Talk:Synsepalum dulcificum

message: Somebody had written in the article that the miracle fruit "grows well with blueberries." Not only is this vague (what does that even mean?), if the author meant to say that they grow well NEXT TO blueberries then this is incorrect, since blueberries are a temperate plant; they need winter chill to fruit, and in general won't do too well in the tropics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.89.50 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blueberries phrase

message: Why don't anybody post what is the flavor of miracle fruit?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.8.85 (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  i have a question 

message: Also is the Pacific Northwest good enough climate for the fruit? i live in Bellingham Wa, close to canada, and would like to invest in a plant or seeds. --Cryotwin 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: Does anyone know about the different botanical names for this plant?  The following website states the name as Synsepalum Dulcificum.  There is a picture of a published book with this title at this link.  I don't know enough about it to research but wanted to draw attention to this incongruency. http://www.daleysfruit.com.au/plant/Miracle-Fruit.htm --Charangito 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different names 

message: So this issue can be discussed properly I'm bringing this to the discussion page.  Links to blogs and forums were removed, then re-added with the question as to why they shouldn't be there.  Please see WP:EL links normally to be avoided #7 and #10.  Also, Wikipedia is not a repository of links.
I am removing the links again.  Gh5046 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifications.  I still believe that the forum link is suitable though. Turkeyphant 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs/Forums in the external links 

message: "Bacchanalian" tasting parties? That doesn't seem NPOV to me!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resuna (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Could this possibly be used to mask poisons? Cause poison is "sour or bitter" usually.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 08havoc (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues of harm 

message: What benefit does the substance confer on the plant that synthesizes it? 
# Does it induce  a vector-animal species to swallow & spread its seeds, without the energy cost of synthesizing sugars that the vectors use (as an energy source) as more conventionally sweet fruit-bearing plants do? Is the vector conditioned by the sweetness sensations to hang around eating its bitter & sour neighbors, and to then eat more miracle fruit to keep tasting more sweet sensations? Is the fruit itself sweet? (To humans? To its seed vectors?) 
# Many interesting plant chemicals are neuro-toxins to species that eat or otherwise damage the plant without helping spread the seeds. (Presumably including: our favorite alkaloids like caffeine, theobromine, theophylline, quinine;  morphine and cocaine; i would bet -- unless they're just irritants -- most of the popular spices like mints, peppers, cinnamon, citrus oils, etc.) Is this substance the result of something similar, that just happens to screw up our sensory apparatus in a way that is harmless in the long term?
--Jerzy•t 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary benefit 

message: The first paragraph of the History section come off as rather conspiratorial.  In particular, it belies an essential ignorance of how things gain FDA approval and the role of the 1994 Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act.  Indeed, the DSHEA typically is employed to bypass regulation and hawk products whose efficacy and safety is dubious.  This was exactly the case with stevia for awhile.  Shawn M. O'Hare (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indented line Haha, can you cite that? 68.230.108.118 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: May or may not be worth mentioning except for completeness sake.  There was an extensive and amusing segment about the fruit in the north american TV series 'United States Of Tara' recently (as of writing). 203.134.28.230 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentions in fiction 

message: The wired article about the lettuce is not online anymore. And it has so many innerlink, that I do not know how to savely remove the link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.198.5 (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/12/72251 is working for me. Their site might have been having temporary problems? -- Quiddity (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this content to Miraculin. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lettuce

