Talk:Cytisus scoparius

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Is any part of this plant edible?

Are the little pea pods (i.e., legumes) poisonous? Can those little black seeds inside the pods be prepared in such a way that they are safe to eat?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.28 (talk • contribs) .

If my memory serves me correctly, the seeds had no flavor when I tasted them when I was 12 years old, and you end up spitting them out. Just plain woody! Perhaps because they lack oil, which is sort of surprising if the shrub really can withstand the subfreezing temperatures of the sub-arctic and near-arctic. Still, if there is any marketable value to the seed of the broom, there ought to be some way of mechanically shaking the shrub, and collecting the fallen seeds for sale in wild birdseed. I think that the bush blooms through the summer, starting in May, but the pea pods don't ripen until late August or September.

Another thing to consider with this plant is that it's incredible invasive (we have a big problem here in Washington), so putting it in bird seed would not help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.253.102 (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the seeds are toxic. Don't eat them. NZ toxic plants Onco_p53 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. Are they unfit for birdseed as well?

I'm not sure, I know they are toxic to mammals, but not some insects (pod moth ect..). That would be an interesting experiment feeding them to birds, but an ethically dubious one. Onco_p53 10:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Willamette Valley, Callipepla californica thrive on the seeds and the cover Cytisus scoparius provides. However, birds may help disperse the seeds of this species, a noxious and invasive weed outside its native range. In such areas, seeds should be sterilized by heating before using as birdseed. Also, feeding birds may result in concentrations that facilitate the spread of bird diseases. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the psychotropic properties of Scotch (no offense) Broom. Do a google search for "scotch broom psychotropic" and you'll see what I mean.

I did a brief search and didn't see the active compound listed but if I remember correctly it is a chemical that is related to nicotine. I've read that Scotch Broom is poinsonous if eaten - but smoking the dried leaves is relatively safe because heat changes the active compound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little mystified by the comment regarding this common name, which is very widely used (at least in the USA); unfortunately I don't have the dictionary handy so I can't verify the claim that this name is offensive. (Addendum: Wikipedia's Scotch article doesn't help much.) But I have to wonder, is scotch tape* equally offensive, and thus a name to be avoided or suppressed? And what should I call my scotch and soda? MrDarwin 14:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• further addendum: I just checked the Scotch Tape article and must say I can see why the name would cause offense, not because of the spelling of the word "Scotch" but because of its derivation from the stereotype of stingy Scotsmen. MrDarwin 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, found that comment to be unencyclopedic, but did want to create any more waves directly after the debate over this article's common name. I also mused about the "Scotch" terminology here, noting that Scotch whisky had not yet been moved because the term was offensive. Perhaps if sourced and linked to an article concerning the nature of the derisive term (perhaps wikt:Scotch?) it could stay. But as a simply matter of another common name, should a wiki article be giving out advice on which common names to avoid? That seems to be POV. --Rkitko 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by sourced, I mean with the usual ref tags. --Rkitko 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Scotch Broom" is the common - and official name [1] [2] [3] - the U.S. government uses for the plant. I removed the "usage guide" section since it is mere opinion of one editor and was not referenced in a relevant way to the subject matter of the article. Davodd 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The species is a UK native, not US property. - MPF 10:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by MPF's reasoning, that apparently makes it, and thus its "correct" common name, UK property. But as Wikipedia is the property of neither country, Wikipedia articles will ideally reflect usages on both sides of the Atlantic, simply as a matter of providing factual information. And speaking of factual information, I'd like to see at least one moderately authoritative reference demonstrating that people in Scotland object to Americans using "Scotch broom" as a common name for Cytisus scoparius (and not just a generic objection to the spelling "Scotch" which, like it or not, is simply a variant on "Scots" or "Scottish" on this side of the Atlantic). I tried Googling for the information, but the relevant links all seem to originate either here at Wikipedia or in discussions with a "Michael F." on other websites. MrDarwin 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a UK native species, but you can't tell the US population that their name for it is incorrect (Also note that the US is not the only country that uses that common name for this species. Canada and I believe someone said in a previous discussion that New Zealand has been known to use "Scotch broom" as well). I still don't think the language in the article is acceptable on Wikipedia. It's preachy and certainly POV, even if sourced. Wikipedia is not supposed to dole out advice. Perhaps it is better stated as explaining an existing controversy, though the controversy seems to be more over the use of the term "Scotch" and not the common name of the plant itself. --Rkitko 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides of this seem to me to be POV. It's true that "Scotch" can be considered offensive, and it's true that Cytisus scoparius is called "Scotch broom" in official lists in the United States. Why can't both of these be explicitly mentioned in the article?

