Talk:Cytisus scoparius

message: scotch broom has been used for its psychotropic properties for hundreds of years, there is quite a bit of info regarding this and it should be added to the article. a good example is addressed in this booklet:
"An outstanding example is the case of the Scotch Broom flower, a yellow flower planted by the State of Cali. fornia along freeways, in schoolyards, around PG&E installations, etc. These are being gathered by young people and processed in a certain way, and smoked as a mild substitute for marijuana. The toxic properties of Scotch Broom are completely unknown."
http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen3/tenTrips.html#top  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.177.124 (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychoactive! 

message: I've added a POV tag for a couple of reasons. One is that several editors have attempted to word the text regarding "Scotch broom" more neutrally, and all have been rebuffed by MPF. The other is that I believe MPF's commentary on "Scotch broom" and attempt to use Wikipedia to suppress this common name truly is a POV, and one that is completely unsupported by the "reference" he has attached to this admonition. I have searched to find some indication that the people of Scotland really do object to Americans, Canadians and New Zealanders calling this plant "Scotch broom" and the only clear hits I got were to this article, or to comments made by MPF on other websites. MrDarwin 14:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MrDarwin; I haven't been able to view the OED yet. Our public library is offline because of the Washington/Oregon wind storm on Thursday. As a general principle, and consistent with my comments at Talk:Brazil Nut, I would tend to error on the side of sensitivity. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have attempted to neutralize it. To be academically honest, we need to include the common names of plants in their description and definition. Also, since Wikipedia is not censored and does not pontificate certain points of view other than that of a neutral observer, the "usage guide" part is blatant POV and had to be be removed under WP:NPOV policy. - Davodd 19:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough that wikipedia is not censored; it is reasonable to cite the offensive name, but not to push it as the standard name that everyone should be forced to use, whether they want to or not. That merely shows a high degree of arrogance towards, and contempt for the Scots, who do not wish to be told it is the proper name. Since it is only used in areas where the species is naturalised, that is also the better place to cite it. It is also reasonable that the Scots dislike of the word 'scotch' is referenced; it is a fact that it is a POV to deny. Both Curtis and Walter have suggested out that care should be exercised when dealing with names that can be considered offensive. A similar wording to that used at Brazil Nut regarding 'nigger toes', or at Gray Pine regarding 'digger pine', is entirely appropriate. - MPF 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments are fallacious in that they rely upon ad hominem reasoning and are not based in any sort of logical equivalent in that you are equating vulgar slang with an accepted common name. The plant is called Scotch Broom in at least one major English-speaking country. It is academically dishonest to deny this. Davodd 09:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said it before, I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face: Wikipedia should not be promoting one common name over another, merely reporting real-world usage with factual content.  Neutral POV wording will never "push" one name over another, yet this is exactly what MPF has done in dozens, if not hundreds, of articles.  Nobody is trying to push "Scotch Broom" as any kind of worldwide "standard" name--witih so many English-speaking countries such a thing can never exist--and I have yet to find any other suggestion, anywhere, that "Scotch Broom" is an offensive common name, merely MPF's link to an offline dictionary that, when checked, does not actually support MPF's point. But even if it did, Wikipedia has no business telling people what name they should or shouldn't be using.  MPF's continued insistence on telling readers of Wikipedia what common names they ought or ought not to be using for a particular plant, and reverting all attempts by others to reflect a more neutral POV, is offensive, arrogant, disruptive, and worst of all, POV.  Too many plant articles bear the unmistakable stamp of MPF's preaching on this subject.  MPF, I believe you are going great damage to Wikipedia and its NPOV ideals. MrDarwin 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've looked in the OED, in the meantime. Under "broom", where Cytisus scoparius is discussed, I was unable to find a source for the content that the term causes offense in Scotland. Interestingly, the entry for Scotch tape*, for which the Wikipedia article gives a source for its pejorative origin, contains no mention of that. Under "Scotch", I find  "In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman's supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such as ‘Scotch mist’, ‘Scotch whisky’) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage (1965))." It seems to me that "Scotch Broom" may fall into the category of a fixed collocation**. It is the common name in my region (central west coast of North America) where the plant is one of the worst invasive nonindigenous weeds. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The article Scotch includes the unsourced content, "it has patronising and faintly offensive connotations". Google finds 2400 occurrences of "Scotch" in English Wikipedia.  Scots-Irish_American mentions that "the term Scotch-Irish may be taken as offensive". That was the only other instance of linkage of "Scotch" with "offense", "offensive" or "pejorative" that I found. My suggestion is to include Scotch Broom as a common name but wikilink Scotch so the reader can easily locate content on the usage of this adjective.  Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Should we remove the same phrasing from Scots Pine (which should also probably be moved to Pinus sylvestris)? --Rkitko 08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the commentary under "Scots Pine" is even more egregious, stating that "Scotch" is a misspelling, when it is simply an alternate spelling of "Scots" or "Scottish". MrDarwin 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Curtis Clark and would welcome the removal of the phrase quoted. Even though I deprecate this use of Scotch, I do not understand it as offensive. We have to accept that Scotch Broom is the common name in some places outside Scotland. The Oxford Dictionary of English reference above accurately reflects local usage, with Scotch (unqualified) most commonly being understood to mean whisky. Finavon 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept Curtis's points and have reworded this bit - MPF 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reworded text is better, but I still believe the commentary on "Scotch" being offensive is out of place here. There is still no documentation that the name "Scotch broom" is offensive to anybody in or from Scotland, and it has already been established that the word "Scotch" in and of itself does not necessarily cause offense.  BTW I would also like to add that I usually agree with MPF; our disagreement on the use and application of common names, and how to describe and discuss them in Wikipedia articles, is probably our most significant difference. MrDarwin 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually find "Scotch" somewhat offensive myself (I've even said "Scots whisky", although never when ordering it), but the common name "Scotch broom" isn't used in Scotland (afaict), and I've seen no evidence that the term is offensive to people of Scottish heritage, or to anyone else, for that matter, in the United States (I can't speak for Canada or New Zealand).--Curtis Clark 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Scot, I’ve found this discussion interesting.  The use of the word Scotch in the United States seems to be quite widespread; in the horticultural world the Americans use common names e.g. Scotch cottonthistle (Onopordum acanthium), Scotch heath (Erica cinerea), Scotch mist (Galium sylvaticum) and Scotch rose (Rosa spinosissima).   However, the term Scotch is used in the UK also as common names for some butterflies and moths e.g Scotch Argus (butterfly), Scotch Burnet (moth) and Scotch Annulet (moth).   In the food world, the word is in everyday use when speaking of Scotch eggs and Scotch broth; the seal of quality is attributed to and actively marketed as Scotch beef and Scotch lamb.   Scotch is never used in Scotland today as an alternative to Scots or Scottish.  Offensive? I certainly wouldn’t take offence if an American called me Scotch but I would guess that the US is perhaps the only country in the English speaking world where the term in this context is actually used. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, I'm not sure I've ever heard any American use the word "Scotch" to refer specifically to a person from Scotland (and the references I've found suggest that this is the primarily offensive usage)--"Scotch Irish" perhaps being the main exception. "Scottish" and "Scotsman" seem to be the most common terms, not because "Scotch" is offensive, but because "Scotch" is used only in certain phrases, and generally as a rather archaic but well-established adjective for things (e.g., Scotch plaid, Scotch whiskey) rather than people. The bottom line is that same word can have very different histories, meanings, and connotations in different English-speaking cultures, despite our seemingly shared language (just look at the use of the word "fag"!). MrDarwin 21:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's "Scots-Irish" to you, my friend!--Curtis Clark 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One should not extrapolate that a word's offensiveness in one culture, speaking a particular dialect translates to another ("Scotch" is offensive to Scots in Scottish English, means it is offensive to anyone, including Scots, in American English).  That OED says "Scotch" is offensive to Scots in Scotland, does not allow the extrapolation that it is offensive for American English speakers to use it in America.  I grew up in a Scottish-American community, in part, and Scotch was not used to refer to Scottish people even way back then.  I did not know until I was well into adulthood that "Scotch Broth" had anything to do with Scots.  And even now I'm not too sure.  Look some day at the use of Bushman in various communities with indigenous populations.  I think that when one is personally biased against something (common names in particular) that it is easy to make assumptions that don't belong.  Common names are part of human culture, and ethnobotany of plant species belongs in an encyclopedia.   If the American usage of "Scotch Broom" offends Scots, this should be tied to a specific well-researched reference, and explained.  It appears, Bill, that "Scotch Broom" is used in Australia, by others' comments.  KP Botany 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that you should mention "Bushman". I had thought of "Hottentot fig", a name applied in California and probably elsewhere to Carpobrotus edulis. "Hottentot" is a name applied to the Khoikhoi, and the latter article cites it as being offensive. And Bushmen treats a group that I had always called San, but it turns out that "San" is the Khoikhoi name (meaning "outsider"), and there is some movement toward reclaiming "Bushmen" as the English name for these peoples. Does any of that relate to the name "Hottentot fig"? Only for pedants (such as we who edit Wikipedia).