonly calls it Prunus mume, and as it says on the WP:NC(flora) page, Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Speaking from the point of view of Japanese culture, not just common everyday modern culture, such as umeshu or even blossom viewing or the like, but also from the point of view of art history, literature, and poetry, I think it arguable that ume is just as significant culturally as sakura, which is listed as such and is not a redirect. LordAmeth (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Maehwa, a flower of Prunus mume in Korean has taken as much significant part in Korea as in Vietnam and Japan. The flower is not as much important as the cherry flower in Japan as far as I know. (I also object the article of cherry blossom named "sakura".) You're totally speaking for Japanese point of view, and the subject not only covers the people but also other people and English speaking world. We have not gotten a consensus for using the current title because the nationalistic ownership, so the bionominal name has the most neutral position. --Appletrees (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As per WP:NC(flora), Japanese Cherry itself is described in Prunus serrulata and its cultural significance in the Japanese culture is described in Sakura. Similarly, this article should be moved to its scientific name. An article that focus on the cultural significance of Ume in the Japanese culture may be created; then it would be named Ume. --Kusunose 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think one species having two articles in a similar manner is not an ideal solution and seems like a kind of tactic to keep the national name anyhow.--Appletrees (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:NC(flora). --Kusunose 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Split as Kusunose suggested into an article on the species, named Prunus mume according to the conventions that apply to species generally, and an article on ume in Japan. The former will meet the needs of readers who want to know about the species, and as Appletrees points out that extends significantly outside the Japan-related community. The latter can have the name Ume, which is specific to Japan, or some other appropriate name. I agree with LordAmeth that the ume is important enough in Japan to have an article on its significance there, and by using the Japanese word as the article title we would focus clearly on one country. If other cultures such as Taiwan and Korea likewise place significance on Prunus mume we can have a category with related articles, and links to each other can help to build a community. Fg2 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The culinary uses are very similar between Japan and Korea (and to some extent China), and the cultural aspects are similar between all three, so having a dedicated Japanese article separate from the article about the species is not advised. Badagnani (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with that. My suggestion is move this to prunus mume, and leave the cultural/culinary bits in it until such time as the "most common English name" is established through the use of reliable sources, and not just anecdotal evidence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Sources for the very widely used and established name "ume" in English, as used in English-speaking regions on product labels have been provided; please do not make statements contrary to the facts and discussion. Separate articles could possibly stand for Umeboshi and Umeboshi vinegar, as well as for Plum wine. Badagnani (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Product labels from one corner of the world does not stand for general usage across the English world. Furthermore, product labels indicate the trademarks under which the goods are supplied, and at the highest stand for the official names under which the particular products are known. A fortiori, the products mentioned are prunus mume derivatives, and not the fruit or plant itself. To draw an inference from product labels to the ingreident is a bit like arguing that hazelnuts are known in English as Nutella by reference to an Italian-produced label of the latter product. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The argument is beginning to show a hint of logic. However, some of the products, such as these, are the fruit itself. Badagnani (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - And here's a pile of URLs referring to the fruit as simply "plum", "Japanese plum", or "Chinese plum": [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Rather a mixed bag, but I'm only trying to illustrate how the rest of the world doesn't use the Japanese name to refer to the fruit/flower/tree. I've taken care to ensure that these are all references to the prunus mume, and have not included any references where it is ambiguous whether, for example, it refers to mume or salicina. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Divide: This seems a prime example of exception 1: Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same scientific name (eg. brussels sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea). Here the products would be ume, umeboshi, plum wine, plum blossom (chiefly on China) and so on, with a botanical and summary article under prunus mume. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - "Ume" is not a product. Badagnani (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Move to scientific name: I think a very good argument can (and has) been made for splitting the page (as per either exception 1 or 2 on the above naming convention, as in prunus serrulata / sakura) but the problem again becomes what to call the other page (and it seems a little silly to have two pages on the same thing). A common English name is hard to establish (it all depends on how you Google search ... and what's the old phrase about "figures don't lie, but liars figure"?). If we go with "ume", it would be culturally insensitive (and just plain inaccurate, really) to talk about "ume in Chinese/Korean/etc. culture), the same if we talked about the "mei flower in Japan". We could invent a "neutral name" like "Asian plum", but I can think of a half dozen reasons why we shouldn't. Instead, I think Pyrus pyrifolia (a similarly problematic item) shows a nice guide of how we can be accurate and still make everyone happy. Each country can have a section (rather than a whole new article) on the "Prunus mume in _____" where we can either continue to use the scientific name, or (my preference) incorporate the local name in each section (e.g. "The Prunus mume is known as ume in Japan. Ume are of significance in Japanese culture because ..."). Let's go with a solution that is not only accurate (we can all agree on the scientific name even if the English "common name" is in doubt) but also will not trigger yet another horrendous CJK War where much more energy is spent on naming the article than improving the article. CES (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It's not "culturally insensitive" to use the words tofu or bonsai, as has been brought up more than once, when those are the English names. Are people not reading the previous discussion before commenting? Badagnani (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that unlike tofu, bonsai, and karate (your above examples) which are unambiguously the common English terms for the things they refer to, I have yet to see convincing evidence that "ume" has entered the English-language consciousness as the common term for Prunus mume, despite your persistent claims otherwise. CES (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - They're not "claims," they're statements backed up by sources. Badagnani (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: 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

--Endroit (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think Endroit's example further shows up the (North American) regionalistic nature of the name "ume" because the term does not show up in the Macquarie Dictionary. In that dictionary, plum is defined as being applied to any fruit of a member of the Prunus family - which is the usage in Australia.