message: I disagree entirely with the inclusion of references to the Future Foods episode in a "Pop Culture" section of this article. I'd remove it, but I've already removed the paragraph from the article twice, and I'd rather not edit war.
I removed it the first time with the reasoning that just because some food-show host had a crazy idea (that won't work) doesn't mean that we should present it here as fact. World hunger is caused by social and economic problems, not bad-tasting cacti. (If a person can't buy rice, where are they going to get miracle fruit tablets? This is just as stupid as the Marie Antoinette logic: "If they have no bread, Let them eat cake.")
After it was added back (this time as a pop culture item), I removed it reasoning that passing mentions in TV are included only if that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources (see WP:IPC). The idea that miracle fruit can end world hunger is ridiculous.  I see no indication that the episode has been covered by secondary sources showing its significance to understanding miracle fruit.
I'd also like to add that the fruit has been a central point in episodes of several TV shows (as discussed above), and all of those instances have been nixed as inappropriate.
If anyone else agrees that it does not belong, please remove it. – jaksmata 17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture references 

message: I have some packs of tablets in the house, would you like some pictures of the tablets to support the chapter: Freeze-dried form. I also helped to write the article http://www.miracle-fruit.net/comparison-miracle-fruit-tablets.html and if you like you can use the pictures I made (I have more).
--Reedge (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures and citation

message: I found a page in Google that is currently not online anymore but says fresh frut has 2-3 days shelf-live. But the page is now offline but it is the largest reseller and grower of fresh fruit in the USA. Here is the way I found it, now how to make this citation more durable if the source gives me an error now Google cache and no Archive.org page stored. Its the only page where I trust the source since he is a grower of the fruit and does not sell any tablets. (the tablet guys sites I do not trust as a source for shelflive on fresh fruit. Source http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amiraclefruitman.com+shelf&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
What to do now with this citation?
--Reedge (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation not online anymore and no Google cache or Archive.org

message: The article clearly states that native people had been eating this berries for hundereds of years before Europeans came to Africa. Saying that they were "discovered" in the 1700s is offensive to the native peoples who had been there previously. I'm going to change it to read "documented" because it is less ethno-centric.
:Heh, that's strange, I was just about to complain on here about the use of the word "documented" for the same reason - oral ethnobotanical knowledge is just as valid (often more so) as European written botanical knowledge. I'll change it to "documented by Europeans". --86.146.162.13 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it altogether. I think it fits better now  :) --86.146.162.13 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Berries "discovered" is offensive to native african peoples

message: Does anyone have any sources that go into further detail about its use in Africa? Is it still used by people there, or has its use fallen by the wayside over the centuries? In addition, what names does it have in West African languages? --86.146.162.13 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  West African name(s), modern usage 

message: Assertions that "miracle fruit" almost always applies to this species, and none other, need to be supported by reliable sources. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The other common names are used, so should be listed.  That is because some people coming to Wikipedia in search of information about this speices will have a common name other than your favorite.  64.105.65.28 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show us the evidence to back up your position.  How many reputable and recent sources use the obscure names that you are promoting? Charlrob (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed common names in the article, with reliable sources;  Charlrob reverted me.  Charlrob, I asked you to stop reverting me, yet you continue. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracle fruit 

message: Currently there is a parsing error on the page, whereby miracle fruit is being rendered as if it were 'miracle fruit' .  That is, bold is turned on, then there is a displayed single quote character, then italic is turned on.  There is a related bug report on WikiMedia and I guess this is the result of someone trying to fix that bug. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The parsing error seems to have been fixed. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the parsing.  The last bold of the paragraph was missing a " ' " and thus changing the parsing of the entire sentence beginning with the bolded "miracle fruit".--Kevmin § 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parsing error involving quote characters 

message: Now several different editors have found this photo on Commons and added it to the article, and other editors have removed it as touting one brand over others.  What say you all?  Is this photo appropriate?  64.105.65.28 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another photo, on the left.  64.105.65.28 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tablets 

