Talk:Black rice

message: The article currently says the name comes from its being forbidden.  That may be, but since the rice looks black, it seems more likely that the name comes from the color of the rice.  The source for the forbidden claim is a pop culture article, not a scholarly article.211.225.34.162 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Using google translate, I could not find anything about the name in the chinese wik article on black rice (黒 + 米 :  black + rice}.  Maybe the claim that black rice was so named because of its  being rare/forbidden comes from the information in this CNN article: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/08/26/black.rice.new.brown/.  Our article also starts off talking about china (but ignoring Indonesia) BUT Suddenly jumps to Manipur without making any sort of transition.  A good -- but costly -- source is http://www.qyresearch.com/english/goods.php?id=4387.  For possible health benefits, there is the article "Black rice (Oryza sativa L.) extract attenuates hepatic steatosis in C57BL/6 J mice fed a high-fat diet via fatty acid oxidation" at http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/27.  The article is by researchers in Korea, where black rice is fairly common as a somewhat expensive admixture to white rice and is also used in making sticky rice cakes (though the black rice is not sticky). 211.225.34.162 (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole forbidden rice thing is pure advertising with a self-created myth. It should be removed. - Takeaway (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I asked one of my Chinese friends to do a quick search for this so-called household name in China and his conclusion was that it's only a marketing name that has been created, including the myth, by Lotus Foods. That this marketing myth is repeated by Western journalists does not support the assertion that it's a type of rice that is exclusively reserved for the former Chinese imperial household. I will (again) remove it. Only if Lotus Food comes up with a reliable Chinese source that supports this name, can it be included. - Takeaway (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

text: In fact trademark owners can, and often do, require people to note their term is a registered trademark, unless a court rules that the owner has already lost control of the term.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Enforcing_rights for discussion.  They do this precisely to prevent losing control of the name the way kleenex, bandaid, aspirin were all lost to their one-time owners.  If the term Forbidden Rice® is to be used, it should have the registration mark. On the other hand, the really important point to me is that the silly advertising story about emperors banning the rice to others should not be given as any even slightly possible origin for the term. Colin McLarty (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding "require", this is not true in this situation. See http://www.freecycleforever.org/history and the 2007 ruling by the Ninth District Court of appeals. Trademark owners cannot REQUIRE people in normal speech (such as on wikipedia, blogs, media, etc) to use a term only with a TM or registration mark. That trademark owners can require people to only use their term as a trademark rather than as a regular word or phrase in non-commercial speech is, unfortunately, a very common misconception. Of course since trademark owners benefit from this, most are glad to perpetuate this misconception.Timoey (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 2007 ruling you cite explains clearly that the reason the original FreecycleSunnyvale group cannot require people to respect "freecycle" as a trademark is that FreecycleSunnyvale themselves had previously encouraged generic use of the term.  The ruling takes for granted, what was never in question, that a trademark owner can require respect of a trademark -- if it is a trademark!  An owner can also lose control of a trademark against their will, if the word is very widely used as generic.  Maybe a court today would find that has already happened to  Forbidden Rice®.  But I do not believe Wikipedia is the place to pioneer that claim. Colin McLarty (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read the ruling again, the 2007 ruling was not because FreecycleSunnyvale had previously encouraged generic use of the term, the Ninth Circuit ruling was based on the law covering trademark use and stated that trademark owners cannot require correct use of the term in normal speech regardless. Separately, trademark owners can request and they can buy ads to persuade, but they cannot require conformance (outside of the limited situations of commercial speech where trademark law applies -- such as labeling a commercial product). If the term is used as normal speech, as is the case with forbidden rice of which you'll find plenty of examples by googling it, it is not for Wikipedia to limit the use of terms people do (or wish to) use as plain speech. It is fine to make a note that a Forbidden Rice® trademark exists but not to force people to only use the trademark term and not the free speech term when the term is in common use. This is an extremely important concept to get right, especially for wikipedia. Jimmy Wales was even a signatory to one of the key amicus briefs which made this point (see https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxmcmVlY3ljbGluZ2ZvcmV2ZXJ8Z3g6NWI2Y2JkZjMxZWMzYzk3Zg). If you need to, please run this up the flag pole and consult your legal counsel. I am not a lawyer myself but have been through a lot to understand this situation and believe I have got it right in this case.Timoey (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Seriously? Mendeley (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  —PaleoNeonate – 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be confused with Black ice. 

message: Black rice 2603:6080:7D04:1D93:88E5:F9B5:5101:25F0 (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black rice 

message: — Assignment last updated by Savannah yhzzz (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu