Talk:Incense/Archive 1

In the Arabian Peninsula
Something, I feel might need be mentioned is the modern usage of incense in Arabian Peninsula. It is, not uncommon to be in presence aroma if one has spent much time in Saudi Arabia. It is not unknown, to see incense burners. Prince Saud bin abdul Mohsen bin Abdul Aziz al saud, at the start of each day, he is wafted with frankincense, from a incense burner. References: - http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198706/old.scent.new.bottles.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk_mvSp1xmA&feature=PlayList&p=3D8D03178DBD7BCB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=37

- http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-prince-charles-generation-channel-4brjack-hunter-sci-fibr-inside-the-saudi-kingdom-bbc2brprince-charless-other-mistress-channel-4-1002900.html

- Thank-you! --Anaccuratesource (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Composition of Incense
I believe their is a NPOV problem here, although it may not be easy to spot, or easy to explain for that matter.

Let me start with: "While indirect burning incense consists mainly of fragrant materials and need not adhere to any specific proportion, recipes and mixes for all direct burning incense must include and balance two things: fragrant materials and a combustible base." This is really a teaching device used by Neal to produce a book teaching people how to make incense. Neal never worked at another incense manufacturer and his concepts are completely self styled.

Okay, this sounds harmless and not completely off the charts, however this concept is really the notion of a man named Carl Neal who is a self-styled incense maker and writer in the Magick genre. It is more a device of his writing than a reality, and this is not how traditional incense makers think of the process. I don't pretend to be an expert in all the ways incense is manufactured, but this is not what I see when I read the bulk of what is out there.

For example, let's look at the technique described by another New Age individual who has been very successful in selling his incense in the USA. That would be Fred Soll. Fred describes his process as combining three elements 1.Pinon powder, 2. Pinon or other Resin, and 3. an essential oil. These are mixed together in a paste that is rolled on a wooden stick.

Carl may be able to neatly fit his concepts into the various elements and styles, but the problem is these processes were not designed around his model. The model conditions the mind to think in terms of the model in respect to different styles, but not such model was applied because no such model existed prior to Neal's iconoclastic view of making incense. It attemps to fit several round pegs into one square hole. At the very least it is a gross over-simplification.

If you look at the processes described in "Indian Incense" you truly get a better picture. Given that incense was originated in this region and followed Buddhism into China and Tibet and from there to everywhere else.

Let's take for example the largest selling incense in the Western World: "Hand-Dipped" incense.(not really covered in this section) This incense is a hugely popular modification of the Durbar process. It amounts to taking a punk or "incense blank" (which are mostly made in China) and dipping it in a fragrance or essential oil. Now, you cannot dip a blank using natural water soluable binders like Makko (Japan), Jigit (India), Laha (Nepal), Dhar, (Tibet) and dip them in oils, they will fall apart. Makko thoughout this article is used generically for natural binders. Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth I think originate with Neal's predessor in making Magickal incense, Scott Cunningham. I think he was looking for a binder but didn't have access or knowledge of those used in the East. I can't find a single tradtional or modern incense company that uses these materials.

I can't rewrite this article by myself, but I will do what I can when I can and hope others will do some research and help out.

Re: Citations and Original Content of Article as a whole
Looking through various comments and reading guidelines I am a little confused on what is desired regarding "Original Content" and "Citations." Some say "Don't just cut and paste, rephrase the material using your own words." Well, as I understand it, if you do that the work is dangerously close to original work. Now, according to copyright laws a "significant" amount of text must be used basically word for word. "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression." It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work." For Wikipedia policy about copyright issues, see Copyrights In addition the statement on each edit page says: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible licence. It will be deleted" Now, I looked at the GFDL on the photos in the section and it appears the pictures were taken by Wiki editors. Isn't that "Original Work?

Most books or articles are at least in some part based on the work of others, very few publications are seminal work based entirely on the authors original research. To take an idea wihout citing the source is Plagiarism. In my own authoring experience if I am using my own words and expressing an idea I read I cite that work in the bibliography. If I am quoting another work I use either a footnote or in-line citation to the work.Plagiarism

As was pointed out to me: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed"

And so it would appear that we must find original work published by others and obtain a GFDL license from them. We cannot rewrite the work in question, and we cannot use anything written by us or any photographs and illustrations done by us.

