Talk:Asimina triloba

Duplicate sentence
In Research about mid paragraph: Cultivation is best in hardiness zones 5-9 and trees take 7–8 years from seedling to fruiting. In Cultivation, the section below, it again says: Cultivation is best in hardiness zones 5-9 and trees take 7–8 years from seedling to fruiting. I suspect the first occurrence in Research should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawjapaul (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Edible fruit and historical significance
If someone knows about the cultivation of this tree for its fruit and the tree's historical cultural significance for Native Americans, it would be a great addition to the article. -kslays (talk • contribs) 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Asimina
The following items of discussion, all apparently pertaining to the species Asimina triloba, rather than to the pawpaw genus (Asimia) taken broadly, were moved here from the Talk:Asimina page 26July2011:

Wrong Identity
in Australia there are plants referred as pawpaw trees, however they are not these in this article. the fruit inside is orange, with copious seeds and air inside, the fruit grow against the trunk on female trees, and flowers appear with the leaves on male trees. whereas here with this article, its not orange, not on the trunk, and few seeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.38.194 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet more fun results of the imprecision inherent in favoring common names over those of scientific ones in article titles! Read here and you may understand the situation in Australia better. After reading that, go to the Wikipedia article for Carica papaya, and see if the fruit in the picture resembles what you think of as pawpaw... Hamamelis (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

For more information on how "pawpaw" came, in North America and in several regions that follow US rather than British English usage, to mean Asimina triloba rather than Carica Papaya, see below under Etymology of "Pawpaw". A likely cause, though not explicitly documented in any authorities I have seen, is that the English-speakers who settled in the heavily frosted parts of North America simply lost contact with the original pawpaw (Carica papaya), so that for them in time "the native pawpaw" became simply "the pawpaw". Marcasella (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pollination
The article states that pawpaw needs 2 varieties in order to pollinate, but as I've discovered, not necessarily 2 separate plantings of trees. I bought a young grafted tree, and the rootstock used with the graft put up colony trees a short distance away. The rootstock and the graft are different genetically so the colony flowers are able to pollinate the graft's flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.159.106 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But when it comes to seed grown plants, is pawpaw a dioecious species? 67.105.21.234 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Taste
I've never even seen a pawpaw but how does it taste? The mango and banana used in the description taste nothing alike. Does it taste like a combination of the two? - Marshman 17:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, or as I think, a cross between a banana and a peach. Some also say a banana and a pineapple, but unlike pineapple it has no tartness or acidity whatever.  Which is why it keeps so poorly.  It's very moist and creamy.  The texture is utterly without grain, unlike a any of the fruits just mentioned.  Think of the smoothness of avacado, but juicer.  &mdash; Clarknova 07:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I live in NYC. I know that the pawpaw can grow in New York but I haven't the slightest idea how to get my hands on a it (looking to eat it.) Tell me, is it possible to get some to eat come spring? shadowcat60 07:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just want to say that on a walk from Riverbend Park in Great Falls VA to Great Falls National Park in recently, I came upon several dropprings of pawpaw fruit. Seems the trees were quite profuse in that area, so anyone around here can experience the fruit in any way they like.

Further information
I have read that the Paw paw was widely cultivated by Native Americans throughout the Northeastern United States and up into Canada, and produces the largest edible fruit native to North America. There is a town of Paw Paw in West Virginia and a tunnel on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal called the Paw paw tunnel that are both named after the fruit, apparently. There are many historic patches of Paw paw trees in Maryland on the grounds of historic buildings; I do not know how old these trees are, but it is interesting. I have also read that some grocery stores sell them, but I have never encountered one in a grocery store yet. --Filll 19:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Green when ripe
From the article: it is green when unripe, maturing to yellow or brown.

