Talk:Honey locust
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Error
editIs the following claim an error? "The strongly scented cream-colored flowers appear in late spring, in clusters emerging from the base of the leaf axils." I grew up on a lot with a honey locust and do not recall it having flowers. The sentence above sounds like it describes a black locust to me. Black locust trees do have showy, wonderful-smelling flowers. Looking elsewhere on the internet, some sites seemed to support my belief that these trees have inconspicous flowers ( http://ohiodnr.com/forestry/trees/locust_hny/tabid/5381/Default.aspx , www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/iowa_trees/trees/honeylocust.html ) but others didn't ( http://www.tytyga.com/Thornless-Honeylocust-p/thornless-honeylocust-tree.htm ). Perhaps different varieties have very different flowers? -Beastinwith (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Metrics
editWhy is just metrics used and not with the English system as is normal. We Americans do not use the Metric system. Never have, Never will. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Common name
editI reverted a change to the spelling of the subject and then checked this ngram which confirms that the current spelling is correct.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Honey plant
editActually, it is an amazingly productive honey plant when the weather cooperates and the bees can forage on it. Locust blossom honey is water white and about as flavorless as is 'honey' made from feeding the bees sugar. During periods of sunny weather the bees will pull in prodigious amounts of nectar thanks to the millions of blossoms each tree offers. But, since the tree blooms during the cool rainy season bumper crops of Locust Blossom honey are a hit or miss proposition with more misses than hits.
Revert
edit@Mark Marathon: Can you be more specific about what claims I added that you say were unreferenced? I also rearranged some information, so you may be confusing which info I added with info I merely rearranged. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can be more specific. The article contains two claims that are unreferenced due to your edits:: 1) The pulp on the insides of the pods is edible 2)the black locust is toxic. These claims be to be referenced or removed. Your choice. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- You weren't specific at all previously. I provided a source that the pulp is edible, which is the only thing I added. The part about the black locust being toxic was already in the article (I just moved it). I'll provide a source for that claim from its article. Please be careful about reverting. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- 1 )Thanks for adding the reference. 2) I don't need to be careful about reverting unreferenced claims. Policy says I can revert those whenever I see them, and I will continue to do so. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- No Mark Marathon, you do need to be careful. You didn't revert unreferenced claims, you reverted where UpdateNerd had added a reference supporting one of the two claims and then you reverted his addition in whole. That is removing referenced material. You should have placed a {{cn}} tag behind the unreferenced claim. Given that one of the points is upheld by the source, it doesn't appear that you checked it before doing what looks like a lazy revert. Policy is not on your side.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- Wrong, wrong, and wrong in that order. I never reverted where UpdateNerd had added a reference supporting one of the two claims. I shouldn't have placed a {{cn}} tag behind the unreferenced claim, that's an option, not mandatory. And I certainly checked before doing the revert. But whatever makes you feel good. Mark Marathon (talk)
- Mark Marathon, he added <ref>{{cite book |last=Little |first=Elbert L. |title=The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees: Western Region |year=1994 |origyear=1980 |publisher=Knopf |isbn=0394507614 |edition=Chanticleer Press|p=495}}</ref> to support that sentence. Try searching this article version for "The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees" (it isn't there as a ref but is in the 'Further reading' section) and then search in this version where he added it to that sentence and cited page 495. You weren't careful, you did remove his reference and you didn't check it which is apparent. He tried to tell you and you argued past him. You were careless and then pompous while doing it so I don't mind feeding it back to you since you wrote that garbage above. You should have added a {{cn}} to the part that had the black locust as toxic but not revert the edit in whole. To be clear, I stepped in as an admin and gave you a warning, so if I see you do it again so carelessly somewhere or give the "I didn't hear that" attitude, I will block you for it.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC) - It isn't there as a ref. Enough said. Making pompous and incorrect announcements, telling editors they are violating policy when they are not, and then threatening to block people when they call you on it. Nice behaviour for an admin. I'm sure you will find plenty of reasons for blocking regardless of what I may actually do, since oyu clealry do not like being made to look foolish. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- We'll see what happens at your talk page and whether you get a clue. Blocked.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- We'll see what happens at your talk page and whether you get a clue. Blocked.
- Mark Marathon, he added <ref>{{cite book |last=Little |first=Elbert L. |title=The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees: Western Region |year=1994 |origyear=1980 |publisher=Knopf |isbn=0394507614 |edition=Chanticleer Press|p=495}}</ref> to support that sentence. Try searching this article version for "The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees" (it isn't there as a ref but is in the 'Further reading' section) and then search in this version where he added it to that sentence and cited page 495. You weren't careful, you did remove his reference and you didn't check it which is apparent. He tried to tell you and you argued past him. You were careless and then pompous while doing it so I don't mind feeding it back to you since you wrote that garbage above. You should have added a {{cn}} to the part that had the black locust as toxic but not revert the edit in whole. To be clear, I stepped in as an admin and gave you a warning, so if I see you do it again so carelessly somewhere or give the "I didn't hear that" attitude, I will block you for it.
- Wrong, wrong, and wrong in that order. I never reverted where UpdateNerd had added a reference supporting one of the two claims. I shouldn't have placed a {{cn}} tag behind the unreferenced claim, that's an option, not mandatory. And I certainly checked before doing the revert. But whatever makes you feel good. Mark Marathon (talk)
- No Mark Marathon, you do need to be careful. You didn't revert unreferenced claims, you reverted where UpdateNerd had added a reference supporting one of the two claims and then you reverted his addition in whole. That is removing referenced material. You should have placed a {{cn}} tag behind the unreferenced claim. Given that one of the points is upheld by the source, it doesn't appear that you checked it before doing what looks like a lazy revert. Policy is not on your side.
- 1 )Thanks for adding the reference. 2) I don't need to be careful about reverting unreferenced claims. Policy says I can revert those whenever I see them, and I will continue to do so. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- You weren't specific at all previously. I provided a source that the pulp is edible, which is the only thing I added. The part about the black locust being toxic was already in the article (I just moved it). I'll provide a source for that claim from its article. Please be careful about reverting. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Add impact in South America
editSimilarly to what happens with Australia, honey locust have been introduced to the plains of Argentina (and probably Uruguay), where it's considered a plage. The thorns damage cattle's hooves, it competes and outmatches native species and there's a permanent battle against honey locust groves HalogenII (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)