Talk:Gossypium barbadense

	Ecuador portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador 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.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Agriculture Mid‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Egypt High‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

One of the most important producers of pima cotton is Peru. That's not mentioned in the article

I fixed this. Added information about Peru and its "Tanguis" cotton. Condensinguponitself (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common name

This article should be moved to it's common name "Pima cotton".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a change that added "South American cotton" as a common name. That may have been hasty, because Смирнов Олег gave two sources for that information. However, for reasons I will state later, I am leaving it reverted for the time being.

I should have looked up A Dictionary of Genetics by Robert C. King before doing the revert. However, I do have the other source readily available, and it does not support "South American cotton" as a common name. Instead https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1850-2) use that phrase only once. Specifically, it includes it in the title as a modifier, not as a name: Genetic diversity and geographic pattern in early South American cotton domestication.

My defense for leaving the revert in place while I study further is the concept of "common name" does not work very well for Gossypium barbadense and similar species that have been under domestication for centuries. Zea mays is probably the best example where the domesticated genetic lines have diverged so much, practitioners don't really identify them as belonging in the same group. Condensinguponitself (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now accessed both sources. A Dictionary of Genetics, the 2002 edition, does not have entries for either ″South American cotton″ or the species ″Gossypium barbadense″. The entry for the genus ″Gossypium″ does mention the species: ″Two tetraploid species, G. hirstutum and G. babadense, are the source of most commercial cotton.″ In other words, this source does not offer a common name for the species.

Building on my previous example of a species so changed by domestication that only botanists would give it the same name, A Dictionary of Genetics offers ″teosinte″ and ″Mexican foddergrass″ as common names for the wild form of Zea mays. The domesticated forms collectively are ″maize″ or ″corn″ Condensinguponitself (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

I had assumed this article was about Gossypium barbadense- but looking at it it is about Pima cotton- which appears to be a var. with a 5% hold on the current US market. Would anyone like to move this to the Pima cotton- switch the redirect and then do a full rewrite. I would start with Naismith (1896) The Students Cotton Spinning, pp26-86 which covers this and Gossypium hirsutum in some depth. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I think more detail should be added under the Pima cotton. I guess I should say I'm O'odtham (Pima) tribe. I have yet to learn to add a Wikipedia entry? Contaminatedinaz (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too, was concerned about the article equating the species "Gossypium barbadense" with the market class "Pima". So, I reorganized the article by market classes, in other words in the manner of "The Story of Sea Island Cotton", by Porcher and Fick. That book, despite its title, provides a pretty good overview of the whole species. One problem with Porcher and Fick, although it contains very nearly the latest science, its scope only extends to about 1940. I plan to add more information from Porcher and Fick, but I certainly would welcome anyone who can fill in more info about the period after 1940. Condensinguponitself (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete United States Agricultural Policy?

I question the significance of the section "United States Agricultural Policy". It only addresses policy at a point in time, and the United States is not the largest producer of Gossypium barbadense. Would it be okay to delete this section? Condensinguponitself (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I moved some of the content to other parts of the page, and deleted the rest. Condensinguponitself (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive citations

I have added quite a few citations to Porcher and Fick 2005, which results in a lot of repetitive entries in the list of citations. The list might be easier to read if we adopt one of the examples on the help page "References and page numbers" however they all require writing code. Which is preferable, keeping the list formatted the way it is so it is easy to maintain with the visual editor, or making the list easier to read? Condensinguponitself (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]