This statement isn't exactly true. The wild ones I have found stay green when ripe. You can see in the photo of the pawpaw cut open that the skin is green. The photo of the pawpaws in the tree could be ready to fall. After they lay on the ground for awhile they turn dark. The way to tell they are ripe is when they start to get soft. Its only a problem if you pick them off the tree. I'll try to find a source to back me up on this.-Crunchy Numbers 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In Pursuit of the Elusive Pawpaw
There was a nice story in the Washington Post, In Pursuit of the Elusive Pawpaw that had some interesting information and some good links. Blank Verse 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Insecticidal
I was the one who added the thing about being able to make an insecticide out of pieces of pawpaw tree - I had found something on google saying as much, but I'm sorry after checking it now I couldn't find it again. I do also remember reading about how Native Americans used the powdered seeds to control lice (which I also added) - again I'm searching on Google and can't find it again. What I do remember reading is that there are indeed alkaloid compounds in the pawpaw that do act as an insecticide and are ethanol and methanol soluble - this was how they extracted the compounds in a study on these compounds that I had found on Google. I will check again shortly and add the citations. -EDWIN Once ripe, the pawpaw fruit is the tasty food of choice of all including but not limited to humans, opposum, raccoon, deer, turkey, mules. Many young boys grow into manhood accurately remembering regurgitating the pawpaw fruit immediately upon consumption and never knowing the tasty benefits of the ripe pawpaw fruit. Not unlike eating a little green apple prior to maturity, the consumption of any unripe fruit can be unpleasant. Diminish not the benefit of a fully ripe pawpaw fruit because of an impression gained under considerably different conditions.

The monarch butterfly is the only known insect, pest, or animal that will consume the "green" pawpaw fruit, leaves, stems, or roots. The monarch butterfly consumes milkweed and pawpaw for protection from all predators during the long annual migration to Mexico. No known insect and no known animal will consume green pawpaw leaves, twigs, or fruit. Growers of natural fruit often utilize planted and intermingled pawpaw trees to protect fruit trees from insects, pest, and animals. Crushed or blended pawpaw leaves mixed with soap are sprayed onto fruit tree blossoms prior to bloom to ward off insects. Regarding protection of humans from attack by mosquitoes, more effective than "deet" are a fist full of pawpaw leaves rubbed against the skin. (yellowcorvette4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowcorvette4 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Pawpaw leaves are the sole food source of the zebra swallowtail's larvae. I have never seen any documentation about the monarch butterfly's larvae using pawpaw (leaves, fruit skins, flowers) as a food source. The monarch butterfly feeds on many milkweed species (including species from some genera other than Asclepias) and requires those species for full/correct development. 107.77.192.177 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

paw paw nursery rhyme
There is a nursery rhyme about a paw paw patch. I have searched everywhere but no success. PLEASE HELP??!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.102.61 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Medicinal Use
So... Looks like this article was being used to advertise a cure for cancer. Is this Wikipedia or the National Enquirer? The website that was the source for the claim is registered to the same company as the manufacturers of the cure (Healthy Sunshine). (A WHOIS of pawpawresearch.com turns that up). Because it's not enough just to eat a pawpaw, but only to buy their 'standardized' product. Right. Unless there is independant and verifiable confirmation in reputable sources, instead of advertising websites, then this claim is about as credible as the penis enlargement pills they keep promoting in Spam E-mails. And I don't think they'd count as a reputable source, right? 118.90.99.136 (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this Wikipedia or the National Enquirer? It's the aggregate of how the contributors collectively build each article.  Thanks for moving it in the right direction.  --Kbh3rd talk  02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing it. The policy on reliable sources is at WP:RS and you are right that a manufacturer's web site doesn't quality. Even if it had been a research paper, it wouldn't have justified the text as it had been written (see WP:NOTADVERTISING for example). Kingdon (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional info. Note, the 'enquirer' comment was simply my astonishment at the claim lasting in the article for such a long period of time, not an accusation to any editor in specific. Thanks. 118.90.3.216 (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultivation
Patently false: "Asimina triloba is the only larval host of the Zebra Swallowtail Butterfly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enteredalready (talk • contribs) 06:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. The article Zebra Swallowtail Butterfly does mention several other Asimina hosts, and without checking the reference there (and/or others) I couldn't say whether every host is in Asimina, so I removed the word "only". Please speak up if there is any problem with the wording as I revised it. Kingdon (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Should "colonial thicket" be "clonal thicket"? Link goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonal_colony Michael pirrello (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Faint, sometimes odorless, but smells like rotting meat?
Ok, how can the flowers be faint, sometimes odorless, but also have a strong smell of rotting meat? Someone needs to check up on this. I've never grown or eaten pawpaws, though I have been planning to plant one for a couple of years, now. Still, rotting meat is an extremely fetid, strong odor.

