This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offood anddrink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please reviewWP:Trivia andWP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the{{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,select here.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofplants andbotany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAfrica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Cgndiaye0324.
I removed the following story inserted by an anonymous user, without context or attribution. It's sounds familiar to me, though. Maybe it could be reinserted as a story rather than literal fact, if somebody knows where the story came from.
The Baobab was the biggest of all the trees in the bush and he used to brag to all the other trees and wildlife. God heard his bragging and said to the baobab because you're boasting about your size i'm going to turn you upside down to punish you. And that is why the baobab looks like it's roots are on the top.
The above is familiar to me too. It's African folklore about the origin of the tree, though I am not familiar with the source of the actual quote.Lendorien 14:29, 4 November 2005
I deleted the reference to the baobab being the national tree of Madagascar because it's not! The traveller's palm (Ravanala madagascariensis) is.
It's common knowledge, the story of God shoving the tree back in the ground upside down, within African folklore... so probably okay to leave it. BUT..
Answers.com takes a lot of its information from Wikipedia, so I don't think that its really plaigerizing.
I'm gonna be asking for a review on this whole article. Seems someone has been plaigerizing, not sure if it's them or us here, but I've seen a good chunk of this in two other places, one other online Encyclopedia and athttp://www.answers.com/topic/baobab --JT05:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The baobab is occasionally known colloquially as "upside-down tree" (from the Arabic legend which claims that the devil pulled out the tree and planted it upside down).
I added,
This is likely derived from older African lore. The story goes that after creation, each of the animals was given a tree to plant and the stupid hyena planted the baobab upside-down!
I'm from South Africa and I've heard this story from several tribes in South Africa and Mozambique. It is often credited to the bushmen who are amongst the world's oldest people, though their older history is of course oral, rather than written.
When I checked the article just today, I noticed the "upside-down tree" was not even mentioned in the text anymore, even theupside down tree redirects to this page. I have added the following in the lead:
Not sure if this is the best way to get this looked at, but given that I've seen a LOT of the content of this article in two different places, it'd probably be good to be sure it's not lifted.
I moved the template to the top. Meanwhile, sinceWikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia is a free encyclopedia, people are free to duplicate the content elsewhere as long as they adhere to the licenses.Answers.com is one such place. There are other places that do the same, and some evenmirror User pages as well. If you do a Google search for "User:Kjoonlee" I'm sure you'll find places other than Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JT - good that you are looking out for potential copyright violations, but you needn't worry in this case, answers.com is copied from here (and they do, as required by the GFDL licence, cite wikipedia as the source: "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia") -MPF01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The myth of the punishment of the Baobab tree is a legend among the Kamba tribe in Kenya and possibly other tribes in eastern Kenya. It is true that these people held this legand in ancient times.Note by Steve Van Nattan-- Lived in Kenya for about 12 years68.47.162.15423:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here[reply]
Is there a historical explanation for the distribution of baobabs in Africa and Australia? Have they existed since before the continents were separated? (This seems unlikely, as both varities are still classified in the same genus.) Were there ever baobabs in Asia, that could explain the radiation from Africa to Australia? --Saforrest20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, "dispersal between Africa and Australia occurred well after the fragmentation of Gondwana and, therefore, involved over-water dispersal"[1] -MPF11:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article talk page was automatically added with{{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls underCategory:Food orone of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagginghere . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on theproject talk page --TinucherianBot (talk)21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this statement from the article, since it seems misleading at best:
Fewbotanists believe these claims of extreme age; current evidence suggests they rarely exceed 400 years.[1]
The statement "few botanists" would seem to suggest that the entire botanist community collectively believes claims of extreme age to be false, when the cited article makes no such claim. With the statement retained, the overall impression one gets is an unwarranted skepticism for radiometric dating. And I hate to be snarky here, but when I hear skepticism for carbon dating, I hear a Creationist subtext. A different article[2] goes into some detail on how they determined the age of several trees reputed to be over 1000 years old (skip down to "Aging Baobabs" in the link given).—Precedingunsigned comment added byPetzl (talk •contribs)20:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Wilson, R. T. (1988). Vital statistics of the baobab (Adansonia digitata).African Journal of Ecology 26 (3): 197-206.