This is an interesting contrast with the Digger pine, now called the "gray pine" after substantial quiet lobbying by a small number of California ethnologists and botanists ("digger" is a pejorative for California Native Americans). Part of the reason that "gray pine" has caught on, but "Scotch broom" has never been replaced (despite there being more people of Scots than of California native ancestry in California) is that botanists and horticulturists love the pine, which was under-appreciated because of its former name, but hate the broom, which is an invasive, so a pejorative name seems "less wrong" for a plant that people would prefer not to see in the first place.

At any rate, I think all the facts need to be included.--Curtis Clark 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue about facts being included, but the issue here and in numerous other articles is that MPF is using Wikipedia to attempt to promote or even enforce the use of certain common names over others. That's not an appropriate position for any Wikipedia article to take, for reasons I've explained at length elsewhere. Meanwhile I've seen no evidence that "Scotch broom" or the similar "Scotch pine" are considered pejorative terms by anybody except MPF himself and certain unnamed people in Scotland. If MPF could provide evidence that they originated or were intended as pejorative terms that might be another thing entirely and would be an informative addition to the article (for example see Scotch Tape), but to the vast majority of North Americans (including Canadians) it most certainly is not meant as such, nor is "Scotch" itself considered pejorative, simply an alternate term. And I have to wonder just how offensive it is to the natives of Scotland when Scotch whiskey is protected by law in Scotland, spelling and all. MrDarwin 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dug around for the Oxford Dictionary of English reference for the info in question and this is under the entry Scottish:

USAGE: The terms Scottish, Scot, Scots, and Scotch are all variants of the same word. They have had different histories, however, and in modern English they have developed different uses and connotations. The normal everyday word used to mean ‘of or relating to Scotland or its people’ is Scottish, as in Scottish people; Scottish hills; Scottish Gaelic; or she's English, not Scottish. The normal, neutral word for ‘a person from Scotland’ is Scot, along with Scotsman, Scotswoman, and the plural form the Scots (or, less commonly, the Scottish). The word Scotch, meaning either ‘of or relating to Scotland’ or ‘a person/the people from Scotland’, was widely used in the past by Scottish writers such as Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott. In the 20th century it has become less common; it is disliked by many Scottish people (as being an ‘English’ invention) and is now regarded as old-fashioned in most contexts. It survives in certain fixed phrases, as for example Scotch broth, Scotch mist, and Scotch whisky. Scots is used, like Scottish, as an adjective meaning ‘of or relating to Scotland’. However, it tends to be used in a narrower sense to refer specifically to the form of English spoken and used in Scotland, as in a Scots accent or the Scots word for ‘night’.

Even the reference does not dictate the usage of the word, but simply notes that "Scotch" is seen as a relic attached to common names of certain items. Just thought I'd share that if any of you don't have access to the reference. --Rkitko 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some standard floras and found that in Canada and New Zealand, as well as in the USA, the common name is "Scotch broom" (given without comment in the floras I checked) so I've edited the article to reflect that. In Australia it apparently goes as "English broom". MrDarwin 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that MPF has already reverted all the edits made to this article. I believe MPF is making a grave error in his insistence on wording the article the way that he has (for example he is ignoring the widespread use of "Scotch broom" in Canada and New Zealand, as well as the USA), but I will leave the inevitable edit war to others. MrDarwin 21:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put back Canada and New Zealand - MPF 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought brooms were called brooms because they were used in broom-making, and Scotch broom was the one native to the British Isles (and elsewhere). I can't find the etymology on the web, but I did some field work for a broom researcher who mentioned this as she knew I appreciated the etymology of common names. Don't know anything more, though I suspect it is available somewhere. All the facts, and common names are a huge part of plants, they connect plants to the humans who use them. KP Botany 01:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary says, " The derivation of the OTeut. stem brm- is uncertain, but the earliest sense of the various forms appears to be ‘thorny shrub’, whence ‘bramble’, ‘furze or gorse’, and by confusion with the latter ‘broom’, which seems to be the only Eng. sense." I was not able to find any connection to broom-making. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• It is called sellotape here. **It doesn't; the American naming of Cytisus scoparius is virtually never used over here. The list of accepted fixed collocations is very small. - MPF 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Scotch includes the unsourced content, "it has patronising and faintly offensive connotations". Google finds 2400 occurrences of "Scotch" in English Wikipedia. [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I almost always agree with MPF, but in this case I think he is over the top with "a name best avoided as the word 'scotch' causes offence in Scotland". Ever were it true (and I accept that it might be), Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, and the "best avoided" part is POV pushing at its subtlest.--Curtis Clark 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I accept Curtis's points and have reworded this bit - MPF 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's "Scots-Irish" to you, my friend!--Curtis Clark 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What has been lost in all of this is, why Scotch broom when this species is native to several other countries as well? I hope somebody will be able to find that information--I've checked a bit on the web but haven't had any luck so far. MrDarwin 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not to flog a horse already beaten to death many times over, but I just thought to check the New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening, where I found "Scotch broom" listed as one of two common names (after "Common broom") for this species, and without any qualification or admonition as to its usage. MrDarwin 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the focus on 'Scotch' ...in front of broom, probably is an old cultural slur in the US. Scots, when they came to the US in the 1800's en masse, were known for being thrifty, cheap, tough and unwanted by the locals. This descirbes the scotch broom plant. Another example of this type of 'racism', is "dutch courage". Dutch courage is an english term to represent cheap drunken courage. The Dutch are known for financial shrewdness, thus known to the British as 'cheap', so the offense is calling them cheap. Frankly, as dutch and scottish myself... I am un-offended and am rather amused by these terms. I am cheap and tough and always looking for a deal. Stereotypes are simple general truths. In my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.217.90 (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick Google search found many, many uses of the name "Scotch Broom" in various countries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davodd (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2006 December 16.

