From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Plants (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Caribbean (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge discussion for Soursop[edit]

Information.svg 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 here, 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 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cancer treatment[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done 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! (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: (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Medicinal uses[edit]

The following URL discusses the medicinal use of this plant, including possible use as a cancer treatment: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 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:
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. ( and ) (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


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)

Sweden in South-East Asia[edit]

"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. (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction in S-E Asia[edit]

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)

Merge Proposals[edit]

Merge proposal[edit]

Merge proposal 2[edit]

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|contribs|COI 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)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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)


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 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material by user Alexbrn[edit]

The user Alexbrn removed the following scientific sourced material, his edit reason POV. </ref> 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."[1]

Alexbrn has been asked why he removed the part 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|contribs|COI 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|contribs|COI 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|contribs|COI 17:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Toxicity of plant seeds[edit]

Alexbrn insist on having 4 sentences on the toxicity of the plant seeds or even an entire section dedicated to this common feature of fruits in general. However, most fruits we consume include toxic compounds 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)


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|contribs|COI 17:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ McLaughlin, J. L. (2008). "Paw Paw and Cancer: Annonaceous Acetogenins from Discovery to Commercial Products". Journal of Natural Products 71 (7): 1311–1321. doi:10.1021/np800191t. PMID 18598079. 

File:Soursop, Annona muricata.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

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)

Picture of the day

The soursop is the fruit of Annona muricata, an evergreen from Central and South America adapted to areas of high humidity and relatively warm winters. The taste has been described as a combination of strawberry and pineapple, with sour citrus flavour notes contrasting with an underlying creamy flavour reminiscent of coconut or banana.

Photograph: Muhammad Mahdi Karim
ArchiveMore featured pictures...