Talk:Beekeeping in Ireland

Pressures on bees

Anyone have any idea what the second sentence relating to the "Woodland Act" is referring to? Without any source, nor additional information I cannot track it down. Therefore I think this sentence should be deleted - which would mean that this section should really be renamed 'Bee Diseases and Pests', later Poisoning (linked to Pesticides) could be added. Also if anyone has good sources on the introduction of Varroa in Ireland it would be greatly appreciated, there's plenty about Varroa, but a dearth of info. on it's introduction into Ireland.Bibby (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

FIBKA re-write by (FIBKA Secretary) Gus McCoy on 27th March 2020

Hello Gus McCoy, (FIBKA Secretary) you have essentially deleted the entire FIBKA section on this wiki page and replaced it with six paragraphs / sentences, all of which are unsourced, while the previous section (before the 27th) had numerous sources cited. You need to add sources for all six of these sentences (with possible multiple sources for each sentence) and put forward a good explanation as to why this (your) version is an improvement on what was there previous, especially when you have removed a lot of information and appear to have added statements which may be subjective and difficult to corroborate, i.e. you have made the claim that FIBKA is the "most progressive beekeeping organisation on the Island of Ireland", there are more beekeeping organisations than those listed on this wiki page and I am sure more than we are both aware of in Ireland, what is a "progressive beekeeping organisation", so that statements accuracy and objectivity may be called into question. If you want we can get another (more senior) wiki editor to try and help us to sort this out? I'll give you a couple of days to try and get the sources added and for you to form a reply here, otherwise I'm going to revert it back to how it was, assuming you don't object (here in this Talk page) otherwise we'll call in an Editor to help us resolve this. --Bibby (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

hi again, just noticed that you clicked on "minor edit", you maybe shouldn't have done that as deleting all those sources wasn't minor; which is why I'm trying to start a discussion with you in the hope that we can work together to get something we're both happy with.

Also I see that you deleted my most recent edit for this wiki article which was actually a request for a Source, but you haven't then provided a Source, usually if one is going to deleted a request for a source it would only be done when a source was going to be provided - talking of sources, to help you on, you might want to look at some of the several sources that you deleted, as they may be able to be re-used (I haven't gone through them, that's your responsibility, you made the edit, etc.), but you will need to find extra sources for the other claims you have made.Bibby (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

NIHBS edit / re-write by Jjgetty (NIHBS Northern Irish representative) on 29th April 2020

Hi Jjgetty (NIHBS Northern Irish representative)

you have made substantial edit / deletion of information in the "Native Irish Honey Bee Society (NIHBS)" section of this page, but have not attempted to start a discussion about it on this Talk page first, which may have been best practice.

I can see you fixed a mistake that was in the section, you have changed the word "resistance" to "tolerance" which is the word used in the Source cited, thank you for picking up on that, if you are going to use dictionary definitions then there is a difference.

However you have marked your edits with a "m" for minor, these are not minor edits, please do not do that.

Can you explain (line by line would be best or maybe just a general statement to get us started here) why you decided to do such a major edit and delete so much objective / relevant information?

Also I see that you have made some claims which I cannot find in the Sources cited, for example you added the phrase "...bees being kept by NIHBS members were amongst the purest Amm in Europe", I think it would be best to give the percentages as the phrase "purest in Europe" is not in the Source, and you would need to define the phrase "amongst the purest" in this context. I did a word search for NIHBS and only found this sentence "But certainly, amongst the beekeepers in the NIHBS these are the predominant type of A. m. mellifera here", we really should include that in the section (it's referring to the fact that they're Dutch bees), but as you see there is no reference to "purest".

I'll give you a couple of days to reply to me, otherwise I'll do an Undo to your edit. If you disagree with that then please join me on this Talk page and we'll work this out; otherwise we can get another more experienced Wiki Editor to try and arbitrate between us. Bibby (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, just noticed that you stripped down Reference 56 (at present) down to "https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218839.2018.1433949" which is just a link without any of the necessary info. required for citing a Reference, it used to be "Native Irish Honey Bee Society (NIHBS); E. Moore.; G. Soland; G. McCormack NIHBS Secretary; J. Hassett; K. Browne; M. Geary (2018). "A significant pure population of the dark European honey bee (Apis mellifera mellifera) remains in Ireland". Journal of Apicultural Research. 57 (3): 337–350. doi:10.1080/00218839.2018.1433949" which is full info. and therefore I am going to have to revert this one back.

Also I see that you have actually removed one of the Sources / References, what was your objection to it? Bibby (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to add yet another paragraph to this, but I've only just realised you have removed the last part of a sentence with the Source for the sentence??? So you have actually removed the Executive Summary (the conclusion) of the referred to Research, which is most strange, in fact from trying to understand your motives for this significant Edit / Deletion it appears you are removing information relating to the conclusions / findings of Scientific Research initially advocated, funded and co-authored by NIHBS? Please, I really want to reach a concensus between us to improve this Wiki Page, but how can removing this information add value to the Page? It almost looks like targeted vandalism! Bibby (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of IBBA sub section?

Hi all, I've had a look at the web pages and tried searching on social media and reaching out to beekeepers who are familiar with the area where the IBBA is based in Co. Lietrim, and it appears that this organization may have fallen by the way side, meaning that it is now not functioning in the manner advertised? Does anyone have info on this? An individual saying that 'oh yes we're still here and active' and no evidence of activity since 2014 does not maybe justify a paragraph which may be somewhat misleading to visitors to this wiki page. I do not want to delete it, as it could be said to give balance to the page, but one individual (not the same that set up the website, etc.) importing Buckfast bees and then selling them on does not warrant this type of entry on this wiki page. Please if anyone can express their opinion on this subject I would be very appreciative. I'll leave this Talk open for some time in the hope that I can get a second opinion, failing that I'm inclined to delete the subsection for the IBBA. --Bibby (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I should have updated this Section; basically since posting the above paragraph I've discovered that this Group is active but with a low social media presence, there appears to be an active and growing number of beekeepers in Ireland keeping Buckfast bees, but they seem to keep themselves to themselves, so I decided to keep this up. Bibby (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have recently discovered that the growth of imports of non-A.m.mellifera bees into Ireland over the past five years has increased from about 200 to about 1000 per year, made up of Buckfasts and Carnica's. Due to this increased interest I am now inclined to add a sub-section for the "Irish Buckfast & Carniolan Beekeepers" group, their membership is on par with the NIHBS when they were first given their own sub-section some years back, so I think it's fair that we add one for them as well, I would imagine it's only going to be two lines or so. Bibby (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just randomly checking the Links, etc. on this page and I've discovered that the Links for the IBBA seem to be dead, it could just be a temporary thing, but without any additional info. I'll have to delete the section. However I've checked online and as of as late as tonight there is still passing reference to the beekeepers in the area promoting Buckfast bees? If anyone can shed any light on this it would be appreciated. Bibby (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So, I've gone ahead and deleted the IBBA section. We need sources for wiki and I couldn't get any up to date sources for it.Bibby (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been thinking about tagging 'Breeding Groups' to the end of this Section, but there are so many informal ones that I don't think it would be practical - however the GBBG is clearly very significant in this aspect so maybe they should have a small subsection... but they are already mentioned in the creation of NIHBS, so I'm in two minds? Bibby (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

a Section for genetics?

