Talk:Honey

Sourcing again

PMID 25484552 is not MEDLINE-indexed, yet both QuackGuru and Cirt are adding it. We need to be using better sources rather than making this article a compendium of dubious biomedical aspects of honey. Alexbrn (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please refactor. Not "adding" = I added it, one (1) time. And the International Journal of Angiology is a valid source archived by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health. — Cirt (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not indexed in MEDLINE, which is a big red flag (as is its impact factor of zero[1]). Per WP:MEDRS we do not use such sources for weighty biomedical information. Yes, you added it once - please don't. Alexbrn (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for a better source? QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No. If something isn't in the best sources, we shouldn't be covering it. I also think there's way too much on fructose, which is incidental to the topic of honey (though of course stuff on fructose is great in the fructose article!). Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

we need to work together, the issues on this article need to be resolved--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why hydrolyze?

I don't see any explanation of why bees hydrolyze sucrose into monosaccharides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.232.202 (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen any of my books delve into why the bees do what they do. I guess only the bee really knows. Any answer of why can only be a theory or a hypothesis, but my best guess is that hydrolysis helps to inhibit crystallization, thus, reducing the likelihood of fermentation. The reason for this notion is due to the fact that the bees go through so much trouble to invert the sugars, dry it out, and package it in tiny, air-tight capsules, all of which helps prevent crystallization and fermentation, because the store must last through the winter. (Or perhaps it's just an accident of evolution that happened to work for them. Who knows.) Zaereth (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Part of the answer for why sucrose is hydrolyzed can be explained by the bee's need to support its flight muscles during foraging, i.e., the collected nectar is used both for in-flight metabolic activity (hydrolysis of sucrose to glucose and fructose)[2] and for storage in the "honey stomach" for return to the hive.[3] I edited the Formation section to address this dual use of nectar, showing a beautiful design in the bee and efficient use of nectar as a raw material. --Zefr (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Did not know that. Thanks. It's also a great example of coevolution; the plants and animals evolving to support each other's needs. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Coevolution of hummingbird traits, such as beak shape and length, with ornithophilous flowers developing specific colors and nectar sugars suited to hummingbirds is another example. On page 2 of the reference showing metabolism of sugars in flying honey bees, the authors show that the thoracic flight muscles of flying bees have a metabolic rate 3 times higher than the muscles of hovering hummingbirds and 30 times higher than muscles in athletes at maximal effort. --Zefr (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"without a prescription" versus "over-the-counter"

My edit has been reverted as "not better". It is certainly not better for native readers. However, there are millions of non-native English readers, who perfectly understand the phrase "without a prescription", but not the idiom "over-the-counter", although they may know ten thousands English words. We should remember that English is getting more and more international, so using idioms in English Wikipedia is a very bad idea, especially when they can be easily substituted by plain language phrases. Let's make English more understandable and thus more worldwide, at least here - in Wikipedia, which is a source of information, not a collection of poems. Increased readability is a significant improvement of the article. For a native speaker both phrases are clear, then why not to use the one which is easier for non-natives? Plain English is not "bad English", quite the opposite. As Leonardo da Vinci said, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication". An editor, who reverted my edit has a PhD in English so he should be aware of all these aspects. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

What's your evidence for the "millions of people" who won't understand the idiom - it seems perfectly comprehensible to me, even if read literally. There also the wrinkle that OTC drugs are regulated whereas "available" might mean anything (illegal drugs are "available without a prescription" but aren't OTC). Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I know about 15,000 English words, but when I first saw the phrase "over-the-counter", I had no idea what it means. "Counter" can also mean an electronic device for counting something, so "over-the-counter" looked like an illegal transaction. You wrote: "it seems perfectly comprehensible to me, even if read literally". The crucial words here are "seems" and "to me" ;-) You are just a native English speaker, so your opinion is self-explanatory. I can say exactly the same about Polish (my first language) idioms. Have you ever tried to understand any idioms in other languages, e.g. here? 85.193.232.158 (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Over-the-counter" does not mean simply "without a prescription", so simply trading the two phrases does not address the issue.

Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to think that non-native speakers of English and English speakers in less-Western areas might not get the intended meaning.

No, I do not see how a literal reading of the phrase makes it clear. It is a figure of speech. Prescription drugs and non-prescription but restricted drugs (e.g. pseudoephedrine, which is kept behind the counter) are both passed "over the counter", while unrestricted non-prescription drugs are not passed across a counter. I cannot see any reason to believe the phrase makes intuitive sense.

The simpler solution, IMO, is to use the phrase "over-the-counter" with a link to Over-the-counter drug. Those who understand the idiom will continue reading, uninterrupted. Those who do not know the idiom likely will not have any idea what it means (correct or not) and will have the link to address that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only is it not intuitive, it is actually counterintuitive: "prescription drugs are almost always [literally] passed over a counter from the pharmacist to the customer". 85.193.232.158 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "over-the-counter" is not an idiom; it's an adjective that means "kept within the customer's reach." The adjective can be traced back to Middle French, arriving in England during the 1300s. The phrase quite literally refers to any goods kept on the customer's side of the store counter. For instance, if one were to purchase bread at a bakery or buy meat at butchery, any premade item already on display and within the customer's reach was deemed to be "over-the-counter." Because the phrase is used as a single adjective, it should always be hyphenated, to help distinguish between the meanings the words can have as individuals. In the late 1800s it was applied to the stock market, and around the 1920s it became used for non-prescription drugs. (Over = "across," "on the other side of, + Counter = "a long security-table where the cashier stands." The denotes an overall concept rather than "a counter," which could be any long table. The opposite of which, of course, is "behind-the-counter.")

The phrase is old and widely known in English. These articles are written for English speakers, and the adjective is a better fit, because "without a prescription" has a completely different connotation to a native English-speaker. It is a very common phrase, and if non-native speakers don't understand it, then this is a perfect place to learn it, so linking the term is probably a good idea. Zaereth (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Despite all of that, non-prescription cold meds which contain pseudoephedrine are kept behind the counter in the U.S., out of the cutomer's reach. Also at odds is the article over-the-counter drug, which states, "Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are medicines sold directly to a consumer without a prescription, from a healthcare professional, as compared to prescription drugs, which may be sold only to consumers possessing a valid prescription." In other words, over-the-counter drugs are those which are non-prescription.

Yeah, the phrase is old. Yeah, it is widely known in some English speaking countries.

IMO, the source cited seems to be discussing non-prescription cough and cold meds. I cannot discern any other intended meaning, nor can I see harm in clarifying. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "over the counter" (except its literal meaning) is by all means an idiom - look here. But linguists, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the illogical idiom could be quite a logical adjective: "over-the-counter". In my opinion this adjective is still an idiom. Admittedly, according to Oxford Dictionary, a single word can not be an idiom, but our "single word" still consists of the same three words, artificially joined by hyphens. Given this logic we can transform any idiomatic expression into a single adjective, noun, verb etc., which will no longer be an idiom. All of this is rather academic. The real problem is that drugs not physically passed over the counter, are always over-the-counter ones. I mean drugs placed on shelves in a self-service area. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Future Microbiology, Hydrogen Peroxide, etc

So I have given up attempting to edit this article, but regarding the properties of honey with respect to hydrogen peroxide, future microbiology already does talk about it, (currently source 99). Of course, it is currently placed under "folk medicine", but given that apparently when I am asking about it Pediatrics Clinics of North America, American Family Physician, and British Journal of Surgery, and so forth are all "folk medicine" or FRINGE with respect to honey, whatever; but if someone else wants to look at the paper (or really, anything else that I asked about. Falconjh (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take up the battle. In some cases a slight change in wording makes all the difference. The article said 'Little evidence supports honey as a treatment of coughs in children', but I changed it to 'Some evidence supports…', which technically means the same thing but the original version suggests that the amount of evidence is so small that it should be ignored and treated as if there were no evidence. The article cited did not take this tone.

