Talk:Opopanax (perfumery)

Reverted a major edit
I've just reverted a major edit, so I'll explain why. The changes to the lede section took this from being a page about all the substances that have been called Opopanax to just one, derived from Commiphora erythraea var. glabrescens. Apart from the historical interest, which is extremely significant for this substance, I think it was incorrect to take the statement from the citation that "all production" is from this species to mean that there is no non-commercial use of the other plants. African opopanax is something that the reader may also want to know about. Copyright infringement was also a problem with the edit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://books.google.ca/books?id=A8OyTzGGJhYC. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful claim
The lead section currently says "Historically, opopanax is a gum obtained from the plant Panax" citing the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Such works are not reliable sources of botanical information; identifications of historical accounts of plants and plant products with modern plant names is fraught with difficulty. Panax is an Asian and North American genus, unlikely to have been known to the ancient world. Unless a better source can be found, this statement should be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Myrrh article is better
The Myrrh article seems to me to have a better description of what the sources say about opopanax production from Commiphora spp. A number of resins/gums are produced from these trees, and are distributed under various names. "True" myrrh and "true" modern opopanax may come from particular species, but names are confused in practice. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The article at Commiphora says that "myrrh" is also used as the collective name for all the scented resins produced by different species in the genus, in which case there is a confusing overlap also with Bdellium. Perhaps Commiphora would be the right place for a table listing the products of the different species in the genus, with links mentioning the difficulty in each of the other (troubled) articles, including here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. There seem to be two possible topics, both to be clarified. (1) In antiquity, "opopanax", "bdellium", "myrrh", etc. were used for plant products whose origin isn't clear, but seems to have been wider than Commiphora species. Some research is needed to expand a "historical account", but this wouldn't really belong at Commiphora. (2) Currently, various products are obtained from Commiphora species under various names; according to sources the more expensive products (e.g. myrrh proper) are often adulterated with, or replaced by, cheaper ones, so, as you note, it's difficult to discuss one of them without the others, so this belongs at Commiphora. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No comments from other users. (non-admin closure) Neux-Neux (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sweet myrrh → bisabol – Both sweet myrrh and opopanax are ambiguous commercial names. The original name bisabol that appears in scientific literature is unambiguous and therefore a better title. Neux-Neux (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 10:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This article mainly described the opopanax of perfumery. The opopanax of perfumery, originally known as bisabol, is the gum resin of a tree called hadi (Commiphora guidottii), which was previously misidentified as another tree called hagar (C. kataf; syn. C. holtziana, C. erythraea). This has been well elucidated in the paper The botanical origin of scented myrrh (bissabol or habak hadi) whose author also wrote Flora of Somalia. The original title "Opopanax" is ambiguous because it refers to either the herbal opopanax or the opopanax of perfumery, so I moved it to "Sweet myrrh". However, "Sweet myrrh" is also ambiguous because both the gum resins of hadi and hagar are less bitter than the true myrrh and therefore called sweet myrrh, while only the hadi gum resin is used in perfumery as opopanax. I think there are two options: moving it to "Bisabol" or "Opopanax (perfumery)".--Neux-Neux (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.