Talk:Terminalia ferdinandiana

Untitled
The vitamin C page shows the milligrams of vitamin C per 100 grams. It lists the Billy Goat plum as 3150mg/100g and the Camu Camu as 2800mg/100g. The Billy Goat plum only has an eighth more vitamin C than the Camu Camu by percentage (1.125 times the amount of vitamin C of a Camu Camu). This is clearly not "almost twice" the amount of vitamin C! 206.116.28.142 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that this statement is referring to another study, in which the concentration of ascorbic acid was measured at around 5,000mg/100g of fruit. I'll have to see if I can verify the reference. Thefamouseccles 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ive uploaded a video where Major Les Hiddins ("The Bush Tucker Man") shows this fruit, which is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YapOoWK_kEg It is from the government-run ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) so there are no distribution issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivecougarsoz (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

" tens of thousands of years" right
"The fruits, now commonly known as Kakadu plums, have been used as bush tucker by the Australian Aborigines for tens of thousands of years."

There is no way this can be proven, and is definitely not sourced.

jptdrake (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Admitedly an old comment, but still. Since there is evidence that they lived in Australia 45,000 to 50,000 years ago, it's not implausible (Aboriginal_Australians).  But the text no longer specifies since when they ate the plum, and indeed unless we find a source documenting say, seeds of the plum in coprolites or their settlements (which would be a way to prove it, thus my answer), it indeed would be speculation at this point to restore the sentence. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The link I provided was related but not the one I intended, which is actually []. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2014 (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) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Taste
This is a good article. I now know the fruits history, alternative names and vitamin c content but have no idea what it tastes like. I think that any article about a food source should mention what it tastes like!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.121.120 (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It tastes sour, a bit astingent but not too much, I like them.
 * Well, now that info is also in the article and sourced. Would certainly like to try one someday ^^ --LordPeterII (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong picture.
On this page is a picture from the fruit of Planchonia careya & not Terminalia ferdinandiana, there are two tree's with the common name "Biilygoat Plum" or "Kakadu Plum", Planchonia careya & Terminalia ferdinandiana. It's maybe a good idea to change it to stop confusion. I myself am new to Wikipedia & don't really understand how to do this. Thanks Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.187.16 (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Fixed and replaced with correct picture. I think if they share enough common names, a disambiguation page should be made for both of them... but meh, both articles are pretty much stubs. I'll leave it for someone else more knowledgeable with them. And thanks for spotting the mistake.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The other photo at commons was mislabelled, so I'm adding a request for a new photo to this page.Melburnian (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye. Noticed that. I'm actually curious now how it looks like, heh. Can't find anything usable online of it though. -- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  11:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The correct one is here and the other two that were at commons here Melburnian (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. T. ferdinandiana doesn't have those remnants of the sepals(?) which reminds me so much of guavas.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Height?
The article currently says "small to medium-sized tree growing up to 32 m (105 ft)". That's uncited, and not being a tree size expert, is that really classified as "small to medium"? This page says 14m, with citations:

http://tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Terminalia+ferdinandiana

Should this page be updated, either with the reduced height, or a citation on the current wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.106.23 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The height was probably wrong, have changed it. Greenman (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent reversion
, please be more specific about your objections to my addition. I added a significant development, being the cultivation as an orchard fruit for the first time, from a highly reliable Australian source, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I also shuffled the content a bit for more logical flow and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and I think added one citation to support uncited content that was already there. It was not necessary to revert my whole edit (see WP:REVERT); if there are specific bits of the resulting version that you object to, you are able and welcome to edit further. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Referring to this edit: 1) "significant nutritional value" is an overstatement, and there is no WP:SCIRS evidence that it is a health food. High vitamin C content alone does not qualify the fruit for either description. The previous lede was neutral and accurate; 2) "a 2021 project attempting cultivation in an orchard for the first time" is just news (WP:NOTNEWS) of a future event with no encyclopedic content - WP:CRYSTAL; 3) this is a low-quality source with non-expert statements and exaggerations about anti-disease effects. There are no WP:MEDRS reviews to support such content. Let's not spread misinformation; 4) ellagic acid is not a nutrient, not an antioxidant in vivo, and has no established effects in humans, failing MEDRS (partly explained here); 5) the fruit has no established properties as an antimicrobial or preservative product - a WP:SCIRS or MEDRS review would be needed for such claims (doesn't exist); 6) the cultivation project is news and has not produced results, making the section unencyclopedic; 7) you used a Google Store ref as a source - that is not WP:RS. I'll leave the valid edits, but those mentioned in 1-7 will be deleted; WP:BRD. Zefr (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Both the New Daily and Google Store sources were there in the version before my recent editing. The fact that cultivation is being tried is significant, regardless of whether it succeeds or not. Kakadu is always spelt with a capital letter because it is a place name, btw. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I was in a hurry yesterday and didn't have time to look at those sources properly, but I have just discovered that the New Daily (which is generally reasonably reliable as a news outlet) article is in fact a republication of an article from The Conversation, a highly reputable source, and the article was written by a botanist who has worked in in wildlife conservation, currently Honorary Fellow at the Menzies School of Health Research. So I replaced the ND citation with a link to the original article, and added a section on Ecology (which also relates to the NT management plan mentioned in the Uses section). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I rejected that article primarily because of the title using "superfood" (unscientific, unwarranted marketing term exaggeration) and this claim: "Chemicals in the plum also have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties, and recent research has shown extracts have excellent preservative qualities" which is unscientific, unproven, and unsourced by WP:SCIRS, and therefore may mislead encyclopedia users. The Conversation article does not provide any references and does not appear to be peer-reviewed. The source is used in the ecology section and to reference taste, which may indicate it has a minor role, but I don't think it's suitable as a scientific source in the article. Zefr (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your concerns, but I wouldn't take its headline too seriously - it is "popular science", after all, so he's not writing an academic paper, and he puts the term in quotes within the article. It has its place as a source for certain aspects, as you suggest. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)