Talk:Grayanotoxin

Structure

I uploaded a structural diagram from the FDA's Bad Bug Book at Image:Gray.gif. If anyone can add it to the article, that would be great (I'm not experienced in adding images to articles). -lee 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

just added it, thanks for the picture Chuckos 13:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference

I read through the article from Pliny the Elder referenced in this article, and found nothing about the use of "mad honey," nor any reference to poisons, toxins, or drugs of any kind.

Can someone verify my findings, and assuming they are verified, remove the reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejaye6 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Role of toxin

Can anyone find any papers about why this toxin is in the nectar? I can't really find anything! --128.240.229.68 (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible usage of acetylandromedol as a recreational drug in Nepal?

I came across this apparent documentary that shows a certain tribe in Nepal that deliberately consumes acetylandromedol contaminated honey as a recreational drug - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10Pr0CsqOEs - One of the tribesman, Deepak - Becomes so intoxicated he cannot stand, and begins to show the numbness, weakness and breathing problems associated with an GTX1 overdose. - Is this molecule used as a recreational drug in Nepal? Can someone confirm or deny that? 69.121.101.201 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cultural References

I wanted to bring up there is a cultural reference to the show Futurama referencing the hallucinogenic properties of "Space Honey" on their episode The Sting (Futurama). Would it be possible to create a section on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamwalker936 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that the section on Mad honey intoxication be split into a separate page called Mad Honey. Where this article is about the neurotoxin, Mad Honey is well known of as a substance in its own right (containing this neurotoxin), individuals interested in researching Mad Honey would locate this information via search a lot easier if this existed as its own topic. Jammmie999 (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. Such a page could contain information about the production of Mad Honey and its interactions with culture and society, which would be a much more appropriate place for such discussions than an article titled Grayanotoxin. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Disagree. I'm not seeing a strong reason for a split here. It's not particularly long, and it fits pretty squarely in with coverage of grayanotoxin as well as redirects here, so there really aren't search issues. If the section was significantly expanded there could be a case, but I think we're a long ways from the subject dominating the article. It gives a good "In culture" section that we'd typically have for an article like this. KoA (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with splitting, having come to the page looking for the mad honey history. The biology and biochemistry of the poison and the cultural oddities and history of the production of "mad honey" are, according to usual Western categories, different subjects. At least in my own experience, it is generally much easier both to find information and to add it correctly in discreet separate articles, than in long combined ones. Long combined articles often need interdisciplinary work to be really good, which is harder. Articles that stick to one subject (for want of a better term) can be much more readily found and edited by those who have an interest in the subject matter. FloweringOctopus (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Disagree. Neither of these two topics - grayanotoxin and mad honey - is prevalent in reliable reports within the past 5 years, WP:MEDDATE. For example, this PubMed search on grayanotoxin shows no new substantial research beyond what is already described in the article. This search on mad honey found case report publications and one review of cases (which I added to the article), but otherwise no other useful sources. There is insufficient justification to split an article for two inter-related topics of little ongoing news or research interest. Zefr (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Medical scientific research is far from the only source on a cultural phenomenon like Mad Honey. It is extensively documented outside the medical field, for example this BBC documentary. A search on google yields over a million results. I could just as well argue that there should be no article on Opera, because there's no opera singers in the soccer hall of fame. 2A02:2190:200:FC6:4035:959F:3AE4:9DB (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why is WP:MEDDATE relevant to a splitting proposal? Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Both topics are medically-related and should be supported by reliable current medical sources, which by MEDDATE, should be published within the last 5 years to indicate active research and updated reviews. As neither topic appears to be under significant active research interest, there is no new reliable information to add, and therefore no justification to separate the mad honey topic into its own article. Scanning a few dozen items from a Google search on mad honey, I would classify that content as popular culture with no sources meeting WP:RS useful for adding to the article's popular culture section. Zefr (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you read some of the other comments, you'd be aware that while grayanotoxin is arguably a medical topic, "mad honey" is arguably not, as it has sociocultural and historical axes to it as a topic, and it is this that is driving this split discussion. Thus, applying WP:MEDDATE criteria to the Grayanotoxin article itself makes sense, but not to a proposed Mad honey split. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree I am unconvinced that there are sufficient sources to merit having two separate articles. Societal aspects can already be included here if reliably sourced and if the article becomes excessively long, then it can be split. SmartSE (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

1. How many sources do you think there should be, minimum, to warrant splitting?
2. How many sources do you think there actually are? Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edit

@Zefr can you explain this recent edit? 1) In particular, why did you feel the need to shuffle the position of Nepal and Turkey to Turkey and Nepal (so that Turkey appears first), wherever these two countries are mentioned? This has resulted in an article that incorrectly claims parts of Nepal are located along the Black Sea, an obviously false statement. 2) Also, why did you remove two symptoms of grayanotoxin intoxication (dizziness and weakness), and 3) why did you remove the entire paragraph starting with Prolonged sodium channel activation..., which was sourced, or 4) the sentence about the study involving experimental administration of grayanotoxin to... rats? 5) Finally, why did you remove the paragraph discussing the use of grayanotoxin as an aphrodisiac by Turkish males? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Points numbered for reference. 1) this is a copyediting issue which Plantdrew has addressed, or you could arrange further; 2) both are mentioned under 'Clinical effects'; 3) sodium channels are well-discussed and sourced in the 'Mechanisms' section; 4) the rat study was redundant to existing content/sources, WP:MEDANIMAL; 5) adequately mentioned in the 'Clinical' section. Zefr (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)