A merging ofbaobab fruit with this article has been suggested. However, keeping the separate article could facilitate reference to it for cooking/cuisine, nutrition, and other purposes. --A12n (talk)13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles should be merged but the one on baobab fruit nutrients is completely unreferenced and would not presently qualify to be used as fact. --Paul144 (talk)13:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Doesn't look like there is much useful in the Baobab fruit article. Whatever is salvagable can be merged here, but that won't be much. It almost reads like spam for some food supplement. --Crusio (talk)00:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not completely clear to me from theWP:UNITS ; should articles like this one state non-SI units for given figures? it saysInternational scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; unless tackling region-specific topics, use international units , but further examples it gives merely speak of giving them priority, using them along with others? --78.0.228.98 (talk)23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's covered byConversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided. That's why the convert template exists.Eeekster (talk)23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page states that baobab is found in africa and australia. But a large no of baobabs are found in india. Could it be that the baobab is foreign to india. Any information on history of baobab in india is solicited.—Precedingunsigned comment added by117.196.178.163 (talk)07:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of 22:16, 7 July 2010User:Nbarth added "The Senegalese bandOrchestra Baobab is named for theBaobab Club inDakar, which in turn takes its name from the tree."
Seems a bit tenuous adding the band but not the club if the band is named after the clubnot the tree? I'd remove but only with more agrement.Trev M~ 23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was intrigued by the expression "average diamater", which would mean an estimate of the diameter along the trunk, from its biggest diameter at the base to the diameter just below branching off. Looking for clarity, I went to the cited source, but there is no mention whatsoever of any diameter.Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk)21:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following advertising is moved here because it is not appropriate for the article page (perWP:EL):
Where to buy it?
Mighty Baobab Limited seem to be the global supplier of Baobab fruit pulp and Baobab Oil. The company is based in the United Kingdom, however they supply globally, for bulk and retail customers.
In the Fruit section it says "he dried fruit powder contains about 12% water and various nutrients..." which makes no sense. How is it adried fruitpowder can have 12% water in it. Last time I checked the words dried and powder mean it has no water. If this sentence is incorrect then it should be fixed or if there is an explanation as to how it can be true then it needs to be rewritten to clarify the confusion. --67.103.38.162 (talk)22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adansonia digitata is a sub-Saharan African species ofbaobab tree. The genus, scientifically known asAdansonia, consists of nine species native to Madagascar, Africa, Arabia and Australia, and can reach heights of 5 to 30 m (16 to 98 ft) with trunk diameters of 7 to 11 m (23 to 36 ft).Photograph:Muhammad Mahdi Karim
Hi. It says under uses that there is a potential market of 1 billion USD. There is a ref attributed to "experts" followed by a quote by someone who uses baobab products - "Experts estimate the potential size of the international market at a billion dollars a year. “Baobab is moving from cottage industry into the mainstream,” says Malcolm Riley, of the Yozuna jam company in England. He now counts a large chain of British food stores among his customers. “It’s got mass potential.” ". However, I am not sure that this enough to sustain such a claim. It is a lot o money for a product derived from trees that anre not cultivated, go sparsely and take forever to reach maturity. Regards,Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk)17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Is this discorey not being taken seriously by the scientific community yet? Must it still be 'officially' recognised as a new species? Any reason why we don't have an artile on it yet? Regards,Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk)17:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Adansonia →Baobab – The lead sentence of the article, presently, isBaobab is the common name for each of the nine species of tree in the genus Adansonia. GivenWP:COMMONNAME, the article title should be "Baobab" rather than the far more obscure, "Adansonia". —soupvector (talk)21:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this proposal. Encyclopedia users are likely to search for baobab, the more recognizable name per COMMONNAME. --Zefr (talk)21:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The NCFLORA guideline states,The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the current scientific name. This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common. When I searchScience magazine's scientific (not news) content for "baobab" and "adansonia", "baobab" returns more than twice as many references as "adansonia". Similarly, when I searchNature the former (baobab) returns more than three times as many results as the latter. The baobab is quite prominent culturally, so the usage seems to satisfy the principle of NCFLORA as an exception (in line with that guideline, I'm not searching the horticultural literature, but rather the general scientific literature). —soupvector (talk)01:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Baobab" is more commonly used for the speciesAdansonia digitata as far as I can tell from searches. The opening sentence should say "Baobab is part of the name" rather than that itis the name.Peter coxhead (talk)21:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does appear that onlyAdansonia digitata is most commonly called "Baobab," while the others include a qualifier: "Grandidier's baobab", "Madagascar baobab", etc. The first sentence of the article is quite incorrect in saying that every single species is called, simply, "Baobab." Also, keep in mind that COMMONNAME refers to the mostcommonly used name and not thevernacular name of a plant. Finally, one of the species,Adansonia gregorii, is most commonly called "Boab" rather than "Baobab."First Light (talk)09:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moving would be a step backwards for precision. In geographical contexts outside of southern Africa and Madagascar, "baobab" refers to a single species. The majority of links tobaobab have a geographical context and could safely be retargeted to a more precise title (usuallyAdansonia digitata).Plantdrew (talk)19:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified 2 external links onAdansonia. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