Previous discussions on this topic seem to get lost of the weeds of various medical journals and whether or not they counted as reliable sources, but there are plenty of mainstream articles on the topic, so I don't see why it should be hard to mention honey's potential as a healing agent (from a nautral point of view, of course). Fnordware (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, my edits have been reverted, so I guess we need to discuss them first. In the part about honey healing wounds, the cited page does not say there is some evidence that honey helps with burns at all and little evidence that is helps with the other listed conditions at all, but some evidence honey is actually better than the standard burn treatments. There may be little evidence that honey is better than antibiotics for the other conditions, but it seems to be at least equal, and that is significant. The way the article is currently written written, you'd think the studies found honey to be no better than a placebo. My edits were not intended to be "nudgy", but simply to get the article to reflect the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnordware (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact I deleted this sentence since it served no purpose, and there is a dedicated section for "folk medicine" later as well as specific content on wounds. Alexbrn (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll assume you were OK with the other edits I made outside of that sentence and I will put them back in. Please discuss before re-reverting. Fnordware (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really because there was some misrepresentation of the sources that look like making an unduly favourable case for honey. Alexbrn (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I made the edit. If you have any specific concerns, please mention them. Fnordware (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you're misrepresenting the sources. To take one example, you have put that "There is also evidence that honey may be comparable to [whatever that means] conventional treatments used for ..." and then have ingrowing toenail listed when the source says that surgical treatment is superior and that there is no useful role for honey. So your text is highly misleading. BTW, demanding discussion before your own text is reverted is a sign of attempted WP:OWNership. Alexbrn (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Just trying to prevent an WP:EDITWAR. The article as currently written (since you reverted again) says "There is some evidence that honey may help healing in skin…" and "Little evidence supports honey as a treatment…", suggesting that honey might help burns and probably does not help the other things. But the source is actually comparing honey to conventional treatments, not asking if it works at all. It says some studies show honey outperforming conventional treatment for burns and matching conventional treatment for the others. I am simply trying to get this page to match the source. (You're right, I should have omitted ingrown toenails which the other source mentions are not helped by honey, but then neither are they helped by antibiotics.) Also, I think mentioning the ongoing medical research as mentioned in this article is relevant. Fnordware (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"the source is actually comparing honey to conventional treatments" ← it is not. To quote: "The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatment" (my emphasis). It find most respects all these alternative products are similarly ineffective/unevidenced. Your edits seem to be misrepresenting sources to give a unduly favourable impression of honey. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation of the source is incorrect. It's pretty clear that "alternative" in that sentence refers to "alternatives to honey", not "alternative medicine." This is demonstrated in this quote from the Author's Conclusions section: "Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze." Clearly the "alternatives" of polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, and antiseptics are mainstream medical substances, not folk medicine. Fnordware (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you are right (an unfortunate choice of word, "alternative" in the source). Nevertheless the key point is still that there isn't good evidence that honey is useful for scenarios considered (in common with other things) and so we need to be clear about that. Saying that it "may outperform" other treatments misleads the reader into thinking it more possibly effective, since their assumption is likely that other treatments work. The source has:

It is not clear if honey is better or worse than other treatments for burns, mixed acute and chronic wounds, pressure ulcers, Fournier's gangrene, venous leg ulcers, minor acute wounds, diabetic foot ulcers and Leishmaniasis as most of the evidence that exists is of low or very low quality.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