As I've tried to emphasise many times before, the US is today more heavily influenced by Japan than almost any other part of the English speaking world. Yes, sometimes the Japanese usage becomes established as a global norm, as in tofu or bonsai, but often it does not. Ume has not. An ordinary person in Australia would have no idea that ume means what to him/her would be "Chinese plum", "Japanese apricot", or "Asian plum".

In any case, I fully support CES's proposal because it is the most practical solution that reflects actual usage. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief survey of Australian usage:

Sorting Prunus Names from the University of Melbourne: Prunus Mume: English name: "Japanese apricot".

Development of Prunus Mume, a new tree crop for Australia from the Australian Government: Prunus mume, commonly called mume or Japanese apricot.

National Trust of Australia "apricot (Prunus mume)"

Fleming's nurseries describes the Prunus mume 'Rosebud' cultivar as "a Japanese Apricot", likewise Prunus mume 'Splendens' (syn. 'Rubra Plena').

Production technologies for low-chill temperate fruits from the Australian Centre of International Fruit Research refers to "Japanese apricot (Prunus mume)".

What is distinctly missing from these sources is any mention of the Prunus mume being known as "ume". As I said before, "ume", if it exists as an English word, is a distinct North American regionalism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're partly correct. One of the biggest reasons for Japanese food names predominating is the upswing in interest in health foods, specifically the macrobiotic diet, over the past 50 years. This took place in other parts of the world, Australia included, and I'm certain that if you take a trip to the health foods store near you you'll see macrobiotic products called "ume" this or that. Please don't overstate your case. The fruit has historically been primarily known in English-speaking regions (Australia included) through its use as umeboshi and umeboshi vinegar, as well as in "plum wine." Badagnani (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about the health food movement - I would have no idea. I think it's prudent, however, at this stage to go by reliable sources as to the name of the plant, and not of derivative products such as umeboshi.

Based on the reliable sources (about the name) that we have gathered, it appears that the recognised "English name" of the plant is 1) primarily "Japanese apricot", and 2) secondarily ume or mume.

In any case, if I understand correctly, the move request is a question of policy, and the common English name has only a tangential bearing on it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

These recent additions to the discussion remind me again of why moving this page to Prunus mume seems advisable. I don't doubt that "ume" has entered the English language to some degree, my concern is that it is 1) not common in the English language (largely because the Prunus mume itself is not prominent in the consciousness of the average English speaker), making arguments for "English common usage" a bit paradoxical and 2) it is only one of several viable names for Prunus mume (and one that carries certain cultural bias). The same could be said for "Japanese apricot", "Japanese plum", "mei flower", and any of the other names mentioned above. Just as with Pyrus pyrifolia, by using the scientific name we could give all the names their proper due without giving undeserved preference to any one of them ... the question of what the flower or derivatives are called in English becomes irrelevant, as it should be. CES (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment — "Plum blossom" gets a respectable 672,000 Google hits, and so I added it to the lead section.--Endroit (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You added not only "plum blossom", so I subtract "ume" in the intro. --Appletrees (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I put it back there in the lead section, because "ume" is still the article name, as well as a common English name. "Ume" gets over 5 million Google hits, and "ume tree" gets 513,000 Google hits. Also, there was no consensus to remove "ume" from the lead section.--Endroit (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Or course not. Due to the lack of evidence that "ume" is a common English name, we're here for discussion on the title. There is no consensus to use "ume" in lead inserted by you. You have serious problem on WP:OWN. PalaceGuard008 also deleted the ume" in the lead. Your false report[20]is also intolerable.--Appletrees (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Besides, what do Ume entertainment, Ume music (order by hit number) have to do with "Prunus mume"? The google search shows your claim skewed. --Appletrees (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • There's no need to censor the word "ume" in the lead section, as it IS common in English per Google results, and appears in Websters Unabridged (per above). And I have reintroduced "ume" there together with "plum blossom" in an NPOV manner.--Endroit (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
          • There is no consensus to include 'ume' in the lead. And you are the one initiating revert wars. If 'ume' is a common English name, ordinary English dictionaries have the name (not unabridgede version) and we don't need to waste many times for discussion. Your insistence without lacking evidence never become a standard English. --Appletrees (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

