Talk:Propolis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Anthropocentrism 

message: 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 72.77.117.239 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic question 

message: Propolis
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 78.101.167.222 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propolis in Arabic 

message: How do bees make this? How do they carry it to the hive? How to they mix it; apply it? --86.16.72.219 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Production

message: 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.
ICE77 (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment and question 

message: 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)
replies: text: I recently started a conversation here  for this interested. I'll probably shift more discussion here once actual edit ideas come up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've included some composite review articles and secondary sources aligned with WP:MEDRS Studies on PubMed often include secondary sources as well, it's not all experimental studies. Hopefully that pleases everyone who stops by here every now and then Knightoften (talk) 5:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources were not WP:MEDRS quality - which don't exist for studies on propolis - but rather were MDPI journals blacklisted on WP:CITEWATCH due to predatory publishing practices. The MedlinePlus (US NLM) states "there is no good scientific evidence to support these uses", i.e., any clinical uses.  Zefr (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with the removal of journals, didn't see that they were multiple pages on WP:CITEWATCH, which is my mistake. Medline, however, did state "possibly effective" and "insufficient evidence for," which is the language I used. Since "possibly effective" can't be left in, doesn't make sense for "insufficient evidence for" to be left in as well. Since this section is such a source of contention, am removing Medline source; shortening and leaving only the originally cited book used in the rest of the article. Knightoften (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Medical evidence has a higher standard for pronouncing a treatment or drug as 'effective'. That's the point of WP:MEDRS - the quality of evidence has to be a high standard. 'Insufficient evidence' means there isn't high-quality evidence to cite in support of specific content. The statement is fine as it is, and the Medline source - which itself provides references - is adequate to represent our general position that propolis has no substantial research to imply any anti-disease effects or health benefits to humans. Zefr (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Totally understand that, just wondering why we couldn't cite Medline for its section on "possible uses." Afterall as a sidenote, this Medline page also cites the same sources blacklisted on WP:CITEWATCH Knightoften (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement of 'possible uses' for propolis doesn't meet WP:MEDASSESS. That's why we say 'insufficient evidence'. Zefr (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Search of WP:MEDASSESS shows nothing for guidelines on dealing with possible uses, but does mention that "The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it." And like I stated, Medline cites the same sources you removed which are listed on WP:CITEWATCH. Still, I'll leave this one up to you. Knightoften (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDRS 

message: Hey everyone,
My school (RPI) is doing a class project on various applications of biological materials. My group is interested in the potential use of propolis in the biomedical field, specifically it's antimicrobial properties, and will be doing extensive research on the topic through Web of Science research papers. Just wanted to give a heads up that we would like to edit this page on propolis as we continue our research! If anyone has any comments or issues please feel free to reach out,
Andreas Kontopidis Kontoa@rpi.edu  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Kontopidis (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since your plan involves changes that involve medical content, I'd like to make you aware of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), if you haven't seen it already, which describes Wikipedia's policy regarding the topic.  Please make sure your content and its sources are compliant with this policy or they may end up being removed.  Best regards, Deli nk (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming editing over the next couple months - 2018 

message: Hello!
My name is Kathy and I am in the group from RPI with the goal of editing the Propolis page. We are planning to start with some background information, particularly about how propolis is used in the beehive, and how bees make it. Next, we will discuss how propolis has been used by people in the past, particularly focusing on medical uses with its properties like antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti inflammatory, anti-tumor, etc. We will explain why propolis has such broad spectrum properties with a section on composition. The composition section will briefly explain major constituents in propolis and focus on the constituents that give propolis its biological activities. We will bring up that composition depends on the region where the propolis is located. We will discuss safety of propolis, particularly for people with allergies. We will conclude with current applications so far, and introduce new studies and cutting edge research on the potentials and explain the future of propolis. Our project is due on May 4th, so changes are coming soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathy lin (talk • contribs) 
: Since your plan involves changes that involve medical content, I'd like to make you aware of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), if you haven't seen it already, which describes Wikipedia's policy regarding the topic.  Please make sure your content and its sources are compliant with this policy or they may end up being removed.  Best regards, Deli nk (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for editing the propolis page 

