Talk:Momordica charantia

Chinese characters

What are the Chinese characters for Bitter Melon (Foo Gwa)? Foo Gwa is the pronunciation in Cantonese (and perhaps some other dialects) and be written the same (苦瓜) as shown in the main article. However, because of the negative connotations of "bitter", it is often written, e.g. on menus as 涼瓜 "cool melon".Jinrikiwiki (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

In Standard Mandarin in both Taiwan and the PRC, it's Ku Gua (苦瓜，as stated above). My Shanghai relatives all just call it Ku Gua, and I've always seen it written that way on menus in the JiangNan (江南) region where they all reside. Not sure about the rest of the greater-Chinese-speaking world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liverdonor (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As a Hongkonger, I’d like to tell you the correct Cantonese romanisation: 苦瓜 is ‘fu2’ ‘gwaa1’. Hope you change it correctly. 迷你果醬 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur that the correct Cantonese/Toisanese phonetic is fu gwa, or foo gwa. This is suported by Mindfill (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Karela saying

In addition to this, staying on the language subject, about halfway down the page is a comment that says "There is a saying...." and goes on to say something in what I think is Malaysian... that's fine, but what's it mean? It just seems like a completely dissociated comment.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.34.8 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed the saying until this issue is clarified. "aavre varsaad dhaberiyo varsaad uni uni rotli ne karela nu shaak". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Gujarati’s have a famous saying "Aav re varsad, dhebariyo parsad, uni uni rotli ne karela nu shak" meaning "Allow the rain to pour heavily and come serve the delicious bitter gourd with hot Phulka Roti (Indian Flat bread)". DenisHowe (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Quinine question

Does this plant contain quinine? Various websites claim it does, but I've been unable to locate a primary source for this info 4hodmt 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent reorganization

I have tried to organize a little without taking away any information. If I did it was a mistake.

I tried to separate the long list of names in many languages into those that are actually used in English text and those that are only used in their original languages. Basically, I googled for "the karela" and "the ampalaya" and got convincing results, but couldn't find a lot of relevant uses of "the pavakka" or "the karawila".

— Pekinensis 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Yes have you tasted it lately its Very bitter thr younger the plant the more intence the bitter....So with that said my blood sugerlevels have gone down since eating the plant....my Doctor thinks i am doing all he tells me what he wants me to do but in truth is the bitter melon..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.205.144 (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

@Pekinensis Agreed. After your reorganization more names were added yet again. I've attempted a second clean up and started a relevant talk section "Lead and local names" below. Computermacgyver (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Recipes

My wife likes to stuff bitter melon with a pork mixture and boil it. We eat it with rice. The Pilipino version I had was baked and stuffed with ground beef and cheese. That one was mighty tasty! The bitterness can be somewhat alleviated by baptising it in soy sauce. Do Americanos really know about this fruit?Jlujan69 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My mother was looking into it because of the connected diabetes information with it. I started eating it because its another good vegetable. There's a Chinese place in NJ (US) that always has it with the other hot food they make and I always get it. They even sell it not cooked. I've also found it in Korean markets and Indian markets in jersey. I've yet to buy it and cook it, but I found various recipes online. Psilocybin 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In Chinese restruants in China, its often served as a cold dish of just bitter melon. cold dishes are like bread in american restruants, they are served first while your food is being cooked.

Sweet bitter melon

I have been trying to correct this statement but was edited out: "The fully ripe fruit turns orange and mushy, is too bitter to eat". Amazingly, bitten melow turns to very sweet like a fruit once it is ripe. Grown up in the countryside of China, one of my childhood joys was that my Dad would let some of the bitter melows ripe so my brother and I could eat them like fruits. Bitter melow is bitter before mature so it can fend of the animals, but turns to sweet when mature so the seeds can be spread by the animals - A common evolution strategy for many plants.

Bitter melon as it ripens become yellowish / orange at the "undulations." The pith remains mostly white but becomes more stringy. The individually seed are coated with a red flesh that is quite mild and sweet. The flesh itself become softer and less crunchy. I know this because my grandma grows several varieties of it annually.

ABC Dude Abides

Other on-line articles say that ripe bitter melon isn't quite so bitter. Over 50 years of experience with preparation, cooking and eating bitter melon has taught me that ripe bitter melon is sweeter than green. When the flesh becomes reddish-orange, the seeds turn red and the pulp yellow. I actually look for ripe bitter melon in the market; it tastes better!