* Keep at Ume, and then split the article into Ume and Prunus mume as prescribed in WP:NC(flora) for Coffee / Coffea. ("Plum blossom" may be a more appropriate name, but that needs to be discussed in another WP:RM.)--Endroit (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Revising per WP:NPOV concerns. See below.--Endroit (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It is highly inadvisable to have an article under the Latin name, and another for the same plant under the Japanese name. Having an umeboshi article talking about the ume tsukemono is fine, but a duplicate article talking only about Japanese uses, when the uses by Koreans (and, to some extent Chinese) are so closely related is really severely problematic. Badagnani (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can do anything about the Latin name because of WP:NC(flora). However, if the article is split, the "Japanese name" can be changed to Plum blossom or Japanese apricot (if we all agree), and I'll support that as well.--Endroit (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This comment doesn't make sense. Split to what? The Japanese name is not "Japanese apricot," it's "ume." Badagnani (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Split the article into Plum blossom and Prunus mume as prescribed in WP:NC(flora) for Coffee / Coffea. See my "Clarification" below on where to make the split.--Endroit (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification — The split (with a neutral name in mind) should be done with the current "Cultural significance" section moved to a new Plum blossom article, and the rest moved to a new Prunus mume article. Alternate names for "Prunus mume" are "Japanese apricot" and "Ume". Alternate names for "Plum blossom" are "Ume blossom" and "Mei blossom". These alternate names should be mentioned in the lead sentence (or lead paragraph).---Endroit (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Just about the use of Google results Endroit: if you take a look at the above discussion, you will see that I pointed out that the usage of "ume" as an English name is highly geographically specific. It is rarely used in a search of Australian webpages, where the overwhelming majority uses "Japanese apricot" and does not use Ume as reported above. Google counts are useful, but should yield to more detailed analysis of usage.

There is also an important caveat in regard to googling "ume" - I think you will find, on closer inspection, that many of the results will say "known in Japanese as ume". Such results would need to be discounted in any "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" comparison of google results. That, however, is not the issue. The issue is that it seems that hardly anyone uses "ume" as an English name outside the US. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You should note that these are Google counts in the English language. I understand your concern that "ume" may tend to be used in the Japanese (and American) context more than in the general context. Nevertheless, "ume" is commonly used in English, as are "Japanese apricot", "plum blossom", and "Prunus mume". Taiwan uses "plum blossom" in English.[21] All of these English names should be mentioned in the lead, regardless of what the article name(s) will be.--Endroit (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support move to scientific name: As one of the people who originally helped form the flora naming convention, I can say this is precisely one of the reasons it was created. Disputes over common names were taking up so much time from otherwise productive editors, but we all agreed that most of the time it was better to keep such articles at the scientific name. For a similar example, see Cytisus scoparius, which is known as Scotch broom here in the US and simply broom in the UK. There is, of course, the possibility that a common name article could also be warranted if this fruit is a common product, but we've seen that split occur rarely. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Move: Scientific name is a neutral compromise which should be acceptable to Japanese, Taiwanese, Koreans and everybody else. Other names will not be acceptable to at least one of these groupsJasy jatere (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support It seems to be logical to follow the scientific name like other articles. I acknowledge that the significance of Ume in Japan, and if some people can elaborate the topic specific to Japanese culture, Ume can be split into a new article, but not yet. eDenE 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion April 2008

Any additional comments:

Yes, there is one. I am concerned that, despite the talk about determining the common English name, this is just another campaign against the use of Japanese in English. The fact that this is not about the common English name but about making sure that the Japanese name isn't adopted as standard is proved by the way this article has been edited.

And the proof? Someone has made a point of changing ume to mei in sections related to China. But in the section on Vietnam, the use of the term ume has not been altered. If people were concerned about using the right English name, they would be concentrating on the whole article. It's quite clear that editors who are waxing indignant about ume are concerned only at asserting Chinese precedence over Japanese in relation to things Chinese. Nobody gives a damn about Vietnamese.

This is kneejerk nationalist sentiment at its worst. Wikipedia is a place for helping English-speaking people learn about the world. It should be written from the point of view of English-speaking people, not from the perspective of Chinese speakers trying to push their culture. I suggest that ethnic Chinese editors should step back and try not to be so influenced by chauvinistic feelings in editing Wikipedia. Try to get the big picture, not the small(-minded) picture of asserting Chinese cultural dominance.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the case is being overstated here. We should always think pluralistically, while reflecting the actual use of common names as they appear in English. It seems more appropriate to refer to "mei" in the Chinese section. In the Vietnam section, "mai" is clearly used straight through; please read it again. Badagnani (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the explanations, e.g., "yellow ume", use the Japanese term.

