Talk:Soursop/Archive 1

Introduction in S-E Asia
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)

Sweden in South-East Asia
"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)
 * No, the Swedish name is not used there. Even if it were, the Swedish name is Taggannona.  "Baahlsakk" is not Swedish, it is a childish prank, a misspelling of NSFW.  71.87.23.22 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Zuurzak
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)
 * I took them all down except for the few I’ve seen in English… I think mostly from English speakers unfamiliar with it travelling to South America and bringing the word back. “Dutch durian” I’m mostly seeing as citing the translation of the Malay term, and I vacillated about including guayabano… I don’t know how often it’s used in English in the Philippines, and I wouldn’t object to its inclusion… I’ve heard guyabana as well, though, and if there was no agreed-upon Philippine English usage, I didn’t wanna include what essentially would be a listing of its names in various Filipino languages. —Wiki Wikardo 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
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)

Location
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)

Removal of sourced material by user Alexbrn
The user Alexbrn removed the following scientific sourced material, his edit reason POV. 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."

Alexbrn has been asked why he removed the part https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * Any statement or implication we include that relates to human health information should conform to the guidance of WP:MEDRS. That soursop may have shown certain things in 'laboratory studies' is not evidence of its relevance to cancer treatment, and - for neutrality - we must ensure the mainstream medical view (that it has no proven role here) is prominently included, and not perform original research to suggest otherwise. Alexbrn talk 06:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your reply only addresses the first part of above case, hence i conclude that you no longer have an argument against including scientific research of potentially useful applications. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Re-dding part 2 of my previous addition.
 * No, your conclusion is wrong. It is fine to include "scientific research" but if it strays into an area covered by WP:MEDRS then those guidelines apply. The effect of your edits was to downplay the health concerns over soursop while puffing its medical claims unduly. Alexbrn talk 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not clear which conclusion you referring to, since you previously did not addressed your removal of scientific literature on the subject. Further, do all fruit seeds contain a neurotoxin it is not clear why you insist on including several sentences on this common appearance. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The conclusion I meant was your "I conclude ..." one. As to neurotoxins, we reflect what reliable sources say - not we we editors think about it. In the case of soursop, the concerns are sufficient that it has got on the radar of a French national health body (the Afssa, as cited). Alexbrn talk 17:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Toxicity of plant seeds
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)

Balance
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)
 * There are several issues in play here. Overall the CRUK piece is very negative about Soursop, covering its ineffectiveness, its use in health scams, and recommending against having anything to do with it. To take and quote the one sentence in their piece where they are mildly equivocal about what might happen in future would indeed be to misrepresent the overall thrust of their writing. I would not object, however to adding a qualifier to the material we have about laboratory experiments, stating that because there have been no trials we don't yet know what the effect on humans is.
 * On toxicology, is there some reliable source that says the concerns are "blown out of proportion"? CRUK say "we do know that it may cause nerve changes, causing symptoms similar to Parkinson's disease" and that is a strong source. Alexbrn talk 17:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Soursop
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, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alex Essilfie (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Merge proposal

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * Closed as do not merge per WP:PLANTS. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge from Annona muricata. Common English name; illogical to have two separate articles on the very same species, as we do not have separate articles for Peach and Prunus persica. Badagnani (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Vmenkov (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let's merge. Badagnani (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's merge now. Badagnani (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NC (flora). There should be an article about the fruit, and a separate article about the plant species from which the fruit is harvested. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very illogical to have two separate articles about the same fruit. That is why we don't have an article on Peach, and a nother for Prunus persica. Badagnani (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we should merge the articles on Broccoli and Cauliflower, because they're the same species. We should marge the articles on German Shepherd Dog and Dachshund because they're the same species.  Obviously, things that are the same species can't possibly have any different information that would be worth treating as separate articles, right?  Wrong.  If you'd like to see WP:PLANTS change it's policy, then you can make that proposal.  The policy has served us well thus far, since the article on the fruit/vegetable often has a very different focus and scope than the article on the species.  The reason we don;t have separate articles for Peach and Prunus persica is that no one has yet gotten around to splitting the content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is very illogical, because Soursop and Annona muricata are the same fruit. Of course we all agree that varieties that are different should have diffrent articles. But peach and Prunus persica, or Soursop and Annona muricata are the same item. Badagnani (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly logical; the problem is that your statement is based on a faulty assumption. Soursop is a fruit; Annona muricata is the species of tree on which the fruit grows.  A peach is also a fruit, but Prunus persica is an entire species of tree, whether cultivated or not.  A product and the source of that product are not the same thing, and have different information to be provided.  We have separate articles on cattle and beef, on chicken and eggs, on bees and honey. In each case the food product and the living source of that food product have separate articles.  Again, it is not just me you need to convince, you need to take this to WP:PLANTS if you think the naming convention for plant articles should be changed.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - WP:Common name would dictate Soursop over the species/genus naming, there is precedent in apple, orange, lemon, lime, watermelon, cantelope and dozens more. The argument made by EncycloPetey is spurious in its nature because of his use of widely disparate examples to make his point. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 04:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - EncycloPetey has a good point here: WP:NC (flora) states, "Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Example: coffee. Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships. Example: Coffea." So this argument should not concern itself with whether or not a merge is appropriate on grounds of precident, because Peach and Prunus persica are actually out of line and should be changed eventually, but rather we should focus on whether or not the species is economically significant. Examples of articles for economically important plants that have been divided in this way include, for example Musa/Banana and Cannabis/Cannabis (drug), but admitedly most articles are out of line with the rules. I'm not sure if I agree with the naming conventions, but as they stand EncycloPetey is correct if the soursop is "sufficiently significant economically". DJLayton4 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are at least four Annona species in the same boat, except that a merge of Sugar-apple with the corresponding specific name has not yet been proposed. It'd be nice to treat these consistently. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NC (flora) and EncycloPetey. --Rkitko (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - A merge of Annona squamosa to Sugar-apple has indeed been proposed. See and . Badagnani (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that merge and mergefrom templates have not been added to the articles. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm somewhat lukewarm about that part of WP:NC (flora), partly because it seems to so rarely be done successfully.  Although Coffea is much more technical than Coffee, a great deal of it is about human consumption of the beverage, not about the plant as such.  Now, the split between Coffee and Coffea sort of works (although it isn't the only possible organization I can imagine), though I don't think WP:NC (flora) really describes what the difference is between the two. Anyway, moving back to this example I don't really see Annona muricata and soursop as containing too many concepts or too much text for one article (but that could just be because Annona muricata is in fairly bad shape - which is sort of the same deal as with apple, peach, etc - the botanical side has gotten less attention than the product side). Kingdon (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The distinction between fruit and plant is sound. Hesperian 05:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but I'm conflicted on this. I think the WP:NC (flora) approach is sound, and that it should be applied in many of the cases mentioned here where it is not. Nevertheless, I don't see this instance as a bright and shining test case. But since they are separate, I think it's better to clear up the distinction than merge.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Note, per WP:NC (flora), if the articles are merged, the merged article should be at Annona muricata. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge proposal 2
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.
 * Merged Agrees!--Rochelimit (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree Alexbrn talk 08:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree We do not have a article separate for any other fruit and plant-Cs california (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree Issues have been addressed + resolved... no need for separate articles TexasRazor talk10:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Soursop, Annona muricata.jpg to appear as POTD
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)