There's an increasing amount of DNA/genetic research/publications, etc. coming out on the bees in Ireland, much is independant of the NIHBS, so should not really be included in their sub section: Essentially I have enough which I think I can get condensed down to three or four lines, so I'm thinking of creating a Section "DNA Research" on it's own (suggestions of other titles for the Section are welcome); this would mean that I would remove the middle and largest paragraph in the NIHBS sub section and add it to the DNA section. I'll work over the next week or so to put it together. Any suggestions or Links to other research not already referenced on this wiki page would be helpful --Bibby (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So I've added the New Section for Research, but decided not to limit it to just genetics (although it will be dominated by that) as there is other research I want to condense and add here and yet more research being published (literally as I type) which is more to do with surveys, etc. I've also deleted some write up from the NIHBS section and added it here. Research (especially genetics) is becoming a big thing in Beekeeping, especially in Ireland, so this section could get quite large --Bibby (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Galtee Vee Valley area) 45.11.102.132 (IP address) deletion for NIHBS section

Hello there 45.11.102.132 (Galtee Vee Valley area) I see you're from the Republic of Ireland, and you have decided to delete a significant portion from the section "Native Irish Honey Bee Society (NIHBS)", can you explain why, as the part you have deleted is findings from their own (part funded / part authored) DNA research into their own bees (the research focused primarily on A. m. mellifera - Black Bees - which in turn focused on their own members bees I believe), so it is somewhat unfair to this organization to delete something which was / is so important to them (they had lobbied / worked towards getting the research done for some years previous). Can you explain your reason please?

I have suggested on this Talk page that I should create a section dedicated to DNA research into bees in Ireland, in which a large proportion of what you have deleted would be moved to, but I don't think it should be deleted without it then being placed into a new section. DNA research has become a very important part of beekeeping in Ireland and deserves to be included on this page.

I'm going to Undo your deletion, please don't delete it again, otherwise I'll bring in an arbitrator to help us sort this out, if you don't agree with my actions then let's Talk here, in the meantime your actions will spur me to create that new DNA section, hopefully I'll get this done in the next few days, which I hope will satisfy you? --Bibby (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance Template, January 2022

Hello everybody, I see that a Maintenance Template has been added to the top of this Wiki Page, so I thought I better create a Section for discussion about it on the Talk Page, so here it is. If we could state clearly What and Where, in the Page is the exact issue(s) then we can address them one at a time. The present description in the Maintenance Template is not precise enough for me to be able to highlight exactly Where and Which sentences are the issue. Bibby (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to User:SeoR for the template and initial edit. Much of the article is still deeply problematic. To start with, the section on Honeybee pests, diseases and poisons is verbose, repeating comments on the basis of poor science or no science; it should instead provide a brief synopsis of the agreed facts. Under Organisations, we have an embarrassing record of squabbles over inadequate science especially relating to "native" honey bees. And under Honey Bee Research in Ireland, we have a barely-readable mishmash of poor research and strong opinions. As for the Protection of the Native Irish Honey Bee Bill 2021, this is a private members bill that is still in its second stage. Subject to consensus, we could include a long discourse on the implications of and arguments for and against this Bill, but personally I wouldn't think it appropriate for an encyclopedia and would merely provide a link or two. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Richard Keatinge great to have your input, I'll break down your feedback/comments into point form for ease of discussion:

1. I'm a bit surprised at your "verbose" description of 'Honeybee pests, diseases and poisons', I've asked a couple of beekeepers if it's ok and have received positive feedback that it gives a good overview within an Irish context (I understand that this doesn't mean it's good enough for Wiki), Varroa is a major issue in beekeeping and Acarine casts a very long shadow on the island even today, it was a major event. As for AFB and EFB I thought the information provided placed the seriousness within the Irish context well, I was talking to a beekeeper in Ireland recently and he expressed grave concern that the bee Inspectors weren't being funded enough to keep ontop of the diseases. If you could give the sentences which you believe are based on "poor science or no science" then I can have a look at the cited Sources for you, but surely we must include first hand accounts and descriptions from Beekeepers experiences to place these issues in an Irish context?

2. The section for Organizations is difficult and I see what you mean. As for the science relating to "Native" honey bees, we need to tread a careful line; surely we want to express the opinion of an organization ie: "we keep the Native bee" while not allowing Wiki to take sides, hence I think the use of Quote Marks "" is important as it shows the Source is being quoted from, but not actually saying the claim that the bees in question are "Native". It's a major problem in Ireland from what I've been told, I was told by a Beekeeper from Scotland that one of the main issues causing FIBKA's split was because of this very issue of "Native" bees, but I've not found any clear sources for that except the IBA (the breakaway organization) emphasizing they welcome beekeepers no matter what type of bee they keep. This squabbling appears to be part of the beekeeping community and affects beekeeping in Ireland significantly; squabbling and splits in Political parties are important parts of their relevant Wiki pages, so I feel it should be part of this page as well. If you don't think we should be providing info. on this aspect of Beekeeping in Ireland could you explain why? Or do you have any suggestions how it can be represented better?

3. The Honey Bee Research in Ireland is focused on very niche and complicated subjects, revolving increasingly around genetics, they are now a major part of the beekeeping community, for example in 80% of the Conferences or AGMs (their details / schedules are usually published online), the main speaker is usually (re)presenting a Paper on DNA. These Papers are very long and complicated, and therefore difficult to condense, I'm sure you've read some of them, "barely-readable" is a phrase that springs to mind (I've viewed one of these lectures for over two hours), was it 3 Q's or was it QQQQ?! As for your comment that they are "poor research" they are peer reviewed and published. I think I understand what you mean by "strong opinions", but when you have Beekeeping organizations in Ireland citing these Papers as proof that their bee is such and such, in direct contradiction of the actual Ppaers they are citing!! then the findings / conclusions of the Papers need to be put forward in a (maybe tactless) forth-right and lay-terms wording, to avoid misunderstanding.

