Talk:Vachellia nilotica

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "select" :
  • [http://books.google.com/books?id=CfDcl2m-6BMC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22acacia+longifolia%22+uses&source=web&ots=EkNk6Oa_ip&sig=QcXMyBrLsTSqmA1MLErlSFY-s_w#PPA8,M1 Google Books] ''Select Extra-tropical Plants Readily Eligible for Industrial Culture Or Naturalization'' By Ferdinand von Mueller
  • .

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Ljui6yry fgi jbvcxxdjkl;' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.80 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Common Name

Here in South Africa, AFAIK it is never called thorn mimosa. Instead the English name Scented Thorn, and the Afrikaans Lekkerruikpeul (Nice-smelling pod(tree)) are used. My reference (Poisonous Plants of South Africa - van Wyk, van Heerden, and van Oudtshoorn) - confirms this, as do google searches - [1] vs [2] & [3]. I am reserving the right not to be bold, but instead wait for a response as to the best course of action. I suggest the Australian, and both South African names get equal credit as common names.

Distribution map

The distribution map should include Burkina Faso, see, e.g., Thiombiano et al. 2012, Catalogue des plantes vasculaires du Burkina Faso.--Marco Schmidt (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Garble (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tooth brushing

There was no mention of V. nilotica in the edits provided, despite some strident proclamations to the contrary. This is a point you has since been conceded. So my reversion on the grounds that it was unsourced was completely appropriate. The latest edits and proclamations that neem is used in the same way as V. nilotica is nothing more than a blatant violation of WP:OR, and has been removed accordingly. Nothing in the references provided make such a suggestion.After this editor's earlier claims that neem is the same species as V. nilotica I am not inclined to believe they are knowledgeable about this subject and so am not inclidned toleave the material there while sources are found. The only reference thus far provided that does mention V. nilotica refers to the use of powdered bark extracts for treating fungal infections of the mouth. No mention of toothbrushes or twigs. I will leave it in the article for the moment, but since it is a primary source and clearly fails [[WP:MEDRS}} I will be removing it very shortly.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• At no point did I ever claim that neem was the same species as babool/babul, which is V. nilotica. The paragraph you removed contained information on teeth cleaning twigs, which have their own article, and these cleaning twigs are made of half a dozen different plants, including both neem and acacia, the latter called babool (hence Babool (brand) toothpaste). Some of the paragraph contained information on neem, which I removed as inappropriate, along with the neem references. The other half (which you then mostly removed) was added by another editor and pertained to gathering babul/acacia, to be used as toothbrushes, and was completely appropriate to this article. I said that, and you simply cannot accept it, and you removed it anyway, again. That steps over the line.

• It is not a matter of debate that babul/V. nilotica twigs are used as toothbrushes. If you don't like the reference I provided, or the statements of the previous editor about gathering babul for the purpose, you may watch it being done on youtube: [4]. Or you may read this Acacia nilotica review: [www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380799490_Ali%20et%20al%20%201.pdf]. It begins Acacia nilotica Lam (Mimosaceae) indigenously known as ‘Babul’ or ‘Kikar’ is a proverbial, medium sized tree and is broadly scattered in tropical and subtropical countries. and further says (p. 1493) "The tender twings are used as toothbrushes." There are many other references to this on google, but I don't need them. That's enough, right there. A good faith editor would have looked for that rather than remove the content that two other editors had put in.

• I'm more than well-acquainted with WP:MEDRS. In good faith I suppose you haven't read it carefully enough to know that it does not apply to sociological claims like who uses what tree for a toothbrush. I made no scientific or medical claims, and added none. I don't care if it works as a toothbrush or not. I also don't care if there is a chemical in the plant that works or not. That's something for another section of the article, if to be added in the future at all. Not my problem, and not something that needs a medical reference. Yes, the reference I cited was about something else, but an WP:RS source (not a WP:MEDRS source) need not be primarily about the topic it is used for. It merely needs to be published, and WP:V. The reference above will do for the toothbrush information.