Is that about the size of it? BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, wikipedia is all original work from it's editors released into GFDL. If you want in academic terms, wikipedia should be more "literature reviews" (which can be original) and less "hypothesis" and "original research works" or conclusions that are derived by the editor. Thanks for the citations btw Sjschen (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation! BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Incense & Heath Section
I am currently recommending this entire section be removed. One of the original sources has since been removed and no longer exists. The main citation is nothing more than an abstract of a study and can't be accessed without paying and draws no conclusions.

I will wait a couple of weeks for comments and discussions before taking action.BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently I added a peer review to this section. I believe it is very much needed as the review itself points out the study here in question is indeed of the poorest quality and not applicable to incense in general any more than saying all Children's Toys contain lead paint because a study of Chinese Toys tested positive for lead. If this resource is to be taken seriously sectioons cannot be predicated on non-peer reviewed irrelevant studies. IMHO

My review was removed and I would like to discuss what is appropriate with either supervisors or a consensus of people.BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that peer reviews are not allowed on wikipedia, because they constitute Original Research. If you can find an reliable source which reviewed the study, then you could add that, otherwise, it can't stay, here on wikipedia the main criteria is verifiability, not truth--Jac16888 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, could I ask, did you consider the merits of my argument, or base your response on the technical issue? It also appears others have expressed concern about this study as stated in the Incense & Cancer section below. In my opinion the article should not have been included to begin with, and at the very least should include the warning it was not a peer reviewed study and was not conducted using various incense, but is isolated to one particular type of incense and so not applicable to incense in general. However here it is being portrayed as applicable to all types of incense. What CAN we do about this, how can you help me correct this problem? Thanks! BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My response was based solely on the fact that your arguments were exactly that, yours, therefore making it your own research, which violates one of wikipedia's core policies. I personally know very little about incense so i can't say one way or the other, but the only way a criticism of the study can be included is if you can find an independent source that also criticises it. If you feel that the study itself shouldn't be included, i suggest you discuss that on here with this articles regular editors. thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I suppose then I propose complete removal of the article in question. BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just noticed your message on my talk page inviting me to join in here. As others have already said, the merits or otherwise of your arguments isn't in question, and cannot be taken into account when deciding whether to remove the content. Whether your addition was brilliant observation or utter bunkum, it could not be allowed to remain, because it violated a core principle of Wikipedia, namely that Wikipedia is an assemblage of knowledge from verifiable reliable sources, and does not contain original research, commentary or synthesis. The upshot is that your arguments on the subject, however well reasoned, are not allowed in this article as they stand. If they have been published elsewhere in a reliable source, then they could be included, accompanied by a citation of that source.
 * The other alternative is that you could seek to prove that the sources quoted for the passage that you seek to argue was not themself reliable sources, and hence the whole section could be expunged. I've added a WP:NPOV tag to the section concerned.
 * In any case, I would suggest that you avoing being so quick to start jumping up and down shouting vandal. If somebody reverts your edit, stop and try to understand why it has been reverted. Ask on the talk page. Don't simply restore the edit, and call the person who reverted a vandal. It's always so much easier all round if you never fling the mud, than it is to go round saying sorry after the event.Mayalld (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This argument seems something like "I like incense and don't want anybody badmouthing it, whether it's sourced or not." Whether or not burning huge amounts of incense to honor the spirits of the dead is a time-honored tradition or not, modern science now shows new things about it, and that has become part of the story of incense. Sassafras was used for thousands of years as a medicinal herb by Native Americans in North America, but scientists have shown it contains safrole, a potentially carcinogenic chemical. We don't exclude that from the article from the same reason. There are multiple sources and the safety of the inhalation of the smoke (and all the components of the smoke) has clearly become a subject of concern regarding incense. Certainly different brands will produce different effects, some more benign and some more toxic, but from my reading I don't believe inhaling a huge amount of smoke from any variety of incense is going to be a healthful experience. Badagnani (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been accidentally dragged in, and as I have no opinion one way or another, I hope that I can try to mediate a text that doesn't give undue prominence to less than rliable sources (if any) and which doesn't attempt to brush inconvenient reliable sources (if any) under the carpet. Mayalld (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, I understand there is a certain amount of prejudice against smoke of any kind which seems to also be a factor, but looking at it from a scientific perspective let's consider it's merits. University professors often have to "Publish or Die" and their tenure depends on getting studies published. Good Universities give very little credit for non-refereed publications which exist to service those who can't get into better publications. I can assure you, whether I like incense or not, I spent 30 years helping protect people from toxic chemicals in workplaces. The study itself indicates 1. The conditions were abnormal: Have you ever seen a room so full of smoke you couldn't see across the room? 2. No correlation to actual health effects was examined: the study only proves that certain Carcinogens were measured to be AS high as a street corner in Taiwan. This could be inversley stated to read "It is as dangerous to walk down a street in Taiwan as to sit in a room completely full of smoke from incense" Wow! now there is a health concern! People spend minutes offering prayers and lighting incense at these altars, but hours near streets. I quess we could say that NORMAL burning of 1 stick of incense continuously would be 1000 times less than this saturation, so we could draw the following correlation: "It is 1000 times safer to burn incense continuously than to walk on the streets in Taiwan"