Considering the blowfly is one of the primary pollinators of the pawpaw, I am inclined to believe that it does smell like rotting meat, as the article later suggests. Blowflies primarily feed on decomposing flesh and fetid flowers. Other articles, including the blowfly article, suggest this trait of the pawpaw. I recommend that the reference to faint or odorless be removed, as it appears to be inaccurate when compared to other sources. 75.163.244.110 (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Read again. The article isn't as clearly written as it should be, but it doesn't say the odor of rotting meat is 'strong'. In fact, it refers to farmers deliberatly adding to the smell by placing carrion nearby to attract the blowflies, because it is too faint on its own. Another important point is that paw-paw (genus Asimina) is far from a singular species (see the species list), so there is variation in flower smell among them. Just more of the confusion caused by giving biota articles the title of common names over scientific ones (imo). Hamamelis (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Diseases
A TV program was talking about a disease which causes the growth of pawpaws to be stunted, and the leaves to be curly. I forgot to write down the name of the disease. Does anyone know about this? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A little googling mostly finds pages which say the pawpaw is not particularly prone to disease, such as . Without a few more details (preferably, the name of the pathogen/disease) it might be a fair bit of hunting to try to find this. Kingdon (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Could it be papaya leaf-curl virus, said to be spread by a white fly Bemisia tabaci? Nadiatalent (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Largest edible fruit" indigenous to US?
What about pumpkins? The source for the statement is not particularly authoritative, either. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 20:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. As the Fruit article says, pumpkin is generally considered a vegetable for culinary purposes, but botanically, it is a fruit. Regardless of that, the statement may be correct, since the pumpkin is a squash (Cucurbita), and the Cucurbita article says they are native to the Andes and Mesoamerica, which does not include the United States. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly the Turban squash, which is typically 6 pounds when mature, is native to the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Asimina triloba. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://features.csmonitor.com/gardening/2009/02/04/americas-forgotten-fruit/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Nursery Rhyme
How is the nursery rhyme relevant to the identity or information of the plant? It seems irrelevant and distracting from the actual purpose of learning about the plant.EnsleyHydroSib (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nutritional information
From many other wiki pages of fruits and vegetables, there is nutritional information available but on the 'pawpaw page' this is missing. Anyone who can add this information? Thanks. Levisonndlovuz (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nutrient information on Wikipedia is typically derived from the USDA National Nutrient Database of some 68,200 foods, but there is no report on paw paw in the database, probably because it is neither cultivated as a food nor commonly found where people obtain food. Other internet sources of nutrient content have to be viewed with skepticism. However, Kentucky State University (who should be reliable) published this report with data that look credible. I'll look into it further and report back here. --Zefr (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Added a nutrient table and discussion using the limited data available from the KSU reference mentioned above and now included in the table footnote. The source and quality of deriving the nutrient data were reported as follows from one of the KSU pawpaw program co-investigators: The analysis was conducted by USDA nutritional researchers in 1982 and reported in: Peterson, R. Neal, John P. Cherry, and Joseph G. Simmons, 1982. Composition of Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) Fruit. Ann. Rpt. N. Nut Growers Assoc. 77:97-106. --Zefr (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asimina triloba. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719225834/http://www.pawpaw.kysu.edu/pawpaw/cooking.htm to http://www.pawpaw.kysu.edu/pawpaw/cooking.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of "Pawpaw"
I have fleshed out the opening discussion of this plant's common names, and of the consequent confusion with the quite unrelated Carica papaya. Although it makes the discussion lengthier, I have added the blockquote from Daniel F. Austin's massive Florida Ethnobotany, because this is the most concise sorting-out I can find of this confusing issue by a good source, and it is one that can be checked online.

