![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
As the only real S-E Asian names (in Indonesian and Malay) are associated with Dutch or the Netherlands, did the Dutch introduce the plan during colonial rule? Jalwikip 10:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is also commonly grown in South-East Asia, where it is known by names such as Sirsak (Indonesian, from Dutch zuurzak), Baahlsakk (Swedish) and Durian Belanda (Malay, lit. "Dutch durian")." - So, Sweden is part of South-East Asia? Is the Swedish name actually used there as-is? I can hardly believe... Jalwikip 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I very much doubt the necessity of stating the plant's name in all languages available, especially in the introduction, but I'll let it be for now. I removed the 'acid bag in Dutch', as although 'zuur' can mean acid, obviously it's alternate meaning 'sour' is meant here (besides it being nonsense translating it only for Dutch, and not the other languages). Maybe a section 'soursop in other languages' can be added or something, perhaps explaining per language the origin and why it even has a name in that language (the country's involvement in the Caribbean for example). Jalwikip 08:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the refrence, the tree is found in the South American rainforest. It als says that the tree's name is the Graviola tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.76.173 ( talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The user Alexbrn removed the following scientific sourced material, his edit reason POV. </ref> A 2008 study on the active ingredient acetogenins, a chemical found in soursop (and others from the Annonaceae family) states: "The powerful cytotoxicity, in vivo antitumor, pesticidal, antimalarial, anthelmintic, piscicidal, antiviral, and antimicrobial effects indicated a myriad of potentially useful applications." [1]
Alexbrn has been asked why he removed the part
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Alexbrn#Your_revert_of_sourced_science Alexbrn is asking "make a case" on this talk page. Done.
Case: One part he removed is material from "Cancer Research UK" (part of the source is already quoted on the wiki) - the additional "In laboratory studies, graviola extracts can kill some types of liver and breast cancer cells that are resistant to particular chemotherapy drugs." is directly relevant to the wiki section "Cancer treatment". The second part he removed is above linked science study about an ingredient of Soursop - an addition for the health section, i have to conclude that Alexbrn did not researched the data thoroughly enough prior to taking action - removal, it's not a POV (Point of view) as he claims, since the part of the data is already in the wiki or is a direct cite from a relevant science study. Prokaryotes ( talk) 00:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn insist on having 4 sentences on the toxicity of the plant seeds or even an entire section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annona_muricata#Toxicology dedicated to this common feature of fruits in general. However, most fruits we consume include toxic compounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants To improve the article i suggest to better reflect the toxic properties (maybe just 1 sentence) and point out how much of these seeds and duration till it is considered a health threat. Prokaryotes ( talk) 17:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Alexbrn and contibutors. I am trying to introduce a (missing) balance in the soursop article. It is clear from research and from the positions of cancer organisations that there are potential benefits and potential risks. I think that in order to have a balanced article, both need to be reflected. Just a few pointers and questions at this stage: - Why do you not consider primary research on the anticancer effects of soursop noteworthy? Why can't we have a section on "cancer research and treatment" where both the research and the treatment aspects are included, if necessary in separate subsections. Obviously primary research has no direct implication on treatment since doctors, hospitals and cancer organisations cannot rely on primary research to prescribe treatments. This is obvious and therefore any anticancer health claims made by manufacturers or sellers of soursop-based products are illegal and liable to prosecution. That said, primary research is usually the first step towards finding and eventually developing drugs against any disease. - Cancer Research UK states that "In laboratory studies, graviola extracts can kill some types of liver and breast cancer cells that are resistant to particular chemotherapy drugs. But there haven’t been any large scale studies in humans. So we don't know yet whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not. Overall, there is no evidence to show that graviola works as a cure for cancer. Many sites on the internet advertise and promote graviola capsules as a cancer cure, but none of them are supported by any reputable scientific cancer organisations." Why is the current version of the article using a selective quote, for example suppressing the statement that "we don't know yet whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not." I think it is important to quote fairly and not selectively. Selective quoting is a way of misrepresenting the author's intentions. - The toxicology findings are blown out of proportion as the studies are as conclusive or inconclusive as the studies on benefits. This is why the French food safety agency decided against restricting dosage of soursop, explicitly stating that the findings were insufficient to confirm a causal relationship between soursop and the observed cases of atypical Parkinson. Again, this fact was misrepresented in the earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Yes, there are potential risks (like with many foods and substances) but it is misleading to give more space to one potential risk than to a series of potential benefits. Looking forward to your comments Elfriede21 ( talk) 16:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Soursop, has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Alex Essilfie (
talk)
22:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page contains a translation of Guanabana from de.wikipedia. |
A vietnamese arcle indicate that in India, Tamilnadu language call Soursop as Multu-Chitta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 ( talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
As proposed earlier, I think the two articles, Annona muricata and Soursop should be merged since they both refer to the same plant and/or fruit. If the two are truly referring to different items (i.e. the plant and the fruit) then I propose a section be created in the destination page containing the contents of the source page.