Allow me to be more specific about why the type of incense burned was an important oversight in this study. Incense manufactured in China uses commercial adhesives containing formaldehyde (a known carcinogen) wheras many others do not. If you are testing for carcinogens this is a critical factor, unfortunately many health researches assume all incense has the same chemical properties, so they base their studies on fallacious assumptions. BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points made by others above. While I do agree with your reasoning and that people should be mentally vigilant when interpreting the results of all such studies, what you have written is original research and it content is presented in a rather non-encyclopedic writing tone. However, I do encourage you to find other studies and support what you stated originally in the Health and incense section since do this will definitely improve the quality of the section and the article as a whole. From the "publish or die" attitude of the academic environment, there is bound to be someone out there who wishes to refute the published evidence cited in the section. Sjschen (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sjschen, who do you mean and to what text are you referring when you say "what you have written is..."? Badagnani (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reply is to BrerRabbit-at-Alices's 13:48, 22 November 2007 comment on this page regarding his edit and redit at 13:20, 20 November 2007 and 12:39, 21 November 2007 on the main page, respectively. Did I make some sort of mistake? Sjschen (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sjschen, no reputable researcher is going to publish anything contesting a third rate study in a fourth rate unrefereed journal unless they want to commit professional suicide. I understand what has been said about "original research" however, the entire article appears to be "original research" as there are only four citations (all four pertaining to this particular section) unless the rest was all taken from Silvio's work which I know is not the case. Either it is original or it is plagurized or a copyvio, right? I recommend we remove the section entirely at this point and concentrate on finding the citations for the rest of the article which appears to violate all of Wiki's standards. BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove what section? The "Incense and health" section? That wouldn't make sense, as there are multiple published sources on this subject, a number of researchers are working on it, and it's a topic of interest to many of our readers. Blanking it entirely would not be beneficial to anyone but those wishing these findings away. Much better to get the text as good as possible to fully describe the current status of the research. One source in particular is mischaracterized, mentioning only the four studies that show no evidence of health effects while ignoring that the basic thrust of that particular article is explaining the negative health effects of various inhaled chemical components of incense smoke. We certainly should not be in the business of trying to minimize, or maximize this issue. Badagnani (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The entire incense article with the exception of the health section is a copyright violation! 2. Then why not go through a variety of websites and include all the anecdotal statements claiming they've been healed by incense smoke or had their scaring healed by Lavender essential oil? There is a reason to only cite reliable resources and a reason serious journals are peer reviewed. It is journalistically responsibleBrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire incense article section is a copyright violation? Which parts? Sjschen (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, the citation of unrefereed journals should be amended and replaced with refereed journals. Of the referred journals cited, I wouldn't know if they report third or forth rate studies. What I do know is that the health effects of incense smoke is being actively studied. A cursory search in entrez pubmed using "incense smoke" will reveal numerous studies (30 some on my last search) on the matter published in respectable peer reviewed journals. As for noting the research of this article being "original", the same information is openly available on the internet from many sites. The article simply gathers and summarizes the information. Yes, this article is woefully under-cited but that does not make it original research. Sjschen (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Great then it shouldn't be difficult for someone to go find refereed publication which applies universally to incense. That is to say doesn't study incense in general without considering its particular chemical composition. Or maybe these "health" researchers haven't considered "all incense is not the same" and some contains chemicals including benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, etc. and some don't contain these chemicals. Or could that be an inherent defect universal to all the studies?


 * Also, of the four citations, none indicated they were peer reviewed.