I am not yet satisfied with footnote 8, for the 1598 first use of "Papaw" in English. It would be better to cite the OED or SOED, but it's late tonight and I don't have them to hand. It would also be useful to note that this occurrence was in print, and in England (if my memory is correct). Perhaps someone else could check this?

I also worry a bit about the article's statement (even though several authorities propound it) that papaw/pawpaw is derived from the Spanish word papaya (said to be from a native Carib word). The English had good reason to frequent different ports in the Caribbean islands from the Spaniards, and the extinct Carib language no doubt had many dialects (or separate related languages?). So it should be no surprise if the English picked up a related but distinctly different version of the (supposedly single) Carib name --which, by the way, may not even have been originally Carib, since the plant (and hence very possibly its name in the Carib language/s) seems to have come from the mainland.

I also wonder about Clark's journal-entry (during the 1806 Lewis and Clark expedition) that the men were "subsisting on popows" (see Explorations Into the World of Lewis and Clark, Volume 2, p 625). Might there have been an Indian-language name that fed into this variant spelling? It is also odd that although most settlers seem to have been reminded of a banana rather than of a pawpaw/papaya, it was the name "pawpaw" rather than "banana" that this North American tree has, in the end, taken over. And also odd that the "banana" names seem to need to be preceded by some adjective like "wild" or "Indiana", whereas "papaw" is often used without adjective. But Wikipedia can't sort out what the best authorities fail to address!

Future changes (and national divergences) in meaning may also occur. In Australia at present commercial groups such as "Papaya Australia" and "Agrifutures Australia" have websites claiming that "Papaya and pawpaw are the same species but two very different fruits. Papaya has red flesh, while pawpaw is yellow". Since the traditional back-yard "pawpaws" are yellow-fleshed, it would suit the interests of growers and retailers if customers came to believe that newer red-fleshed varieties are different fruits that require a different name. See https://www.simongeorge.com.au/produce/simon-george-and-sons-winter-fruits-something-different/ and http://australianpapaya.com.au/about/varieties/  and http://www.agrifutures.com.au/farm-diversity/paw-paw_papaya/. American tourism may also influence usage in Australia, New Zealand, and other regions.

Finally, I think there was a trace of North American chauvinism in the article's previous statement that in some regions the term Pawpaw "is commonly used for Papaya". A more neutral statement (which might be appropriate for Wikipedia's article on Carica papaya) might be that in British international English Carica papaya is commonly called pawpaw, but in American international English (as in Spanish) it is called papaya. One might then add that the word pawpaw has been reapplied in modern American usage to the North American tree Asimina triloba--at least by that percentage of Americans who have heard of this tree. (It would be good for that article to state when English-speakers in the USA ceased to call Carica papaya "pawpaw", and/or when it became acceptable and then dominant usage in the USA to use the Spanish word "papaya" for that fruit; but this may be a long and tangled story, and I can't find good sources for it.)

See also the earlier Talk section on "Wrong Identity". Marcasella (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Documenting JzG's destruction of material
Since I will not be working further on the Asimina triloba article, I am posting this information here in case anyone wants the information (per links below). I am leaving this note here to keep my work from disappearing completely (as it most definitely will since it will reside only in the edit history). I'm pinging editors who have contributed on the article in the last year in case any one of them would like to resurrect some, or all, of the information I had provided. Notifying:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and.

This report is related to editor JzG's destructive reversion of my entire work on Asimina triloba for the last week saying it was "Primary-sourced promotional". To the contrary, the sources were neither primary source, nor promotional of anything. Citations and content were added to provide information on the pawpaw tree and the research that has been done by a land-grant university, and published by three universities and the Cooperative Extension Service, a department of the United States government whose purpose is to collect and publish research done on agricultural subjects. None of the publications or citations were promoting anything.