Most Cantonese recipes for bitter melon include fermented black beans. Restaurants serve it stir-fried with strips of flank steak in a black bean sauce. Home-style recipes call for 1-inch rings of bitter melon stuffed with a mixture of ground pork, diced waterchestnuts, diced black mushrooms, ham and black bean sauce. The stuffed rings are steamed for about 15 to 20 minutes.

Merge

Please merge Foo qua into Bitter melon. Badagnani 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Curtis Clark 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clutter of Recipes

The recipes section sounds too much like a cookbook. Can we all take a look at paring this down to the essential categories of culinary uses? Even the Tomato article has a shorter section on culinary applications! I'm adding the laundry list tag, which is the best tag I can find to represent this problem. Smartperson (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I removed a bunch - but it still needs cleanup.. I'll take another look later if no one else does. I was thinking of making a list of simple references to different countries (reducing all the text). If anyone wants to create a 'ways to prepare bitter melon' wiki entry, see this diff report [1]. Luminifer (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have restored, with minor editing of grammar and some re-arrangement for clarity, the "culinary uses" section as it stood prior to Lumifers removal of most of the interesting materials there. In my opinion that page was a model for the sort of information that OUGHT to be included in any page referring to a food item. The biological information is important, but if I look up bitter melon on wikipedia, the main thing I want to know is "how do I cook the thing?" As for "sounding too much like a cookbook", all of that is down to the one recipe in the Pakistani section which contains the following sentence: "Now the pan is covered with a lid, heat reduced to minimum, the tomatoes reduce, and all the spices work their magic." But so what? If somebody from North American wants to know about bitter melon, it is extremely helpful to get an idea of what people around the world do with the thing. Was that hurting anyone? The new page, by contrast, was unreadably dry.

If for some reason someone feels that this information belongs on a seperate "ways to prepare bitter melon" page, then by all means create such a page, but please do not simply wantonly delete information that is useful and interesting to many people. That Pakistani recipe, for example, and the Nepalese information, is unlike--and better than--anything I've found elsewhere on the web. Finally, even if the "original" section was in want of pruning, the new one--as it stood before I restored the September version--was even worse. It seemed like little more than a catalog of names in foreign languages, with highly limited and vague references to preparation methods. Who cares about the names for dishes if we aren't even going to be told what the dishes are? Thank you.

Yesterday I restored the "culinary uses" section to what it was before a recent hatchet job was done to it; today I found the hatchet job restored. Now in case anyone thinks the hatchet job was a good idea, here is a bit of criticism:

The first line reads in its entirety: "in Chinese cooking , often with pork and douchi), in soups, and also as tea." This isn't even a sentence.

The fourth sentence is:

"in Tamil Nadu it is referred as பாகற்காய் (Pagarkai) slangily called as Pavakkai பாவக்காய் and there is a regimen of popular recipes like "Pavakkai Poriyal", "Pavakkai Varuval", " Pavakkai Vathal", "Pavakkai Puli Kulambu", "Pavakkai Puli Thokku", "Pavakkai Satham", "Pavakai Thair Kulambu", "Pavakkai Peratal", "Pavakkai Chips", "Pavakkai Pitlai", "Pavakkai Oorukai"

This is ridiculous. Who cares about all these names? If someone wanted to tell us what one or two of these dishes was(was?? or were?), that would be a different story. The fact that the last editor got rid of all the interesting information (what do people actually do with the vegetable?) and left this catalogue does not speak much for his discernment.

Again, the sixth sentence, in full, was "In Marathi, the term used for bitter gourd is Kaarla "

Who cares? And why is this in the "culinary uses"?

The seventh sentence is "in Karnataka, the term used for bitter gourd is haagalakai (ಹಾಗಲಕಾಯಿ) and used in preparation of a delicacy called gojju (ಗೊಜ್ಜು"

This would be nice is someone gave us a hint as to what the delicacy called gojju was. Lacking such information it is yet another in a long and dreary catalogue of names which do not give us a clue about the thing.