 * Are we on the same page when we talk about the sources and citation for the entire incense article. Saying these sources and statements throughout the entire incense section are "openly available on the internet from many sites." doesn't quite cut it. That makes it a hodgepodge of copyright violations with definite liabilities to the violators and those who ignore it. And personally I have a real problem ripping off someones intellectual property especially when it tends to be the new source for more IP theft to the point that someones hard work ends up in public domain!BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is illogical. As with smoking studies, one doesn't need to test all 10,000 varieties of cigarettes to have a valid finding. If you wish, you can qualify the studies by saying that "only X type(s) of incense were tested," if it makes you feel better. But blanking the section really does a disservice to our readers, who will come here expecting to see a review of the current status of the research. Badagnani (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cigarettes all contain tobacco, that is what makes them cigarettes, and even if they contain other chemicals the tobacco alone in the purest of natural cigarettes produces nicotene and carciogens which are studied.


 * Your correlation is illogical because some types of incense contain known carciogens (e.g.benzene, toluene, formaldheyde) and some don't. I believe you will find with cigarettes the universality was estabilished early on, and if it wasn't established then you must consider it worthless. Logic and reasonable correlations do not bend to the public acceptance of the theory. It just means the majority were led down the garden path.


 * Would you also assume that all children's toys are health risks because some of them are painted with paint products containing lead? would you remove all paint from the market because a small percentage contains lead and all spinach from the shelves because some are tainted with ecoli?


 * And what of the greater issue here that Wikipedia "Incense" does not meet it's own guidelines regarding citations and copyright infringements? I wonder what the effect has been on the original authors? Were their articles written to bring traffic to their websites and have commercial value? And we steal them and use them to dominate the search engines relegating their websites to obscurity? When I started my concern was about the health section, but now I see it as a minor issue compared to the IP theft. BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't have a policy at WP of stealing sources, we simply use them as citations; this brings the public's attention to them. Wikipedia should be a starting point or jumping-off point for the general public and I don't see that any of the researchers would object to their own particualr study being used as a source, if the source is properly credited, cited, or briefly quoted. Regarding your claim that some incenses are free of carcinogens, after reading articles about several of the studies I am unconvinced that all incense--even the most "natural" (I guess Japan keeps getting touted as the place with the "cleanest" incense)--does not contain carcinogenic compounds in its smoke, as a by-product of the combustion of aromatic substances. Badagnani (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are listening very closely to what I am saying.


 * 1. There are no citations or notations in the entire "Incense" article with the exception of the Health Section.


 * 2. The fact that you are unconvinced means nothing, but if you have a study that indicates a universality of carcinogens in all types of incense I suppose you are free to cite your source. At least I am to understand that is the standard to which you agreed I should be held to :-)BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with also including articles in prominent general-circulation science magazines which summarize the status of the research. Badagnani (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true, but the occasional pedant in me tends to like to see the original source :) Sjschen (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If it can be located. Badagnani (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time I have included another article with an opposing POV to Linn's work.BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will remove the POV statement from this section at this time. BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not acceptable, first of all because the "POV statement" is not specified, and secondly because it is not made clear who wrote the above comment (it was not signed). Badagnani (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The POV statement refers to the statement in this section, but if you want to leave it I don't have any problem obliging you. Please, let's do leave it! BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if someone included this recent research. It is apparently much more relevant than the one about a smoke-filled temple in Taiwan. It actually followed tens of thousands of people for 12 years and looked at the correlations between incense use and health problems:   Of course that doesn't mean the article should say that incense is necessarily bad for you, but that an excessive use has been linked to some forms of cancer.--Eric.cavalcanti (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: External Links to Commercial Pages
Are adverts legitimate external links? If so, who decides the companies that can advertise on the pages? Given they offer some information about the subject, but the basic motives are not to disseminate knowledge, but rather to sell their products. I vote they be deleted.Guille 01:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Some Shocking Information about modern incense
Isn't this a bit over the top, as well as poorly written? Is a link to a "natural" incense purveyor a proper way to verify information? Guille 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very much so. I got rid of it. Sjschen 04:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stuff from 2005