4. I was under the impression that the 'Protection of the Native Irish Honey Bee Bill 2021' was a major deal, some people are certainly making a big song and dance about it! And I thought that this was going to be a thing, you seem to know more about the process than me... but Richard my friend, just think about it;

A) IF (small word big meaning) this Bill becomes Law, it will have a MAJOR impact on Beekeeping in Ireland, it will cause a significant rift within the community, especially North and South!

and

B) if it doesn't become Law (which I think you are implying as it has a long way to go) it tells Wiki readers a LOT about the beekeepers (and their organizations) wanting it to become law, it's like explaining the position of a political party by explaining the contents and consequences of Bills proposed by that political party.

But you think we should trim it down a bit? This could be a repeated series of attempts, which eventually might be successful in some form, don't we have a duty to clearly present it on this Wiki page? But IF I haven't changed your mind on the importance of having this size of a Section, do you want me to start trimming it down, so we could meet in the middle on a compromise size?

Bibby (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging, Is123Biblio, and I note that you have done a lot of work on this article over time. The challenges are several, but the most serious is that the article seems to have become itself embroiled in the discussions within Irish beekeeping, and there remain "argument elements" in the text, which is not OK - a good example would be the sub-section on the letter about the Bill, which states positions, and then refutes some. My own assessment, after reviewing thousands of articles for WikiProject articles, is that there is a lot of good material here, but there is also some opinion, some unclarity, some repetition, and some external battling, and all of these do need to be tackled. On a couple of points you highlight the importance of capturing beekpeer experience, and I see your point, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research (I know, that can be frustrating), it has to be a place where users can come for an initial summary of settled points, and a pointer to deeper sources and contentious areas. So there is no issue having some account of disputes, some coverage of a potentially impactful new law, etc., but we need to be careful of tone and sourcing for these. The whole matter of the "native Black Bee", which has reached the general public, is tricky - there appear to be many who hold a genuine belief in its continued (and endangered) existence, but this latest genetic work seems to raise some doubts, so this needs great sourcing and really skillful editing to present well. With all these matters, I would say the article is back to C grade now, but with, absolutely, the material for B, and in fact the potential for even higher if someone can just take a scalpel and a copyediting kit to parts. It is not a topic on which I have deep knowledge but I am happy to support the process, and will not down-rate the article for now. SeoR (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you friend, that's an extremely positive response, from yourself SeoR and also Richard Keatinge, I'm REALLY encouraged now, especially with the prospect of having this page upgraded to a potential A maybe. I think what I will do, is start trimming down the paragraphs, etc. I'll start with the easy bits first and work my way up to the more difficult ones... if you're ok with that: I'll draw your attention to my Edits and reasoning on this Talk page.

"Copy-editing - is the process of revising written material to improve readability and fitness" etc, ah now I see from where Richard and you are coming from, we need to make this page more encyclopedic in nature, and more readable to non-anoraks (I'm proud to be an anorak!).

Well, this is going to take some time, might as well get started, little bits at a time.Bibby (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Copy-editing for Honey Bee Research in Ireland section, ref: Maintenance Template, January 2022

So, little bits at a time! I'm trimming down the 1960's Beowulf Cooper paragraph, to keep it focused on the purpose of the page, like I said starting of with little bits, which I don't think are going to be controversial! Bibby (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited the paragraph for the 2005 research, took a lot of number crunching and time, condensed into four lines!Bibby (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited the 2007 All-Ireland Morphometry Survey paragraph.Bibby (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited the 2015 (feral bee) Study.Bibby (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited the 2017 "Resilient Bee" research.Bibby (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Trimmed 2017 "Varroa Tolerance".Bibby (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Tried editing last two 2017/18 and 2021 pieces of research, these are by far the most important papers published in Ireland in the past 30 years. More research is due to be published based on them, which could prove to be very significant for Irish beekeeping; therefore I feel we shouldn't trim them down any further.Bibby (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I would like to see them as references in themed sections, including appropriate introductions for newcomers, rather than stand-alone items that the typical encyclopedic reader with no prior knowledge of the subject will find very difficult to put into context. We will see how we progress. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Beekeeping in Ireland edit, 22:42, January 15, 2022

Hi Richard thanks for your continued help with the Beekeeping in Ireland wiki page, but from quickly reading it there are quite a few things I need to ask / discuss with you.

The section "Possible survivors of the previous bee population";

1. I don't understand the reasoning for putting details about a book published in the 1980s, citing research done in the 1960s here, what's its relevance with "survivors" of bees from pre-1912? Just because the (Dutch) Amm happens to be the dominant bee in Ireland doesn't necessarily mean it was the sub-specie or strain that was here before 1900 (I strongly believe it was, but I can't say that as there's no evidence.. yet), all his research showed is that they had a good genetic diversity with the vast majority of the DNA likely being Amm. So I'm not sure of the relevance?

Good point. I've put the morphometry studies in their own section. They're unreliable for genetics - modern DNA study does this much better - but they do seem to be part of the background that persuades many that there's something special about their own bees. Incidentally "species" is its own plural; specie is a separate word that means coin money. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

2. Can you give me the citation for your statement "finding a broad diversity of wing detail".

I may have got this wrong, because I don't have the source, but if Beowulf Cooper was studying wing detail there's not much else that he could have found a diversity of. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

He found a single Standard Deviation of 0.2 (Mean is 1.82) for the Cubital Index, for close to 75% of the bees, this shows a small diversity of Cubital Index (measurement of a Wing Vein) across the population, meaning the population is broadly of A m mellifera (75% plus), but with a broad genetic diversity within them.Bibby (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

3. Can you explain the use of the phrase "near native" - surely we should be using scientific terminology, or if we wish to use nick names / layman terms (like near native) then we need to define it scientifically: Remember the internationally recognized definition of 'Native Fauna' - a specie, sub-specie or lower taxon which has arrived into a region (geographic or political) by itself, without the aid of humans intentional or otherwise (I need to update the "Prehistoric Ireland: Glaciation and the Palaeolithic" wiki page and give the most recent research findings from sea bed core samples taken, which have finally settled this debate about a mythical land bridge, I just haven't had time to wade through all the Papers yet).