I should retract my statement "per Bathrobe". Your wording is filled with really not good English.--Appletrees (talk)

Bathrobe is a native speaker of English; perhaps it's his/her reasoning you feel is not good rather than his/her grammar. Badagnani (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I, of course know he is a native speaker with refine writing ability. His way of speaking is really fit to what he is bashing about Chinese editors. --Appletrees (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am perhaps "bashing" Chinese editors for their editing practices. What I'm saying is that behind a lot of arguments about the "correct" English name there is often a hidden motivation. Bringing this motivation out into the open may not be politically correct or kosher, but I have seen the same kind of arguments, edits, and reverts all over Wikipedia at any place where a Japanese word has come into common English usage. Perhaps it's "original research", but if you check it out you'll find it everywhere.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Name is stronlgy connected to national ownership. Korea is much unknown to the West, so generally have to accept common English words loaned from either China or Japan, but I've seen the reverse case to your example so many times here. --Appletrees (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my point. Arguments over the English-language name should not be connected to concerns over "national ownership". I don't find it strange that tofu, for instance, can be used in English in reference to the Chinese product, though Chinese speakers may feel somewhat queasy. I also don't find it strange to use ume as the most common (although perhaps not universally accepted) name for this fruit. When editors blanch at the use of a Japanese word for the Chinese original, they are letting their feelings of "national ownership" show. I suggest that this should be kept out of Wikipedia. If the Japanese term is most widely used and understood in English, Chinese and Korean speakers just have to live with it.

I'm not sure what the "reverse case" to my point is. Cases where Japanese editors try to assert the Japanese name over the more widely accepted Chinese or Korean one?

Bathrobe (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Sakura is a common English name for the species? I don't think so, if you google the name, a bunch of unrelated articles would be returned such as an Japanese animation or comic in which one of leading characters is named "Sakura' or sushi restaurant. I went to Washington and Seattle "Cherry blossom" festival, the festival is clearly not called "Sakura Matsuri" and titles of books used as references in the article also show 'Cherry blossom' in English not 'sakura'. Some editor even erased Korean section because in Korea the species had a very bad image due to Japanese occupation.

Personally, I don't think that the article should be at "Sakura". "Cherry blossom" is the normal English term. So I would support you in that. I hadn't seen this article before.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some (quite a lot) of nationalistic Japanese editors have removed only Korean category from cuisine related articles which happen to be named as Japanese loan words and the removal is motivated by their anti-Korean sentiment, such as Okara (food)[22] The making skill of tofu was handed down from China to Korean and then to Japan, but they altered the info as if Korea received the skill not from China but Japan.[23]. China prohibits their people from editing English Wikipedia, and Japanese editors are outnumbered over editor from any other Asian countries. If Japanese editors step back and play fair, Chinese or Korean editors would discuss anything related to naming calmly. If you missed to look though what Japanese editors have done for 4 years with off-wiki such as 2channel[24], you have to realize that who really distorts Wikipedia. --Appletrees (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is a strange (and I would add arrogant) element in a lot of Japanese thinking about Korea. As for removing the Korea category in articles about dishes with Japanese names, I think that would be fine if the article made no reference to the Korean food, but inexcusable since it does. By the way, the editor who removed that tag has been identified as a sockpuppet.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not fine. Your definition of vandalism even convinces me more about you. They removed only Korean category even if the article has Korean sections or cited or has no citation regarding any of those countries. --Appletrees (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I modified what I wrote above after checking the article. The fact that the article mentions Korean food means that the removal of the tag and its transfer to the page on Biji, which is simply a disambiguation page, was quite vandalistic in nature.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, although you may think I'm "bashing" Chinese editors, I think you'll find that in editing articles I am very careful to try and ensure that there is balanced presentation of English language usage, with an emphasis on the term that is most commonly used in English, while also giving the different names that are found in East Asian languages. I was the one that added the paragraph on Names to the ume article.

That's why I stated my original comment as "per Bathrobe" and subtracted it after reading your highly disappointing comment. --Appletrees (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of subtle POV here, that I've touched on at the discussion page for ink and wash painting. You'll find that I'm not anti-Korean, anti-Chinese, or anything else. What I want to do is to write articles from the point of view of the English speaker, while trying at the same time to broaden the horizons of the English speaker. This is different from a campaign to push one or another East Asian culture.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me anything. Your standard over nationalistic ownership is very different from mine. In fact, this discussion is way off the topic. --Appletrees (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to convince you of anything, and the discussion is certainly not off topic. I have no idea what you standard over "nationalistic ownership" is with regard to writing Wikipedia articles. My point above is that editors from East Asian cultures should put aside "nationalistic ownership" in editing articles. What is yours?

Bathrobe (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wondered why you did not show up yet after this move proposal has set up because you're the one really initiating this move proposal. However, you come back with "not beautiful statements" on Chinese editors. Nationalistic ownership should be put aside, of course that is basic, but due to the strong impact of your statement, my impression on you is changed.--Appletrees (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only come back after an absence. I haven't registered either support or opposition to the renaming at this point. However, while I think that a move to the scientific name is one good way to achieve neutrality, I still feel that the opposition to ume is not just based on concerns about the common English usage.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether some people like 'ume' being used in the article or not, people should stick to "reliable sources". How would you know which people think what? I only assume it judging by past history. --Appletrees (talk)

Well, there have been reverts on names that are not based on reliable sources, merely on editor preference. I haven't seen any sources cited for the policy of sticking to mei in sections of the article dealing with China.