Meanwhile, lots of interesting information has been cut out. Basically, am I justified in calling the September editing a hatchet job? Anything that contained information he got rid of. In Pakistan they sautee onions in one pot and bitter melon in another, then mix the two together with turmeric, cumin, hot pepper etc, then simmer in tomato sauce for an hour. that's information. He got rid of all of it. He got rid of the fact that in Vietnam it's eaten during the Tet celebrations. He got rid of all the information about the treatment of bitter melon in Nepal and replaced it with the meaningless line "In Nepal it is prepared in various ways." Why is something so vapid even there? He basically created a catalogue of names and vapid statements.

So, what I have done is the opposite of what the last editor did. I restored all the information that could be of some interest or use to someone trying to learn about the HOW THE VEGETABLE IS COOKED, which is supposed to be the matter found in a 'culinary use' section. And I have gotten rid of most but not all of the "dictionary". If anyone thinks all those names help, please put them somewhere else.

And please, do not just restore the hatchet job. If you have a meaningful problem with the section, how about discussing my contribution here instead of just undoing it? 66.234.47.194 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section once more as it is not encyclopedic. One doesn't look in an encyclopedia for information on how you cook a food, one looks in a cookbook. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Falcon8765 (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're so offended by real cooking information, but you have no problem with totally ungrammatical sentences. You have no problem with pure nonsense (a string of eleven names of dishes about which we are given absolutely no information? So what are the names doing there?) and you have no problem with sentence like "Marathi, the term used for bitter gourd is Kaarla." which have nothing to do with "Culinary Use." Apparently you would have to do some thinking or actual work to fix those problems; undoing my work is all you're capable of. The only thing in the section that is really a recipe was on Wikipedia from August 2007 until about a month ago. It presumably did not harm anyone in all that time. Much of the other deleted information is far older than that. The fact remains that the new section, as you have left it, is idiotic for all the reasons I detailed above. Your problem with the section that I have restored would be more credible if a) that section hadn't been peacefully residing on Wikipedia for more than two years and b) you had found some other way of improving the hash as it now stands, rather than simply restoring it.

Finally, the statement "One doesn't look in an encyclopedia for information on how you cook a food, one looks in a cookbook." is silly. How one cooks bitter melon is part of the meaningful information about bitter melon which one would like to have. And since the information which you are trying to delete is not to be found elsewhere on the internet you are impoverishing the internet while you impoverish wikipedia.

Anytime someone who is capable of thought and dialogue wants to work with me to improve this section I would be more than happy to cooperate. In the meantime, people whose intellectual ability extends to hitting an "undo" button and mouthing platitudes are not doing wikipedia any favors.

This section contains far too much recipe detail for an encyclopedic entry on a plant. The Pakistan bit, in particular, seems to be more about making South Asian-style curry than about the bitter melon's culinary uses in Pakistan. Lack of availability elsewhere on the internet does not justify inclusion in Wikipedia. It's not that the recipe information isn't useful; it could be, but it's not encyclopedic. I agree that information on how people cook bitter melon is meaningful, but perhaps a general description of regional variation in preparing bitter melon would be more appropriate than a step-by-step recipe. (If it worries you that removing the recipe will "impoverish the internet", you might consider adding it to Wikibooks Cookbook.)

Having said that, I think that reverting to the previous version is simply exchanging one set of problems for another. The previous version does have major grammatical and formatting issues, amongst others. I'd suggest working from this version (the one with the recipes), shrinking the "Culinary uses" section down, rewriting/removing extraneous information and incorporating information and internal links from the previous edit, to make it work as an encyclopedia entry. I might do this later, unless someone else wants to do it first. NotAnonymous (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

someone please add the bitter melon/paavakai chips in the recipe. It deserves to be known. In our area,everyone knows how to make it.103.99.150.190 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

or how about someone adds the recipe names and link them to another article in Wikipedia / wikibooks cookbook?103.99.150.190 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Karela/Karella

Bitter Melons or Bitter Gourds are also known as Karelas, or the alternative spelling Karella. Please stop removing this. Vexorg (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Source it and/or give it a language. — LlywelynII 13:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Source copied almost verbatim