 * People REALLY shouldn't be copying and pasting stuff in this article, as well as other articles in the Wikipedia. You never know if some shop or webpage decides to put something like "We" in it, which doesn't make any sense, since articles in the Wikipedia shouldn't be in second person. PLEASE, do research, and try writing your own words, following the rules and guidelines. User:Velderia 02:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't frankincense the primary "Catholic incense" used at Mass? This should be notated in the article if someone can verify this. JD79 18:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The strong Protestant Christian bias, and the failure to usefully distinguish Jewish temple & synagogue with Christian church usage in the "Biblical Uses" section of this article unfortunately renders it less useful and accurate, in addition to violating the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. Splitting this section into two new ones–one on the ancient Jewish usage of incense, and another on Christian usage of incense–and reworking the doctrinaire elements would make this a more useful as well as accurate article AND conform it to the NPOV guidelines. What say you, brethren and sistren? ogam 05:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism Section
In the religion of Hinduism, using incense is very common, perhaps more than in any other religion. Somebody should start a section on it, I might soon when I have the time later on.  Da Gizza  Chat (c) 06:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What about Christianity and Judaism?
"In the West, due to Christianity's tie with Judaism, most often incense, in the form of powder, is burnt to honour Jesus or one of the Christian saints or angels." -- Could somebody please rewrite this to be comprehensible? Thank you. -- 201.51.201.107 15:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Please compare text on "Baieido" to http://www.oller.net/history.htm. Copyvio? -- 201.51.201.107 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In the year 538 c.e. Buddhism was first introduced into Japan. Along with it across the ocean came statues of Buddha, ancient Sutras, as well as incense. From that moment on, incense has been an inseparable part of Japanese history. Incense holds an invaluable role in Buddhist ceremonies and rites as well as in those of the Shinto shrines. It is reputed to be a method of purifying the surroundings, bringing forth the Buddhist Alamkaraka (Realm of Adornment). Use of incense is spread through the country by touting its purifying and medicinal properties.

During the Asuka, Nara, and Heian eras of Japan, the frequency of foreign exchange missions traveling between T'ang China and Japan became increasingly frequent. Bringing with them Buddhism, Medicine, Art, and of course, Incense. Among the most prominent of them was the Chinese Buddhist Master Ganjin who established Toshodai-ji Temple in Nara during the year 759.

Incense has developed a deeply profound link bound closely to everyday Japanese life, and is comparable to the great popularity it held in ancient Chang-an (China), where the secular uses of incense came into great favor with the royal class. The mixing of various ingredients together and then kneading them together with plum meat or honey came to be widely used in rooms, placed in the sleeves of a garment, and even used to imbue clothes with. The development of such a love for incense in Japan is vividly detailed in the Tale of Genji.

From these simple beginnings it underwent a transformation into a mutual competition between each other's mixtures, referred to as "Takimono-awase" (Fragrance Mixing). Before long, it developed into the burning of natural raw incense ingredients, which was called "Ko-awase" (Incense Mixing). These elegant games later became the source of the Kodo ceremony (Way of Incense).

During the Feudal period (Sengoku jidai, 1490 - 1573) of Japan there arose a necessity for a simple as well as practical form of incense. Chinese of the Ming Dynasty transmitted the techniques of creating incense sticks. It was simple form of powdered incense rolled into a stick that was easy to carry and more affordable for the common people. This was the epoch of incense popularity. It flourished in acceptance with all classes, rich and poor. In the center of this limelight, was the city of Sakai. This popularity was mainly due to establishment of Sakai as a major port for foreign trade from China, Spain, and Portugal.

Baieido dates back to the Muromachi period (1338-1573) in Japanese history. During this period, the founder of Baieido, Kakuuemon Yamatoya, became a wholesaler of medicinal herbs in Sakai city. Sakai was a well-known trading port in ancient Japan in which incense trading was in high demand. In 1657, the founder named himself "Jinkoya Sakubei" and specialized in selling incense ingredients and incense sticks. "Jinkoya" (Aloes wood trader) was a name peculiar to Sakai, only medicinal wholesalers who specialized in incense were authorized to use this name. In the time-honored traditions of Jinkoya Sakubei, Baieido has dedicated itself to making incense for over 300 years. The method and recipes have been handed down from generation to generation in an unbroken secret oral tradition.