Just to be clear: I have nothing to do with Kentucky State University (not as a student, professor, employee, alumn, supplier, or anything else), nor do I have anything to do with University of Kentucky, Purdue University, pawpaw research, or anything else I edited adjunct to my work on this project. I merely have four pawpaw seedling trees in my backyard and had obtained information from the coop extension service and did some research. Here is a photo sampling of some of the printed material I received, showing who published the information. I was shocked to notice that the Wikipedia article on pawpaw trees didn't even mention the leading research institution for the subject; the same authority that everyone goes to, and cites, when they write about pawpaw trees. The article was also missing numerous key data on the subject, which I tried to fill in, and there was some incorrectly included information (such as pawpaw bears animated show, which has nothing to do with Asimina triloba). If there was something inadequate in the article after my work, or a single citation that shouldn't be used, then one should fix it or remark about the one thing, but not delete an entire block of work spanning 7 days, 19 edits and 7,500 characters! This sort of senseless destruction of one's work by other editors is why I made the decision earlier this week to retire from editing on Wikipedia. Completing this pawpaw project was my final swan song.

(Also related, is JzG's WikiHounding reversion just one and a half minutes later of my work on Morrill Land-Grant Acts as "not a reliable source". Note that the citation which offends JzG was added to the article over 3 years ago and I was merely clarifying the article's paragraph, which was confusing.)

— Normal Op (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a larger behavioral issue that needs addressing, an admin will likely have to get involved. On the subject of content, a number of User:Normal Op's edits appear to be neutral and helpful to the article. I can also see why some of the content could appear to be promotional; while it may be WP:USEFUL to know that KYSU researches paw paws, the sources for establishing that it is notable to include that information should come from secondary sources discussing it. It does appear that there was attempt to do this, as Purdue University and University of Kentucky were used as sources about KYSU's endeavors. In the interest of keeping the baby, I restored the bulk of the removed content, but also made copyedits, including removing the list of cultivars and moving the research section to Kentucky State University (ableit incorporating the general information into appropriate places). —Ost (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The 19 edits include the following
1. Added an external link to Kentucky State University Pawpaw Program in the External Links section

2. Rearranged the cultural significance section

3. Added text about Michigan places with pawpaw names based on the extant citation

4. Fixed Maryland/West Virginia canal tunnel mention. Fixed URL

5. Added a place in Illinois with pawpaw name using citation from http://gis.hpa.state.il.us from National Register of Historic Places

6. Added a place in Indiana with pawpaw name using citation of an 1887 book titled "History of Miami County, Indiana: From the Earliest Time to the Present"

7. Added a place in Kentucky with pawpaw name using citation of a 2015 book "My Old Kentucky Road Trip: Historic Destinations & Natural Wonders"

8. Added a place in Missouri with pawpaw name using citation from The State Historical Society of Missouri

9. Added notation about National Pawpaw Day using citations from https://nationaldaycalendar.com and https://kysu.edu/

10. Minor; added bluelink

11. Fixed typo in extant content

12. Fixed parameters in extant citation

13. In propagation section: added second citation to augment the single citation, clarified some language, corrected some errors, added intra-wikilinks to esoteric horticultural terms. New citation is from a 1990 booklet by M. Brett Callaway and this copy published by KYSU (from http://www.pawpaw.kysu.edu/). Other Callaway writings on pawpaw were also published by Purdue University, Penn State Univ, and have been cited by other books such as J. Janick and J.E. Simon (eds.), New crops. Wiley, New York. As is said in another Callaway publication, "M Brett Callaway is Tropical Germplasm Manager for Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Horticulture at the University of Kentucky." 

14. Propagation and cultivation sections: Removed false information that had already been tagged as citation-needed and added correct information and citation from a state government agency, Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet https://eec.ky.gov

15. Made lengthy single column into two columns, and moved the citation from the bottom of the list up to the tail of the lead-in for the list

16. Added more cultivars to the extant list based on two new citations from kysu.edu

17. Added citation of a publication from uky.edu (University of Kentucky) which was reviewed by personnel at KYSU before publication

18. In propagation section, corrected information about seed viability and added Univ of KY citation to paragraphs where it could support extant text. 