This tree is known as the 'boab' in Australia. According to guides in the Kimberly region, this means 'many seeds' in a local Aboriginal language. However, if the name is derived via the African 'baobab' - I have to doubt this. In fact the word is first attested in medieval times in Europe as 'bahobab,' possibly from the The Arabic 'bawaaba' ('gate'). Certainly many baobabs have hollows and gaps in their bases (often made by elephants looking for the wet pulp) that can be used as doors into the trunk's interior. It is likely therefore that the word is of Arabic origin.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2001:8003:34F0:C300:21C:B3FF:FEC6:12F7 (talk)00:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In popular culture" sections regularly get filled with trivia, so there needs to be a good connection with the species and in particular its nature/properties. Consider an article likeSpider, and consider the outcome if every well known work that made more than a passing reference to a spider or spiders were added to a popular culture section in this article. If a plant is poisonous, and is used to poison someone in a well known work, then I can see why it would be relevant to add this, since it relates directly to the plant's properties. InThe Little Prince the supposed behaviour of baobab trees is supposedly used as a metaphor for Nazism, although I don't find the metaphor claim very well supported in the article. So on present evidence, I'm inclined to agree that this should not be included, although I could be persuaded.Peter coxhead (talk)15:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, thanks for answering. I think the difference between spiders and baobabs, is that we all know what spiders are, but many people only know that baobabs existbecause of The Little Prince.DrVogel (talk)15:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggest you construct a well sourced short paragraph that explains the significance of the baobab in the book, put it here, and see what other editors think then.Peter coxhead (talk)19:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought I had done, but then another editor kept deleting it instead of discussing it, and I didn't want to start an edit war.DrVogel (talk)16:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you linked above shows a single sentence that simply states that baobabs are in the book, nothing more. The one secondary source you provided (which incidentally is a condensed excerpt fromthis essay) explores the baobab as a symbol in the book, which is a good starting point, but it doesn't discuss the way the book has changed the baobab's place in the broader culture, which is whatWP:IPC encourages us to explore. That's nothing to say of the baobab's importance in the literature of the cultures resident to the tree's natural range, which isdue more coverage than a single work of European fiction.Ibadibam (talk)18:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Albatrosses are mentioned in lots of books. Ireland is mentioned in lots of books.
Baobabs are mentioned in The Little Prince, and a lot has been written about that particular fact. Please try a search and you'll see.DrVogel (talk)16:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your response makes me think you have yet to read the essay I linked for you. My point is that the appearance of a topic in a work of fiction does not necessarily warrant mention in the encyclopedia outside of the article covering that work of fiction. As to what has been written about this particular topic, I did a search and only found a few essays summarizing the book. If there's more substantial coverage than that, theburden is on you to provide it directly. Remember that our goal here is high-quality, encyclopedic content.Ibadibam (talk)18:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to chuckle that you feel patronized yet presume a fellow user doesn't know how to use Google. As I said, I did a search and didn't find anything. Give us some specific links. That will then satisfy criterion #2. I look forward to your expanding your case for criterion #4 (why baobabs as opposed to any other tree).Ibadibam (talk)07:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was:no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below.Dekimasuよ!19:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adansonia →Baobabs – In the plural, the common name will be the "Baobabs" and thusly it will make sense more so than the scientificAdansonia to more people. Many more have heard of Baobabs than Adansonia and in the plural it works to refer to many types of Baobabs. That is all. Except to say that the previous talkTalk:Adansonia#Requested_move_1_May_2016 was yet failed but is now stale so we can pursue this exciting new change with renewed vigor.Bod (talk)20:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per the previous discussion, the English name is used for one species in particular, and for the genus as a whole, so is ambiguous. Changing to the plural does not fix this, apart from not being the usual form for titles.Peter coxhead (talk)08:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reversing my inadequately-educated 2016 position, I agree with Peter that baobab has a geographical context and could be redirected toA. digitata. I also recommend thatBodhi Peace raise such issues first on the talk page for general discussion, rather than going to a renaming or redirect proposal. --Zefr (talk)16:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of changing the name of this article, I'd like to change the name of the genus. Can anyone help me with the process to go about changing the name of the genus in the literature. Wouldn't you all agree it would be better if the genus name was "Baobab"?Bod (talk)01:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Cgndiaye0324.
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