Indeed, do we need a section in this article on the various uses and abuses of the word "native"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to your updating on the land bridge idea - it's a fascinating question, so many species, indeed whole ecosystems, did make it over that some sort of fairly direct connection seems a necessary concept, but the geology makes the land bridge idea very difficult. And of course honey bees, snakes, magpies etc did not cross over in prehistory. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

AH my friend you are indeed being Very BOLD!

That could be quite divisive. There has been members from the NIHBS which have tried to delete the references to the Scientific Research which discovered their bees are Dutch, I and other members changed it back (I tried to engage them), we could open Wiki up to effective vandalism if we create an actual Sub-Section for it.... soo... I think (I could have my mind changed on this) that we maybe should just state within an existing Section the definition for "Native". Although in typing I am now not so sure, maybe you're right, we could add a Sub-Section for the definition of Native with a possible explanation for why it's so controversial or something? I want the Wiki page to be fair and balanced, and also to be seen as such, but it is difficult whenever beekeepers appear to be trying to delete references to their bees in scientific papers...?Bibby (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

4. Again I'm not sure of the relevance in this section of research done in 2007 on GBBGs bees, confirmed in 2018 research, to be directly descended from imports after 1923 from the Netherlands?

It isn't, I'm wondering if we need anything on wing morphometry at all. Insofar as it feeds into the widespread and fervently-held idea that there's something very special about (some) bees in Ireland, maybe we do. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

From reading the various literature, it appears the purpose of these studies is to try and convince people that the bees of Ireland are unique (while the research says they're not), BUT these Studies do form an increasingly important part of the beekeeping community and therefore should be included: What is VERY interesting, is that they are actually over time showing a steady decrease in genetic diversity throughout the island, but especially around the breeding centres of the NIHBS, so I think, for these reasons, it is important to be on the page.Bibby (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

5. The last sentence of the first paragraph refers to varroa resistance, which has nothing to do with the old IoW disease.

Indeed. I'll move it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

6. Finally the last sentence refers to a FIBKA policy for the Amm, which I don't see having a connection to pre-Acarine days in Ireland.

Indeed. Since I can't find it on the FIBKA web site and I'm not sure quite what they mean, I'm inclined to remove it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I remember reading it somewhere, if it was on the page I would have made sure there was a Source for it, maybe they have changed the Link to their Constitution or something, I'll have a hunt about for it, it would be an important thing about them to have included in their description.Bibby (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also did you intend to finish the section "Varroa" with a comma and what appears to be mid sentence?

No :-) Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

NIHBS section, 23rd Jan. 2022

(this new Section has been created from the above Section for ease of reading and discussing)

Finally I had to take two, when looking at the "Native Irish Honey Bee Society(NIHBS)" section; it's almost all quote which I missed at first due to it's length... it now seems that Wiki is placing this entire quote out there, as is, as if the claims in the statement are facts? Meaning the manner in which it is placed there is misleading. Let me show you (highlights added by me for ease of reading):

"The native Irish honey bee is part of the subspecies

the "Native..Bee" being referred to here is the A m mellifera, it's not part of a subspecies as if it's in some way separate, it is a subspecies (their wording implies it's a Strain - lower taxon, as evidenced by their next sentence). Also one could raise an issue over the use of the word "Native", but that's why I preferred to place the word or short phrase containing the word Native in Quotes to make sure it was clearly a quote, not wiki making a claim.

that evolved in northwestern Europe,

the most recent research in 2020 has concluded it evolved around the northern Caspian Sea, and then migrated into Europe.

and research supported (financially that is) by DAFM and NIHBS confirmed unambiguously in 2018 that it is genetically distinctive.

Unique alleles were found, test any bee anywhere and you will find the same, the author of that Paper actually goes out of his way to point out that the NIHBS were actually keeping Dutch bees, matches were obtained with the European Gen Bank.

This distinctiveness contributes the traits

There is no distinctiveness, the research found the Haplotype were Dutch.

that make it the bee most adapted to Ireland’s climate and weather patterns.

they're trying to describe the word phenotype here, the 2018 Paper being cited doesn't even mention that word. The closest it comes to any of these type of claims is the sentence "Smaller exclusively Irish sub-clusters were identified in both microsatellite and mitochondrial networks, which may indicate locally adapted ecotypes within the Irish population"

Nevertheless, the bee is vulnerable to external threats, principally hybridization with bees from a different genetic stock

Research from Poland 2013 and now Ireland 2020 (publically available, but not yet published in a Paper) have both found that A m mellifera virgin queens do NOT mate with NON-A m mellifera Drones (this one is a real head scratcher, and no one can figure out why, it might have something to do with mating habits, but I digress!)

and to diseases that might be imported with bees from abroad."

this part is right, although I'm not too sure what else could be imported!!! And yet they have now stated that the do NOT oppose the importation of A m mellifera bees, just non-A m mellifera bees, which makes this 'importing diseases from abroad' argument somewhat contradictory

You see the problem with that simple 3 1/2 line sentence! One can see the minefield that one has to walk!

Anyway, that's a long Post and there's lot more to deal with, it's late so we'll just bite off this chink first.Bibby (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bibby, many thanks for this long and constructive comment. This subject is indeed a minefield. Can we continue discussion on its talk page? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Good idea; Thanks for the positive response... breaking the Wiki page up into smaller Sections, such as you're doing, does make it more readable, so I think we're on the right track.Bibby (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bibby, I have undone the piece you input from 2013 in Poland, (Ireland publically available, but not yet published in a Paper ?)

You also neglect to add in the piece at the end of this article .... "A lower than expected proportion of hybrids in places where AMM and AMC are kept in sympatry [yes, and now with studies directly examining this phenomenon we have better explanations of why there are "lower than expected..."] (Soland-Reckeweg et al. 2009; own observations)[this paper is one of the first to raise the possibility of a hybrid barrier - we still don't know what is causing it?] can be related not only to the reproductive isolation but also to the lower fitness of the hybrids.[this is an assumption of the authors, equally their results could be explained by virgin Amm not readily mating with non-Amm drones] In the warmer coastal regions of Tasmania, AMM readily hybridised with A. m. ligustica,[in these regions there are commercial beekeepers, regularly requeening with Aml, their daughters were hybridizing with the Amm drones further inland] but in cooler mountain regions there was much less hybridisation and AMM was more abundant[the paper clearly discusses the non requeening of these hives and non importation bees, bearing in mind the more modern findings that Amm do not hybridize then this is an alternative explanation for the disparity on the island - one which, in light of more modern research, directly addressing this issue, is more reasonable] (Oldroyd et al. 1995).[this research discusses a Conservation Area called a Sanctuary (for Amm) which is NOT geographically isolated, showing that the only thing Amm beekeepers need to do if they want to keep pure (high %)Amm bees, is just rear their own queens - I'll have to include this fact somewhere..] Selective survival of subspecies in various environments was also observed in South America where African and European honey bee subspecies have been introduced (Sheppard et al. 1991).[we're dealing with a phenomenon of the Amm so I don't think this paper is relavant]

