Talk:Common Broom

The spelling "scotch broom", sometimes seen, is to be avoided, as it is offensive to the people of Scotland. (The preceding unsigned comment left by MPF (talk | contribs) on 18:35, 7 March 2004)

Be that as it may, it is by this name that it is commonly known on the west coast of the United States, without any discernable intent to offend the Scottish. (The preceding unsigned comment left by 65.182.242.36 (talk | contribs) on 21:42, 17 May 2004)

I concur with 65.182.242.36. Common naming conventions dictate that the page be located at the name of the most common name. A google search reveals:

"Common Broom" Cytisus: 574 hits (included the "Cytisus" search term to avoid hits for the household cleaning brooms...)
"European Broom" Cytisus: 129 hits
"Scots Broom" Cytisus: 323 hits
"Irish Broom" Cytisus: 599 hits
"English Broom" Cytisus: 716 hits
"Scotch Broom" Cytisus: 52,700 hits

I would suggest this article be moved to Scotch Broom. If anyone else is watching this article, I would appreciate support or oppose motions in regards to the move. If no motions appear in either favor, I will simply move the article in a week. -Rkitko 06:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has replied, I have moved the article to its new home per common naming conventions. I will continue to keep this page on my watchlist so if anyone wishes to add comments later to this discussion, I will reply if new information can bring to light why this article shouldn't be located at this name. I have also fixed all of the redirects and double redirects to point directly to this article. --Rkitko 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely disagree. This is US imperialism at its worst. - MPF 22:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't move it back immediately because I don't want to get into a revert war, but please explain your rationale more carefully using Wikipedia policy. Instead of accusing me of unfairly representing US interests, please review WP:NC(CN). I see no mention of imperialism. I'm also unfamiliar with the policy that states offensive article titles (to some) are to be avoided (personally, I think words have no meaning. Intent to offend behind a word is what has greater meaning. And of course no offense is meant here. I digress). From what I've read, the common name of this species is Scotch Broom. If you can provide a source that notes that simply "Broom" is the most common name of all, then I will have to re-examine my position. But for now, you can't simply change article names based on an unsourced opinion that it offends someone. Have you gone and moved Scotch whisky yet? Instead of reverting immediately, I would have liked the opportunity to respond in this manner before such a decision was made, just as I allowed ample time for anyone watching this page to respond. Thanks. --Rkitko 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the species is a British native, and that name is never used for it in Britain, only in the US, where the species is not native. Wikipedia naming rules state that the name in use varies between areas, the name used should be that used in the area to which the topic is relevant; i.e., the British name. US re-naming of our plants (and then telling us to use the US-version) is what I mean by imperialism. The US has no authority to decide on the names of plants which are not theirs.

"If you can provide a source that notes that simply "Broom" is the most common name of all" - look at any UK flora, such as Stace, or Clapham, Tutin & Warburg, or Blamey & Grey-Wilson, or McClintock. Or, online, [1], [2], [3], [4], etc, etc. - MPF 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I hadn't detected any of these in my google search. Very difficult to search for something like this that has such a common name with other meanings.

"the name used should be that used in the area to which the topic is relevant"... How does one decide where the topic is more relevant? Does it have any great significance in its native range? Is it more "relevant" in its invasive range? Where is it more economically relevant? I think these things should definitely be addressed in the article itself. And if you're suggesting that original names of things should be the article titles ("The US has no authority to decide on the names of plants which are not theirs.") then why not revert all articles dealing with locations or things that have native names (we call it Mount Everest... the local populations don't)? Please explain why you think the native range of this plant is more relevant than its invasive range. How else can we determine what the most common name is? Is there some other means by which we can examine this debate? --Rkitko 00:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]