Cancer treatment
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)
 * ✅ I didn't bother linking to alternative medicine sites to support the point as the Cancer Research cite covered it. Bromley86 (talk) 20:32, 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 article says "There is, however, no medical evidence that it is effective". I find this a bit misleading. There is "evidence".. but there is a lack of "proof". There is evidence but not proof. There are two research articles showing evidence against cancer already listed in the article:
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371140/
 * http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/.U4vaCTmZMVQ
 * 129.78.233.211 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Medicinal uses
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
 * Yes, but see the following article wherein Dr. Andrew Weil refutes much of the hype, including the fact that the hype misidentifies the species of plant (Annona glabra) used in Purdue's in vitro cancer cell studies: http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400299/graviola-a-worthwhile-botanical-against-cancer &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * - Awesome then how the article finds it worth while to point out health *risks* associated with the very same compounds. When it comes to risks the compounds suddenly reach target organs almost all too easily. No extraction issues, no lack of human studies... sounds like a miracle if you ask me :p --Bstard12 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The blast of recent spam includes references to 'graviola' which is a marketing strategy. Many herbs show cancer-killing properties, but the ability to extract the proper compounds and get them into some form for testing is the elusive part. No studies have yet been performed on animals which is an essential first step to testing on humans. Eedlee (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another spam attack was made today, 17 September 2010. Jonathan.kade (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have skimmed over the full text of the study from Purdue. Nowhere does it say they used "Annona glabra". I'm not saying your wrong, but it certainly isn't stated as such in their article. Instead it repeatedly discusses "Annonaceous acetogenins". The 14 compounds tested were: bullatacin(1), motrilin (2), squamotacin?(3), asimicin (4), longimicin B (5), longimicin D(6), trilobacin(7), bullatalicin(8), sylvaticin(9), annonacin(10), gigantetrocin A(11), gigantetronenin(12), murihexocin A(13), murihexocin B(14). The journal article includes IC50 values indicating their potency against cancer. If someone has time they could check those 14 compounds against Duke Phytochem DB (or elsewhere) and see if / how many of the 14 compounds are found in Soursop. That would then constitute further evidence .. Also, there are the other two abstracts already listed in this wiki article, which do in fact discuss the effectiveness of soursop against cancer, both in vivo and in vitro. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/.U4vaCTmZMVQ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371140/ ) 129.78.233.211 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR
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)

Mature tree size?
What is the Mature tree size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.61.15 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of soursop wood in naval construction
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081103130930/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?3492 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?3492
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041121190234/http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=91 to http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=91

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) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Annonacin content in soursop
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)
 * go for it Dlabtot (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * So which is it? Is it contained within the seed, the flesh, or both? Are there any sources where the concentrations are actually measured? I think these details matter. For example, stone fruit (cherries) contain compounds relating to cyanide within their seed, but the flesh itself is harmless. I avoid biting into cherry pits but I don't avoid cherries. The way this was written makes it sound like people should avoid eating Soursop altogether, but I'm not sure those claims are substantiated. I double checked the sources and the experiment that is cited was actually performed using compounds obtained by drying and powdering the root (which isn't comparable). This is like drawing conclusions about the edibility of cherries after performing experiments on their toxic leaves. 24.117.132.109 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Typical of most phytochemicals, annonacin is distributed in all plant components studied to date - in the raw fruit pulp, seeds, and leaves, as stated in the sources (and almost certainly in high content in the stems, bark, and roots). The typical order of phytochemical density per component is roots > bark > stems > leaves > seeds > fruit. --Zefr (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)