Many paragraphs of this article were taken verbatim from
A MEDICINAL POTENCY OF MOMORDICA CHARANTIA[sic]
D. Sathish Kumar, K. Vamshi Sharathnath, P. Yogeswaran, A. Harani, K. Sudhakar, P. Sudha, David Banji;
International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research Volume 1, Issue 2, March – April 2010; Article 018.
including some errors, bad wordings, and repetitions. Or the other way around. Either way the article does not seem to be authoritative (not a peer-reviewed journal?) I have edited some of the wording but the information needs checking. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "Bitter Melon contains four very promising bioactive compounds.", which is identical in our article and theirs, was also present in this version of our article on 27 Feb 2010; their article was is dated Mar-Apr 2010. The same goes for "Laboratory tests suggest that compounds in bitter melon might be effective for treating HIV infection" and "The study revealed that a 100 milligram per kilo dose per day is comparable to 2.5 milligrams of the anti-diabetes drug Glibenclamide taken twice per day", both of which are referenced in our article but not in theirs. So they copied us, and they've failed to acknowledge the fact as legally required by our Terms of Use.

For future reference, if you ever find a genuine copyright violation, the normal procedure is to remove it outright, rather than editing it. I'm no lawyer, but I think the idea is that simply editing a copyvio risks creating an unauthorised derivative of a copyright work, which is itself a copyright violation. If you're not sure you can always report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the copyvio only after editing the article. (While googling for references on momordicin, I found their article and recognized the broken sentences that I had just been trying to clean up.) As for editing vs deleting, the copyright applies to the text but not to the information; so one can remove a copyvio also by thoroughly rephrasing and reorganizing the material. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with Momordica balsamina?

There may be some confusion between this and similar species Momordica balsamina, also scattered worldwide:

• The name "balsamino" in Panama may refer to Momordica balsamina;
• The photo File:BalsamPear12 MI Asit.JPG with short almost spherical fruit may be Momordica balsamina or Momordica cochinchinensis
• Some entries in "Medical uses" may refer to those other Momordicas

Would someone please check this issue? Thanks... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed those items pending verification:

[also called ...] balsamino (in Panama),

Bitter Melon For Diabetes

I am interested in Bitter Melon for Diabetes and there seems to be a website dedicated to this too: http://www.bittermelondiabetes.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.93.17 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to see an absense of references to the antidiabetic effects of bitter melon, which have recently been topic of scientific research. I do not have much time to write a subsection on this, but I added just a sentence stating it. I also added references (and good ones, after a search on pubmed) on this. Perhaps someone else has the patience to read more scientific papers and write a section on the effects of the hypoglycemic and insulin-like components in bitter melon. (irpsit, on 3/5/2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpsit (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

i really dont understand that means of bitter melon (karela) in Pakistan. and also identify, its fruit or vegetable/?

bitter melon, like most other "vegetables", is botanically a fruit, used as a vegetable.103.99.150.190 (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bitter melon → Momordica charantia – Momordica charantia is the most commonly used name for this plant in reliable sources. Oddly, "Bitter melon" is only the third most commonly used name using searches in Google Books and Google Scholar, after Momordica charantia and "Bitter melon". In Google Scholar, Momordica charantia shows 14,800 results,[2], "Bitter gourd" gives 6,450,[3] and "Bitter melon" gives 4,150. In addition, there are so many non-English and local names used for this plant, that Momordica charantia is the only universally used name. Also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) for more information on article titles for plant names. First Light (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Watermelon. 'Bitter melon' is clearly the lay name of choice for this plant/fruit. In countries where it is found in food shops, it's by far the most common vernacular name. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I should have added that WP:Article titles says that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That's because reliable sources are both verifiable, and more universal than, in this case, the local food shop and vernacular names (different all over the world, and in numerous languages—see the article). Reliable sources strongly support Momordica charantia first, and then "Bitter gourd" second. First Light (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two Googlebooks searches, each with the same suitable restrictions for currency and English-language publishing (Books›Jan 1, 1990–Sep 18, 2011›Search English pages):

"Momordica charantia" 396 genuine hits.

"Bitter melon" 373 genuine hits.

This is certainly not a significant difference. The evidence from books broadly is more weighty than from Googlescholar, where of course scholarly names are given greater prominence. "Bitter melon" is the natural and recognisable name, even if some of the hits in my second search are to do with some other melon than Momordica charantia. "Bitter melon" is preferable by a balanced consideration of principles at WP:TITLE, just as Grape is preferable to Vitis vinifera.

As evidence that the great majority of uses of "bitter melon" refer to Momordica charantia, a Googlebooks search with the same restrictions:

"Momordica charantia" AND "bitter melon" 356 genuine hits.