The partial reproductive isolation reported here between AMM and AMC may facilitate the protection of AMM. Even in the absence of spatial isolation, a relatively large proportion of colonies can be maintained pure. Moreover, hybrids and non-native bees can be further eliminated by natural selection, as pure AMM may be better adapted to the environment within its native range."[both these sentences are conjecture (note the use of the word "may" twice), not supported by cited research, however the findings of this paper and others (Amm are not hybridizing) are a more complete explanation]

I have only undone what you added and not added to what was there before as you have only added in what you see as obviously a biased and not unbiased piece, I did not add anything after undoing this part, , Perhaps you could add in the complete article that states as above. I am only trying to publish the referenced actual facts on these Honey Bee Types, to make our page somewhat more balanced. I am sure you will agree that only picking out selective paragraphs is not a balanced read for Wikipedia readers. I do not care if AMM may be better adapted to the environment within its native range, or if its another type of bee, But if you Quote from an article and try to put down this particular Honey Bee when it states this at the end piece, that is not a balanced piece to present to the reader.

REF: Oldroyd, B.P., Cornuet, J.M., Rowe, D., Rinderer, T.E., Crozier, R.H. (1995) Racial admixture of Apis mellifera in Tasmania, Australia: similarities and differences with natural hybrid zones in Europe. Heredity 74, 315–325 Thor909 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thor909, thanks for the input, this could get a bit difficult to follow, but I'll try my best for others to understand the discussion as well.

I'll add my comments to your above quote from the Polish study in bold as this will help you understand why I have not referenced what it is attempting to say in this Wiki page (also you will find if you give, what others consider, excess detail it will end up being deleted!)

I'll give you time to digest the above comments I've made in bold, BUT yes you are right, at the very least I should mention this paper as well, in that it also supports that Amm are not readily mating with non-Amm (when viewed in light of the recent studies) ALSO this paper should be cited in the sentence about Conservation Areas being established in Ireland (and in Britain and elsewhere in Europe), in that these Areas aren't needed, if the local beekeepers just rear their own queens: I was aware of this Paper but had forgotten that it mentioned a Sanctuary of Amm's, thanks again for bringing it to our attention.Bibby (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I really should have asked you what you thought the authors were trying to say in the portion that you copy and pasted? If we're going to include the essence of it (without contradicting more recent specific research into this question/issue), it needs to ideally be less than a line, so I suggest this alternative wording (with the same two Sources plus the Tasmanian paper as well):

"The primary threat that the NIHBS claims their bees face is "hybridization with bees from a different genetic stock", however research published from Tasmania in 1995, from Poland in 2013 and later research conducted in Ireland in 2017, all showed that the A. m. mellifera Queens do not mate with Drones of a different subspecies (genetic stock), and were able to remain non-hybridized even when surrounded by bees of a different subspecie, however the authors of the papers were unable to explain the process by which this could occur, acknowledging that it contradicted previously presumed hybridization between all honey bee subspecies."

Bibby (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Thor909, I see you have made five edits today on this page, and haven't commented on my proposed re-wording of the sentence which you requested to be re-worded to try and take into consideration of the closing paragraphs of the Source. I'll infer that you no longer have an issue, I don't think it was really necessary, but in the spirit of Wiki I hope that my re-wording is acceptable? I'll leave it here a bit longer before I go ahead and add the re-worded sentence shown above. Bibby (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Grammar and ounctuation changes on line 129, Thor 909 Thor909 (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Which I've just changed back, please don't change what another Wiki Editor is saying and in doing so change the meaning being conveyed. Thank you. Also by placing your edit dated 11:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC) here it will be confusing to other Editors to try and follow the Thread on this discussion which you started on Hybridization. Bibby (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

by the way, what is "ounctuation"? Bibby (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Honey Bee Research in Ireland

The Sub-Section "Studies without modern DNA analysis" really shouldn't have the word modern in it, as all DNA analysis is modern, also a better descriptive title would be 'Morphometric Analysis': But then why split the subject of studies / analysis of bees in Ireland at all; they are basically all attempts to identify Sub-species, etc. not characteristics, unlike the continent. So it would seem more logical to have all the studies in one Section. So I would propose re-incorporating the Morphometric studies back into the Section "Honey Bee Research in Ireland" - from what I have heard it is likely that in the next year or so there will be a Study published which will use both Morphometrics and DNA analysis. Having a Section called "Population history of honey bees in Ireland" is very good, as the population of honey bees (Apis mellifera) has fluctuated greatly over the past 1500 years, but the present Sub-Section "Studies without modern DNA analysis" doesn't deal with the bee population levels / numbers, so again I think it would be better to have these paragraphs about the Morhpometrics studies of bees [laced along side the DNA studies of bees; both are trying to determine the same things, identifying the sub-species (and Strains). Bibby (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added a second paragraph to this Section, as I think it is important to put forward a balanced point of view on the issues and debates within Irish Beekeeping. Although I am sure most of us accept Scientific Research over Anecdotal evidence and unsupported claims, BUT these are clearly views being endorsed and promoted by the NIHBS (otherwise they would not appear on their website, authored by senior members), so even though I disagree with them, I feel it is important to accurately present their opinions, even if they contradict the scientific research - as long as this contradiction to the published scientific research is made clear within the article / paragraph, which I believe I have.Bibby (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Paper "Varying Degrees of Apis mellifera ligustica Introgression in Protected Populations of the Black Honeybee, Apis mellifera mellifera" which included the earliest (that I can find) DNA analysis of bees from Ireland had been missed from this Section; I also deleted two sentences elsewhere citing this paper, but clearly it had been pasted into the wrong place.Bibby (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You're doing a grand job. I'm too busy in real life to contribute much at the moment, but I'll be back... Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks Bibby for all your work. I'm still otherwise occupied, but I do hope to move all the material in the Research section into clearly headed, organized, and concluded sections by subject. I find the present Research section very difficult to read even though I have a fair understanding of the background concepts. The underlying conceptual muddle on the definition of a native bee doesn't help of course. Anyway I hope to get back to this soon. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Richards, thanks, a lot of people have put their hand in, and it appears to have born fruit. I find Research Papers fascinating, so I've had difficulty condensing them enough for the lay person (wiki reader), we do need some more easier readable layout... presentation? for the Research Section, not totally sure what though... maybe we could combine all the morphometric studies (both of them) into one (there are others in the pipeline), and stuff like that, also on reflection we may not need to actually give the full titles of the Research Papers, just say, ie: "Research in 2017 found..."?

