Talk:Honey/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Poor sourcing, edit-warring

This edit from Falconjh introduces two reviews from non-MEDLINE indexed sources to undercut stronger sources. Elderly/weak sources are also being edit-warred in.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ammended 19:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please verify that this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/120300 is in fact index with Medline and is a quality source, see my comment above. The WHO statement is a WHO statement and not a review article. IF you are referring to my other recent edit you may also verify that they are also all Medline indexed (And WHO is the only thing that can remotely be said to be "old", but again policy statement). Falconjh (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted, the articles are medline indexed, the journals are not, sorry for not catching that, I am not attempting to get poor sources in. Falconjh (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those articles is MEDLINE indexed. You now need to wonder why you've introduced out-of-date sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

PubMedID, not a pubmed central id, unless I am misunderstanding something, so yes they are according to what is on the articles themselves and this: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/dif_med_pub.html; so... yeah (meaning I am not entirely sure that reverting is even the correct thing to do as it being not MEDLINE indexed journal per MEDRS is only an indication that it may not be, where as pubmed searching for reviews, exactly what I did do, is stated as the starting point for searches); WHO is a policy statement and as such is not out-of-date unless they have updated their policy, otherwise why are we citing Wikipedia policies that are "out-of-date", having been created years ago. Everything else is up to date. Falconjh (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

PUBMED (a search engine) ≠ MEDLINE (an index). Not sure why you're using old weaker sources when we have a Cochrane systematic review updated this year. Alexbrn (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So if you were to actually read the Cochrane review then you would realize that it says exactly the same thing that the Canadian doctors say regarding the drugs in question, why the review is framed the way it is on Wikipedia, not sure but I would rather add additional reliable sources that add to the article at this point then again refight over a Cochrane review; Guess what someone else much more knowledgeable than me has already gone over the past year Cochrane review and the other additional data and made their recommendation to Canadian general practitioners so I see no reason for me to fight to get the current year Cochrane review to acknowledge saying that it in fact does say that honey as a treatment for cough is with pretty good evidence better than placebo and the one drug and equivalent to the other drug, which is exactly what the review for this year does say, when Wikipedia say that honey may be better than nothing, which isn't at all what the Cochrane review actually does say. So I am following policy on multiple fronts here (MEDRS and PAGs). Falconjh (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Since we are getting into this and other editors may see this I am reopening the prior discussion on the cancer research, while some of the prior purposed articles may possibly be considered of poorer quality, though some of that is questionable as one of the ones that is "poor quality" appears to be in a journal that is a core medical journal so I question that assessment now having read more on the subject; This one however: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25052987 is completely on topic and and unobjectionable, I originally thought it may not be the best because the author references own research, but that is also the case in the Cochrane reviews so that can't be a problem. Ronz showed clear bias on the subject in stating "it's rather embarrassing that we'd consider it.", as has Alexbrn by calling the medical usage of honey as magic; despite the fact that it is clearly a topic of proven usage and on going research meaning, which as theirs is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." given the Cochrane reviews and other research in the field, the recommendation of the NHS, the recommendation of WHO, the recommendation of Canadian general practitioners then who exactly is supposed to be FRINGE here? Falconjh (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Since it isn't likely that User:Zefr will explain himself in talk, perhaps User:Alexbrn would mind explaining what is wrong with the sources used now per MEDRS as they are MEDLINE index, not on Beall's list, ranked actually pretty high, and in terms of determining the anti-microbial properties of honey something published in 'Future Microbiology' with impact factor 4.275 ranked 22nd out of 119 seems a very solid source; Also, all of them are review articles. So what exactly is wrong, per MEDRS other than perhaps WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Falconjh (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"as has Alexbrn by calling the medical usage of honey as magic" ← probably better to WP:FOC than tell fibs about other editors. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"What tosh. The same argument could be advanced for bigging up homeopathy or other magicks." <- from you where you do in fact compare the usage of honey in medicine to homeopathy and magic, I suppose I left of the 'k' so if you are truly that pedantic about it. Falconjh (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Point proved. It seems you're as cavalier in interpreting other editors' comments as you are in dealing with our sources - I see little point in continuing a discussion which is not grounded in an honest dealing with what is written. Alexbrn (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Except you haven't actually said anything substantial about the sources as I requested, and what you were calling tosh one of the sources (the wilderness one) actually discusses, which is as I said a review article, medline, etc. and you are proving my point about the importance of MEDRS here; being I am not the one being cavalier with it at all. Falconjh (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Falconjh: For edits you want on wounds or cancer under the health applications section, clinical rigor is needed as explained in WP:MEDASSESS. Consider where your sources are within the pyramid guides -- they would be in the bottom half within WP:PRIMARY, meaning they are not sufficient as WP:MEDRS and are not appropriate to include in the article as clinically established facts. Medline index, impact factor, reviews in non-clinical journals, etc. do not qualify sources for content under health applications per WP:MEDASSESS.