I certainly have no idea what you think (although I have a better idea now). But I do know that there is a tendency of "nationalistic ownership" in editing articles; it's objectively verifiable.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism or not, the facts of the case are more important than the motivation. In this case, the main issue, as has been pointed out above, is that it seems that only Americans commonly call it "ume". English-speaking regions generally, including even the United States, seem to prefer "Japanese apricot" in their reliable sources: see quotes above. Ulterior motives (if any) on the part of the original initiator should not invalidate proper discussion squarely within policy and principle. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that my original point was that: (1) Editors are adhering to a policy of using the Chinese name in the section on the flower in Chinese culture. This is not mandated by any kind of policy. "Ume" in North America, OK. "Japanese apricot", OK. Mei -- please find me English sources that justify the use of mei on the same level as ume in English. Of course not, because there is no motivation or justification other than "it's a Chinese flower, and if English can use the term ume, it can damn-well use the Chinese term mei too!" (2) Given this objectively observable biased editing practice, it is reasonable to suppose that the objection to ume is NOT based squarely on policy and principle.

I originally suggested the scientific name as a way out of this nationalistic editing. My point here in this section is that editors are being blatant in their editing practices within the article, detracting from the article as a whole. I have hit a nerve with both Appletrees and Palaceguard. Well so be it. I do NOT accept that good editing in Wikipedia means that editors from rival nationalistic traditions in East Asia have the right to intersperse their own language's usage throughout articles as a kind of antidote to established Japanese terms. It makes a mess of articles and is not supported by any Wikipedia policies that I know of.

As far as I can see, and as far as good editing practice goes, the normal practice is to mention variant names at one place, and then (as much as possible) stick to a standard name throughout the article. Some East Asian editors appear not to support this principle. Instead, there seems to be a tendency to one-upmanship at the expense of consistency.

Bathrobe (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much your comments there aid discussion. I do not think using different local names in different sections is a good solution. At the same time, in my view using "mei" in an English article is just as justified as using "ume", not because of any nationalism or whatnot, but simply because nobody, except, it seems, a small but vocal segment of Americans, even know what ume is. This same vast majority of English speakers would be equally ignorant of the meaning of mei. Given a choice between two names utterly unfamiliar to most English speakers, I really see no justification to prefer either one or the other. "Japanese apricot" or "Prunus mume" only, please. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your comment about "a small but vocal segment of Americans", I think it's been established that ume has wider usage in English than mei. I don't think that it's right to bias the article against American users, which seems to be what you are doing. Incidently, I have looked at the article on nashi pear, and it's blatantly biased against Australian usage ("nashi pear"), again because some anonymous but clearly non-Japanese Asian user has suggested that "nashi pear" is not neutral. And yes, I've commented there, too.

Bathrobe (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was not about mei vs ume. The best source (and here I use "best" as in high quality, not as a taunt as in "that the best you can do?") that the pro-ume users have come up with in terms of reliable sources is an American dictionary definition which redirects ume to "Japanese apricot". This seems to authoritatively settle the matter in favour of "Japanese apricot" as far as the question of common names is concerned, even for the US. Added to that, of course, is all the evidence that ume is hardly used in other English-speaking countries, if at all. It seems to be pretty clear what the common English name is, in the US or elsewhere. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - You haven't visited your local health food/macrobiotic food store to inspect all the ume products yet, have you? You have conveniently forgotten (again) to mention all those products that are labeled "ume" in English, and available around the world, not just in North America. Let's skip the convenience this time and actually go visit one of those places to see for yourself how the ume products are labeled, in English. Once you've done that, please report back. Badagnani (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was actually about mei vs ume. I was inclined to accept that the scientific name was better, but that if ume was to be used the article should try and achieve some kind of consistency throughout.

The East Asian one-upmanship that I am concerned about mars many articles in Wikipedia. Articles that lurch from one usage to another as each stream in the tradition asserts its right to equality or predominance. Please someone, write encyclopaedic articles on ume, ink and wash painting, bird and flower painting, tofu, and all the other shared elements of the East Asian tradition. That means covering each component (the Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese contributions, and others as well) from a holistic point of view. An article has to hang together, not separately. Contrary to what Appletrees implies, I oppose writing such articles from a purely Japanese point of view. I support writing articles so that they show that such traditions originated in China (as they mostly did). And I support the inclusion of information about the Korean and Vietnamese roles, which tend to be severely neglected. But currently I don't think that the tension among supporters of each tradition and opposers of Japan, in particular, is creating articles that hang together. Instead, it is pulling them apart.

Now I have got off topic (the topic being the naming of the article). If the use of ume is going to result in one section talking about ume, the next about mei, and the next about mai, I think that the best solution is perhaps to use either Japanese apricot or Prunus mume after all. I'm tending towards the former as it is more elegant in an article to consistently use an English term ("Japanese apricot") rather than a scientific term.