message: These are entirely separate, unrelated, plant species.  They do not belong in the first paragraph of an article on the plant species Synsepalum dulcificum.  This issue was already previously discussed and resolved in previous edits.  It was resolved by placing Thaumatococcus daniellii in a separate "See also" section at the end of the article.  As before, I believe that is where this information belongs -- not in the opening paragraph.  Can we reach a consensus on this? Charlrob (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two species share with this species the common name miracle fruit.  I mentioned the other species largely to avoid sending readers to the disambiguation page, but also because it is so interesting that these other species have a similar property.  That makes miracle fruit less a common name than a collective name.  One alternative is to make a deliberate link to the disambiguation page miracle fruit without mentioning the other species;  however, I think many readers would follow the link to the disambiguation page who actually want this article.  Another alternative is to move the entire discussion of common names out of the first paragraph and into a separate paragraph later in the intro.  On the whole I favor this last option. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the article Sugar substitute has a long list of natural sugar substitutes, one derived from each of these three species called miracle fruit.  64.105.65.28 (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Gymnema sylvestre and Thaumatococcus daniellii 

message: Is there a citation for the use of the name "sweet berry" for Synsepalum dulcificum?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlrob (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I will add a few to the article.  Here are a couple more:   64.105.65.28 (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another here in Mansfeld's encyclopedia of agricultural and horticultural crops, Volume 2  which is from 2001 and should be noted for not using the term "miracle fruit" at any point. --Kevmin § 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sweet berry" 

message: This sentence is incorrect: "Common names for this species and its berry include miracle fruit[2] and miracle berry. These common names are shared also by Gymnema sylvestre and Thaumatococcus daniellii,[2] two other species that are used to alter the perceived sweetness of foods."
The protein found in Thaumatococcus daniellii (thaumatin) works quite differently than the protein found in (Synsepalum dulcificum).  Miraculin itself is not sweet -- but it modifies sweetness perception temporarily by binding to the taste buds.  In contrast, thaumatin is "an intensely sweet protein," but does not change the way the taste buds function.
I believe this distinction was discussed and resolved in previous edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlrob (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is correct.  Yes, the mechanisms differ;  however the uses are similar, and that is why these two species share common names with this species.  64.105.65.28 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweetness Perception 

message: Missing from the template  are
Family: 
Subfamily:
Tribe:
Jidanni (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family etc. 

message: The article needs to explain what was the negative or dampening effect of this thing's active ingredients being labeled a 'food additive'. Since including them in another product is—on its face—an addition to the original food, both who cares? and how could they not have expected that result, let alone had their entire prospective business plan scuttled and started in on sugar-cartel sabotage? What, exactly, was onerous about their categorization by the FDA? It certainly doesn't ban them. — LlywelynII 09:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the claims about the FDA have very little references to be based off of. After a bit of searching, the claims I've found all refer back to the BBC article referenced. In this article, all the claims about the FDA are simple accusations made by the two people who were trying to commercialize the berries (the Miralin Company). I doesn't appear that the BBC (or any other agency) has confirmed any of the claims made by these people. Furthermore, contrary to the statement that "[the FDA] refused to release any files on the subject", the article referenced states that the Miralin Company said the FDA did release files (although they were heavily blacked out according to them). I'm going to remove these faulty comments and I think they should remain that way unless someone provides a better reference. Golmschenk (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: FDA Controversy

message: I have no specific knowledge of the chemical properties of miraculin. I have enough general knowledge of physics to know that the idea of binding protons is absurd. Binding of protons would require a nuclear reaction. Chemicals bind using the electrostatic attraction between electrons and nuclei having fixed numbers of protons. Molecules bind atoms and molecules, not protons. Surely this line in the first paragraph needs to change from "miraculin binds protons" to "miraculin binds proteins". Or was something else intended? Surely protons is incorrect.  
Jeffj900 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will change it if you haven't already. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon following the ref and checking a few other sources it appears that protons is correct. It is speculated that acids donate protons to the miraculin and thereby active receptors on the tongue. The sentence should probably be rewritten and a better explanation - a ref, should be added.--Daffydavid (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Miraculin binds protons????

message: In the Characteristics section we have a height given in feet and then leaf measurements in centimeters. Can someone end the madness and make it all metric or all Imperial?
24.57.69.111 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit systems mixed :(