Also, concerning your disparaging tone in the above comments, please work on improving content and your sources rather than abusing other editors who disagree with you; WP:EQ, WP:NPA. --Zefr (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Zefr for the I actually don't care to go back and count how many times they are not primary but are in fact review articles; Every single source that I have ever brought up has been a review article and in the case of wounds dealing with the very top of the pryamid not the bottom. The cancer treatment information I really don't care where it shows up in the article, it matches the guidelines of MEDRS therefore it should be include in the article end of story otherwise we are not dealing with science as it is but as we would like it to be; just as your edits regarding wounds and the microbial properties are not actually dealing with what the science articles are saying, but what you would like them to have said and what you would like to be the case. If you have something more, please explain further, but this is really as I said WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Falconjh (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and even setting sourcing aside, we don't want things in the "Health applications" sections which aren't health applications. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of the antimicrobial properties in regards to wounds and burns and its usage as a health application is relevant to health application; It most certainly is not folk medicine, I strongly suggest actually reading some of those reviews especially the microbiology one. I really am quite happy to get different sources, but I need to understand any reasonable justification that there is for not liking these sources so that I can, as I have done multiple times, attempt to find better ones, the constant baseless assertions that review articles are Primary and OR is silly and tells me nothing at all that is actually useful. It would be one thing if the objections made remote sense, even if they appear largely contrary to MEDRS as your prior objection to two prior sources did. Would these sources be any better:

Cough: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23905830

Burns: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0101/p25.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23896128

Wounds: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22777856 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24690749 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24612472 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24106254 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23896128 Falconjh (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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[2]). 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)[3] and for storage in the "honey stomach" for return to the hive.[4] 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[5] 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[6] 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[7] 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.[8] 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 biological/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)

One problem I see is that there is a danger in being too academic in the definition of the terminology, sometimes to the point of ignoring the subject, and this is especially true in the lede. An encyclopedia should be written for a general audience, which includes everything from college professors to elementary-school children. The lede should use simple language, avoiding jargon, and be written using commonly -understood terms. The lede should define the subject as quickly and simply as possible, because one or two paragraphs are typically all an elementary student will read. College-level prose and academic jargon should be saved for the body of the article.

I use the word "subject" because an encyclopedia is about things not words. (Dictionaries are about words.) In academic prose it is common to define words as they are to be used within the context of the study, journal, or paper. In example from above, "In this paper honey is considered..." note how she is quick to define the term as she specifically uses it within her paper. That is a good sign that her definition varies from the general norm. Since an encyclopedia is about the thing, this article should focus on the specific type of honey commonly used by most people; that produced by the honeybee. In the general language, honey from other insects is typically considered to be a different thing, so it should have a different article. That may change in the future, because language is never permanent, but it's both not our place and disingenuous of us to try and manipulate it ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

After sleeping on this and rereading the source, I agree with your comments on the honey definition. The source more or less says it is not the mainstream definition to refer to honey as something other than from honey bees. It's been awhile since I've looked at sources on this, but I do believe what bumblebees, honeypot ants, etc. produce is not even considered true honey, but just stored nectar instead. Something to do some digging on.

Zefr, it looks like you may have fallen for the exact mistake here I was trying to prevent in my copy edits before they got reverted. Where you inserted bee honey, you're basically saying bees make honey from honey. What you replaced was honeydew. That's a separate sugary secretion produced by aphids that bees can on occasion use as a sugar source to make honey as described in this article. Does that make sense to you with this most recent edit I made trying to clarify that? Also in that edit, I restored the term regurgitation from the last clean version before January. Bees don't really digest nectar to make honey in the formal sense, but just carry nectar to the hive, barf it up, and then process it for storage as honey. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your revisions are fine, Kingofaces43. I thought Zaereth's summary was excellent, and was trying to make the lede more concise without confusion about more minor honey sources (aphid). I would also be ok with fewer references in the lede, as you suggested. Thanks! --Zefr (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that many of these other types of honey do not come from nectar at all but from saps, so they often have a woody or syrupy taste. The chemical composition is different, lacking a lot of the aromatic and aliphatic acids which come specifically from the flowers. Zaereth (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