• So here is what you are going to do: You are going to add back the material you removed about gathering babool twigs for use as toothbrushes. Then, you are going to reference it with the material I provided above. That will improve the article, and fix the damage you have done to it.

• I have been on Wikipedia since 2005. My TALK page is not full of accusations of edit-warring (except the one you just added), and warnings about same. But yours IS (plus a block). One of us is not getting the hang of this place, and that would be you, not me. So, I suggest you listen to the voice of experience. Here's your chance, offered in good faith, to clean up after yourself without getting into more trouble. SBHarris 02:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is quite simple my friend. Wikipedia requires verifiabilty. At this stage, this material can not be verified despite your shrill assertions that they do. The material can be inserted when you can demonstrate two rather simple points:

1: Where does the first reference ever refer to V. nilotica. If it doesn't do that, then it doesn't support a claim that species is used as a toothbrush. I can't find a single use of the word's "Acacia", "Vachellia" or "nilotica".

2) Where does the second reference ever refer to anyone using anything for a toothbrush, much less this species? I can't find a single usage of the words "tooth", "brush" or "toothbrush".

These should be rather simple things for you to do. Despite your increasingly strident claims that V. nilotica is used as a toothbrush exactly as Neem is, the references never at any point make any claim that could ever be interpreted that way. I'm sure that you believe this is true, just as you believed that neem and V. nilotica are the same plant. But Wikipedia has a solid policy of verifiabilty. You have nothing at all to support the claim that this species has ever been used as a toothbrush. The closest we have is a vague statement that the powdered bark may have been used as a toothpaste or mouthwash, though even that is unclear.

Quite simply, a quick reading of you sources seems to indicate that you have completely misunderstood them. Now it's possible that I am wrong, but if that's the case you can easily demonstrate this by quoting the relevant passages that indicate that V. nilotica has been used as a toothbrush. Because at this stage I cna;t see any evidence that the authors of those references believe that V. nilotica has ever been used as a toothbrush. I await your attempts to do so with bated breath. Should be amusing.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I put it in red above, since your reading is so bad. The typo is in the original. SBHarris 03:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So, can you provide quotes of where the references that you added to the article over support the contentions that you claim they supported, or can you not? you know, the references that you edit warred over?

Because when you can do that, those edits can be reinserted. And if you can not do that, the edits can not be reinserted, and I look forward to your apology for both the edit war and the personal attacks that you have hurled at me here and on my talk page.

Your latest reference does indeed state that this species is used as a toothbrush. That is all that it says. It still doesn't support your multiple other claims, such as "it is used a tongue cleaner", "it has been used for centuries", "many people start their day with sticks from this species", "twigs are collected and sold in markets for this use" etc.

None of those claims were supported with your original references, and they are still not supported now. Those edits can not be added.

More importantly, you seem to have now conceded that the references that you added did not support the claim of this species being used as a toothbrush. You started an edit war because I reverted edits that failed a reference check. You vociferously and repeatedly proclaimed that the references supported the claims. You made personal attacks against me on multiple pages because of this issue.

At this stage I am waiting to see if you have enough honour, honesty and dignity to apologise, and acknowledge that my removal of the material on the grounds that it was unsupported was perfectly legitimate. It would also be nice if you would admit that you didn't understand the references, and admit that you now understand that they never supported the claims despite your multiple assertions that they did, and that you engaged an edit war on no grounds.

I'll wait and see how you respond before deciding what course of action to take.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT: Well, I see that after I printed it in red you finally managed to find the word “toothbrush” in a reference about Vachellia nilotica. Wow. You promised a lot of jollies seeing ME try to find it. Right back at you.

Marathon: So, can you provide quotes of where the references that you added to the article over support the contentions that you claim they supported, or can you not? you know, the references that you edit warred over?