You're absolutely right about "The underlying conceptual muddle on the definition of a native bee..", I mean we now have ongoing research (yet to be published) on the "Native Native Bee"! I like your idea about actually having a Section to clarify the Terminology. It might be best for us to create the Section here on the Talk page first, and publish it as a fait accompli, and both be ready for a possible reaction.

Anyway plenty of time to mull it over.Bibby (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph in Varroa section?

I'm not clear what this paragraph in Bold is trying to say, my comments are below:

Conventional advice is to continually manage the varroa mite.

I think what is being decribed is IPM (Integrated Pest Management)

An alternative programme is to select for bees that tend to remove and kill varroa mites in the hope that such bees will not need treatment against the varroa mite and may also survive in the wild.

Breeding would not be "alternative" it would be along side. The phrase "bees that tend to remove and kill varroa mites" is linked to VSH, what is being described in this phrase and in the References is not VSH, it is the now discredited Mite Biting Bees.

FIBKA and founding member of NIHBS)

I don't believe FIBKA was a founding member of NIHBS, the References do not state this.

have a program to do this "by observing the number of damaged mites", without DNA analysis nor the use of Instrumental Insemination;

I wasn't aware FIBKA had a program for this, the References do not state this. The References provide links to the GBBG which do have a breeding program, but not for VSH, for Mite Biting Bees. Bibby (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Legislation

This Section can be used for all things Legal relating to Honey Bees

Protection of the Native Irish Honey Bee Bill 2021; from 18th June 2022 to present

Please use this sub-section to discuss the ongoing "Bee Bill", please keep it focused, if you want to discuss something else connected to it, but not directly related to the actual Bill, and how we present it in the Wiki Article Page, then please open a new sub-section. Thank you. Bibby (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Summary: When the Bill was proposed, initially it was not believed to be significant, in that it was unlikely to pass into law, but a very effective campaign has been conducted by NIHBS creating a momentum of support resulting in cross party support when it reached it's Second Reading Stage. This suggests that it may now have a good chance of becoming law, and therefore I believe it needs a dedicated (and focused) section here in the Talk page.

There are clearly two possible outcomes:

1. It passes into Law - which would be the biggest development in Irish Beekeeping since the arrival of the Isle Of Wight Disease; if this appears to be the case then I think it deserves a Section of it's own on the Article Page.

2. Even if it doesn't pass into law, it clearly has gained the attention of a large number of people and organizations, all of them appear to have accepted the narrative being presented by the NIHBS without question (what I mean by this, is that most persons, including some Senators as they have said so, have not read the scientific research on this subject, meaning they haven't sought out opposing arguments/opinions): The upshot of this, is that a large number of people, many of which are NOT beekeepers, are now supporters of the "native bee" narrative, etc. ie: supporters of the NIHBS, therefore the real benefit of the Bill may be the increased support that the NIHBS receives for their goals, with the actual passing of the Bill being secondary consideration (because a bee import ban only works if beekeepers adhere to it, especially those in the North which will not be affected by this law).

In short this could change the direction of Irish Beekeeping (North and South; and potentially influence UK/Scottish beekeeping), and as such I believe something that is so influential to Beekeeping (whether it becomes law or not) deserves to have it's own dedicated Section on the Article page. We will await it's next development in the committee stage, I am very curious to see how they are going to get it pass EU law and is the use of the word "strain" (after subspecies) in the wording of the Bill going to be significant to this?Bibby (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick and short update; it appears that the Agric. Department of Ireland has decided to kill the Bill (I think), basically the Department has stipulated such a short time frame for the scientific research to be put together, in particular for the Tender quote for it's supply (only a month - I've only learned of this and it's now after the deadline!), that I cannot see how it can be done. ALSO the requested info. I do not think is available from existing published research: IF they had permitted NEW research to be conducted, then the Bill would still have a chance. A lot of thoughts are swirling around my head at the moment, so not totally sure what to make of all of this.Bibby (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Protection of the Native Irish Honey Bee Bill; from 02 Feb. 2022 to 17th June 2022

I see that there is a sub-section for this Bill in the Population history Section, while it does not have direct relevance to the population of bees in Ireland; I would suggest one of two alternative placements: 1.Place it in a Section of it's own, which I'm disinclined to do, as from what I have been told, this Bill has little chance of being passed, and should therefore really only have a Section of it's own if it becomes Law; 2. place it as a sub-section within the Section for the NIHBS, as they appear to have written it, even writing the speech and press releases being issued by the Senator, it's close association with them I think would justify placement within the NIHBS Section. I'll wait a bit and let us mull it over, and then if no further counter opinions are offered I'll go ahead and move it.Bibby (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Recently there has been a second reading of this Bill, and after reading all the speeches (politicians can say a lot without saying that much!) I am somewhat surprised at the cross party support that this has received; even though it appears none of the Senators have read any of the scientific research being cited - some admitted to this. There was a presentation given by the NIHBS before the second reading, the gallery was full of their members, they had a rally at the entrance, the Senators seem to have received gifts, and their membership has mobilized and lobbied individual Senators (even contacting them at home) very hard - this all appears to have resulted in whole scale support of this Bill - leading one to think the Bill is very likely to become Law, later this month will see, but the effect of reading the speeches has resulted in me changing my mind, I now think that this Bill probably deserves a Section of it's own, at the very least it is a good example of how effective the NIHBS has been in bringing the most senior members of society onto their side - this organization clearly punches significantly above it's weight. Bibby (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If Senators receive gifts these have to be declared under the: ETHICS IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACTS 1995 AND 2001,

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/members/registerOfMembersInterests/seanad/2022/2022-02-25_register-of-members-interests-seanad-eireann_en.pdf

Do you have evidence of Senators receiving gifts, if so they have to declare them. Also the statement. '' even contacting them at home?'' Is this just hearsay or do you actually have evidence that this took place Thor909 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thor909, thanks for the Link, but I don't believe it gives the definition of a "gift", however from looking at the Act a gift is defined as a "valuable gift" and there is a value of €500 mentioned, so I'm not sure if a €8.00 jar of honey would be sufficient to be 'declared', however even if smaller amounts do need to be 'declared' (in which the Senator can keep the gift) then an amount above a certain value is determined, for example, from memory a one of "gift" for tax purposes in England & Wales needs to have a value of above £25, these are beekeepers and an €8.00 jar of honey appears insignificant ... but think about it, the Senator(s) now has a jar with a sticker saying Native Bee on it's lid there every morning, etc. now that's clever! Only a couple of Senators are mentioned in the Sources I provided if you want to read it. As for contacting them at home, it's my understanding that this resulted from the Senators initial request for additional information from beekeepers, so nothing ontoward.

