Talk:Boswellia

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Boswellia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Lead[edit]

I edited out the last sentence of this paragraph from the lead: There are four main species of Boswellia which produce true frankincense and each type of resin is available in various grades. The grades depend on the time of harvesting, and the resin is hand sorted for quality. Anyone interested in frankincense would be well advised to first obtain a small sample of each type from a reputable dealer in order to ascertain the difference between each resin. Obvious that it should go but perhaps it can be included back in with different, less "how-to" type wording.04:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugyug (talk • contribs)

this pdf may be of use to someone looking to expand this article. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation?[edit]

I removed a large section that duplicates material found at http://okeechobee.ifas.ufl.edu/News%20columns/Three%20Ancient%20Gifts.htm and http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=177645289&blogID=420380118. It is purportedly by the author, so it may not be a copyright violation, but there are issues of original research, COI, and reliable source. I've posted to the editor's talk page.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from the author clarifying that it is her work and she retains rights to it. I hope I clarified the other issues for her and that she will add a section on cultivation citing the ufl.edu reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

geographical error[edit]

I deleted "in the Southern Hemisphere" from the second paragraph under "Overview" -- India is not in the southern hemisphere.garber 19:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garber (talk • contribs) garber 19:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are absolutely not dioecious...[edit]

Can someone fix that? They are perfect-flowered, I mean come on, the illustration used on this page even clearly shows both sexes on one flower. They self pollinate as well. Burseraceae are generally dioecious, but not Boswellia. If the footnote ref really says they're dioecious, then the author printed that in error without confirming it themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D107:3C00:B52C:F290:F18C:E39E (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"an ecosystem of great exuberance"[edit]

What is an ecosystem of great exuberance? Is that a technical biological term? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph was added by a banned user who added a lot of similar material that still needs to be cleaned up. It makes no sense at all to state that this genus requires an ecosystem that is "highly fragile against external aggressions". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boswellia. 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/20081209115100/http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=975255932&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=975255932.pdf to http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=975255932&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=975255932.pdf

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) 22:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]