For now, the language in the lede says "such as floral nectar" without excluding other plant sources. We're at least not technically incorrect for now, but mention of non-floral plant sources could be a worthwhile subsection at the same level as Honey#Floral_source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds good. I wouldn't want to give any more mention to honeydew and aphids in the lede than we currently do, but since we cover it in the briefly article, it does bear extremely minor mention that plant sources are not the only source. That inclusion balances the technicalities without getting too far into the weeds. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A few more comments to consider:

1. I find it odd that the current version gives even less emphasis to non-Apis honey types than the version that existed before my first edits. They are suggested by the general definition in the opening sentence, but that's it. The other taxa aren't even mentioned anywhere.
2. Limiting the article or the definition only to Apis would clearly be misleading, even in the "human" aspect of the term. Stingless bee honey is definitely produced by beekeepers and consumed by humans. I haven't heard of any term other than "honey" to describe the sugary product of stingless bees. In Eva Crane's book The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting (browse it here), she discusses the same groups of honey-producing insects mentioned in her paper, and demonstrates how each group was hunted for its honey, and nests of most groups (except honey ants) were even owned and tended (pp. 99ff, 141ff).
3. "Regurgitation" applies to honey bees but not to all other relevant taxa, so I would remove it (not critical though). I think water evaporation is most important and should be mentioned first.
4. "[Honey bee honey] is the most common" - what does this mean? This is very ill defined. I would rather say it is the most familiar, the most common in human use, or something of the like.
5. I think mentioning that there are both a broad and a narrow definition can provide a solution to the problems mentioned above (simple language etc.)

If I have the time and patience, I might elaborate on the non-Apis issues in a separate section of the article. Gidip (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

An example that always comes to mind are articles like alloy wheel. People often argue that this article should contain information about steel wheels as well, because technically steel is also an alloy. However, steel wasn't considered an alloy until recently. It was actually around the 1930s that science began to describe it as such, and the 1970s before the general population followed. The term "alloy wheel" has not yet caught up to this definition, so we have to go with the common usage of that word and define the subject accordingly.

I think it's a great idea to summarize those other types of honey here, perhaps even with a small section on them to provide a "main article" link to those other types, but this article is about a specific type. In example, the term tempering has many definitions, from the tempering of chocolate and spices to the most common definition of tempering steel. It would be unwise to have a single article for every definition of the word. Instead the linked term is a DAB page, and the most common definition is under tempering (metallurgy). According to policy (and common practice for encyclopedias since Pliny the Elder), different things that share the same name get different articles while the same thing that has many different names gets only one article. Zaereth (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

All types of honey share many characteristics in common, both biologically and from the human aspect, as the refs I have given clearly show. There is a simple definition that describes all of them and excludes other similar substances. So there should definitely be a single article dealing with the broad definition of honey and comparing its different types. The comparison in itself is important and instructive, and is an example of convergent evolution. A second article, if desired, can deal specifically with honey bee honey, since there is so much information on that specific type (maybe also a third article about meliponine honey). Gidip (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Pesticide Residue in Honey

Could this article use a section about pesticide residue and resulting health effects under the "Health Hazards" section? Noticed it wasn't included in the article and there is a fair amount of science on this topic. Elizell66 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have good sources then I don't see why not, but I'd be very careful when getting into claims about health. The way I see it (and perhaps others will have a better view) it could be handled one of two ways: 1.) It could either be a separate section just talking about pesticides and their subsequent levels, etc., and you won't have much problem, or 2.) it could be included under the Health hazards section, but then we would need descriptions of those specific hazards and extremely good sources to back them up. (And expect some debate.) Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Psychoactive honey varieties

There are a number of psychoactive honey varieties across the world. Would this warrant a section? I was thinking under the "floral source" section. Elizell66 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely to exist. The sources would have to be WP:MEDRS-quality. --Zefr (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Undue sentences in lead

Per WP:LEAD, According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. I think that the current lead reads more like a summary for a dietary supplement, than for an important foodstuff with history spanning thousands of years and important worldwide production. In particular, undue emphasis (almost a half of the lead) has been given to rather marginal medicinal issues, which make up less than a fifth of the article.

