Talk:Elaeis

Hello, I have some new information to add to this article regarding the oil palm's early history and to bring the production figures up-to-date. This request is on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil council, hence I am reaching out to editors via this discussion page message rather than adding this information myself. Right now, the History section does not discuss the oil palm's early history in much detail at all and I've found a couple of references to support the following addition:

The above inserted with minor modifications (no jar was found, slight trimming). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84, thanks for looking at this. I see you've not added it here, but in the Palm oil article. I've also put a message on your talk page to discuss this. YellowOwl (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also in the History section, while FELDA is discussed, there is no mention of other development schemes that were established in the 1960s and 1970s. The following addition provides some more detail here:

Additionally, in the Palm oil production section the figures are quite outdated, referring to the 2005-6 growing season. Here is what I've been able to find for more up-to-date figures:

The above additions have reliable sources and add useful information, so I hope that someone will add these to the article. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

At WikiProject Plants, Sepilok2007 recommended I add a secondary source for the development scheme text regarding SALCRA. I’ve replaced this in the middle box above, now with reduced detail on SALCRA that comes from a secondary source. (To see what the middle box looked like before, here is the archive version of the initial post.) I hope if this is acceptable that someone will add it, and the other two revisions, to the article. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've put the text in on this page as a temporary measure; coordinating it with palm oil needs more work. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this needs to be rewritten as at the moment it is just an ego trip for MPOB and not supported by reliable sources e.g. "Malaysia's top research entity with the highest technology commercialisation rate of 20% compared to 5% among local universities" what is the sources for this?, how was this measured? Also commerialisation is only one way to assess a research entity - the number of high impact factor publications is another more commonly used matric (and easier to independently assess) Sepilok2007 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick "Publish or Perish" search and Uni Malaya has a high H score (40) than MPOB (14). I know this is OR, but it suggest that the 'MPOB is the top research entity in Malaysia' statement needs to go, if someone can't provide a decent citation to support this statement Sepilok2007 (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed it a bit. The section was misnamed, it's not about research but about institutions. The text is duplicated on three pages, this one, Palm kernel oil, and Palm oil. I think this copy should go, but don't have a good plan about the other two. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to rename this page to Elaeis, which is the name of the genus that both oil palm species belong to. I find it confusing that both "oil palm" and "palm oil" pages exist. Changing to the genus name is in line with the policies of wikiproject plants. After the rename, material that is duplicated on the two pages could be trimmed to separate them into a page about the plants and a page about the uses of the plants. Unless people strenuously object, I'll make the move in a couple of days' time. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems desirable to split out a considerable part of the material on this page to one about Elaeis guineensis, the most-cultivated species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This section contravenes WP:NOTHOWTO, needs extensive trimming. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

{{request edit}} Hello, I've been looking at this article some more, especially in light of Sminthopsis84's notice above about the similarity of this article to the Palm oil article. There are several other articles across which content has been duplicated or does not focus in on the particular topic. I noticed that the Social and environmental impacts section in this article is very long, duplicates a lot of the information from the Environmental impact of palm oil article, is missing references for some information and many references that are there have broken links.

Since large chunks of information were moved to Elaeis guineensis, now almost the majority of the article is taken up by the examination of social and environmental impacts. To bring this article back to its primary focus, the oil palm tree, I've written an alternative summarized version of the Social and environmental impacts section, using what references were salvageable from the current section plus references I found:

The "allegedly" needs to go. There are too many peer-review published studies that show the impact of oil palm expansion on "endangered indigenous species and impacted natural habitats through draining bogs, burning forests and encroaching on natural habitats". The carbon one depends a bit on which ecosystems are being converted i.e. Converting lalang grass-land to oil palm leads to an increase in carbon stocks, but most other conversion lead to a decrease, with the worst impacts the conversion of Peatswamps. Secondily only a small part of the industry has address the environmental concerns - with many mills in Sabah directly dumping POME into rivers, few are replanting riparian reserves, Peatswamps are still being converted in Sarawak, Sumatra and Kalimantan (less so in Sabah at this stage - as most of those areas were converted earlier), etc. We also need to improve the "references" for this section, much of it relies on newspaper article (which can be biased for/against oil palm) and should make use of more of the peer-reviewed literature. Sepilok2007 (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't Bog that are drained it is tropical Peat swamp forest, they are very different Kettle of fishSepilok2007 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Some details from the Social and environmental impacts section are detailed with references in this article, but are not in the Environmental impact of palm oil article. I've detailed these below, so that they can be moved into that article, as appropriate:

The new summarized section presents a better overview for this article on the issues related to the social and environmental impacts of oil palm cultivation. I hope someone will add it in place of the very long, duplicative current Social and environmental impacts section, and move any non-duplicated information into the more appropriate article. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this section has become duplicated material and is in need of a good clean out. On the same point much of Environmental impact of palm oil is horrible and needs a complete re-write. Sepilok2007 (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

POME isn't a clear heading, "Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME)" would be a better beginning.

Fires are not just a 2005–2006 problem, "variously blamed" should have more than one group blamed (here it is just the government with the inability). This citation seems appropriate: Celine Fernandez (June 20, 2012). "Southeast Asian Haze: Who's To Blame?". The Wall Street Journal. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sepilok2007 and Sminthopsis84, I agree with you both about the Environmental impact of palm oil article and later I'll look at research and improvements there. For now, I'm working on making some changes and adding more references to the summarized version of the Social and environmental impacts section, with your feedback as a guide Sepilok2007. I'll return here once that is ready and let you both know. YellowOwl (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi YellowOwl, I've only just got back to Malaysia (Sabah) and will have a bit of search for peer-reviewed studies that could be added into this section. I don't get much time to work on Wikipedia articles (as meant to be writing paper), but have access to most of the tropical ecology/conservation biology literature. I think you are doing a good job on trying to get a balance in these articles Sepilok2007 (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're both doing a wonderful job. In the meantime I'll look in from time to time and prod at the articles a little. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you and I think you are both doing an excellent job on the oil palm-related articles, too. I've made another try at the Social and environmental impacts summarized text, including some peer reviewed articles as references and adding a Malaysian government paper that sets out goals for sustainable palm oil development. In this second try, I've also made the other changes Sepilok2007 mentioned: moving allegedly, so that it refers only to the greenhouse gas emissions as that is more in contention, per Sepilok2007's comments and changing "bogs" to "peat swamp forests".

Does this work better now as an alternative to the existing section? Also, I did not explain before, but I did not intend for "POME" and "Fires" to be headings in the "Text to move..." box. These were just descriptions for the sections of text I saw that appeared in this article but didn't appear in the Environmental impacts of palm oil article. The text appearing in the "Text to move..." box above is not new but the material from this article that I think can be moved into the Environmental impacts of palm oil article. YellowOwl (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the social impact has been reduced, and I'm not sure how that should be handled. The section is called "Social and environmental impacts", but that doesn't mesh well with pointing for further information only to Environmental impact of palm oil. Perhaps either a new page could be created, Social impact of palm oil, or the existing page could be renamed and expanded to become Social and environmental impact of palm oil. Thoughts, anyone? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sminthopsis84, you are correct that there's not currently anywhere to point readers for more information on social impacts. I think of the two ideas you have floated, the second seems the most appropriate: renaming the "Environmental impact of palm oil" article to "Social and environmental impacts of palm oil". As you've mentioned before, there are already a lot of articles on palm oil and it would become even more complicated if another was created. Also, to a certain extent, the social and environmental impacts are intertwined.

On your further review, does the text I've proposed work as a substitute for the current "Social and environmental impacts" section in this article? YellowOwl (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right that renaming the page would be the best option. I'll request the move. Further work on this will have to wait until the weekend for me. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Partly done, more work needed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sminthopsis84, thanks for moving the POME information from Elaeis into the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article and making the updates to the first paragraph of the Social and environmental impacts section for this article. Your reply above says that more work is needed, can I ask if you have any questions about the replacement text that I prepared?

Also, what are your thoughts on moving the remaining material out of the Social and environmental impacts section that is duplicated in the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article? Here I mean the Carbon balance and Palm biomass as fuel sections. YellowOwl (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elaeis. 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/20121020201103/http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/palmoil.htm to http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/palmoil.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)