But the source says that "Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment", i.e. it appears to outperform gauze, etc. for the treatment of partial thickness burns and surgical wounds. We can use another word if you want but the source clearly indicates that honey is better for those two things than what you typically get in a modern hospital. For the other things mentioned in the source, honey performs roughly the same as standard treatments, which is what they mean by "It is not clear if honey is better or worse." I tried to be accurate but cautious by writing, "There is also evidence that honey may be comparable to conventional treatments used for other burns, chronic wounds…" The current "Evidence does not support the use of honey-based products…" is inaccurate because it suggests that honey has been proven to not work at all. Fnordware (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So our article also has "There is some evidence that honey may help healing in skin wounds after surgery and mild (partial thickness) burns when used in a dressing" and all of the evidence around wound healing is weak. Things cannot in general be "proven not to work" in medicine, there is merely lack of positive evidence. For leg ulcers our wording is close to the source "Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products." So representing this as honey being "comparable" (a vague concept since everything can be compared to everything) to other treatments seems beside the point & adrift of what that source is saying Alexbrn (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, so how about we just stick to what the source says and let the reader research and interpret? So in place of "Evidence does not support the use of honey-based products…" we say "Current evidence is insufficient to determine if honey is better or worse than conventional treatments for…"? Fnordware (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the definition of "comparable" I was using was "of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison," not "able to be compared." Fnordware (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps it goes beyond that a tad: the evidence is so weak it's not possible to draw any firm conclusions ("It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds"). I've made an edit to that effect ... see what you think. Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I'm satisfied, but I'll relent in hopes that someone else may join this discussion someday. There is not some evidence that honey may help with surgical wounds and mild burns. According to the source, there is high quality evidence for burns and moderate quality evidence for surgical wounds that honey is more effective than the mainstream treatments. I respect the fact that you are wary of un-scientific folk remedies, but this is not one of them. I'm fine with the second part of that sentence. I will make one more edit to put back in that sentence about the research, but feel free to revert if you must. Fnordware (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We have content on research elsewhere in the article, it's not really a "health application". Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• 3O Request Greetings, both. I came by here in response to a third opinion request, which I am happy to provide. It does seem, though, that in the meantime you have to come to an agreement over a part of this dispute (and hats off to both of you for maintaining a respectful debate as you did so). Therefore, could one (or both, if necessary) describe what still remains in dispute, so that I may weigh in on it? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• That was me. I am relenting, but that doesn't mean I agree and was hoping for another opinion. It's pretty simple, our source says:

  There is high quality evidence that honey heals partial thickness burns around 4 to 5 days more quickly than conventional dressings. There is moderate quality evidence that honey is more effective than antiseptic followed by gauze for healing wounds infected after surgical operations.

Our article says:

There is some evidence that honey may help healing in skin wounds after surgery and mild (partial thickness) burns when used in a dressing…

I feel that our article is unnecessarily diluting the confident stance taken by our source. I believe that my original edit better represents it:

For skin wounds after surgery and mild (partial thickness) burns when used in a dressing, there is some evidence that honey may outperform conventional hospital treatments.

Even that seems too weak as I look at it now. In my opinion it should say:

For surgical skin wounds or when used in a dressing for mild (partial thickness) burns, there is evidence that honey outperforms conventional hospital treatments.

Fnordware (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to refer to the "confident stance" of the source when its conclusion begins "It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds due to the heterogeneous nature of the patient populations and comparators studied and the mostly low quality of the evidence". If Wikipedia then does go ahead and draws "overall conclusion" it would be over-confident perhaps. I'm also not sure that a 3O is appropriate here since this section has been subject to a wider consensus not long ago. I am pinging Doc James who proposed[4] the original "some evidence" wording. I would favour reverting to that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The conclusion of the source is "Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment" That is a tentative stance.