COMMENT: I only added one reference, and I put it on your TALK page, and it’s still in the article, as it was the only thing you left. It was a paper that said in part “Acacia nilotica, commonly called babul, has been used as an oral hygiene adjuvant from ages...” That’s India-speak “for ages.” And now you grouse:

“It still doesn't support your multiple other claims, such as "it is used a tongue cleaner", "it has been used for centuries".

Well, it more or less DOES say that, with fancier words. If you don’t think that an oral hygiene adjuvant from the ages is good enough to support the incredible idea of a centuries-old tongue cleaner, there’s no reason to simply delete it. Put a “citation needed” or a “more specific language needed” or something. Write: “It’s oral hygiene adjuvant but how do I KNOW it cleans the tongue? I’m a skeptic. Okay, it kind of says age-old, but CENTURIES? How do Indians know something from the ages is centuries old?” That kind of thing. None of this supports deletion, and it certainly doesn’t support a re-deletion of something restored. It doesn’t support edit wars. It needs discussion.

You’ve changed your war argument now, anyway, kind of like President G. W. Bush after 2003. Originally you said in your edit summary for deleting the section: ‘’ This appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with this species.’’ That was your given reason AT THE TIME, and it was wrong. Since some of the section, even with the references available then, indeed did have to do with nilotica because it was about babul datun sticks, and babul toothpaste. Both nilotica products, alas for your point of view and editing.

The section mentioned “Babul,” the prior reference 15 (not added by me) says plainly that datum (chew) sticks are most commonly Neem but sometimes Babul (and sometimes yet other things also), the LEDE/heading of the WP article already gave Babul as a synonym for nilotica (and still does), and (last but not least) I pointed all this out in restoring the section: “The Babool tree is Acacia (now Vachellia) Nilotica. It is the same plant, although perhaps there is too much toothpaste and tooth history to satisfy WP:WEIGHT).”

There is no error there. Everything I said right there was right, and for that matter referenced—you just didn’t want to believe it, or do anything to fix it. I knew very well you thought the section was completely referenced to neem. But I also knew you were wrong, as some chewsticks are nilotica and reference 15 in the article (again, not one I added) already noted that (quote below).

And so what happens? Some 16 minutes later you remove the entire section again, something that would have been reasonable only if your original statement had been correct and it actually had nothing to do with nilotica (the article subject) at all. And you said, as you did this hasty thing:

Marathon: “None of these references use the words "Acacia" or "Vachellia". I think you are mistaken and need to re-read them.”

COMMENT: No, I wasn’t mistaken—you were. Provably. Here I simply was not getting through to you, as it’s not called Acacia or Vachellia in Hindi, but instead Babool or Babul, and the WP article itself already says this (and at the time, said that) in the lede. And it remains true. Do you deny it? But no-- I keep trying. I remove the text about Neem (wrong plant), add one referencing ancient Acacia mouth cleaning, and restore the section with the comment:

SBHarris: “neem is not babul, but are used similarly and equally effective, according to refs. Try reading the refs.”

You claim over and over that I thought neem was babul. For sombody that you claim thought neem is babul/nilotica, that’s a pretty clear and very early statement of the opposite, from me. Did you read it? I NEVER said otherwise. And I said the opposite very early. You have misrepresented me at every turn on this matter.

Neem and Babul are used similarly, according to reference 15 [5]— yet again a reference I didn’t add, and one that you deleted without ever reading. If you had read it, you might reasonably have objected that neem is more common than nilotica for the chewstick/datun use, and perhaps we should note that. For that article says [quote]:

“The 80 percent of the population in India who live in rural areas still start their day with the datun. There are at least six types of datun use in India viz., Neem, Babul, Mango, Guava, Dandarasa and roots of Pilu. Among all, neem datun is most commonly in use.”

But that’s all. The article statement that you claim is unreferenced: "Many people start their day with sticks from this species" is actually from THIS reference, which you deleted. It says “many”—not “majority”. The reference paper chose Neem for the toothbrush/chewstick experiment, but certainly doesn’t say Neem is all that are used as chewsticks. Rather, it says otherwise.