Bathrobe (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I've never said you're writing here from purely a Japanese point of view, rather saying that your outburst on national ownership is far from what I thought about you. --Appletrees (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - How is it sure that "plum blossom" doesn't refer to Prunus salicina? Badagnani (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I leave this section and its debate entirely, I think I should make it clear what prompted my "outburst" (as Appletrees called it).

The name of the article is Ume. Despite this, some editors have been engaged in what I can only describe as a guerrilla war to sabotage the consensus. That is, while they didn't succeed in having the name changed from ume to something else, they have been doing their damnedest to make sure that ume is used as little as possible in the article, especially in sections relating to China. This is bad faith on the part of such editors. If the article is about ume, in the absence of successful attempts to change it, it is the job of editors to ensure that the article is well written within the consensus framework. That is, editors should be using the word ume as the standard name throughout the article. To protest against ume, and when you can't get your own way, to go through and make sure that ume is used as little as possible is not good faith editing. It is sabotage in order to get your own way, and it is destructive of good editing practice. This is the point of my "outburst".

Let me be more specific. In March I edited the article a couple of times to try and harmonise the usage of ume and remove the flipflopping between different Asian names. For instance [25]. Unfortunately I did not have my password and edited under an IP address.

These edits were summarily reverted by another editor with the comment: "revert back nationalistc POV pushing by IP editor". In making this revert, the editor was guilty of three offences:

• Failing to assume good faith on the part of an editor by characterising edits as "nationalistic POV".
• Assuming that IP editors are not editing with good faith.
• POV pushing. The editor in question had the curious point of view that using different names (mei, maesil etc.) through the article was NPOV, while using the current actual name of the article (ume) was POV! If using the the consensus title of the article is "POV", one wonders how a good article can ever be written.

I fail to see that the reverting editor's accusation of "nationalistic POV pushing" is any better than the comments I made above ("kneejerk nationalist sentiment at its worst" etc.) In making my comments, I only highlighted something (POV nationalism) that is already quite clearly present in the editing tos and fros of this article. So please, Appletrees, don't accuse me of something that plenty of other editors on this page are equally guilty of.

It is unfortunate that even otherwise well-intentioned and constructive editors are guilty of this kind of POV editing. Really, if editors want to litter the article with umes, mais, maesils, and meis, how about discussing it on the talk page before creating a mess? The fact that ume as a name presents problems does not excuse editors from engaging in such behaviour. And the fact that this kind of editing appears to be motivated by a "national ownership" mentality unfortunately throws a cloud over the debate to change the name of the article.

At any rate, I've made a proposal below that I believe addresses the concerns of those who are vehemently opposed to the use of the word ume. It is unfortunate that it took this kind of sabotage (as opposed to discussion on the talk page) to make it clear that in practice the use of ume as a standard English term led to an unacceptable situation.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Move highly improper

The move of the article after less than 1 day of discussion was highly improper. Move it back and adhere to WP policies, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is quick if we only limit the discussion for changing the title but considering the previous discussions for months can have a valid reason for the move. --Appletrees (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The move of the article after less than 1 day of discussion was highly improper. It should be moved back immediately and discussion progress for the proper number of days. WP is not a place where rules can be ignored. Badagnani (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

True, there have been months of previous discussion but a few more days with new participants can't hurt. — AjaxSmack 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The move of the article after less than 1 day of discussion was highly improper. Move it back and adhere to WP policies, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid the page move and reopened the discussion. --Kusunose 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where we stand

This discussion has gotten long-winded, but let me see if I can recap our results so far, for clarity's sake. Because the votes can be a little difficult to interpret at times, I will put names next to votes for transparency. If I miscount or misrepresent a vote, please say so but note it was not done intentionally. There seem to be be three general opinions:

• 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)

If I am interpreting the votes correctly, this indicates that we have a consensus that a page should exist at Prunus mume. The remaining question is whether we should have another page that deals with cultural, economic, and other issues relating to the Prunus mume, and what it should be named.

Again, I suggest that this page should be renamed Prunus mume, and that we hold off on the creation of another page until content on this page becomes so large as to necessitate it. If someone would like to create a page at Ume to describe the cultural significance of Prunus mume in Japan (cf sakura), then by all means I support it, but until then I think the information should all be consolidated at Prunus mume. By moving the page to Prunus mume we not only are incomplicance with Wikipedia policy, but we also can recognize the many English names (including ume, Japanese apricot, etc., etc.) without giving undue primacy to any one of them.

Let's get back to following Wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), which is rather explicit about the primacy of the scientific name) and get away from claims of nationalism and dogma. All it does is raise blood pressures and old resentments. The only thing it doesn't do is improve this article. CES (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have at least one page regarding products made from the tree, at Umeboshi. Badagnani (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and more should be added as warranted. But for now, just moving this page to Prunus mume seems to be a tall enough order. To me at least, the "split" option is a bit nebulous both in terms of what to call the offshoot article(s) and what it/they should include. Fg2 proposed an article at "Ume" that talks about "ume in Japan". Septentrionalis suggests articles at "ume, umeboshi, plum wine, plum blossom (chiefly on China) and so on, with a botanical and summary article under prunus mume" but to me at least it is unclear what the content of the articles "ume" and "plum blossom" would be in this case. Endroit proposes that the current "cultural significance" section should be moved to "plum blossom". These are all different proposals, in name and content. Indeed, the overwhelming consensus that the main content should be moved to Prunus mume was largely lost in the midst of an argument over what to call the offshoot articles. Let's move the page first and then discuss the optimal way (by country? by theme? by "product"?) to create offshoot articles. CES (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add a fourth option: Split the article into three.