That said, evidence from related searches (using "-" to exclude items, which is known to be unreliable) shows that Google searches are even more irrational than many have feared, yielding logically impossible results even when all caution is taken. Searcher beware!

Noetica^Tea? 03:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Searcher beware, indeed! Such a restricted search in Books is picking and choosing your data set to suit your opinion. Why 1990 to present? Further, I trust the Scholar hits more, given that there are fewer non reliable sources indexed there. Regardless, your point on using Ghits to inform our decisions is well taken, which is why we have guidelines like WP:FLORA. And here, First Light has shown that the multiple vernacular names makes the chose of the scientific name the natural choice for the title. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rkitko, you are out of line when in effect you accuse me of bad faith. I expect you to retract that. My post was entirely transparent at every point. A report of equivalent searches but unrestricted for date, since you seem to want them:

"Momordica charantia" 401 genuine hits.

"Bitter melon" 385 genuine hits.

Hits for "Momordica charantia" fall to 4.16% more than hits for "bitter melon", as opposed to 6.17% when restricted to the last twenty years. I would have made a stronger case for opposing the move if had used searches unrestricted for date.

Why choose the last twenty years of books published in English? Obviously (and I made it explicit), I applied "suitable restrictions for currency and English-language publishing". I did not pick and choose; I tried only those restrictions, uniformly. Note that I do not reject any potential move out of hand here; I have just opposed this particular move so far, since the evidence needed to be more exact. I take note of WP:FLORA, where I find that the same example is used that I have above: "grape" versus "Vitis vinifera". The guideline does not settle the present case; and I note that the article as it stands does not use "Momordica charantia", except in references and at the first sentence.

Noetica^Tea? 01:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no accusation of bad faith; I just wanted to know why you chose those dates since I've never seen anyone restrict a search like that. Thank you for the explanation. The grape / Vitis vinifera example in WP:FLORA is used to illustrate the need sometimes to split articles. It is not an example of preferring the vernacular over the scientific name. Would you prefer to split the fruit and uses parts and the botanical parts for this article instead of moving? I think WP:FLORA does cover this. In practice, when species have multiple vernacular names as this one does, the consistency and precision of the scientific name is preferred. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Rkitko, I am glad that you are now contradicting your claim that "such a restricted search in Books is picking and choosing your data set to suit your opinion", since as I have demonstrated the restriction did exactly the reverse, and it was explained from the start as helping to assess current usage. Yes, I know that the uses to which WP:FLORA and I put the grape example are different; neat that we independently chose the same example, that's all. No, I would not favour splitting the coverage of Bitter melon. I take your point about the scientific name being useful when there are diverse popular names. That's one of the main reasons for having scientific names in the first place. But I do not consider that to be a decisive consideration to resolve this case. Many more readers will recognise this item when it is identified with "bitter melon" than with "Momordica charantia". "Apple" is ambiguous too; but we do not prefer "Malus domestica" over "Apple". Noetica^Tea? 04:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Apple is not ambiguous with respect to other flora. There is a single, well-known name by which the species is known. (Personally, I'd prefer splitting that article.) Here we have a species known slightly more often in reliable sources by the scientific name than either of the well-known vernacular names. This is exactly the kind of case where the scientific name should be preferred; how recognizable a term is is not the only criteria for article naming. I mentioned two above: precision and consistency. Here, I believe, these are more valuable. WP:FLORA came about in part because of a discussion on the correct title of Cytisus scoparius. It had been titled at common broom, a name it's known by in its native range, but it's equally well known in its invasive range as Scotch broom. The scientific name stood out as a rational name both sides could agree was better. And here, you have shown that the scientific name is more common, though you call it insignificant. Perhaps it is, but I think the advantages of a scientific name title outweigh any recognizability criteria, since lay readers will not be surprised to be redirected from a vernacular name to a scientific name, especially when the alternative names appear in bold in the first sentence. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Rkitko is correct. All the title naming guidelines point toward using the name in this case that is "precise" and is "most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." If there were only one commonly used vernacular name for this species, then I would probably not have requested the move. The fact that that there are countless vernacular names, and two that are fairly commonly used in English, makes the guidelines more clear on moving this. If this is kept at one of the English names, it should be "Bitter gourd", since it is more widely used than "Bitter melon" — I believe that's the case even when using the so called 'genuine hits'. Google scholar, though, is the best metric for "Reliable Source", and there again Momordica charantia is clearly the "most frequently used". First Light (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I wouldn't be opposed to splitting the article, though it would still leave the question of whether the fruit usage half should be at "Bitter melon" or "Bitter gourd". First Light (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom, especially the Google Scholar hits and WP:FLORA. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article lead and local names

