Talk:Neolamarckia cadamba

message: As both pages point out the two are synonomous with each other they should be merged.SADADS (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neolamarckia cadamba. 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/20150807061645/http://www.drna.gobierno.pr/biblioteca/publicaciones/hojas-de-nuestro-ambiente/30-Toro%20Negro%20ultimo.pdf to http://www.drna.gobierno.pr/biblioteca/publicaciones/hojas-de-nuestro-ambiente/30-Toro%20Negro%20ultimo.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Granted the stay on reckless cutting of neolamarckia cadamba (kadam,   , kadamba ) in Rajasthan by Suresh Sharma .
Proof : two news articles, one in english its details are :
Newspaper : The Pioneer
Title: A cure for the incurable
Year of publication: 2008
Journalists name : santosh
Place: jaipur
Second in Hindi language its details are :
Newspaper : dainik bhaskar
Title: पेड़ ही नही बचेंगे तो पेटेंट का क्या फायदा
Year and date of publication : 02 June 2004
Journalists name : vidhi
Place : Jaipur 
Third proof : court order sheet Alekh99 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the exact information you want to add, and what, exactly, do the sources say? --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Stopping the cutting of this species of tree in one part of India when its presence is widespread throughout Southeast Asia is not important enough to be in the article lede. It does not belong in Cultural significance either, as Suresh Sharma's primary interest appeared to have been as a source of an extract that he believed treated diabetes. There are no published clinical trials on that topic. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Thank you. In other words, the Pioneer source does not support the information that logging is prohibited in Rajasthan. What does the Dainik Bhaskar say? --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Alekh99, you quoted the Pioneer source above. Your quote says "When the authorities started reckless cutting of this tree i filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Rajasthan High Court and was granted a stay."  That does not say anything about whether logging is currently prohibited (in addition, this is a primary source, an interview with the person who filed the action, and so it does not work as a source.)  Sharma's name does not belong in the article in any case – it is irrelevant to the article about the tree which individual filed an action in one region of the world.  The question is whether there is secondary sourcing for the claim that logging is prohibited, at all. What, exactly, does the Dainik Bhaskar say? --bonadea contributions talk 14:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

text: This is an article about a species of tree. An individual action in one region of the world is not encyclopaedic information about the species. The thing that might have been encyclopaedic was if the law had changed specifically for this species, which could have been mentioned without undue details about the action (such as Suresh Sharma's name which would not have belonged in this article in any case, as three or four people have tried to explain to you). It was believed that the law had been changed, and that is why that text was briefly included. When I realised that no, the law was much older and included a large number of species, we obviously could not keep the incorrect info in the article. A broad law from 1957 in one region of the world, encompassing many species, is not relevant information here. Please stop repeating the same points. --bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly endorse what  says above. There is no point in continuing this discussion. The consensus is clear and in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Granted the stay on cutting neolamarckia cadamba in Rajasthan