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Soursop, Annona muricata.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 10, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-10-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Where does that paragraph come from and why? The text goes directly into saying there's no evidence for cure. How about introducing the readers first that Soursop is said to cure cancer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formicula ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There was 20 lab research and they said that graviola is 10 000 times better than chemotherapy.That is drug 1000 years used by Indians in South America.Graviola is good for body and there isn't side effect when you use it.Reshearch did Purdue University,Catholic University South Korea and many others.If you don't believe do reshearch soursop(also called graviola,annona muricata,guanábana) by yourself! 95.156.163.41 ( talk) 14:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The following URL discusses the medicinal use of this plant, including possible use as a cancer treatment: http://www.rain-tree.com/graviola.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.57.105 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 June 2004
I just noticed an edit to make the article more consistent in use of Caribbean English spelling. There's still a US English "tenderizer" though. It looks to me like the articles was started in US English in 2003, with the spelling "flavoring" (see here). US spelling was stable for several years, but was converted to Caribbean English in 2006 with this edit (though there were some back and forth edits over the spelling of flavo(u)r in the weeks preceding that edit). I don't really care if Caribbean English is used, but going by the "rules" it should probably be US English. Either way, it'd be good to add a banner advising which English variant should be used in this article. Plantdrew ( talk) 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the Mature tree size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.61.15 ( talk) 15:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I was reading Anguillan history (in Wikipedia: History of Anguillan Sailing) and noticed that the Anguillans used soursop wood for their boats. Woilorio ( talk) 23:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Soursop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The Properties section states: "The compound annonacin, which is contained in the seeds...". This implies that annonacin is only contained in the seeds.
The Neurotoxicity section states: "The compound annonacin, which is contained in the fruit and seeds...".
These statements are inconsistent in describing the location of annonacin in the fruit; is it in the seeds only or in both the fruit and seeds?
The article defines Soursop as "the fruit of Annona muricata". The Uses section states: "The flesh of the fruit consists of an edible, white pulp, some fiber, and a core of indigestible black seeds". These statements together define "fruit" as being the whole that consists of the components: pulp, fiber and seeds. The Neurotoxicity section statement is then redundant in stating annonacin is contained in the fruit and seeds. That statement should not be that annonacin is contained in the fruit; but that (in addition to being in the seeds) it is contained in one, the other, both or neither the pulp and fiber (whichever is correct).
Should fiber even be listed as a component? Unlike the pulp and seeds, the fiber is not an easily identifiable component that can be easily separated from the flesh; no more so than the sugar content.
-- SMStallings48 ( talk) 22:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
As the only real S-E Asian names (in Indonesian and Malay) are associated with Dutch or the Netherlands, did the Dutch introduce the plan during colonial rule? Jalwikip 10:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is also commonly grown in South-East Asia, where it is known by names such as Sirsak (Indonesian, from Dutch zuurzak), Baahlsakk (Swedish) and Durian Belanda (Malay, lit. "Dutch durian")." - So, Sweden is part of South-East Asia? Is the Swedish name actually used there as-is? I can hardly believe... Jalwikip 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I very much doubt the necessity of stating the plant's name in all languages available, especially in the introduction, but I'll let it be for now. I removed the 'acid bag in Dutch', as although 'zuur' can mean acid, obviously it's alternate meaning 'sour' is meant here (besides it being nonsense translating it only for Dutch, and not the other languages). Maybe a section 'soursop in other languages' can be added or something, perhaps explaining per language the origin and why it even has a name in that language (the country's involvement in the Caribbean for example). Jalwikip 08:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the refrence, the tree is found in the South American rainforest. It als says that the tree's name is the Graviola tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.76.173 ( talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The user Alexbrn removed the following scientific sourced material, his edit reason POV. </ref> A 2008 study on the active ingredient acetogenins, a chemical found in soursop (and others from the Annonaceae family) states: "The powerful cytotoxicity, in vivo antitumor, pesticidal, antimalarial, anthelmintic, piscicidal, antiviral, and antimicrobial effects indicated a myriad of potentially useful applications." [1]
Alexbrn has been asked why he removed the part
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Alexbrn#Your_revert_of_sourced_science Alexbrn is asking "make a case" on this talk page. Done.