The beginning of this article tends to accumulate local names and the lead becomes a long list of names that do little to explain what the food actually is. I propose that unless there is clear evidence of use by native English speakers these additional local names be placed in the "Local names" section, which I have now linked in the lead. I have kept the only two referenced local names, goya and karavella. Although karavella could do with a reference to actual usage by English speakers. Computermacgyver (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

what is wrong with using primary sources?

As a frequent reader and never an editor of wiki articles, I am puzzled by a comment I sometimes find at the start of an article to the effect that "This article needs editing because it relies too heavily on primary sources".

Since when have primary sources become undesirable? I thought they were considered superior to secondary sources? Please enlighten me.

71.218.238.99 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you seeing that tag mostly on articles or sections with a medical focus? There a few things going on here. You are correct that in journalism (and historical research), primary sources are superior to secondary. The primary source notice on this article is on a medicine related section. In medicine, primary sources are inferior to secondary. A single study that found that an extract of Momordica charantia inhibits cancer cells in a test tube just isn't very valuable. A meta-study which summarized the results of 50 other studies (looking at the effects of the extract in multiple human cancer cell lines in vitro, living rats and mice, etc.) would be considered a secondary source in medicine, and is much more useful. WP:MEDRS goes into much more detail about primary and secondary sources for medical topics. Aside from medical topics, the more general guidance on primary sources on Wikipedia is WP:PRIMARY. Plantdrew (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming

Where is the name bitter melon popularly used? In China? At least in India (where it's supposed to have originated) the vegetable is known by its local name in each language (generally derived from the Sanskrit karela), or exclusively as bitter gourd in English. The term bitter melon comes as a real surprise to me, so I'd love to know how popular it is in other countries as opposed to bitter gourd.

That's a good question. The local name (non-English) is most likely most commonly used just about everywhere. Google reports 615k hits for bitter gourd and 563k for bitter melon. A Google image search for "bitter melon"+tea shows mostly products with Vietnamese or Chinese text on them. Images of "bitter melon"+tea are still predominantly Vietnamese or Chinese, but also include some Indian languages. Personally, I'd call it "bitter gourd". Melon usually implies a sweet fruit in English. Plantdrew (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainland Japan?

The article distinguishes Okinawa from "mainland Japan." Japan is a set of islands and has no continental territory. What does this mean? I presume, from "Japan proper" (meaning that Okinawa is not "really" a Japanese island), but of course the government of Japan would argue that this is not correct. Maybe change to "the rest of Japan"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmNitpicking (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bitter melon tea

Both articles refer to the same plant, one is just a specific usage of the plant. The Bitter melon tea article also does not appear to have any sources as well, and may not meet WP:GNG. AtlasDuane (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge Nothing in the tea article that couldn't be addressed here. Plantdrew (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge The Tea article is more of a stub and doesn't stand up to the quality of other tea articles. If merged should ensure that search for Bitter melon tea redirects to Momordica Charantia Abyssoft (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Momordica charantia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6VqJ46atN?url=http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls to http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Momordica charantia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201225949/http://www.stripes.com/mobile/news/state-dept-official-in-japan-fired-over-alleged-derogatory-remarks-1.137181 to http://www.stripes.com/mobile/news/state-dept-official-in-japan-fired-over-alleged-derogatory-remarks-1.137181

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Which molecule causes the bitter taste? Some acid?

Does bitter mean same as acidic?

Acid is sour. Bitter tastes are caused by various chemicals (e. g. caffeine). See Taste. IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

--ee1518 (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Cherokee?

Does the Native American Cherokee nation really grow the African cucurbit Momordica? IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess over a year is enough time. Given the lack of source, and the fact that web searches for cherokee and bitter melon find zero articles connecting them, other than this one, I am going to remove the translation. I wonder what that really means in the Cherokee language. IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Invasive in some areas

I'd like to point out that this species has become invasive in some parts of the world. I only learned of this when it started growing randomly in my yard. Then I saw stuff like this:

https://plant-directory.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/momordica-charantia/ Nungimelheshin (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)