--Curtis Clark 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, none of it really relates to the name "Hottentot fig," I'm pretty sure.  I know about the people, and San is the late 60s Western Academic word for the Bushmen, who are called Basarwa in some areas, and don't object, in others, and do, Bushmen in some, with same, and San, with same in the various regions they live in in Africa--Bushmen is now or is becoming the prefered term in Western Academia, although Western World divided as South Africa has special cases, probably legistated out of Apartheid recovery.  It's quite complex, and some of it is covered in the Wikipedia article.  "Hottentot" refers to the sound of the spoken languages of the Khoisan peoples (the pastoral people related to the Bushmen) to Western ears, probably Dutch ears in specific, because the languages of the Khoisan (and their hunter gather cousins, the Bushmen, but it was not used for them currectly, and this is an example of the incorrect use of a common name) is one of the linguistic groups (from the Khoisan, obviously, and Bantu Languages) that uses click continents, and Hottentot refered to this, although not in reference to its uniqueness, but more in a mocking way, I believe--or have always thought.  Yeah, pedants unite and all that.  Still, the vernacular of ordinary humans is, imo, one of the keys to understanding culture, and plant use is about people--knowing that this is a mocking name for the peoples of the area, may show that the name was given by those who wanted to take over their lands (pastoral lands for the Khoikhoi going to the Dutch for example), and that it was a common plant in the area. I'll have to look at the article, now.   KP Botany 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has grown a lot! Some points; MrDarwin says "Nobody is trying to push "Scotch Broom" as any kind of worldwide "standard" name" - I'll accept this isn't the intention, but that's not what it looked like at all; the very act of adding any name in bold at the top gives it a visible status of officialdom and required usage, at least to people from countries where common names are official or standardised to any degree. This is something that needs to be given more thought; one person's NPOV is POV to another person, and vice-versa. Wikipedia recognises that NPOV is impossible to achieve in some cases, notably spelling, favouring the spelling used in the area a page applies to. I think that some similar form of "native rights" has merit (I am also even more in favour of assisting botanical education by citing names that reflect scientific classification in first position, but that's a separate matter!).On moving Scots Pine, I think this should only be done together with all other pines; it isn't good for members of a genus or category to be split between sci names and english names, and there are many higher priority cases of mixed categories (I've been working through the last few eng-name ferns at the mo). The name Scots Pine is of course also widely known and in official use in the US as well (e.g. USDA Profile, Forest Service FEIS), so in that sense moving it is also fairly low priority. No doubt it'll get done sooner or later, but I think there are many more pressing cases to deal with first - MPF 14:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could well claim that pushing a standardized name outside its area of standardization is cultural imperialism. Certainly "Scotch broom" seems to be standardized in some government agencies. Your point about "bold at the top" is an important one, though: perhaps there needs to be a way to distinguish "official common names" from other vernacular names. I have always found "official common names" despicable (that's why we have scientific names), but they are what they are. Perhaps this discussion should move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life.--Curtis Clark 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this needs broader discussion beyond this article, in large part because MPF is a prolific editor who has written and/or edited thousands of articles, and has engaged in similar edit wars with numerous other editors.  Having encountered this subject with MPF numerous times I can identify two problems: one is that MPF seems to interpret any neutral mention of a common name as some kind of promotion of it; the other is that MPF seems to have the goal of identifying and promoting a single "correct" common name, worldwide, for every plant species.  I'm particularly disturbed by MPF's attempts to link common names to phylogeny, when most common names predate not only phylogenetic concepts but botanical nomenclature itself. (For an interesting edit war & discussion, see the Juniperus bermudiana article.) This is not just a POV--most other botanical editors do not seem to share this attitude or goal--but a wholly Quixotic one in my opinion, as there are simply too many English-speaking countries with their own sets of names, and there is no worldwide consensus or authority on the standardization of common names.  In my opinion, Wikipedia articles should not be promoting or discouraging any particular names because any such judgment is completely subjective, and will differ from editor to editor.  Articles should simply identify what common names are used for a particular plant, and where. At best an article can identify which is the most prevalent one in any particular English-speaking region.  