Talk:Panama disease

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blatant Plagarism/Copyright Infringement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First reported in Queensland, Australia in 1542? 

message: 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? — MaxEnt 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tack on phrase 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Impediment to Breeding ..  Jargon and Technobabble.