My only clear mistake here was saying in the edit summary they are “equally effective.” I cannot support that with these references. The reference actually says Neem-stick is as effective as a “toothbrush.” Mea culpa for that. But such a thing makes it worth deleting or fixing the sentence (which I later did) not deleting the section.

Marathon: "twigs are collected and sold in markets for this use" etc.

COMMENT: I think this is one of the few statements that actually has no citation. So it merits a “citation needed.” Unless you have some really good reason not to believe it, or it violates BLP.

Marathon: “Because when you can do that, those edits can be reinserted. And if you can not do that, the edits can not be reinserted, and I look forward to your apology for both the edit war and the personal attacks that you have hurled at me here and on my talk page.”

COMMENT: No, that’s not the way we do things on Wikipedia, except in BLP. If you don’t like a section and think it’s poorly referenced, you might be WP:BOLD and delete it once, but per WP:BRD, if somebody objects to put it back, and you can just keep deleting it without discussion, you’re off the reservation. You want to add a “citation needed,” and get some third opinion to make sure you’re not making a big mistake.

In any case, lack of citation was not your argument. Your argument was that the wrong plant was in all cases being discussed, and there you were wrong, and the discussion from me in the add/delete summaries informed you of your error. But you could not admit that you were in error. And cannot do it, even now.

Marathon: “Your latest reference does indeed state that this species is used as a toothbrush. That is all that it says.”

COMMENT: Yes, it does. And a reference already in the article said this plant is used sometimes as a chewstick, so there we are. Why the drama to get here? You weren’t listening, is the reason. You didn’t believe the article lede about the name Babul for Vachella nilotica and didn’t want to look for yourself at Google. The toothpaste, mouthwash, chewstick and toothbrush use, are together worth at least one good paragraph. You killed it.

Marathon: “More importantly, you seem to have now conceded that the references that you added did not support the claim of this species being used as a toothbrush.”

COMMENT: So bloody WHAT? The reference already there supported nilotica use as tooth cleaner and chewstick, and I was able to find a toothbrush reference less than 27 hours later. I wasn’t wrong, and you were no help at all. A hindrance.

Marathon: “You started an edit war because I reverted edits that failed a reference check.”

COMMENT: Wrong. It passed the reference check 26 hours 18 minutes after you deleted it the second time, and the timestamp when I provided the toothbrush reference on the talk page. YOU started an edit war and are up to 2RR contrary to BRD are WP:WAR because you don’t wait even that long.

Marathon: “You vociferously and repeatedly proclaimed that the references supported the claims.”

COMMENT: To which your proper response, if not satisfied, was to explain why not. Not delete the section. The explanations you did give, were in error.

Marathon: You made personal attacks against me on multiple pages because of this issue.

COMMENT: Nope. Saying you’re edit warring in contradiction to BRD policy, when you ARE, does not violate NPA. You knew that when you put the edit war warning template on MY Talk page. In any case, I can see we’re going to need more eyes on this debate to find out which of us is badly against policy. I gave you your chance. You deleted my complaint from your TALK page and you’re at 2RR for no particularly good reason on this article, which you’ve been warned about before.

Marathon: “At this stage I am waiting to see if you have enough honour, honesty and dignity to apologise, and acknowledge that my removal of the material on the grounds that it was unsupported was perfectly legitimate. It would also be nice if you would admit that you didn't understand the references, and admit that you now understand that they never supported the claims despite your multiple assertions that they did, and that you engaged an edit war on no grounds.”

COMMENT: At this stage, I’m simply interested in what happens to you in the hands of second parties. I now turn you over to their tender mercies to do some ‘splainin’ to you about WP:BRD, WP:WAR, and getting along on Wikipedia [6]. SBHarris 08:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In short, no references to support the claims that you repeatedly inserted in your edit war. More OR and SYNTH. More personal insults. Class. But the article stays as it is until you can support your claims. Good luck with that. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IrishGordy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IrishGordy (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)