19. Added new section titled Research (because I didn't know where else to put it). Included the information that the National Germplasm location for pawpaw species is at KYSU, when it was started, and what activities does a "germplasm" and "research" location mean. Used three current citations, and added three: 2 from kysu.edu and 1 from https://hort.purdue.edu (Purdue University)

— Normal Op (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

To JzG
So you think you know more than the leading research group on an esoteric botanical subject which those experts have been researching for thirty years while publishing information. Your hatred for me knows no bounds, and your obstructive actions towards me, along with your fellow small clique of editors, is what has driven me from the project. I'm sure I'm neither the first nor the last editor you've helped drive away. Referring to my edits as "good faith edits" is merely a pretense for what was an intentional blow. Your words are contradicted by (and actions exposed by) the fact you put no good faith work into determining which of my 19 edits might be good and which might be bad. No, you just deleted the entire lot of edits a mere 2.5 minutes after you noticed it. This is not an action acceptable in an administrator level user. And repeated decisions and actions such as you made here are why all good editors quit sooner or later. Good luck with your "career". — Normal Op (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires reliable independent secondary sources. You can include the content if you back it with independent sources, but you don't get to use your institution as a source for your institution being unique. Also, dial back the wrongteous anger a notch or two, OK? Guy (help!) 08:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "my institution". Like I said, I have nothing to do with KYSU. And if you'd spent anything more than 2 minutes looking at my 19 edits, you would have seen that KYSU was neither the main focus nor the majority citation source. Go ahead and look at my new list above and tell me where there is "primary source" used. I'm really curious. And if you were "the bigger man", you'd look at the list, revert your mass reversion, and only revert specific items that really are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines (if there are any). — Normal Op (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, primary sources are not prohibited in Wikipedia. To wit: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Source: WP:RSPRIMARY from Reliable sources — Normal Op (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Big chunks of text lauding some institution or other and based solely on their own publications, are not permitted. Find reliable independent sources. And if you seriously think your battleground mentality is going to help you here, I am afraid you are likely to be disappointed. Oh, and don't lecture 15-year veterans about policy - you're welcome to state that in your opinion this would be covered by one or other of the exceptions to WP:RS for some good reason, but to state, as you do, with absolute certainty, that your use of primary promotional sources is permitted, is both rude and counterproductive. I have over 120,000 edits to more than 50,000 pages, so it's wise to assume that my opinion on policy is at least as valid as yours. Guy (help!) 21:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just documenting your actions... and your lack of judgment in THIS case. You still haven't addressed the 14 of my 19 edits that you reverted that have absolutely nothing to do with KYSU (#2-8, 10-12, 14-15, & 17-18). Only 2 edits (#9 & #19) could possibly be imagined to contain any language "lauding an institution" — one mentioning National Pawpaw Day and the other mentioning that KYSU is the national germplasm center for asimina species, and I provided non-KYSU sourced citations for both claims! Yet somehow in the two minutes you used to review my week of edits (why this article?... wikihounding, of course) you somehow magically decided the entire work was faulty. I have no intentions of editing the article to bring back the parts you removed so callously, and you've had several opportunities now to fix what you broke. I'm not cleaning up after you this time. — Normal Op (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

May be harmful
I added a clarify tag to request a better explanation of possible negative effects to human health in section Fruits. Several things seem confusing to me and I'm uncertain whether the current wording really reflects the cited sources.

"Due to ... possible presence of pesticides, ..." This makes it sound like the concern is about pesticides applied to the plant by growers; but earlier in the article it says that pesticides are not frequently used. The cited articles seem to be about investigating the use of extracts of certain parts of the plant as pesticides, and investigating effects on animals of those extracts. To me it seems really different. Is there a way to explain it better?

I don't know if it's possible to sort out in the cited sources, but I'd be interested to know in more detail about the difference between concerns about eating the fruit versus concerns about getting parts of the plant on your skin. The article wording seems to conflate it all.

The wording "may be harmful to humans" seems really general and scary. Is this warranted from what the sources say? How are the specific concerns different or more dire than with other fruit or nuts?

