Talk:Panama disease

Removal
I think the line "1500 km north of Brisbane" in the section Australian Quarantine should be removed as the location related to the capital is not relevant to the article at all.142.197.32.2 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger
I think this should be merged with the article on it's casual agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Million Moments (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 February 2007
 * I agree. 168.252.233.190 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Peter McGowan
 * I disagree. Because there are other domestic plants which are infect by this fungus. --Ricardo 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. If that fungus infects other plants they should also be included in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtlehead (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 June 2007
 * I fully agree also, anything having to do directly with this fungus, should be under the page, listed with the fungus''s name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazycharles80 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 June 2007
 * The causal agent of Panama disease is Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense. It is a subspecies of Fusarium oxysporum and does not cause disease in other species besides banana, Musa spp. I had created an article for the causal agent before I realised there was already an article on Panama disease in Wikipedia. I have included some of the history of the disease in my new article which I hope to finish writing today. I think the two articles should be merged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merger - Panama disease seems to be a subtopic of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense. I suggest merger and redirect. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge uneeded - This article will deal with the background information of the situation during the outbreak and after it, including the economic impact and the cultural impact. This can also describe the spread of the disease and what governments or people did to try to stop it. The article on the fungus should only describe the fungus itself, pathology, etc. with a small section on the History linking back to this as the Main article. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Tone?
Please tell me what the objection is to the adjective "virulent". It's a rather normal word for an aggressive virus, fungus, etc., which seems to fit this context. Does whoever tagged the word classify it perchance into the same category as words like "violent, vicious" or something similarly emotional? --Remotelysensed (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I wonder if this actually referring to other words in  previous revisions.  Here's what the text said when the tone tag was added:
 * The reason the fungus is so devastating is not just because it is so strong,
 * Today, the blight is tearing through banana crops worldwide
 * Genetic engineers are even[tone] adding genetic material from...
 * It looks like those sentences have been changed. Perhaps it is time to remove the tone tag? I will message the user and see if it is safe to remove. superlusertc 2014 January 01, 17:09 (UTC)
 * Sorry that's not it. The issue is the entire article, since it's written in a personal essay style or simplified style that's more suited for Simple WP. It needs to be rewritten into an encyclopedic format. I've tagged the sentences/sections that need a rewrite. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely the whole article needs a rewrite - not just for tone, but also because some sentences are unclear or ungammatical. In addition, there is the matter of the lack of references (as highlighted at the top of the article's page). I'd have a go, but I'm currently writing a presentation about the importance of genetic diversity in crop plants, which is why I visited the page. Maybe after I've finished the assignment I'll have some time. Marchino61 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Blatant Plagarism/Copyright Infringement
I happened across this article after reading part of Dan Koeppel's book Banana: The fate of the fruit that changed the world, and I noticed that, at the very least, the "Gros Michel Era" "The Cavendish Era" and "Responce" subsections in the History section are lifted essentially word for word from the book. Therefore, I'd assume most of it needs to be deleted and replaced with something that doesn't plagiarize the original material, with references to it when appropriate. The author didn't even bother even referencing the book, despite their extensive use of it, perhaps for fear their work would be discovered. Here is the link to the revision that added all the copyrighted, incited content. --WIDEnet (What I've been up to, Let's Chat) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

First reported in Queensland, Australia in 1542?
This date can't be right.

"In spite of its name, the disease probably originated in Southeast Africa and was first reported in Queensland, Australia in 1542."

Australia was not settled by the British until 1788. Queensland not settled until later. The Indigenous Australians probably didn't have bananas, and did not record dates. There's just no way this event could have occurred in Australia in 1542 and there would be record of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.116.49 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Tack on phrase
This is the first case of successful resistance in the field and is a promising step towards preventing the loss of the Cavendish cultivars that are a huge portion of banana export production and subsistence of many communities.

This sounds to my ear like a tack-on phrase lifted directly from a grant application. Hasn't the rest of the article already established the Cavendish cultivar as a commercial monoculture, with the obvious implications? &mdash; MaxEnt 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Impediment to Breeding .. Jargon and Technobabble.
I submit the following paragraph as an example of the over-use, if not abuse, of highly technical "jargon":

"One major impediment to breeding bananas is polyploidy; Gros Michel and Cavendish bananas are triploid and thus attempts at meiosis in the plant's ovules cannot produce a viable gamete. Only rarely does the first reduction division in meiosis in the plants' flowers tidily fail completely, resulting in a euploid triploid ovule, which can be fertilized by normal haploid pollen from a diploid banana variety; a whole stem of bananas would contain only a few seeds and sometimes none. As a result, the resulting new banana variety is tetraploid, and thus contains seeds; the market for bananas is not accustomed to bananas with seeds."

How many people in the world alive today can truly comprehend the meaning of this paragraph? There is so much jargon, as far as I'm concerned it contains almost zero actual information. Is this really the best we can do? All they're really saying is that attempts so far to genetically modify the Gros Michel produce cultivars with too many seeds for commercial use. Why not just say that? 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Large text transfer from Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense
I have added a large amount of text and citations after removing it from the species page. That was most of the Foc page. I have done that because it was about the disease and not the fungus itself. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 November 2021 (UTC)