Case: One part he removed is material from "Cancer Research UK" (part of the source is already quoted on the wiki) - the additional "In laboratory studies, graviola extracts can kill some types of liver and breast cancer cells that are resistant to particular chemotherapy drugs." is directly relevant to the wiki section "Cancer treatment". The second part he removed is above linked science study about an ingredient of Soursop - an addition for the health section, i have to conclude that Alexbrn did not researched the data thoroughly enough prior to taking action - removal, it's not a POV (Point of view) as he claims, since the part of the data is already in the wiki or is a direct cite from a relevant science study. Prokaryotes ( talk) 00:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Alexbrn insist on having 4 sentences on the toxicity of the plant seeds or even an entire section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annona_muricata#Toxicology dedicated to this common feature of fruits in general. However, most fruits we consume include toxic compounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants To improve the article i suggest to better reflect the toxic properties (maybe just 1 sentence) and point out how much of these seeds and duration till it is considered a health threat. Prokaryotes ( talk) 17:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Alexbrn and contibutors. I am trying to introduce a (missing) balance in the soursop article. It is clear from research and from the positions of cancer organisations that there are potential benefits and potential risks. I think that in order to have a balanced article, both need to be reflected. Just a few pointers and questions at this stage: - Why do you not consider primary research on the anticancer effects of soursop noteworthy? Why can't we have a section on "cancer research and treatment" where both the research and the treatment aspects are included, if necessary in separate subsections. Obviously primary research has no direct implication on treatment since doctors, hospitals and cancer organisations cannot rely on primary research to prescribe treatments. This is obvious and therefore any anticancer health claims made by manufacturers or sellers of soursop-based products are illegal and liable to prosecution. That said, primary research is usually the first step towards finding and eventually developing drugs against any disease. - Cancer Research UK states that "In laboratory studies, graviola extracts can kill some types of liver and breast cancer cells that are resistant to particular chemotherapy drugs. But there haven’t been any large scale studies in humans. So we don't know yet whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not. Overall, there is no evidence to show that graviola works as a cure for cancer. Many sites on the internet advertise and promote graviola capsules as a cancer cure, but none of them are supported by any reputable scientific cancer organisations." Why is the current version of the article using a selective quote, for example suppressing the statement that "we don't know yet whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not." I think it is important to quote fairly and not selectively. Selective quoting is a way of misrepresenting the author's intentions. - The toxicology findings are blown out of proportion as the studies are as conclusive or inconclusive as the studies on benefits. This is why the French food safety agency decided against restricting dosage of soursop, explicitly stating that the findings were insufficient to confirm a causal relationship between soursop and the observed cases of atypical Parkinson. Again, this fact was misrepresented in the earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Yes, there are potential risks (like with many foods and substances) but it is misleading to give more space to one potential risk than to a series of potential benefits. Looking forward to your comments Elfriede21 ( talk) 16:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Soursop, has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Alex Essilfie (
talk)
22:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page contains a translation of Guanabana from de.wikipedia. |
A vietnamese arcle indicate that in India, Tamilnadu language call Soursop as Multu-Chitta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 ( talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
As proposed earlier, I think the two articles, Annona muricata and Soursop should be merged since they both refer to the same plant and/or fruit. If the two are truly referring to different items (i.e. the plant and the fruit) then I propose a section be created in the destination page containing the contents of the source page.
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Soursop, Annona muricata.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 10, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-10-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Where does that paragraph come from and why? The text goes directly into saying there's no evidence for cure. How about introducing the readers first that Soursop is said to cure cancer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formicula ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There was 20 lab research and they said that graviola is 10 000 times better than chemotherapy.That is drug 1000 years used by Indians in South America.Graviola is good for body and there isn't side effect when you use it.Reshearch did Purdue University,Catholic University South Korea and many others.If you don't believe do reshearch soursop(also called graviola,annona muricata,guanábana) by yourself! 95.156.163.41 ( talk) 14:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The following URL discusses the medicinal use of this plant, including possible use as a cancer treatment: http://www.rain-tree.com/graviola.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.57.105 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 June 2004
I just noticed an edit to make the article more consistent in use of Caribbean English spelling. There's still a US English "tenderizer" though. It looks to me like the articles was started in US English in 2003, with the spelling "flavoring" (see here). US spelling was stable for several years, but was converted to Caribbean English in 2006 with this edit (though there were some back and forth edits over the spelling of flavo(u)r in the weeks preceding that edit). I don't really care if Caribbean English is used, but going by the "rules" it should probably be US English. Either way, it'd be good to add a banner advising which English variant should be used in this article. Plantdrew ( talk) 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the Mature tree size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.61.15 ( talk) 15:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I was reading Anguillan history (in Wikipedia: History of Anguillan Sailing) and noticed that the Anguillans used soursop wood for their boats. Woilorio ( talk) 23:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Soursop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The Properties section states: "The compound annonacin, which is contained in the seeds...". This implies that annonacin is only contained in the seeds.
The Neurotoxicity section states: "The compound annonacin, which is contained in the fruit and seeds...".
These statements are inconsistent in describing the location of annonacin in the fruit; is it in the seeds only or in both the fruit and seeds?
The article defines Soursop as "the fruit of Annona muricata". The Uses section states: "The flesh of the fruit consists of an edible, white pulp, some fiber, and a core of indigestible black seeds". These statements together define "fruit" as being the whole that consists of the components: pulp, fiber and seeds. The Neurotoxicity section statement is then redundant in stating annonacin is contained in the fruit and seeds. That statement should not be that annonacin is contained in the fruit; but that (in addition to being in the seeds) it is contained in one, the other, both or neither the pulp and fiber (whichever is correct).
Should fiber even be listed as a component? Unlike the pulp and seeds, the fiber is not an easily identifiable component that can be easily separated from the flesh; no more so than the sugar content.
-- SMStallings48 ( talk) 22:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)