If some country or group has made an attempt to standardize common names, that's a fair discussion but such standardizations have no authority outside their particular region or group. MrDarwin 15:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia with an NPOV standard to be trying to experiment in modification of cultural norms. MPF's reasoning is flawed in that it is using the text of WP policies in ways that go so far beyond their original purpose as to pervert the spirit in which they were written. Davodd 10:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All this talk about Scotch vs. Scot is interesting, but it is irrelevant to the topic of this article. Maybe it could have its own article that could be linked from this page. The simple truth is that one of the plant's commonly accepted common names is "Scotch Broom" in most English-speaking countries. Wikipedia should use the common name - in the appropriate context - in the article; to do otherwise would be silly at best and academically dishonest in practice. If we fail to use common names, folks who only know the plant as Scotch Broom will be lost and think they happenstanced upon the article by accident. Davodd 10:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve looked at the article again and feel the sentence should be reduced to In these areas, it is often called Scotch broom.  The term Scotch broom does not cause offence to Scottish people.  As I said in a paragraph about two miles above this, we Scots use the word ‘Scotch’ ourselves (Scotch eggs, Scotch beef and Scotch lamb).  In an article such as this it would be daft not to list all of a plant’s common names, whatever they are. --Bill Reid | Talk 13:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, thank you for giving us a real-world perspective on this.  I think it has been amply demonstrated that commentary about the name "Scotch broom" being offensive was not only cultural sensitivity and political correctness run amok, but (however well-meaning) flat-out wrong so I've removed it once and for all. MrDarwin 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, a lot gets lost in these digression over "inappropriate" common names, and generally the first thing lost is any facts about the common name.   KP Botany 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is certainly an old one; I looked through some of the older references in our library and found "Scotch broom" given as the name (unfortunately, without explanation) in the first edition of Eaton's Manual of Botany (1818).  The name may very well date back to colonial times. MrDarwin 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Herds of goats are being used on several private farms and government land to clear this invasive species and I think it needs some mention in the article. Unfortunately, I feel unqualified to add it to the article because I am a relative Noob to Wikipedia and goats. In the cause of full disclosure; I came across this page while doing research on starting my own goat farm for this purpose, so I might be biased in favor of using goats. While most of the things I have read are favorable, I have also found several problems caused by the use of goats. Anyone out there have more experience with this than me that could put some mention in the article?
I don't have any good references, but here is one of the goat farms that is doing this type of work  Jake4d (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about goats? 

message: Is it possible to use a picture without someone hiding in the tree? VenomousConcept (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone hiding in the picture 

message: * I could find nothing about the fragrance of the plant in this article. The flowers have a pleasant, though not widely dispersed scent. It's the most notable indoors from vased cuttings where the scent can concentrate. 
* The dark yellow version grows wild in the sandy areas of Cape Cod. I don't know if it's considered invasive - it's an introduced plant, but not on the "Massachusetts Prohibited Plant List": http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/farm-products/plants/massachusetts-prohibited-plant-list.html  The plants don't grow in dense mats on the Cape like the photo in the article (that I've seen), but as small, individual plants that are most easily seen in the spring while blooming.
* There's nothing about pruning here. National Gardening Association: http://www.garden.org/searchqa/index.php?q=show&id=1864&ps=1&keyword=scotch%20broom&adv=0  
* This lifestyle site, "Good Evening World", lists several negative qualities for scotch broom: poisonous ingestion - keep away from kids and pets, skin irritation - wear gloves when handling, invasive, and flammable - contributes to forest fires. The article doesn't say what variety it's talking about, though, and I don't know that it would pass "reliable source" muster: http://www.goodeveningworld.com/how-to-grow-a-scotch-broom-shrub. However, this U.S. Department of Agriculture article on wild-growing "Cytisus scoparius, C. striatus" offers conflicting information on burn potential; see the "Fire Ecology" section: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/cytspp/all.html  
* Positive use as food for wildlife: "Mule deer, elk, and black-tailed jackrabbits were observed browsing on Scotch broom at 2 California sites (mule deer and elk at one site, mule deer and black-tailed jackrabbits at the other). On a prairie site among redwood forest habitat, mountain quail, blue grouse, and harvest mice are known to eat Scotch broom seed. Scotch broom seeds were also eaten by mountain quail in the southwestern Cascade Range of Oregon. [. . .] Scotch broom supports a rich insect fauna in England where it is native." and "Researchers in Spain indicate that Scotch broom may represent a high quality food source for grazing ruminants, particularly during the dry season." http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/cytspp/all.html
* Alternate common names in addition to "scotch broom" are found here: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/cytspp/all.html#COMMON%20NAMES and USDA Invasive Species Information Center: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/scotchbroom.shtml
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragrance, Cape Cod, and other details. 

message: Does anyone have any reliable sources on Scotch Broom pollen being an allergen? I wouldn't be surprised if it were a common one. 75.174.65.61 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allergy