• People who have a weakened immune system should not eat honey because of the risk of bacterial or fungal infection. – taken verbatim from the text (which is OK), which is not elaborated in any way or form there (which is not OK). It seems to contradict the statement that microorganisms do not grow in honey so it dodges the question what makes it adversely related to immunocompromised persons? Maybe it comes from a MEDRS-compliant source but it's so vague to be useless. An anyway, how serious is the risk of eating honey to deserve a mention in the lead?
• Re infant botulism: the article itself admits that U.S. has much higher rates: 1.9 per 100,000 live births, which is still negligible. Where are the RS that make infant honey botulism poisoning so important to deserve a mention in the lead?

There are still other shortcomings in the lead and the article: no mention of its #Physical and chemical properties in the lead; almost no mention of beekeeping and technological proscessing; heck, the lead fails to even mention that it is liquid or viscuous. I only removed the two most glaring ones, and I don't think that the feedback "not useful" was useful. Compare and contrast with Britannica's abstract https://www.britannica.com/topic/honey . No such user (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is governed by different rules than Britannica, which sometimes has rather strange entries. Anyway the RS for the medical aspects are strong, and our article has a medical section (with three subsections) so medical content is good in the lede. Overall the lede is too short for the article, but that's no argument for making it worse in this respect. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate MEDRS, this is not a medicinal article, and medicinal and health aspects of honey are way overemphasized in the lead . And you even reverted my re-ordering into the same order as in the article text. You still didn't explain (and the article does not either) how immuno-compromising and botulism risks from honey are so important to be stressed in the lead (Botulism is not even mentioned in the lead of Canning, where it poses much greater risk) except that it's sourced to MEDRS (well, duh). While Britannica may have different rules than us, I used their abstract as a model what the most important aspects of honey are.
Anyway, I intend to expand the lead myself to cover those items, just I don't appreciate what I see as knee-jerk revert with rationale "but it's MEDRS, the holy cow"! No such user (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The only person who has mentioned MEDRS, is you. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

While getting up to speed on the recent discussions and disputes, the first thing that strikes me about the lede is the very broad definition of the first paragraph vs everything else in the article basically being about the honey from honey bees. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

@Falconjh: It is kind of rude to undo an explained good-faith change without an edit summary. MOS:LEAD#Pronunciation says that Do not include them for common English words with pronunciations that might be counterintuitive for learners (laughter, sword), along with general advice to indicate it only when not obvious. "Honey" is an everyday word whose pronunciation is well-known even to those who don't speak English. It's simply redundant and kind of lame to have it here, wikt:honey is thataway. No such user (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, only laughter and sword don't have the IPA of the MOS examples of things not needing an IPA, and that section says "For more details on the formatting of pronunciation in the first sentence, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation" which going to gives multiple examples that your link would suggest don't need it. Falconjh (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see the guidelines might have some better cross-linking or repetition. I admit the MOS:LEAD is not the first place to look at, and I didn't reference it in my edit summary. No such user (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Honey In Islam

I want to add to the religious significance of this article. I will reorganize the section into each religion and then focus on islam. I think more info can be added to the role of honey in islam, dishes that honey is used in, the medicinal value of honey in islam, and honey in the quran and hadiths.

These will be the sources i will use to get this information from

Altman, Nathaniel. "Healing Honey in Islam." The Honey Prescription: The Amazing Power of Honey as Medicine. N.p.: Healing Arts, 2010. 61-62. Print. Goldstein, Darra. "Islam." The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2015. 361. Print. Laudan, Rachel. "4. Islam Transforms the Cuisine of Central and West Asia, 800-1650 C.E." Cuisine and Empire: Cooking in World History. N.p.: U of California, 2015. N. pag. Print. Purbafrani, Abbasali, SeyedAmirhoseinb Ghazizade Hashemi, Saeed Bayyenat, Habibolah Taghizade Mogaddam, and Masumeh Saeidi. "The Benefits of Honey in Holy Quran." International Journal of Pediatrics 2 (n.d.): 67-73. Web. Roufs, Timothy G., and Kathleen Smyth. Roufs. Sweet Treats around the World. N.p.: ABC-CLIO, 2014. Print. Walvin, James. Sugar: The World Corrupted, from Slavery to Obesity. N.p.: Little, Brown Book Group, 2017. Print.Khatijajaffer (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Any content that states or implies medical effects need supporting WP:MEDRS. Your first source looks very dodgy. Alexbrn (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honey. 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/20080319080236/http://www.fjnet.com/english/society/t20061117_41041.htm to http://www.fjnet.com/english/society/t20061117_41041.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus on Medical uses

