Talk:Honey locust

Is 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

Why 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

I 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

Actually, 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.

74.62.152.171 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Revert

@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)