 * Moved possible cpvio material here. Sjschen 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Oller text was written in 2000. Wayback: Dominick (TALK) 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * True but still, does that justify a direct copy and paste? Did anybody get his permission to use it? Sjschen 01:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, nobody ever asked his permission, or for the numerous other plagiarisms of his work throughout wiki or other webpages on internet. Perhaps because very few people ever cited their resource, perhaps today it is even so wide spread it now constiitutes Public Domain. However, Ironically, the text in question wasn't written by David Oller, but by Kyozaburo Nakata. All of this could easily be corrected by citing the sources. BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this article is ready of an overhaul on citation. Sjschen (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sjschen, This section seems to have been removed to here. I think we should perhaps condense, reword, cite it, but move it under the Japanese section as a summary and expand it on the Japanese Incense page BrerRabbit-at-Alices 11:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I work on it at somepoint in the next few weeks. Sjschen 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Paganism
I take issue with the paganism section, largely as the term is both a loaded and open-ended one. Pagan, an unfortunate term to begin with, has a very large semantic range. It appears at first glance that the author is referring to one of the modern neo-pagan movements (in a tone that suggests either personal experience or hearsay), but does not specify which.

If anyone has the background necessary to clarify, it would be at least a small step toward improving the article.


 * Would you have a suggestion as to another term to use? Occultism?  Other?  Magic/Magick (though that would probably carry the same probs as Paganism)?  Shador5529 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was about to post a similar suggestion on this talk page. ;) I cleaned it up some, but it's still quite bad. Not all paganism involves magic, not all pagan religions use incense, capitalizing "Pagan" makes my teeth itch... I think that "Neopagan magic" might be an appropriate title for the section; "magick" is a little over-the-top, as it's a nonstandard spelling and a Thelema/neo-Wicca thing. And the section doesn't talk about non-Neopagan paganism, except mentioning it by name. There aren't any citations, and the list of magical uses for incenses is particularly problematic without anything backing it up.  Switcher cat  talkcont 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Inscense and Cancer
Someone removed this section without giving any reason whatsoever. I have put it back. If you want to delete it, please give a reason. Shador5529 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good section and I agree with its inclusion. However, I think it should be expanded with appropriate references. Its lacking a bit on content right now. Cephyr 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement in that section misrepresents the findings of the research it cites. The article describing the findings specifically states that the tests were carried out in poorly-ventilated areas where patrons of the temples involved burn incense continuously, whereas the wording of the statement in incense suggests that burning incense leads to dangerous levels of carcinogens without providing the context of the research.  The manner in which the section relates to the rest of the article leads the reader to draw the conclusion that the findings are of general applicability when in fact the research, in accordance with scientific procedure, is confined to a controlled set of circumstances. These circumstances are not shown to be broadly representative of incense use as a whole, therefore the implication that they are such is untenable.  If this were an article about liturgical incense use in Taiwanese temples, the material here might be relevant.  A cursory search seems to indicate that all relevant material that might be applied to this section is contained in that one reference only.  I am not the one who deleted this section previously, but I am beginning to suspect that it merits such action. 209.30.90.117 13:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization: what remains to be done?
As the author of the most recent reorganization to this unwieldy article, I thought I'd better justify myself. There's a lot of "stuff" in this article, and it seems to bleed over from one illogical section to another. I moved some stuff around, deleting redundancies and out of place information. The structure of this article is still not entirely satisfactory. The introduction needs to be reworked, relegating the religious details to the relevant section rather than trotting it all out in the intro. Ideally, the intro should lightly touch on all the major headings of the article, but to do that it will need some expansion. The "big list" of ingredients, which I organized and expanded, may need to get its own article. It adds a lot to the length of the page, making it seem too long. The whitespace to the side of the list is unattractive. If it remains in this article (it certainly shouldn't be deleted as it's important to know just what is actually in incense if you're to talk about it sensibly) that whitespace should be filled by pretty pictures or something. The heading entitled "Asian incense" is awkward from an organizational standpoint. It seems like it should be accompanied by an "Occidental incense" section or something. My suggestion is to make the heading "Regional manifestations of incense" and treat all the local flavors there. I'm not well informed about the stuff that would be needed to generalize that section, so I guess that remains to someone else or to a later time. The use of italics and 'boldface' in this article is inconsistent. Somebody needs to go through and fix that, too. 209.30.170.226 11:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the one that wrote the Incense of India and Japanese incense pages as well as the Tibetan incense stub. I agree that the Asian Incense section doesn't fit well with the rest of the article. I wrote the pages back in October, 2006. So far no one has added anything to them. I was hoping to get someone else's input.


 * Personally I think the Incense page is a little general. I wanted to know more details. So I made the India, Tibet, and Japan sections. The Incense page talks about ingredients and the usage of incense. But it doesn't really say specially how each incense is different from other incenses. I wanted to be able to answer questions like: You like incense? What kind of incense do you like? Japanese? Do you like agarwood based or sandalwood based incense? Or, you like Indian incense? Do you like dhoops or dubars?