Hi Mean as custard, KH-1, and Flat Out,

I meant no offense and as far as I am aware I did not break the 3-revert rule. But, thank you Flat Out for explaining to me how to go about clearing up some miscommunications. At the moment, I am perplexed about why the content regarding using honey as a medical intervention in the case of button battery ingestions was eliminated from the section "Medical" on this page for two reasons: (1) a senior editor Zefr saw no problem with the inclusion and actually cleaned up the prose's verbosity, (2) it is a medical use as dictated by national guidelines and supported by a legitimate, highly publicized research study (see:altmetric attention score for publicity ranking amongst all 11+ million manuscripts ever tracked and the manuscript of the study for more information). I explained in detail why I was reverting the change to include this information -- it does not seem irrelevant or tangential, since it is a direct medical application of honey. Additionally, it is important for people to be aware of this new use for honey (which is officially recommended by the US-based Poison Control as originally cited, see:Poison Control Button Battery Ingestion Guideline), since it is not be an obvious one. I do not feel like my concerns are being addressed and if anything, I would appreciate if you would be clearer on your explain regarding its deletion.

Looking forward to hearing from you, --theraefactor (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to break the 3 Revert Rule to edit war. I don't have a strong opinion on this edit, however I wonder why this particular medical reference was used when there have been many.Flat Out (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Flat Out,

Thank for getting back to me so quickly. There are several medical uses already listed on the page - such as wounds and burns, antibiotic, cough, and others. And, this button battery ingestion one is noteworthy for a few reasons-

1. Pediatric button battery ingestions a major problem worldwide and can result in terrible outcomes including long term complications and death

2. there has never been an endorsed or recommended medical intervention that covers the period of time between a battery's ingestion and removal, making this a breakthrough

3. The fact that honey can be used increases the applicability and utility since honey is commonly found in the home, meaning a non-medical professional can begin prompt treatment -- making this use one that general population should know about

4. The study with the associated findings came across my facebook feed. As I looked into it further to check the validity of this treatment, I noticed the associated study received worldwide media coverage. According to Altmetric, a leading analytics company for assessing the weight of this publicity relative to other manuscript, it "has tracked 11,429,228 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric." I think this makes it noteworthy for inclusion in this page.

5. Additionally, the study seemed to have an immediate impact on the US national medical guideline for button battery ingestions that are followed and implemented in hospitals and clinical practices across the US.

So, while this might just be a use based off of one study, it already has garnered a lot of attention for the breakthrough nature of the intervention, its ease of use as a rapid intervention method that non-medical professional can implement, and its immediate clinical implementation via changes to national guidelines in the world's largest healthcare system. If this does not merit inclusion as a medical usage for honey, can you explain what does? Let me know what you think.

Thanks! theraefactor (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest the following entry;

===Button cell Ingestion===

Honey has been recommended as an intervention for Button cell ingestions, to reduce the risk and severity of injury to the esophagus that can be caused by surgical retrieval of the battery..

References

If anyone has any objections please reply. Flat Out (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flat Out,

Thank you for the time and thought you put into this. I looked at your suggestion and I have small changes to make to it. Is this revision ok?

===Button cell Ingestion==

The use of honey has been recommended as a temporary intervention for known or suspected Button cell ingestions to reduce the risk and severity of injury to the esophagus caused by the battery prior to its removal.

References

This is more accurate of a statement since the injury is caused by the battery and not its removal.

theraefactor (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ive edited yours directly (we dont normally do this but im trying to help) to put honey up front and keep it simple, the reader can learn more from the sources. Im happy with this version Flat Out (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Flat Out, I've made one more change to the version above to reflect the appropriate time period for the intervention. Does that make things to convoluted? Thank you for the help and guidance as I am new to wikipedia editing and learning my way through the process. theraefactor (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

OK you and I are in agreement, now we wait for other editors to have a say. If there is no further comment the edit can be made. Flat Out 10:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the original edit was because reference to button cell ingestion was too specific and trivial for a general article on honey. It might have a place in an article entitled "medical uses of honey", but not in this article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Mean as custard Understood. However, an article specific to "medical uses of honey" does not exist from what I could find. And, this "honey" article does include a section for medical uses, so I thought it appropriate even if I was a bit too detailed. Also, I go into more detail above on why this is not a trivial mention. Do you mind looking at that explanation as well as the proposed change that Flat Out and I worked on and letting us know your opinion? --theraefactor (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)