• CSIRO Australia - http://www.csiro-europe.org/cytisus.html
• Australian Journal of Entomology - http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2006.00553.x
• Yvonne Buckley, The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland http://www.uq.edu.au/spatialecology/YvonneBuckley.htm
• AABR - http://www.aabr.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=70

• Annotated Bibliography on the Ecology and Management of Invasive Species: The Nature Conservancy of Canada - http://www.goert.ca/docs/Bib_cytiscop.pdf
• Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre - http://www.pfc.forestry.ca/biodiversity/broom_e.html
• University College of the Fraser Valley - http://www.ucfv.bc.ca/biology/Biol210/1999/Exotic/Exotic_plant.htm

• ERMA - http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/focus/biocontrol-agents.html
• Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research - http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biosecurity/weeds/abstracts.asp
• New Zealand Plant Protection Society - http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/nzpps/journal/59/nzpp59_008.htm

• The British Society for Plant Pathology - http://www.bspp.org.uk/ndr/jan2003/2002-42.asp
• Nature - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7100/edsumm/e060720-01.html
• Dr M Rees, Reader in Plant Population Biology - http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/mrees/rees.htm
• Department of Chemistry, University of York & GlaxoSmithKline, New Frontiers Science Park (North), Third Avenue, Harlow, Essex, UK, "Evaluation of a sparteine-like diamine for asymmetric synthesis" - http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b103220h&JournalCode=CC
• UK Food Standards Agency - http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/asksam/healthydiet/fruitandvegq/
• Dr Jane Memmott, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol - http://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/people/staff.cfm?key=82

• The Ecological Society of America, Inc. - http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0012-9658&volume=84&issue=6&page=1434
• San Francisco State University - http://bss.sfsu.edu/holzman/courses/Spring%2005%20projects/Biogeography%20of%20Scotch%20Broom.htm
• USDA - http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=CYSC4
• http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/scotchbroom.shtml

The referenced Oregon page is unclear to me about how broom actually causes "lost timber production" - all I can figure is that the control/clearing work is taking time away from cutting, not that broom somehow directly interferes with tree growth. Anybody know what they really mean? Stan 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reference to illustrate that the impact of this species is well above the minor annoyance threshold. C. scoparius forms very large continuous thickets that prevent the growth of young Douglas Fir. Even if a harvested area is immediately replanted, rapidly growing broom will often choke out the small trees and prevent reforestation. Moreover, cost-effective control by herbicide or manual removal is rarely complete and areas of less than optimum density regrowth are common, again because the broom chokes out young trees. The result is economic loss as compared with the expected production in the absence of broom.

I'd be disappointed if the content and citation were removed because I think it is important to the article to retain this or similar content. However, I would be delighted to work with others to improve its clarity. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified now, thanks! Interesting that the broom actually prevents growth, when one might just as easily guess that it protects them while they are still small. Stan 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Young Douglas-fir plantations are devastated by Scot’s broom because it out-competes the young trees for water and sunlight." [5] This is an addition source for the article content, but not the cost estimate. Other sources exist for that number, so it seems well-supported. Relevant to the earlier discussion on this page is the use of "Scot's broom" as the common name in a report of Oregon State University. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed yesterday (while volunteering to manually pull out scotch broom in Richmond, BC, Canada) that it poisons trees and plants around it by emitting alkalines into the soil. I don't really know how accurate that is and I only could find the following "source" for this piece of info -- www.controverscial.com/Reed.htm -- I doubt that this is an adequate source, however. That said, it was a pain in the ass trying to remove these things, you wouldn't believe how deep some of the roots went! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.247.184 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [6] Jake4d (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]