 * Anyway, I wrote the pages and stuck them at the bottom of the Incense page to keep it out of the way. I was hoping someone else could add to the pages. Personally I think it'd be nice to spread out the info in the Indian and Japanese sections into the rest of the Incense article. Then we'd just place links to the Indian and Japanese pages in the See Also part of the Incense page.


 * But, it'd be difficult to spread out the info. For example, the ingredients for Indian incense and Japanese incense vary quite a bit. So should we make different ingredient lists for each type? I don't think so. It'd get too unwieldy. As another example, see the German page. It's not long, but it starts out with 4 headings: Indian, Chinese, Tibetan, and Japanese. I don't think we need to change the English page to that order (especially since none of the other languages do it that way either), but it shows the importance of comparing the different types of incense.


 * But, I don't want to force my opinions on the page. Especially since no one has added to my pages. So feel free to do what you wish with the Asian Incense section. All I ask is that there is still some sort of visible link on the Incense page, whether it be a Main Article link or a link in the See Also section.


 * Also, as a general comment to 209.30.170.226, it'd be nice if you could make a Username and logon with that. Your contributions page shows you've made a few edits with your IP address. It'd be nice to make a Username before you make too many edits with your IP address.
 * Dreamingclouds 01:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the intro, but my other concerns remain. Additionally, I think this article should adopt a different citation style. I just followed the format of other citations in this article, but I like the one with the superscript numbers better. Perhaps Tibetan incense could be created as a separate article, then the Asian incense section could be deleted. This would of course not preclude adding pertinent information from those articles to this one and including links from here to there. 209.30.160.174 05:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

first use
At the hinduism section it is stated"Hinduism was probably the first religion in which incense was used and sacrificed to show loyalty to God." This needs a reference. I'm sure egyptians used it long before Black arrow 07:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the introduction...
I came to this article to learn more about the incense that I was burning. I was instantly greeted with an eye-glazing jumble of jargon and over-wrought, florid writing. I hope that others who edit this page will follow by cleaning up some of the other sections.

I apologize if I omitted anything important from the original introduction. If you need to put anything back in, stick to a brief and simple approach. The previous version of this article was difficult for me to read -- and I have a post-graduate education. I'm also a technical writer.

I suggest that anyone editing the rest of the article does two things:

1. Use short, simple words.

2. Keep most sentences to about ten - fifteen words.

Thank you. SammyJames 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

External Link To Online Store
This was probably placed here as an ad, I'd recommend deleting it, pending the approval of someone more familiar with the history of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.158.88 (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first time blatant advertising has been removed from the article. I hardly think it is correct to post links to commercial pages on Wikipedia. I also vote for removal.Guille 23:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychoactive
A new study published online last week suggests that incense is psychoactive and has properties that curb anxiety and depression. Study: http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/fj.07-101865v1 News article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520110415.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkordik (talk • contribs) 11:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Question


How is this incens type work? What is there in the middle? How does it look like when it is burned out? Curious...

Warrington (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

History
Reading the History section as it now stands suggests a need for a full rewrite. For example take this sentence: "Incense spread from there to Greece, and Rome." Unfortunately the placement of this sentence has moved so that it is no longer clear from where the spread to Greece and Rome came. If we take it from the most recent location just mentioned, India, this seems unbelievable. Also the location mentioned just after is Israel, which is more plausible, but the first mentioned location in the history section is Egypt, also plausible. So there's a need to be specific. Also in the history section the progression from religious use in the mid and near east to the use on armor in the far east is highly disjointed. I suspect that the section should be split into different sections based on regions, perhaps the mid-east, naming Arabia Felix as a source, the near east, discussing Persia and India, and then places like China, Korea and Japan. As it stands now, we totally skip other areas where incense is or was important like Thailand etc. Additionally the cultural variance section includes a very limited set of mostly Asian cultures. Incense is also used by Arabs, and also in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches; there are probably African (ethiopian specifically) uses that I'm unaware of. And for these reasons, I don't see why this article is focusing on China and Japan as much as it does, or why the discussion page is part of wikiproject china. I count 21 matches for "japan" 15 for "chin" 12 for "india" 3 for "arab" and 1 for Korea (just about anything that comes to Japan from China passes through Korea somehow). Dlamblin (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)