So I think "here is some evidence that honey may be effective in treating diseases and other medical conditions such as wounds and burns." is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? I disagree. The way our article is written, it is uncertain whether honey has any effect at all. In the source, the question is if it is in fact better than conventional treatments, with it unquestionably having some effect. That is the dilution I am objecting to. Fnordware (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• 3rd Opinion In my view, when the request was posted and I responded to it with a question, there were only two editors substantially involved, so an additional opinion is appropriate. I have a couple of suggestions here. First, the single quote from the paper would not be appropriate, given that the authors themselves qualify it by stating that the evidence is of low quality. However, I believe that Wikipedia diluting that statement in its own language is also not appropriate, because that is not really what the article is saying. The best course, in my opinion, is to provide more detail from the article, with in-text attribution. Something along the lines of "A 2014 study found that honey outperformed...etc, but stated that the evidence was of low to moderate quality, and that generalizing the findings was difficult given the heterogeneous subject population." Given the depth of the source, I don't believe that would be undue weight. The present wording for the lead is more or less okay, but I think the double qualifier is unnecessary: "...some evidence that honey may help healing in..." should just read "there is evidence that honey may help..." or alternatively "there is some evidence that honey helps..." Finally, I would add that the third sentence of the third paragraph of the lead is not currently a sentence, and should be rewritten. I hope that helps. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Vanamonde93. While the source does that "It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds" in general, it also says for two specific types of wounds, partial thickness burns and post-surgery wounds, there is respectively high-quality and moderate-quality evidence that it outperforms conventional hospital treatments. In other words, it is not difficult to draw conclusions in those two cases. I was thinking a solution to this problem would be to quote the paper directly because I don't think the earlier qualifier about not being able to draw general conclusions for all wounds should be a conflict. Fnordware (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (top-quality MEDRS) summarized[5] this same Cochrane review as a record of "uncertainties identified in research recommendations":

Honey may delay healing in partial- and full-thickness burns in comparison to early excision and grafting, and in cutaneous Leishmaniasis when used as an adjuvant with meglumine antimoniate. Honey might be superior to some conventional dressing materials, but there is considerable uncertainty about the replicability and applicability of this evidence.

This tends to confirm the cautious wording of the article is just right. Uncertainty is the dominant aspect. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm would be fine quoting this source as well. Again, the Wikipedia article currently says, "There is some evidence that honey may help healing…" while this source says, "Honey might be superior to some conventional dressing materials…" The source questions if honey is superior for those applications, while the Wikipedia article questions if it works at all. I feel we are twisting their words, so I would prefer to use their words directly if that would remove ambiguity. Fnordware (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite. We don't know if it works at all, because in general the evidence quality is terrible. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is why we need that third opinion, because the source clearly states that for those two specific uses, we do know that it works, perhaps even better than standard treatments. It is for the other treatments that there is uncertainty. Fnordware (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

When NICE says this is an area of uncertainty, so does Wikipedia. That isn't going to change without newer/better sources, no matter what editors' opinions are. Alexbrn (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I usually avoid medical discussions, but from a purely scientific standpoint, we do not know that it works. "Some evidence" is not the same as "proof." The sources all seem to agree that honey appears to have been helpful in certain cases, but doesn't go so far as to state whether it's a 100% of those cases, or 50%, or just the odd few. In science, the ability to replicate results many times over is the closest one ever comes to proof, and even that is not definitive, but only a measure of probabilities. (No doctor worth their salt would ever guarantee any result.) At best, all we have is some evidence, which is not enough to claim that it "works." Quoting a few lines from the source would be taking them out of their full context and would be misleading. In my opinion, it's better to summarize the overall meaning, which at best is that it may warrant further research. Zaereth (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been following these discussions, but not closely. There's a single study in dispute, right? And there is at least one review of this study, right? If that's the case, we follow the review. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The original source is a review and the new one presented by Alexbrn is a review of the original review. To quote the second one, "Honey might be superior to some conventional dressing materials, but there is considerable uncertainty about the replicability and applicability of this evidence." Our current article's wording calls into question if honey is superior to nothing while the review questions if it is superior to conventional dressings. I simply want our article to match the source. Fnordware (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-human uses of honey

The article seems to be largely about honey and humans. Should there be a section on the attraction of (both wild and farmed) honey to many other species? Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not. There are lots of animals that eat honey, and some have rather inventive ways of getting it, but I would want to avoid turning it into a trivia section. As long as everything is well-cited, it shouldn't be a problem. Zaereth (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