The point I was trying to make is that the NIHBS has really pulled out all the stops with this one, and from reading about their (proper, ethical, moral and legal) actions and how they have been received, I now think they have a real chance of getting this passed into Law... which means that this should have a Section of it's own, 1. if it looks like it's going to become Law or 2. due to how successful the NIHBS has been in winning over so many (cross party) Senators to their cause, while many of them openly admitted to not having read nor educated themselves on the subject they are debating! It just goes to show you how persuasive and convincing the NIHBS has been! Therefore it's reasonable to think that they have been able to bring many other people (not even beekeepers) into their camp. If this Bill fails to become Law, then at least they will have succeeded in swelling the numbers of supporters to their cause. That's an amazing feat, and deserving of a Section on it's own. Anyway, the third reading will give us a good flavor of what is likely to develop! Bibby (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bibby, you have now written here that Irish Government Senators have not just recieved gifts, But a gift of a jar of honey worth 8 Euros with a Sticker on the Lid saying Native Bee. I still cannot find your Sources I provided Apologies If I am looking in the wrong area, on analysing the TV coverage and Press, I still cannot see these jars of Honey. I feel this is a serious matter if it is true which is why I am trying to find the evidence of this, especially the home visits. I assume you are fully behind this bill to keep non-native bees out of our country. Your work on this page is very well put together and keeps readers up to date on the latest happenings, Thank you for all your work. Thor909 78.152.216.45 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thor909

I don't know if it is a "serious matter" or not, can you provide us with the link to back that claim up?

Don't know anything about the "home visits" you mentioned, don't know from where you got that idea from?

The Sources are in the References section of the page, the relevant Source(s) are listed in number format in the Sub-Section that we are discussing, at time of writing the page shows that as Reference 92.

As for the sticker, you can buy them here,

https://nihbs.org/product/honey-label/

and here it is on the Chairpersons honey jars

https://galteehoney.com/product/raw-irish-heather-honey-230g/

they look great don't they! And a great piece of advertising, very clever indeed! Bibby (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bibby, you appear to be becoming somewhat defensive, even argumentive, which, I don't think this is what Wikipedia is about, I was trying to understand where you got these claims from, it was not meant to be an argument. Serious or not for politicians, you may remember some years ago politicians were jailed for accepting bribes, you may be too young to remember this. But you can look it up in Google, I got the Idea about the home visits from your written statement above entitled: Update stating Lobbied individual Senators (even contacting them at home) Which you wrote? I am aware of your reference and already read it, Reference 92 is the second reading of the Bill in the Irish Seannad. I cannot find the part where the Senators receive 8 euro jars of honey. Maybe you need to take a break from Wikipedia, Someone's jar of honey being good advertising, I did not look at it, by the way, I assume is their own business, and as they are not conversing on this talk page, it's not very fair to bring up their personal business, or hyperlink their website, Was it Heather Honey in the giveaway, or a different type of Honey, I would have thought this was not proper etiquette on Wikipedia? Do you see your statement as an unbiased view? I get the impression you are not 100% behind the passing of the bill. I hope you are nearly 99% there. Like yourself, I am only trying to improve our page about Beekeeping in Ireland on Wikipedia for everyone to enjoy, with a neutral balanced view. Thor 909 Thor909 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thor909

I'm not willing to do work for you. That's all, you're the one making unsourced claims about "home visits" (but I see you have corrected that) and "bribes" etc. - that's a serious allegation, can you back that up? You're the only one saying that! I'm guessing the jars were worth €8.00, they could be worth a bit more or less. But I will help you a bit, use your word search often called "Find in Page..." it'll help you in searching for phrases.

I've given you Sources which you haven't read, but I'm still waiting for your Source to back up your original claim, that (all) gifts have to be declared, there will be a published government guidance for the definition of what a "gift" is and what value it needs to be above... so until you give me that Link I can't continue this conversation. Bibby (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bibby, this really is not the polite conversation it should really be, are you not a neutral editor of this page?

I have to write this three times. YOU wrote, (even contacting them at home)

I never stated that (all) gifts have to be declared. I attached the PDF.

Can you really just Guess at a price on Wikipedia? with no referencing or sources? Did you look up Google like I asked you to? it can help as you may not know about what happened if you are very young.

This is not improving the Beekeepers of Ireland page in any way, just making it look Bad. Thor909 Thor909 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Copy & Paste from 00:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"...still waiting for your Source to back up your original claim,... what a "gift" is and what value it needs to be above... so until you give me that Link I can't continue this conversation" Bibby (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bibby, I do not need to source what a Gift is, I did not write ''the Senators seem to have received gifts,'' Above, so why would I need to source something I had not written on here.

This was on 8th June, By Bibby (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2022. What a gift is and its value are quite irrelevant when the statement reads ''the Senators seem to have received gifts'' again a completely unbalanced view coming to the front here and not helping the beekeepers of Ireland or readers of this page. Thor 909 Thor909 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thor909,

I'll spell it out for you: YOU made the allegation of a "bribe" not me. I stated that "gifts" appeared to have been given ... err so what? An excellent piece of advertising, nothing wrong with it (in my opinion - YOU'RE the one that has a problem with it). YOU provided a link discussing gifts in excess of €500, I made it clear I was talking about jars of honey that I guessed cost no more than €8.00, again I say so what? But YOU are equating this with bribery, that's libellous! You NEED to provide evidence (ie: a gov. website Link to an Act, etc.) that states what is and is not defined as a gift, and therefore at what point it may become a bribe, without such evidence YOU are making a serious allegation, I made no such allegation.

Copy & Paste from 00:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"...still waiting for your Source to back up your original claim,... what a "gift" is and what value it needs to be above... so until you give me that Link I can't continue this conversation" Bibby (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bibby, This is just ridiculous and not adding value to Wikipedia Pages.

