Talk:Neolamarckia cadamba

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

External links modified (February 2018)
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)

Granted the stay on cutting neolamarckia cadamba in Rajasthan
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

I just want to add about his efforts which he made to protect kadam tree in Rajasthan. In year 2004 kadam tree come on the verge of extinction as thousands of kadam trees were cut down in rajasthan, the area in which kadam tree was used to found  in abundance were not left with a single kadam tree. There started the campaign of suresh sharma against the government of Rajasthan to protect kadam tree. About the extract i want clear that they can be made in labs and even i am not describing anything about diabetes treatment in any of my edit, page etc. I only want that what suresh sharma did for protecting kadam tree should come this neolamarckia cadamba page. Since kadam tree is a lord krishna tree so it has cultural significance also and one more thing that kadam tree was declared as one of the protected tree in india so it has to be saved. Tree always has cultural and medicinal value in Indian religion so basically the cutting of kadam tree was thousands in number as it is also mention in news article which i mention above in my last post .so i want to edit that Suresh Sharma came forward to save kadam tree in Rajasthan and filed a writ against the government of Rajasthan, As due to government  negligence attitude led  cutting of thousands of kadam tree and as a result suresh sharma writ The Rajasthan High Court banned the cutting of kadam tree in the state of Rajasthan. Alekh99 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Before briefing what the article says which i mention above in my first post i want to clear one thing that since suresh sharma has been granted patent so one thing is cleared as patent only granted for a product and process and without describing the lab method  of preparing medicine one cannot granted patent as herbal things never get patent .so suresh sharma was not required to save kadam tree for medicine he invented but he came forward with additional cover of medicinal value of the tree to save kadam tree.so that the court will have two points first kadam tree was declared as a protected tree in india so it has to be saved and secondly due to the medicinal value the tree has to be saved. So suresh sharma has no profit of saving kadam tree just because he want to only protect trees he came forward. Now i give brief what article says which i mention above. The article says on suresh sharma writ ,The Rajasthan High Court banned the cutting of kadam tree as thousand of kadam tree were cut down in the area where kadam tree was used to found in abundance. So the court has issued notices to department of environment and the authorities whose responsibility is to save kadam tree and ordered that there should b no felling of kadam tree in the state of Rajasthan. Alekh99 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

So what david notMD has said about suresh sharma primary interest thing is cleared as medicine can be made in labs and so for the same patent granted .so suresh sharma does not have any profit but suresh sharma bring his invention as an additional cover to protect kadam tree. Suresh does not need raw material it is only the additional cover. About publishing human results in medical journals please this is for you specially david notMD you must be aware of the fact that a publish thing never gets a patent only novel things gets patent .so thats a reason we never for publishing in medical journal. I just want to add about his environmentalist efforts for protecting kadam tree. Alekh99 (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * we never went for publishing in medical journals. Alekh99 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

As asked by BONADEA ,One of the sources which is the first article i mention in this talks “The “Pioneer “ has significant mention about stay granted on reckless cutting of kadam tree.below is the paragraph of news article of The Pioneer.

“The tree is extensively found in the forest of karauli, swai madhopur and some district of Rajasthan.The medicinal qualities of the tree have been mentioned in many Hindu religious scriptures. 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. Sharma said.” Alekh99 (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)

article in The Pioneer clearly mentioned that suresh sharma granted stay on cutting of kadam tree. Secondly Dainik Bhaskar news says that on the writ of Suresh Sharma Rajasthan High Court has prohibited the cutting of kadam tree in the state of Rajasthan. Alekh99 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

After a patent had been applied for it would have been OK to submit human trial results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal without putting in jeopardy the patent application or subsequent patent. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice david notMD. I know about i think this is not the right place where i answer this question as this is a page of neolamarckia cadamba so i request i woulld like to discuss on your talk page Alekh99 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I looked into this a bit further, because I thought that if there was a new law there might be some secondary source in English discussing it. What I did find was the "Protected Forest Rules" from 1957, see e.g. http://www.bareactslive.com/Raj/RJ080.HTM, which lists a number of trees that are protected from felling, girdling, etc,including the kadam. My guess is that what happened in 2004 was that a breach of this law was taken to court – but that is interpretation and original research on my part. The main thing is that the kadam tree has been protected for more than 60 years, and so the writ to the High Court does not have any particular encyclopedic significance. --bonadea contributions talk 14:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

02:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC) In my above mentioned post I already clear kadam tree is protected. Suresh Sharma took action in form of writ to protect kadam tree. Alekh99 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course it can be consider as breach of law but when the matters reaches to court it was made clear to court that kadam tree is one of the protected tree and still at that time being this law for kadam tree, the logging of kadam tree going on , thousands of tree brought down. So at That time suresh sharma came forward and took action to save kadam tree. Alekh99 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In the name of developing national highway lots of kadam tree and other trees brought down so in this matter suresh sharma took action and because of his action many other tree were also got saved along with kadam tree. And in same context court orders to national highway authority of india (NHAI)that no tree should be cut down if they do not come in the way of construction of road, NHAI should save trees as far as possible because authorities were cutting trees beyond the construction of road. Cleared many places where protected trees specially kadam tree found in abundance.and court also ordered that to NHAI to prepare a list of trees which were to cut down and with the reason. Now it is clear only kadam tree got saved but other trees also got saved because of suresh sharma efforts. Alekh99 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Now it is clear not only kadam tree got saved but other trees also got saved because of suresh sharma efforts Alekh99 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted my edit. The Wikipedia policies i don't all, but i believe in truth , I believe Wikipedia, and I believe Wikipedia will do justice to my edits Alekh99 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted my edit. The Wikipedia policies i don't know all, but i believe in truth , I believe Wikipedia, and I believe Wikipedia will do justice to my edits Alekh99 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Tell me if you need court order copy i will upload for you to read. Alekh99 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

And it is mention in Dainik Bhaskar news article also that kadam tree is declared protected tree in year 1958.you have not found anything new. Else you should have improved my edit instead of deleting. Alekh99 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

When you file anything against authorities its always a risk, its not as easy as it looks , you know many environmentalists lost their life for protecting trees and forest. So same suresh sharma did. Read the pioneer article and the Hindi news article. Alekh99 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You people asked me for in-depth article i have given you hindi newspaper article in which it is clearly mention that court prohibited cutting of kadam tree in which places where kadam tree found in abundance in rajasthan. Also english article says about kadam tree found in forest area now suresh sharma granted stay on cutting of the kadam tree. Then what else you need.this is significant coverage. Alekh99 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Also english article says about kadam tree found in forest area now on pil of suresh sharma court granted stay on cutting of the kadam tree. Alekh99 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)