|WikiProject Agriculture / Beekeeping||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Dietary Supplements||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Insects / Hymenoptera||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I have smelled the bridges of new violins manufactured in Poland in the early 21st century. They smell like a beehive, and I have no doubt that the wood was sealed with a spirit solution of propolis. Just plain Bill 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the edit of 22:49, 3 February 2006 by 188.8.131.52, it seems a bit effusive, a bit like a sales pitch. I intend to tone it down a bit in a day or so, if someone else doesn't get there first. Just plain Bill 04:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This article doesn't make sense. In one sentence, it says that the benefits of propolis can't be measured because its composition varies so widely, and in the next it says "Propolis is rich in flavonoids". How can you say that if you can't say that propolis will always be made from the same substance?184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see where it says that. It does say, "Poplar resin is rich in flavanoids." __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, propolis has uses and health benefits for bees themselves. Humans then steal it for human use. I put "human use" explicitly in the headers, to avoid adopting an overly human POV, but Tktktk took this out again. --RichardVeryard (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey RichardVeryard. Sorry, my intention was merely to fix the section headers, as the standard format is to use two = signs for the main headers rather than one. While fixing this, I also removed the overarching "Human uses" section, since its only purpose was to hold the other two sections. Now, your statement on my talk page was that assuming "use" means "human use" is POV, and I can see your point there. However, I think it is safe to assume that "medical/commercial uses" in this context means "human medical/commercial uses" (particularly since there is already a "Purpose" section specifically for the bees' uses), so I think the current POV of the article should be okay. tktktk (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What we obviously need to do is recruit some bees to share their views about propolis's medicinal properties. And maybe some pine trees to tell how they feel about bees appropriating their resin. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- More like birch trees and others, but that remark is just silly. The bees have made their views known by using the stuff. Sustainable resin extraction is one thing, and drastic extraction prior to cutting down the tree is another. Humans do both, and the trees have not made their objections known. Your thoughts? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Under the section labeled "As a dental anti-plaque agent", there is a part which reads "there is some evidence that propolis may actively protect against caries and other forms of oral disease". My question is this: Would English-speakers in Britain, Australia, etc. be just as confused by the word "cavities" as Americans are by "caries"? So far, I have never heard cavities called caries, except on wikipedia. Is it the case then, that they're only called cavities in America? I'm just curious, because if British, Australian, etc. readers would understand the word "cavities" it would be a better choice, as many more readers would understand the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
"Caries" is a technical dental term for tooth decay. It isn't a plural (like cavities is). That is, you can't have one "cary." Caries is a synonym for decay and you can have caries which does not involve cavities. See Dental caries--Sbreheny (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It should rather say, "Tooth Decay" than Caries. The synonym is not widely known to those outside of the dentistry profession.
Propolis in Arabic
In fact, I found the information very useful though some add that propolis has medical and healing effects since it is used as a defence by bees. They say it does the same to all viruses and bacteria that may invade humans and cause diseases. I cannot verify these things. But, I would like to add the Arabic word for "popolis". It may be added to the dictionary for future use by learners or researchers. The Arabic for "Propolis" is: (عُكـْبُر), pronounced: approximately /'ukbur/[ the glottal stop or plosive Arabic sound / ع /, followed by the short vowel sound "u" which sounds like the (oo) in "book" + k + a new syllable beginning with a "b" followed by the short vowel sound "u" + trilled "r" or the usual "r" sound found in the Arabic consonant inventory.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment and question
The last sentence in the "As an antioxidant" and in the "In cancer treatment and cancer prevention" sections is somewhat redundant.
Would makes propolis gum? It would be nice if the company name was provided.
The medical science claims in this article are mostly supported by WP:MEDRS-incompatible sources. Just dumping every study on Pubmed with the word "propolis" in it does not make an encylcopedia article. I would recommend that only secondary sources (reviews & textbooks) are used. If a particular research avenue is not covered in secondary sources it is probably best left out. JFW | T@lk 10:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)