YOU wrote this??? I will delete it after you have read it again, it is above, signed by Bibby and I don't want this page filled with what at this stage is ridiculous, And I DID NOT EDIT YOUR COMMENTS, Here is your article Signed Bibby 12.24 8 June 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Recently there has been a second reading of this Bill, and after reading all the speeches (politicians can say a lot without saying that much!) I am somewhat surprised at the cross party support that this has received; even though it appears none of the Senators have read any of the scientific research being cited - some admitted to this. There was a presentation given by the NIHBS before the second reading, the gallery was full of their members, they had a rally at the entrance, the Senators seem to have received gifts, and their membership has mobilized and lobbied individual Senators (even contacting them at home) very hard - this all appears to have resulted in whole scale support of this Bill - leading one to think the Bill is very likely to become Law, later this month will see, but the effect of reading the speeches has resulted in me changing my mind, I now think that this Bill probably deserves a Section of it's own, at the very least it is a good example of how effective the NIHBS has been in bringing the most senior members of society onto their side - this organization clearly punches significantly above it's weight. Bibby (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC) If its a totally different Bibby my apologies. Thor909 Thor909 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Copy & Paste from 00:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"...still waiting for your Source to back up your original claim,... what a "gift" is and what value it needs to be above... so until you give me that Link I can't continue this conversation" Bibby (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Bibby (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thor909, with respect, what have you been smoking today... now that the light hearted banter is out of the way, ... I'll spell it out for you yet again (and for the benefit of the other Wiki Editors now being drawn into this - criminal allegations that you have made are serious), oh by the way it is not helpful to copy and paste entire paragraphs were all one has to do is just scroll up!

Time line of events:

12:24 08 June 2022: Bibby gives update of Bill, mentions in passing "seem to have received gifts" in context of a presentation and campaigning. No allegations of wrong doing were made (transcript of speeches in Source provided).

12:50 8 June 2022: Thor909 states "If Senators receive gifts these have to be declared", a link was provided about gifts in excess of €500.00

18:25, 8 June 2022: Bibby replies with "not sure if a €8.00 jar of honey would be sufficient to be declared", mentions the Link provided does not give definition of a gift.

21:52, 10 June 2022: Thor909 now says "you have now written here that Irish Government Senators have not just recieved gifts, But a gift of a jar of honey", Thor909 seems to be alleging Bibby is saying there were gifts in excess of €500 AND a jar of honey, while reading the postings it clearly shows Bibby is clarifying that the gifts they mentioned are the jars of honey. Thor909 states they have not read the Source (transcript of the Senators speeches) meaning they do not know what they are discussing with Bibby. Thor909 states "this is a serious matter".

22:32, 10 June 2022: Bibby states "I don't know if it is a "serious matter" or not, can you provide us with the link to back that claim up?"

23:47, 10 June 2022: Thor909 now claims to have read the Source but couldn't find what is being discussed; raises the allegation of "bribes".

00:13, 11 June 2022: Bibby points out to Thor909 that he is the one making the the allegation of wrong doing in relation to the gifts of the jars of honey by calling them "bribes" (Thor909 may be alleging that there was more than just honey, but that's not clarified - it seems unbelievable the mention of two jars of honey gifts has resulted in this!) Bibby requests (again) for a Source to back up Thor909 claims that the gifts have to be declared.

00:30, 11 June 2022: Thor909 again references historic bribery cases. Does not provide a Source that would require the Senators to declare a jar of honey.

12:05, 11 June 2022: Bibby again requests Source for Thor909 allegation that gifts (of honey) need to be declared.

16:23, 17 June 2022: Thor909 states "I do not need to source what a Gift is" I think he meant 'I do not need to provide a Source (of a definition) of what a gift is'.

16:56, 17 June 2022: Bibby states "gifts appeared to have been given ... err so what? An excellent piece of advertising, nothing wrong with it". Bibby points out that Thor909 linking these gifts of jars of honey with bribery as libellous. Again Bibby requests a link to a Source that defines what a gift is (for a Senator to have to declare it).

18:37, 17 June 2022: Thor909 states "This is just ridiculous", copy and pastes Bibby's posting on the 12:24 08 June 2022. Thor909 again did not provide a Link to support his claim that Senators have to declare gifts of a jar of honey and linking the gift to historic bribery cases.

21:47, 17 June 2022: Bibby again requests Source for Thor909 to support his claim that these gifts are significant enough to have to be declared, that they may constitute wrong doing and are potential "bribes".

I'm glad that we can agree that this is "ridiculous", it became so when you made allegations of wrong doing for a couple of jars of honey. Do not delete this Talk thread, it would be tantamount to Vandalism. The Wiki Editors need to see the conduct of persons on this page, etc.

Bibby (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bibby, My intention was to delete the paragraph I copied as I did not know you knew how to scroll up, Its a pity you did not do this and save me from repeating the paragraph. I was going to delete the paragraph to tidy up the page, not delete the whole page. I would love the Wiki editors to examine the conduct on this page and maybe offer some advice on why one editor has deleted and changed nearly ever entry anyone has made on this page including the (FIBKA Secretary) Gus McCoy who as the secretary of FIBKA , I would assume has a right to edit his own organisations information, the same has gone in in every section,

FIBKA, Deleted.

Galtee Vee, Deleted

IBBA, Threatened deletion, I won't go on. but you can see the pattern. Best regards and good wishes with your further deletions and alterations which are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, Thor909 Thor909 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thor909, PLEASE educate yourself about what Wiki is about, for example you said, "secretary of FIBKA , I would assume has a right to edit his own organisations information" ABSOLUTELY NOT, please read WP:COI

Your statement "I did not know you knew how to scroll up" is clearly intended to be condescending at best, please refrain, read WP:NPA

and finally, yet again;

Copy & Paste from 00:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"...still waiting for your Source to back up your original claim,... what a "gift" is and what value it needs to be above... so until you give me that Link I can't continue this conversation"

Bibby (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bibby. Please don't continue the conversation, Scroll up, You said gift, Not me. I am not copying and pasting it again. I wouldn't dare to write such a sentence about an Irish Senator, many of whom are in the legal profession on a public website, Is this page not meant to be a Wikipedia article that is presented in a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner Do you really think these comments and the page accurately reflect these views? I welcome the WIKI editors' comments. Best regards Thor909. Thor909 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes Thor909, I said gifts, so what? You're the one that said "bribes"...

Copy & