Talk:Mimosa pudica

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fatimaalshimari.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kamel24. Peer reviewers: Alexas27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference for mechanism of movement

where it asks for citation needed, can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC396223/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.9.23 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

contradiction

the first paragraph says the plant is native to Brazil, wheras the section Medicinal properties says it is mentioned in the Ayurveda. Obviously, if it originally came from Brazil, it could not have spread to India until post-contact with the Old World. So where does it come from? --Krsont 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed this; several sources (i.e. [1]) support that it is native to the New World, so I think the error is likely in the identification of this Ayurveda plant. I'm not sure how to approach the article in light of this. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems pretty dubious and as it has been unreferenced for over a year I've movwed it to below. Smartse (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is native to the New World but was introduced to the Old World, where it is common/even invasive in parts of Asia. The below source seems to imply it was already widespread in the 16th century, giving plenty of time for there to be cultural and medicinal uses developed for it in Asia.

https://daily.jstor.org/plant-of-the-month-sensitive-plant/#:~:text=This%20latter%20entry%20serves%20as,doubt%20adding%20to%20the%20confusion. Fruitygrandmother (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

The plant lajjalu described in Ayurveda Lajja means Shy in sanskrit, has been identified as Mimosa pudica. This plant has several alternate Sanskrit common names, including Namaskari, and Rakta Paadi. In Ayurveda, the plant is described as a plant which folds itself when touched and spreads its leaves once again after a while. It is said to have a bitter and astringent taste, and has a history of use for the treatment of various ailments. Most commonly used is the root, but leaves, flowers, bark, and fruit can also be implemented. Ayurvedic Properties (guna) of Lajjalu Has tikta and kashaya rasa (bitter and astringent taste). Has property of cold (sheetha). Balances kapha, pitta. Shushrutha has placed this plant in Priyangwambhastaadi gana.

Common Names

THE TACO THE RACO AND GEORGE

Stickers

I added a name "stickers" though didn't have a citation I can directly cite. I grew up in Panama [Canal Zone]] where these plants were a near ubiquitous ground weed in open fields (i.e., you'd get patches of them growing as ground weeds mixed in with lawn grass). In this form it would never grow higher than a few inches, but could spread over several feet of a field (the lawns were regularly mowed). In this form you might not notice it until you stepped on it, at which point if you were barefoot it would prick your feet, hence the name "stickers". It was also a common hazard if playing football or anything else where you might land on it. It wouldn't draw blood or anything, but it was painful to step or land on. I had assumed the leaves would close to protect it from being trod on, while the mini-thorns would discourage someone from stepping on it again.

I don't know if this name was used outside the english-speaking zone community, but pretty much anyone there knew exactly what you meant if you said "stickers". (e.g., "Look out, there is a patch of stickers over there"). The leaves would of course do their closing thing, that was generally a mild curiosity, of lesser note than the prickly nature. It wasn't until much later that I knew the plant could grow larger. We considered it a nuisance, a weed.Aapold (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotes are not considered reliable sources and therefore cannot be included in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line between anecdote and personal experience? Does it have to be from someone else? Alright, lessee. Here is a photo album from someone referring to them, including a nice close-up pic of the plant. here is a "memories" page from CZBrats (canal zone brats) where they talk about running across "stickers", another from "Memories of the Canal Zone" here which mentions walking across them barefoot. Is this sufficient?Aapold (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

None of those links would be acceptable. It should come from a published work like an academic book on the history of the canal zone, not a website by a non-expert that anyone could set up. Thoroughly read our policy on reliable sources to figure out what sources would be acceptable. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot use your personal experiences or anecdotes as reliable sources. You are not a primary source because your information cannot be verified. Self-citation of something you write elsewhere is not acceptable because you are not a known expert on this plant. Everything I linked to is a policy or guideline that will give you more information on why anecdotes cannot be used in articles. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a real name anyway - "stickers" appears to be a close cognate of what we would call "pickers" in Trinidad - in other words "thorns". Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Category about Other Names

Please do not delete TickleMe Plant from the list of names. It is used by school children, educators, The National Gardening Association, museum gift shops, science catalogs, newspaper and online publications (just google tickleme plant). There are numerous names such as shy plant, sensitive plant, Mimosa pudica and others used to describe this plant for both educational and commercial reasons, some of which are mentioned on this encyclopedia page.

Please do not remove the link www.ticklemeplant.com or * TickleMe Plant flowers time lapse video [2]as it provides a rare view of time lapse photography of the plant in action and flowers. It also include experiments and information that is useful to children. Please visit the Wikipedia "Brine Shrimp" and you will see Sea Monkeys (a trademarked brand) mentioned in the article as well. Legume (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Tickleme Plant is (apparently) a trademark. That in and of itself is not reason to exclude the name from the article, but I feel it is obvious that certain anonymous editors (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) have added the name as a means to advertise a particular commercial website. I have dealt with spammers before, and the action of these certain editors matches my previous experience closely. I am removing these links from the article once again. You may post the links here to meet the approval of Wikipedia editors, but since the links have been controversial, they should not be reinserted in the article until consensus has been met.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I reviewed the (article Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)and see how the [www.ticklemeplant.com] web site has commercial side. It does have a lot of additional information, experiments and activities that actually may be of more value to readers than the other links I observed, some showing burning the plant with a flame etc. The * Video mimosa pudica in Bornéo [3] is currently the last link on the web page and offers plants for sale on this website and similarly has some educational pictures.

The other website I am asking you to consider [4] is an unusual view of this wonderful plant's flowers and is not found in the other links. I agree with you that the name TickleMe Plant is a trademark and that is no reason to exclude it. So many children in classes are using TickleMe Plants. Not including the common term tickleme plant would prevent youngsters often doing science projects, from researching in Wikipedia the plant by the name that is the most kid friendly. Not including tickleme plant as a common name is similar to removing sensitive plant which is also sold commercially under "Sensitive Plant. I hope all the editors that are involved will review sites such as the "Brine Shrimp" mentioned above and will consider reinstating tickleme plant as a helpful addition to those many Wikipedia readers who will be looking for more information under this name. Thank you for giving this matter your attention. Legume (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the ethnoplants.com link and I think I will remove it. Returning to the ticklemeplants.com issue, whatever videos and pictures may be on it are irrelevant because it is an unambiguously commercial website. As for comparing to the brine shrimp article, it should be noted that it does not appear to link to seamonkey.com. That brand is mentioned in the article because it is a household name several decades established, like Kleenex or Scotch Tape. Sea-Monkey has its own article for this reason, but Tickleme Plant will not survive WP:N, trust me. As for the video, I have not seen the flower heads do that, so it appears to be unique. Even so, the quick advert at the beginning did not escape my notice. It isn't that excessive, so I will be asking for opinion on this matter.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all of the editors that are giving this matter their consideration. If you google TickleMe Plants you will see it has been discussed in many substantial journals, newspapers, and online publications. TickleMe Plants are carried by the the top science museums,science catalogs and National Gardening Associations Kid's Store. Many youngsters and adults know the plant by the name TickleMe Plant. At a minimum please reinstate the name in the article so that those who know the plant by this name will have the opportunity to find and research it. No commercial mention needs to be linked. I appreciate your concerns, I believe you have made the changes necessary and I hope at least the flowering video can stay as well. Legume (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I have not heard back from anyone as of yet?? Legume (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm glad to finally know the "real" name of this plant, I honestly believe at least a passing mention of the common name "TickleMe Plant" or "Sensitive Plant" would be worth mentioning. Perhaps changing the first line to "Mimosa pudica L. (also known as a Tickle-me Plant or Sensitive Plant) is a creeping annual or perennial herb often grown for its curiosity value: the compound leaves fold inward and droop when touched, re-opening within minutes." KiTA (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"TickleMe plant" is not a common name, it is a trade name. Single-purpose editors have been constantly tring to add this name and/or links to Tickleme.plant.com to articles relating to this plant.Per WP:SPAM "Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services" --Melburnian (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All links have been removed, no spam is possible or intended, TickeMe Plant has a trademark but it is also a name commonly used in the USA.. google shows the hundreds of articles that use it in describing Mimosa pudica.Legume (talk) 25:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All I see through google are hundreds of advertisements linking to ticklme.plant.com, please provide a WP:RS reliable source that this is a common name is the USA. --Melburnian (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have searched the US Patents and Trademarks Office's Trademark Electronic Search System, and can confirm that "TickleMe Plant" is indeed a registered trademark. I have two comments to make about this:

1. Trademarks are not supposed to be awarded for generic names. If "TickleMe Plant" was already a common name for this plant prior to submission of the trademark application, then the trademark application would/should have been rejected. This trademark application was submitted on 11 December 2006, and awarded on September 25 2007. It contains a claim that the first use of the term was on 3 December 2006. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a trademark that was invented only 16 months ago, could have already passed into the vernacular as a notable common name.
2. I'm not sure what the legal position is, but it is generally considered bad form to dilute a trademark by applying it generically. For example Google are pissed off about the increasing use of "google" as a verb meaning "to search the web". Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence that "TickleMe Plant" has passed into the vernacular as a common name for the plant, we most certainly should not be diluting the trademark by presenting it as such.

I am therefore opposed to the presentation of "TickleMe Plant" as a common name for this species, but would have no objection to the inclusion of a statement that it is sold as a novelty plant under that trademark. This use of the plant does seem to be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion.

Hesperian 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning this name would constitute WP:SPAM and WP:UNDUE. If the name were in widespread use, this fact could justify its inclusion, but this does not appear to be the case. DJLayton4 (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of looking and found mentions like [5] [6] [7] and [8], none of which call it TickleMe Plant. We do need (and are missing) a mention that the plant is often cultivated because people like to see the rapid plant movement. But that's a separate question from use of the term TickleMe Plant. Having said all that, TickleMe Plant is advertised in enough catalogs that it seems probably helpful to readers to give it an offhand mention one way or another (and/or a redirect from TickleMe Plant). I don't have an especially strong opinion on what would be the right way to do this, though. Kingdon (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussions above I added an accurate and more appropriate statement "People enjoy seeing the rapid plant movement of Mimosa pudica and it is sold in many catalogs and other venues as an educational product and novelty under the trademark TickleMe Plant.Legume (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As you requested, I added a citation to The National Gardening Association to provide a WP:RS reliable source that the trade mark name, TickleMe Plant is used commonly in the USA.Legume (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an advertisement on a website - it doesn't prove anything beyond showing that the product exists --Melburnian (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rkitko (talk) I want to reach consensus. TickleMe Plant is the most used name in science and educational catalogs. Mimosa pudica is sold under the trademarked name TickleMe Plant. It is helpful to all that know the plant by TickleMe Plant to be able to find it easily under Wikipedia. What source is more reliable than the National Gardening Associations link to show that TickleMe Plant is one of the most important names of choice when searching for information about this plant. Please let me know what I can provide to reach consensus. I will not revert the edit as you suggested, at this time, as I am more interested in a solution that will reach consensus. Thank you. LegumeLegume (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As requested, I have provided an example of current additional verfiable souces in books, newspapers showing use of the TickleMe Plant name. The book, Sprout Your Own Leafy Wonders: Complete Mini Garden Kit With Seeds, Peat Pellets, and Planters, March 2009 use the name tickle-me-plant as indicated at the following link [9] In addition there were numerous newspaper and magazine articlse using the tickleme plant such as in the Baltimore Sun [10] LegumeLegume (talk) 7:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One is a blog and the other sells the product, not what I would call great sources. Hardyplants (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, I'm now even more convinced that this name shouldn't be included in the article. 1) We still don't have a reliable source for the name. 2) It's a commercial neologism, used, from my understanding, infrequently. A search of all google news items shows exactly 35 hits, most of which are because someone's been spamming horticultural-related comment threads. I bet most of the regular google hits are generated from the same behavior. Legume, read our policy on verifiability and the reliable sources guideline linked above. A blog associated with a newspaper outfit is marginal (I've seen some pretty unverifiable things coming from suspect sources published on those blogs; they're not held to the same standards) and the other is clearly attempting to sell the darn thing and thus is not a reliable source in and of itself. I'm going to remove it once more. And, Legume, may I ask, since you've only edited to include this name in a few articles, is your single-purpose account an indication of your passion for this trademark name, or do you by any chance happen to have an association with the company that sells the product under that name. If the latter, this would represent a conflict of interest. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The statement in question that has been reopened for discussion is - Mimosa pudica is sold as an educational product and novelty gift sometimes under the trademark name TickleMe Plant.

This author is not asking for the name TickleMe Plant to be listed or verified as a valid common name. The claim is only that TickleMe Plant is a verifiable registered trademarked name and that Mimosa pudica is sold under the name TickleMe Plant. Including the name TickleMe Plant in this Wikipedia article allows those researching/searching the name TickleMe Plant to be guided to the Mimosa pudica article and the valuable information it provides. The statement in question** above, is what I have supported with new reliable sources. This statement allows those who read about the TickleMe Plant in books such as the recently published, “Sprout Your Own Leafy Wonders: Complete Mini Garden Kit with Seeds, Peat Pellets, and Planters, March 2009 [11] to be able to research additional information about the tickle-me-plant in Wikipedia. Upon further research, Sprout Your Own Leafy Wonders does NOT sell TickleMe Plant brand seeds as stated in earlier discussions, but in fact it includes a seed packet marked “Sensitive Plant , Park Seeds.” In this verifiable text the name tickle-me-plant is included with a list of other names for the Mimosa pudica. Students or those whom have purchased this new book or TickleMe Plant Seeds, from the numerous sources below, will be able to find a source of additional information about TickleMe Plants in Wikipedia . That is all that is requested. Authors can modify the statement to make it more clear, accessible and helpful to our Wikipedia community and remove commercial concerns, if any. An online search verifies that Mimosa pudica seeds are sold as an educational product under the name TickleMe Plant. These venues include the following reliable sources, which are some of the largest Science/Education Catalogs used by schools and educational institutions: Edmund’s Scientifics, [12], Carolina Biological Supply [13], Nasco, [14], Teachers Source, [15], Acorn Naturalists [16] SciPlus [17] These reliable sources support that the original statement in question**-Mimosa pudica is sold as an educational product and novelty gift sometimes under the trademark name TickleMe Plant,- is accurate. Wikipedia has extensive information on Mimosa pudica and people who are trying to find information on the TickleMe Plant will be satisfied. I have reinstated the 3-22-08 edit because these new reliable sources support the information regarding the statement in question. LegumeLegume (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of these meet WP:RS. Catalogs are by the very nature not a reliable source of information on the species' common names (see WP:PRIMARY for what we consider a primary source; in this case, we can't say the species is sold under the trademark name and cite the catalogs where it's sold, we'd need a secondary source to state that exact thing). And the problem with the book is that, well, anyone can publish a book with a vanity press. Further, the book information on any website I've seen doesn't include an author, listing the staff of Chronicle Books instead. This leads me to believe that the publication is not a scholarly source and should be avoided. My conclusion, after searching extensively for this trademark name, is that it is not mentioned in any scholarly work or piece of reliable journalism (e.g. not a blog) and thus does not belong in our encyclopedia. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can support this statement by (Hardyplants) 20:47, 23 September 2009 Hardyplants (talk | contribs) (11,583 bytes) (the name might have a place, but not under a header with one line of text and a purly commerical link for a reference.) (undo) Hardyplants. I support removal of any commercial links and leaving the text in the article somewhere. Rkitko, I respect all the work you have done for Wikipedia and I agree with you that this cannot be called a common name. You are more familiar with Scholarly Sources. I did find that Wikipedia has an article on Chronicle Books and the author of the book is Anastasia Suen. She seems scholarly, as she has written over 115 books [18] In addition, clearly the Mimosa pudica is being sold under the name TickleMe Plant in most science/educational catalogs and it would be helpful to include the trademarked name for people searching it. If some mention of the TickleMe Plant is not acceptable, as that would bring this to consensus, please let me know what the next step of mediation would be. In this new edit, I am removing the commercial link and removing the heading as (Hardyplants) suggested. In my edit, as suggested by (Hardyplants) I removed the old heading and then placed the statement separate but below the common name section, but left indication that it was only a trademarked name.--Legume ^(talk) 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is... we still have no reliable, scholarly source to insist that this species is sold under that trademark name. All we have are primary sources, namely catalogs, and a handful of sources not up to our standards. Note that Wikipedia is not the place for original research or synthesis. So while you can say that clearly it's being sold under that name, that doesn't mean an encyclopedia could or should say this. Simply put, if I began selling this plant under a new trademark name and vigorously spammed blogs and news source comment sections to self-promote my product, I would not expect any encyclopedia to mention it, unless there's been a long and well-documented history such as with Kleenex and facial tissue. The trademark name doesn't seem to meet our standards for inclusion, especially since we can't find a reliable, scholarly source to back up the statement.

I don't believe there's a need for further mediation since you haven't been able to provide a source that meets our guidelines, but if you insist, you can try a WP:3O or perhaps head over to WP:RS/N. And until more people weigh in, I think the article should stand as it was before you added the trademark name back in 2008. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have requested other opinions as to reach consensus and binding solution. --Legume ^(talk) 03:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not about the common name, this has been settled.We are not looking for a source to verify a common name. It is a registered trade mark name. The issue about having any commercial value has been settled, as all commercial links have been removed from the site. It is about including The TickleMe Plant so that, students and customers purchasing TickleMe Plants at the New York Botanical Gardens, The National Gardening Association or from any of the many science education catalogs and websites where it is found, can find additional information. That is all. If TickleMe Plants were not found in most of the largest Science Education Catalogs, Botanical Gardens, used in our Educational System and appearing in the new book “Sprout Your Own Leafy Wonders” by Anastasia Suen (who wrote 115 books) then this request would not be made. I would like to invite the community to see the changes that have been made in the discussion above hopes that now we have removed all commercial links and not to prevent people from finding information. I am reverting the edit until a consensus has been reached as it is hurtful to all those searching for information by omitting it and there is no harm to keep it until consensus is reached as the statement included is not under dispute now.~~Legume —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legume (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, no, this had not been settled above. I summarized the above conversation earlier and told you that it appeared that most were against inclusion. Melburnian also asked for a better reference and you didn't respond. I don't call that resolved consensus. Clearly, once more: we have no reference that meets our guidelines on reliable sources to say with authority that this species is sold under that trade name. Even if we did, there were additional concerns above about undue weight by including it. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rkitko, is there any statement modification about the TickleMe Plant that you could present to us. I believe from the above statements that now that many see the benefit of including TickleMe Plant. ALL commercial links are removed. Only a mention of it being a trade marked (not common) name is being requested. I strongly believe that including TickleMe Plant is beneficial to our readers as the term is being searched by thousands of consumers and internet users. Rkitko reagarding undue weight , you can you select the placement of the statement in the least prevalant spot. My interest is only in having people searching for TickleMe Plant information to find it in Wikipedia. Once again, can you please come up with a statement that would be acceptable to you and change the edit. I feel I and others above have made suggestions and would appreciate if you would help suggesting some edit to meet the goal for educators and others looking for additional information.

--Legume ^(talk) 19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, I don't think the trademark name merits mention in the article for multiple reasons (lack of a reference, lack of a clear and long history of the trademark's association with the species, undue weight). You have convinced no one and very few people have supported inclusion of the trademark name. If you want to garner more support, approach the places I mentioned earlier (WP:3O, etc). --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Category about Other Names:Random subsection to make editing easier