1. In my version I have used the most accurate definition suggested by Eva Crane, which explains the ecological role of honey as opposed to just plain nectar: "Honey is a sugary food substance produced and stored by certain social hymenopteran insects, for consumption in dearth periods. Honey is produced from sugary secretions of plants or animals, such as floral nectar or aphid honeydew, through water evaporation and enzymatic activity. The variety of honey produced by honey bees (the genus Apis) is the one most commonly referred to, as it is the type of honey collected by most beekeepers and consumed by most people. Honey is also produced by bumblebees, stingless bees, honey wasps and honeypot ants, but these types of honey have different properties compared with honey from the genus Apis."
2. water evaporation and enzymatic activity is what makes nectar into honey, it should appear in the second sentence. This makes the last sentence about honey bees converting nectar etc. superfluous.
3. the quantity is lower? ref for this? How do you measure the quantity? How do you compare different species, with differing colony sizes and nest sizes?
4. Not all beekeepers keep honey bees (unless you define them narrowly), and people also consume stingless bee honey.
5. You removed the second sentence claiming it was unsourced, and now you say the refs are unneeded?! Please leave the refs unless the material is repeated in the paragraphs below - which it isn't! Future editors are more likely to distort the opening, defining sentences, if they don't see a valid ref.
6. Gidip (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

First, please keep in mind the most recent set of diffs[6] incorporated your recent edits while tightening up the language significantly while also formatting for a WP:LEDE where sources generally aren't listed since that information usually should be in the body already first. There was no reason for a revert on quite a lot of that, especially considering the lengthy explanation in the edit summary followed by the "no justification" comment. The content I removed was partly extraneous wording that wasn't needed as well as sources (though Crane 1990 remained as a rare case because we don't have that info in the body, but it is relevant for the lead).

On 1 and 2, again, this was just condensed and rearranged slightly to include some relevant text from the lead before the recent edits, especially relating to how honey is produced. That's especially for the rearrangement on honeydew so it doesn't seem like honeydew is being called a type of honey. Also keep in mind that the article currently is primarily about honey bee produced honey, so in terms of WP:WEIGHT assigned by sources, honey bees are going to get mention in the lead until that changes (this also addresses 4). To get information about how honey is produced by other taxa in the lead, someone would need to write a section on that (probably something like Non-honeybee production), and then consider how that should be incorporated into the lead. Personally, just mentioning that other species produce honey like was done in both lead diffs is enough even if a new section was created. I also can't recall if there is still debate on whether what bumblebees produce is truly honey or just stored nectar, but that's something to potentially check into as well.

On 3, I thought this was referenced lower down in this article, but I was remembering a different one. I've pulled up one such reference quick on that.[7] All that matters is that overall production is low without worrying about variation in colony size, etc. It's pretty much just honey bees that are producing large amounts of honey (and worthwhile for raising honey for human consumption), whereas species like bumblebees do not stockpile honey is such large quantities. I'm aware of research looking into other insects being used to produce honey, but that again would need to be fleshed out in the body more before being considered in the lead where we could consider due weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I find written disputes totally exhausting. I have written down my rationale, now let the system distort it as needed. I hope new edits build on my revisions rather than go backwards. I guess I'll stick to Hebrew Wikipedia for now.

I am citing excerpts from Crane's paper (1990) for the use of other editors. I haven't found any other citeable source that discusses the definition of honey in the ecological sense (rather than the commercial or legislative one):

"Honey can be stored without risk of spoilage, by social insects that produce it from the nectar or honeydew they collect from living plants. The insects include all Apis spp. (Apinae), almost all Meliponinae, all Bombus (Bombinae), honey wasps in the Polistinae, and honey ants in the Formicinae and Dolichoderinae. "

"In this paper honey is considered as a food substance produced by colonies of all honeybees (Apis spp.), and of certain other social insects, that they can store safe from spoilage and consume in dearth periods. The nectar or honeydew collected by insects usually contains much more water that honey does, even up to 80% of the total weight. In the colony, the insects evaporate water from the liquid, and in so doing they add to it glandular secretions containing several enzymes. "

"Adopting a wider concept than honey as a product of one species, genus, or family of social insects, an attempt at a biological definition might start: «Honey is a substance produced by honeybees and some other social insects from nectar or honeydew they collect from living plants, which they transform by evaporating water and by the action of enzymes they themselves secrete»."

I strongly recommend reading the full (short) paper by other editors. Gidip (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)