• Prunus mume, a botanical article describing the tree. This would have the usual botanical description of tree height, leaf shape, flowering and fruiting, etc. The article would cover uses of the tree (flower and fruit), with links to fuller articles (as below).
• An article on the flower, probably titled Plum blossom, covering the cultural significance of the flower in East Asia.
• An article on the fruit and its uses. This could possibly be titled ume, but it should be made clear that other names are used as well.

My reasoning:

Articles using the binomial name are meant to be a scientific look at the plant from the botanical point of view (cf the article on Coffea). They are not meant to supplant normal English names for fruit, and using them as "neutral names" where there are conflicts over naming is really using the guidelines in a way they were not intended. The results of using the binomial name can be seen at the article on Pyrus pyrifolia, held up by some as good example of how binomial names resolve such problems. In fact, the article on Pyrus pyrifolia is a good example why binomial names are not always a good idea. Try this sentence: "Pyrus pyrifolia generally are not baked in pies or made into jams because they have a high water content and a crisp, grainy texture." This is inappropriate on two counts. First, Pyrus pyrifolia is the name of the plant, not the fruit. The sentence should read "The fruit of Pyrus pyrifolia ....". Secondly, it is ridiculous to use Pyrus pyrifolia, a binomial name, for a commonly eaten fruit. Imagine saying that "The fruit of Malus domestica is one of the most widely distributed fruits in the world. The largest exporter of Malus domestica is ....", when we are talking of the humble apple.

The flower and the fruit are conventionally known in English by different names.

• While not scientifically accurate, normal English usage is to refer to the "plum flower" or "plum blossom". "Ume flower" is a novel and, frankly, rather strange usage. There are also significant issues of "national ownership" involved, as I pointed out above. If using "ume flower" instead of "plum blossom" is going to lead to an article that fragments the name of the flower into ume flower, mei flower, and mai flower, I don't see the benefit of the somewhat Procrustean approach of adopting "ume flower" as a standard name. The traditional name is "plum blossom" when used in regard to Asian cultures. This is also an uncontroversial name that can be accepted by all cultures, without resorting to ume, mei, etc. The article can make it clear that the "plum flower" is the conventional name for the flower of "Prunus mume", and that this is more akin to an apricot than a plum. (By the way, if there is an article on "plum blossom", the article on sakura should be really be at "cherry blossom". If I suggest this that at the sakura article, I hope that Appletrees might feel inclined to support me, despite our differences of opinion :))

• The fruit is somewhat more difficult. Since ume is familiar from macrobiotics, there is possibly a stronger case for using this name for the fruit than there is for either the flower or the tree. But the article itself would inevitably refer to products other than umeboshi, e.g., plum sauce and plum wine. There is no reason why either of these products should be referred to as "ume sauce" or "ume wine".

The above suggestion fits in with the Wikipedia guideline above: "Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Example: coffee. Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships. Example: Coffea." Since Prunus mume has not one but two quite distinct economic and cultural uses -- as a flower, and as a fruit -- having two separate articles on these would not be inappropriate.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put a very rough version of my proposed split at User:Bathrobe/Sandbox.

There is another plum in China, Korea, and Japan, and it is Prunus salicina. It also bears blossoms. Badagnani (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is fine. The question is, is this flower known as 梅, 梅子, maesil, etc. If it were known as 梅, 梅子, maesil, etc., then the article on plum blossom should mention that the plum blossom in East Asian cultures may refer to the flower of either Prunus mume or P. salicina. Since it is not, however, conventional to apply the name 梅, 梅子, maesil to P. salicina, then we don't need to worry ourselves about it. In fact, having an article on plum blossom is a good way of clarifying things! All we need to do is mention that the culturally significant "plum blossom" in East Asian culture refers specifically to P. mume and not to P. salicina. Since "plum blossom", ambiguous as it is, is the normal traditional term for the flower of P. mume in East Asian culture, I don't see that there is really a problem.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Asian cultures seem to grab onto certain species of plant and largely ignore others. I believe the blossom depicted in ink and wash painting (particularly paintings of the Four Gentlemen) in China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam is that of P. mume and not P. salicina. However, it needs to be researched whether P. salicina is ever similarly depicted. Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: It think it is probable that the Prunus salicina is painted in traditional Chinese painting. However, we have to weigh up the problem of botanical imprecision against the difficulty of finding a suitable English name. Using "plum blossom" seems to present a smaller number of problems than insisting on ume. Bathrobe (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, literally "plum blossom" is "plum" plus "blossom"; thus the flower of any plum tree can be referred to as a "plum blossom". But the proposed article is not about "plum flowers" in general, it is about the "plum blossom" as a culturally significant item in East Asian cultures. If other types of "plum blossom" are not culturally significant, then they either don't make it into the article, or they are dismissed with a brief note. "Plum blossom" is established usage. I can see that you feel it is botanically inaccurate, but traditional cultural practices and classifications are not necessarily botanically accurate. This does not detract from their significance. If you oppose "plum blossom" as the conventional English term for the culturally significant flower of East Asian culture, I'm not sure where you want to go with this. Ume is really pretty bad, as we've seen in the article at present, with editors from different cultural backgrounds insisting on using the name from their own language.