TickleMe plant already redirects to Mimosa pudica. This seems adequate to allow finding it. I am adding a redirect from Ticklish plant, as that is the name I knew it under... it grows on the shores of Sicily Island, Louisiana and was called that name some years ago.- Sinneed 03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It really looks as though Legume is a shill for a company that wishes to subtly advertise on wikipedia for a their trademarked version of a generic product that they've only been trading for a couple years anyway. The analogy ain't "sea monkeys" (a true item of longstanding pop culture), it's "billabong bugs" (a recent trade name for triops). So certainly it would be wrong to list the trademark as a common name for the plant. However, it is worth having a paragraph near the bottom that explains that the plant is a popular novelty item, and perhaps if someone can find data on the main commercial suppliers of the plant then that would warrant one sentence (and if Legume's company really has become one of the top suppliers then it warrants a few words, provided those words are in that same sentence which also mentions the other main suppliers, and that sentence is only part of a paragraph near the bottom describing the general interest in keeping the plant). Everything else.. I mean, Legume was pushing a time-lapse video, that doesn't belong here - the interesting thing about this plant is how it looks in video without time-lapse, and the interesting thing about time-lapse videos of plants is how it looks with plants which seem not to move in realtime video. For an encyclopedia it is just confusing to have a time-lapse video of a plant that already moves so fast, blatantly completely inappropriate. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation tags

Yes, I did put in a lot of citation tags. But there was/is a lot of information in this article that was/is not contained in the references. I added some in-line citations myself from information that I could find readily in authoritative sources to hand, add then added cite tags for certain "facts" I couldn't readily verify at the time, but possibly others could. I find medical information without authoritative references particularly alarming.--Melburnian (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In malayalam this plant is called "Thotta Vaadi" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.33.17 (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

3O

I agree that since it is listed in a catalog under TickleMe plant, (I make no claim that it is, but accept this under wp:AGF) it should clearly be given a redirect from there... and it already has, since 21:59, 11 May 2008. This will allow those searching for it under that name to find it here. Likewise Tickle me plant already redirects here.

This should make it adequately easy for those who find the catalog-listed name either in the catalog or through advertising to find the actual article. However, wp:NOT the Yellow Pages... one reason to list the names under which it is marketed would be if the name itself were so wp:notable that it merited mention "going the other way". This doesn't seem to be the case. As I see it, the only reason being given is to allow easy finding by searchers, and that is accomplished by the redirects. If there is some other reason given, I apologize, but I missed it.- Sinneed 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that, as usual, I have joined the editing and am no longer able to offer outside opinion. :) - Sinneed 15:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

producing seeds?

Hi does anyone know how easy it is to grow this plant and get seeds from them? would be good to include in the cultivation part of this article. THanks JMRH6 (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding shade?

In the first paragraph it says, "It grows mostly in undisturbed shady areas, under trees or shrubs."

In the "Cultivation" section it says "Additionally, the plant is shade intolerant and frost-sensitive, meaning that it does not tolerate low levels of light or cold temperatures."

This is a contradiction, but I don't know enough about it to fix it.128.239.213.128 (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

In the distribution paragraph, it mentions the countries where its native and introduced. I found a map from the NRCS plant database that includes the US. I do not see any indication of it being in any of the states mentioned except for Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In addition, it says that its native to North America, but based on the NRCS database, Mimosa pudica is an introduced species in Hawaii and Florida. Either the information in this paragraph needs to be changed, or another source should be cited. Kamel24 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a New Paragraph: Research with Mimosa pudica

I was interested in adding a paragraph about Mimosa pudica in scientific research. I have added it below the Chemical Components section of the article. Feel free to read and improve upon it. The citations I added include more information than in the paragraph, and are quite interesting. They're worth a read if this section needs expanding. Kamel24 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mimosa pudica. 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/20080919232904/http://www.tropical-biology.org/research/dip/species/Mimosa%20pudica.htm to http://www.tropical-biology.org/research/dip/species/Mimosa%20pudica.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080413145851/http://agspsrv95.agric.wa.gov.au/dps/version02/01_plantview.asp?page=7&contentID=60& to http://agspsrv95.agric.wa.gov.au/dps/version02/01_plantview.asp?page=7&contentID=60&

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mimosa pudica. 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/20050407172948/http://faculty.ucc.edu/biology-ombrello/POW/sensitive_plant.htm to http://faculty.ucc.edu/biology-ombrello/POW/sensitive_plant.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Family

Haven't the family changed to mymusideae family? Ajay A B (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The floral character don't match up with floral arrangement of pea plant Ajay A B (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The floral character don't match up with floral arrangement of pea plant Ajay A B (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Accacia indica

On Marathi 157.33.98.131 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zejn0120 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BI496Editor.

— Assignment last updated by AOXQueen (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)