Talk:Black rice

Name

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)

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)

This supposed origin for the term Forbidden Rice® is even less documentable than the old story that Marco Polo brought spaghetti back from China. That story is well known to be a recent fiction created by a US trade association. The very fact that Lotus Foods claims Forbidden Rice® as a registered trademark suggests they made the name up. I agree that if the name does exist in China it more likely refers to the color than to an actual prohibition on others than the Emperor eating it. But I doubt it exists there. Colin McLarty (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact "purple rice" (紫米饭) does exist on Baidu and other Chinese web sites. All I find are recipes for this specialty rice, no reference to any prohibition ever existing, and no association with Emperors. Colin McLarty (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Whether a myth or not, the name "forbidden rice" has caught on and is now a common name for black rice. I've seen it in numerous menus, recipes and news articles. Just google it to confirm. Regardless of the accuracy of the source, it has still become a popular name for black rice. People like sexy names and sometimes they stick and become generic whether the trademark owner likes it or not: kleenex, bandaid, aspirin, yo-yo, rollerblade, frisbee, escalator, heroin, thermos, teflon, etc. For more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks. Trademark owners can publish advertisements encouraging their preferred use but cannot stop people from using the term generically.Timoey (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you want citations of generic use in scholarly documents, check out the 9 pages of hits from the following Google Scholar search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22forbidden+rice%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 -- just scan the cited passages to see the use. Some reference a trademark but most are just generic. Timoey (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is the source for the Forbidden Rice claim that everyone is referencing, often indirectly: http://www.flavorandfortune.com/ffdataaccess/article.php?ID=475 141.70.3.46 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Black ice.

Seriously? Mendeley (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed. —PaleoNeonate – 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Black rice

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

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Savannah yhzzz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Savannah yhzzz (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)