A note (plea for help): I'm new to editing, so any advice on how to do this better is appreciated. Lex (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - I checked the main sources and found no reason to discuss pesticides and potential harm to humans, and so edited the sentence. The contact dermatitis concern seems valid for people having allergic reactions to leaf, bark, and fruit skin compounds, but there is no literature on this being a major issue for growers, pickers or consumers. The neurotoxicity implication (via the compound, annonacin) is weak from only preliminary lab research, PMID 22130466, with no reliable evidence neurotoxicity occurs in human consumers. Advice for editing: read WP:SCIRS sources, then edit. Others watching the page will modify as needed. No edit is final. Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "The neurotoxicity implication (via the compound, annonacin) is weak from only preliminary lab research" That's not what the annonacin article says. It says the compound is highly toxic. Therefore, particularly pertinent questions here are: What is the range of annonacin concentration in pawpaw fruit? How much pawpaw fruit is safe to consume? How does the pawpaw's annonacin content compare with fruits from related species linked with Parkinson's? I take this quite seriously as the professor who introduced me to annual pawpaw gathering developed Parkinson's. Anecdotal, perhaps... yet enough of a link to make me wary enough to not mistake lack of research for lack of toxicity. 107.77.192.177 (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is this discussion at the annonacin article, but the neurotoxicity published evidence appears to come only from in vitro studies (where high pharmacological doses were used) and one 1999 case report of palsy in people who ate soursop fruits.
 * For pawpaw, there is a long American history of consuming the fruit safely, and no publications with evidence of neurotoxicity from typical amounts consumed. When PubMed is searched for "annonacin-pawpaw-fruit", this result doesn't clarify the potentially large dose differences of annonacin levels consumed in typical fruit eating vs. those used in the lab to demonstrate neurotoxicity on isolated neurons.
 * Your questions: 1) annonacin content in pawpaw fruit - this report says 0.0701 mg/g; 2) How much pawpaw fruit is safe to consume? - no reports; 3) How does the pawpaw's annonacin content compare with fruits from related species linked with Parkinson's? - no reports. Zefr (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"Melon fruit" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Melon fruit. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Added External Link
Hello,

I added the Peterson Pawpaws page to external links. The website features a wealth of valuable information about the natural history, taxonomy and cultivation of Asimina triloba .The curator is Neal Peterson (featured in the NPR link) who has been breeding pawpaws since the early 1980s.To put it simply he tracked down the genetics for his breeding projects from historic collections such as Blandy Experimental Farm in Boyce VA and used that to create 7 new cultivars of pawpaw. In the near future I'd like to add more on historic and contemporary breeding projects.

I am in regular contact with Mr.Peterson who has a cache of excellent data on Asimina triloba and has even published his own scientific papers on the tree. Mr.Peterson also worked with KSU for years on their breeding projects and has been a keynote speaker at many pawpaw festivals and conferences. I look forward to working with him to expand on this Wikipedia article. I'm relatively new to editing so any feedback is much appreciated.

Thanks Rglenn5 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rglenn5 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Concerning the Peterson site, I removed it because 1) it is a sales site, WP:PROMO, 2) it doesn't add any unique information outside of the KSU website in external links, and 3) the article isn't improved by it, WP:ELNO. Zefr (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. I understand.
 * Thanks! Rglenn5 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA EDU needs to prevent student projects from creating big difficulties on otherwise good pages
During the last half of April I had been putting a lot of time into improving this wikipedia page (including adding a lot of my own images). I wanted to be able to feel good about suggesting this wikipedia page as a resource for new volunteer planters in northern states that I will be sending 1,200 stratified pawpaw seeds to next month. Then, suddenly, on April 27 I see that editing had been done by an unregistered contributor, shown as this in history section: "edited by ShafJr19 (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 27 April 2023 (As part of college independent study. Added information and citations throughout article.)."

I think it is great that wiki edu is encouraging student projects that are useful in the world — as wikipedia certainly is. But there must be standards. Otherwise, experts like me who have done a lot of work on a particular page find that we have to put a huge amount of time into editing the new text and references supplied in order to bring them to standard. I could not continue recommending this page had I not gone in and spent a total of 10 hours editing over the past two days.

The most important thing that WIKI EDU should require of instructors is that the student input their additions and changes ONE SECTION AT A TIME. In this case, the student made a lot of additions throughout the entire article and inputted them all at once. Because I refuse to just "revert" anything when someone of goodwill is attempting to do good work (and because this is a student who needs to get a project done and a grade), I did not do a revert. But, please, don't let this happen again.Cbarlow (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)