Talk:Açaí palm

Why is this article apparently hostile to Acai Juice due to some US marketers glossy claims ?
You have a low quality reading experience here, over-reacting to some commercials, in my opinion. This article needs a new tone overall, it is filled with negative counter-claims, to the detriment of basic, level-headed statement of facts. As a layman in the US, I ask.. if the juice has some antioxidents, some nutrition, and a mild laxative effect, what is bad about that for dieting ? Just because Oprah and Dr Oz made a splashy marketing campaign, does the whole article have to be read as a diatribe against Acai ? 01Nov2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.49 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the talk page is is to provide space for editors to discuss specific changes to the associated article. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (c.f. WP:TPG). Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My personal views are subordinate to a pointed criticism of this harsh, unpleasant article on an ordinary, healthy food. Science citation overrun, ruining a decent topic, I say. Am I alone ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.49 (talk)  15:27, 2 November 2017
 * Again, this is not a complaint desk or a soap box. The Talk page is for discussing addition/modification of specific content and sources and tangible editorial issues, with the ultimate aim of improving the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be "science citations", but they have to come from reliable sources. If you have reliably-sourced information, especially for claims that don't relate to health or potential health, then by all means, expand the article. If you want some feedback on changes you want to make, if you want some help determining whether a source is good enough, this might be an OK place for that. If you want to complain, but can't be bothered to help, then you probably aren't going to get a lot of traction. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think the tone of the article needs to work very hard on being neutral, not PROMO and not overly critical. Bod (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Just trying to learn about a tree here. Feels like every other sentence is a skewer of health claims lol Isthistwisted (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 16:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Açaí palm → Acai – This article was moved by MPF on 1 February 2005 from Acai -> Acai palm along with all content. The article is about the palm tree and the fruit. Given that most people coming to the article are interested in the information about the fruit, Acai seems the right title. See (Apple tree) which redirects to (Apple). Bod (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2005 is 12 years ago, Wikipedia was in its infancy, and it gets challenged now? Sorry the name is Açaí palm, the fruit comes from the tree. And it certainly wouldn't be "Acai" with full font removed. See also Açaí oil in English books. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In ictu oculi gets at why. And "Acai" in particular is simply a factual error.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Cambridge dictionary has "açaí", but Oxford has "açai", and Merriam-Webster has "acai, or less commonly açai". Peter James (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The edit history of proposer reflects influence of the marketing hype around açaí products for which WP users may come to the article for information. We shouldn't be persuaded by fad marketing of the fruit which will inevitably fade. As it is, the article has uneven balance about the palm itself (needing improved botanical details) and uses of the fruit. --Zefr (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The legend of the name: Iaca
I found out about the legend of the name and it is all over the place, why not mention it. This is from urban dictionary: "It is known by the native people (indigenas) as "içá-çai", which means “fruit that cries”. The Acai tree can be found all over the Amazonia region. To make Acai Roots, juice is extracted from the pulp of the skin of the seed. No trees are harmed in the process. For hundreds of years, acai (açaí) has been a traditional food of the native people of the Amazon – and part of its folklore, finding its way into legend as well as onto the table. Once upon a time, there was an Amazon Indian girl named Iaca, whose father was the tribal chief. His tribe had grown so large that there wasn’t enough food to go around. So, the chief decreed that all newborn babies must be killed. When Iaca, his own daughter, bore a child, the chief had his decree carried out. Iaca mourned her baby’s death alone in her hut for days. Then she thought she heard a baby crying. When she went outside in search of the baby, she saw a palm tree shooting up from the earth, covered in fruit. Full of despair, she lay down under the tree and died. The next day, the tribe found Iaca’s body under the new tree. The tree’s fruit satisfied their hunger and renewed their energy, and the chief lifted his harsh decree, declaring that the fruit would be named after his daughter (“Acai” is “Iaca” spelled backwards). With abundant food for all, the tribe grew and flourished. Acai has been enjoyed for decades by the people of Brazil. A bowl of Acai is usually eaten in the morning with breakfast. " Bod (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Confusion comes from the name "Iaca" being spelled backward as "acai." Did the natives use our alphabet? The article should make it clear that this could not be the origin of the name "acai." Landroo (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your logic is decent, but I think false: The sounds themselves could (theoretically) have been reversed... EE-AW-*SAW* to AW-SAW-*EE*. (Note stress change). 71.198.89.109 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Healthy berry
In an attempt to "dry out" the article, some editors have chosen to downplay any healthy aspects of the berry to the extent that the layperson can't garner any shred of truth as to why the berry skyrocketed to fame and scams and has been a staple food for so long. Even I'm trying to understand it. Typically a berry doesn't make up a staple food, but sometimes a fruit like a banana might. So basically, the berry is high in calories and fat, like an avocado, while also not being very sweet. So this makes it healthy... This needs to be summarized somewhere. I understand how controversial the antioxidant claims and marketing were and are, but this fruit has more going for it than just antioxidants. Bod (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just buying the hype. There's no good evidence this fruit has any special nutritional value and certainly no health benefits. Please stop the opinion additions you've been making and move on to another topic. --Zefr (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Page is overall not neutral and need a new tone
The page is overly detrimental of the product and not neutral in general. Cites old science. User Zefr is overly protective and does not allow for the page to be constructively updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylof (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have specific editorial suggestions, make them. This is not a bulletin board for expressing vague gripes, and personal attacks on other editors are way out of bounds. Comment on content, not other editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So you make a vague complaint and an unsupported allegation that the article "cites old science", and then you bypass the Talk page altogether and add a research paper (from an obscure journal) that's older (1994) than any of the other "science" cited in the article. That makes no sense whatsoever. Going forward, I strongly suggest you propose any changes to the article here and gain WP:CONSENSUS. Rhode Island Red (talk)


 * Sure thing! My bad, sorry Zefr! I publicly apologize. I´m new here and may be messing things a little. Anyway, this is a C-Rated article on Brazil and I tried to add a little bit of first hand content since I was born and raised there. My intent was to improve it, but the community here didn´t seem to be very friendly and rebuffed almost all of my edits. Now I realize how some of them were indeed editorializing but many others weren´t.
 * To your point about the science, the 1994 article I refered to is a simple characterization, it will neve be published in a mainstream publication excactly because it is simple and studied the basic composition of different fruits. The fruit won't change significantly in its composition in such a short time and I believe it is still relevant.
 * On the Added sugar edit (Revision as of 20:09, 21 December 2018 (edit)) please refer to:
 * (seeking WP:consensus ;-) ) Danylof (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that we don't plug products by linking to them here on WP (see WP:PROMO). Nonetheless, I modified the lead to refer to sugar or other sweeteners, which should address any concerns in that regard. Again, it's odd that in your initial comment you made a vague complaint about the research being outdated and then added what would have been the oldest study in the article. It's important to be consistent with editorial rationalizations. Nonetheless, the text you sought to add about phytosterols is very poorly supported by that 1994 paper. The details reported are unacceptably vague, so that won't fly. It borders on poorly sourced nebulous trivia. Ideally, we would want a better quality WP:SECONDARY source to pin down the details and establish relevancy.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Savannah yhzzz (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)