You have been advocating ume as the standard English name for Prunus mume. Leaving aside Palaceguard's objections that as a name for the fruit this is regionally restricted, the problem remains that there seems to be no such consensus for naming the flowers ume. Your approach appears to be that if ume is the standard name for Prunus mume, then it can by analogy be extended to all uses, even if unnatural or not broadly accepted -- as I believe is the case with "ume flower". Merely because macrobiotic shops call the fruit ume doesn't mean that we have to use "ume flower" as the standard new name for the traditional "plum blossom". This is, in fact, one of the main causes of the constant challenges to the current naming.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been "pushing" the name "ume" simply because that is the English name that appears on products made from the fruit that are sold in natural foods stores in English-speaking regions. Badagnani (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to your "pushing" the name. You've given good reasons for choosing ume. My point was that the name of the fruit can't necessarily be extended to the name of the flower without causing problems.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm broadly supportive of either moving this article wholesale to Prunus mume, or splitting it into a botanical "Prunus mume" and a cultural article. I don't believe, however, that titling the latter "ume" reflects actual usage. "Japanese apricot" gets my vote for the cultural article if it were to be created.

To Badagnani: couldn't find a natural food store around where I live. Cultural differences again, I'm afraid. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are tons.[26][27] I'm certain you'll find yourself in at least one of these neighborhoods before long, so please try to stop in and ask around, and inspect (and/or take digital photos of) the products they have. Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have had a looka t your lists, which confirms my suspicions: these shops are almost exclusively located in the "alternative" inner West/East suburbs or affluent North/East. Those which are more accessible are Asian grocery shops. I can tell you straight away that you are much more likely to find "mei" than "ume" on the label of any Prunus mume derivative in any given Asian grocery shop in Sydney. You keep asking me to track down one of these stores; however, it seems that more every day items which are available (here) in any major supermarket, such as plum sauce or huamei plums, are more likely to be labelled "Chinese plum" or "Japanese apricot", or even "mei", than "ume".

That said, and with immense respect to your record of contributions, I feel that the whole endeavour of deducing "common names" from product labels is a tad WP:OR. As a way of gauging common English usage, it is not very reliable, especially when many such products are either imported or culturally specific. It is a passable substitute if we had no reliable sources; however, now that we've brought out dictionaries, government and academic publications, product labels really should take a back seat to these reliable, secondary sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with ume products found in Asian markets, as I have several of these on hand in my fridge. In fact, I currently have Japanese, Chinese, and Korean ume products right now, and would have Vietnamese if my Vietnamese friend would have taken my request to bring some back from there during his last trip seriously. The labels of ume products produced in China and Taiwan are always in Chinese, and when there is English (as on jars of plum sauce), the label says "plum," definitely not "mei." "Ume" is used on macrobiotic/health food products as an English word but clearly "plum" (as the fruit appears when translated into English on the labels of Chinese products) is not usable, as "plum" can refer to several different species. Badagnani (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If "plum" was the common translation, then the common name being potentially confusing is no reason to opt for a rare and foreign name.

There are Made-in-China packages that say mei; but that's beside the point. My Chinese-English dictionaries translate the character 梅 (and its derivatives) as "Chinese mei, Chinese plum; Prunus mume". To me, a dictionary is a more reliable source of the Sino-English name for the fruit.

Likewise, as I've said before, dictionaries, governmental, and academic publications favour "Japanese apricot" over "ume", and that is the name we should use as the common English name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would insert a caveat here. Dictionaries are not always good sources of translations. Too often dictionaries propagate longstanding errors, or even make up their own translations if a good English translation can't be found. For instance, "Chinese mei flower" does not appear to be a serious attempt to translate 梅 into English. It simply transliterates mei, and adds "Chinese" and "flower" for good measure. Nor does ume flower in Japanese-English dictionaries seem much better.

In English-Chinese dictionaries, for instance (sorry, we are going the other way, but the principle holds), the word "jay" is routinely translated into Chinese as 㭴鸟, whereas the correct name according to ornithologists is 松鸦. (㭴鸟 is actually a loan word from Japanese.)

It is thus best to treat bilingual dictionary entries with great caution.

Bathrobe (talk) 09:09, 1 April 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.