message: Via WP:BRD concerning this edit, this FAO source and this BBC ref contain useful information, but the other edits by  are unsourced or derive from primary research/sources that do not meet WP:SCIRS. There are also spelling and formatting errors that require more attention in the sandbox. The edits on chemical constituents by  are based entirely on primary research, are speculative, formatted poorly, and unusable. --Zefr (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Zefr, I appreciate your concerns. Many of the sources I used to describe the structure to biological activity were from review articles, which are secondary sources. I formatted that section by the major constituents that give propolis its biological activities. The flavonoids have been well-researched, so I was able to expand specifically for each property. From the link you provided WP:SCIRS, primary research is allowed for wiki pages, and can be valuable in an article. It is important to include some new investigations and current state of art on propolis since it has potentials in future applications. --Kathy lin (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point of what Wikipedia is. It's not an indiscriminate collection of indirect information about any topic; see WP:IINFO and the first of 5 pillars. In the case of propolis and your edits, beginning particularly here, you drew conclusions from preliminary primary research about possible propolis properties which have not been proven; this is the point of WP:PRIMARY and for the numerous implied physiological or anti-disease effects of propolis chemicals, WP:MEDASSESS. Specifically, your interpretations about propolis biological properties are not scientifically tenable and amount to original research, WP:OR, which is discouraged. Further, your use of English grammar needs improvement and better checking in your sandbox, such as "The catechol groups of the flavonoids was found" and "The terpenoids are volatile compounds that is responsible". For biological and anti-disease effects to be discussed in the encyclopedia, high-quality systematic reviews are needed, as discussed in the WP:MEDRS guideline which is summarized in this tutorial. Please share it with your student colleagues. --Zefr (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on my reading of the edits made by this user, it appears that an appropriate mix of review articles and journal articles on this topic are referenced.  Based on my understanding of the literature, it is a proven fact that propolis contains flavonoids, which have been proven to display antioxidant properties. That is not speculative and it is not original research. Minor spelling and grammar issues can be fixed by any user and are not grounds for removal of an entire article... I am much more concerned, however, about your assertion that the article was plagiarised. Can you provide any details or evidence to back up this claim? I myself could not identify any clear plagiarism here. MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: An assumption in editing encyclopedia articles is that there is underlying competence of the editor for the subject, described in WP:CIR. The first edit yesterday by  here appears to derive mainly from a flavonoid source, and is based on a misunderstanding of science-based information about flavonoids in propolis, and of the principles of writing for the encyclopedia. Propolis may contain flavonoids, but the evidence is only from lab research which is not encyclopedic. Flavonoids display antioxidant properties only in test tubes, whereas there is no WP:MEDRS evidence they have roles in biological functions in vivo, leaving the discussion unencyclopedic and open to original interpretations by the editor  - WP:OR - connecting propolis flavonoids to supposed anti-disease effects. Wikipedia is not a site for publishing non-expert term papers from your class, WP:NOTESSAY, and is not a forum for a student's speculations about how something poorly understood, as propolis is, may have biological significance, WP:NOTFORUM. --Zefr (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have still not addressed the issue of your accusation of plagiarism. What evidence do you have to support this claim??? MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's correct that the activity of natural products derived from propolis has been studied in vitro, and that their efficacy in vivo is not currently known. Still, that does not mean it lacks notability. Chemists and materials scientists are very interested in the structure and properties of propolis quite apart from any medical uses. I do understand and agree that editors need to steer clear of any speculation on medicinal properties of a poorly understood and heterogenous natural product. MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:OFFTOPIC, adding weakly sourced content that propolis flavonoids or other chemicals have biological significance in vivo - or worse, suggesting actual roles in health or disease physiology - seems a long way from an RPI course on materials science. As for the statement below, I'm challenging the competence of materials science or chemistry students adding content requiring sources under WP:MEDRS. The burden of providing credible content and sources is on the editor(s) adding this information, WP:BURDEN. Lastly, the Talk page exists to improve the article, so please restrict comments per the guide at WP:TALK and WP:TALKNO. From your comments added today, I see your reasoning for adding in vitro results, but this is not encyclopedic writing; it's an attempt to make propolis chemicals more important than good science shows they are; see WP:MEDANIMAL. --Zefr (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

text: As for the broad statement that students in a classroom are unfit to edit Wikipedia, I think the folks at WikiEd would disagree. MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bee researcher, and I think it is crucially important to acknowledge a fundamental limitation of most of the research into medical properties of propolis, and editors should be appropriately critical in evaluating sources on the topic for inclusion here, specifically regarding the fact that propolis samples obtained from different beehives are never going to be chemically identical. The primary, and glaringly obvious, reason that propolis is so poorly understood is because people treat it as if it is a single, uniform substance, when it is emphatically not uniform. Propolis is less uniform in character than water is, and water is very non-uniform - pond water, ocean water, sewer water, nuclear reactor water, glacial water, rain water - you would not want to drink all of them, because you would not expect them all to have similar effects when consumed. Unless the source one is quoting is explicit regarding the actual physical source of the propolis being tested (i.e., China, Brazil, Canada, Australia, and/or which vegetation the resins came from), such studies have zero replicability, and replication is the cornerstone of the scientific method. If a study cannot be replicated, on what basis can one argue for its inclusion in Wikipedia? The point is, an edit that puts forth a generalized - and therefore false - premise such as "Propolis contains flavonoids" is a problem; on the other hand, an edit that says "Study X reported flavonoids in propolis samples from southern Brazil" is NOT a problem, because it limits the circumscription to only what the evidence supports, without generalization. As for one of User MTLE4470 EFP's comments above, if you read the flavonoid article you will note, as Zefr also mentioned, that research on flavonoids in vitro should NOT be assumed to have any relevance at all to in vivo properties; antioxidant properties in a test tube are ONLY relevant to test tubes, not human consumption. The WP:MEDRS standards should be viewed as a very high bar, and great care should be used by editors who are not in a good position to evaluate source material. It's somewhat ironic that Wikipedia has stricter standards than some journals, but as a community, WP editors have to act responsibly; where human health is concerned, we really DO NOT want to support or promote quackery. Dyanega (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you for this feedback. You make some great points. The edits should not include any claims about the in vivo efficacy of propolis. There is no evidence or clinical trials to support use in medicine and, yes, there is a great deal of quackery by some folks who want to sell the stuff as a remedy of some kind... However, there is still a lot of basic science that will be of interest to chemists and materials scientists (having nothing to do with the translational medicine aspects). Individual compounds that have been isolated from specific samples (source, species, etc) and their in vitro activity, however, does seem relevant and notable to me from a basic science perspective. There are many authoritative references with enough info to reproduce the experiment, and appear to have been performed in accordance with the scientific method MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment provided on the Talk page of  for the large proposed edit today which I reverted due to WP:CAUTIOUS and lack of consensus here, WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propolis functions 

message: Pan flute players routinely swab the tubes with propolis tincture to manage how humidity affects the tube walls and the bore of the instrument. Anecdotally, I know a player who uses propolis in this way, obviously not reliable for WP purposes. The sources I have found for this are commercial sites, mostly specialized vendors such as this one. I will appreciate comments on how appropriate and reliable this source, or others like it, may be considered for use in the context of this article. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in pan flute maintenance 

message: Article is not clear on : How is it harvested from bee hives ? historically, and for modern commerce ? From what parts of the bee hive ? How is the commercial product processed ? What commercial grades or types ('Brazilian Red' ?) are traded ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is it harvested from bee hives 

message: This edit is a direct plagiarized copy of the MedlinePlus source, WP:PLAG, and is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. I have opposed use of the Medline source because its own sources are primary research - not WP:MEDRS reviews, and there is no convincing literature to substantiate the statements. The IP user also created a formatting error which disrupted the page style, MOS:STYLE, and is edit warring beyond the 3-revert rule, WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no WP:MEDRS-quality source to indicate sufficient clinical evidence for using propolis as a therapy. The article now states it this way. Responsibility for further changes relies on WP:BURDEN for a high-quality source. Reverting the existing version by  will be evidence of further edit warring and gaining no consensus for a change by discussion here on the talk page, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism and use of the Medline source 

message: Well, I finally found some time, and found their propolis info sourcing:
*https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/search.aspx?q=propolis&go.x=0&go.y=0
*https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/search.aspx?q=propolis
*Advanced search for propolis.
Unfortunately it is buried behind a $182 minimum subscription paywall:
*https://trchealthcare.com/store/individual/natural-medicines 
They claim they are scientific evidence based in their rating system:
*https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/nmber.aspx 
The first step in this process was an in-depth, systematic appraisal and evaluation of all of the scientific evidence on over 1,250 natural medicine ingredients. A large team of experts, researchers, and health professionals has reviewed over 90,000 clinical trials and other studies. Each study is critically evaluated to determine the reliability and validity of the research based on rigorous evidence-based principles. This process continues on a daily basis to identify and evaluate the newly developing evidence.
Of course this does little good for Wikipedia without seeing the specific evidence sourcing for propolis. 
The simple search result is not consistent. This search URL seems to be better sometimes (sometimes not):
*https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/search.aspx?q=propolis
*Advanced search for propolis (with every box checked) pulls up the main page (with linked subsections) each time I have used it so far.
There is one main page on propolis:
*https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/databases/food,-herbs-supplements/professional.aspx?productid=390 
All the subsections of the main page are listed in the advanced search result. See list below. All have the same URL listed above. Along with section access via its table of contents. But they are not accessible without a subscription.
Propolis:
 Scientific Name
 Background
 Safety
 Effectiveness
 Dosing & Administration
 Adverse Effects
 Toxicology
 Interactions with Drugs
 Interactions with Herbs & Supplements
 Interactions with Foods
 Interactions with Lab Tests
 Interactions with Diseases
 Mechanism of Action
 Pharmacokinetics
 Classifications
The above searches also pull up individual products. I also just found an index of all the main pages. Here is the "P" page where propolis is listed:
*https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/databases/food,-herbs-supplements.aspx?letter=P
Maybe somebody working for the philanthropic efforts of some millionaire or billionaire will read this and convince their boss to fund this site and convince them to make everything public and free. No paywall or subscriptions. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database sources on propolis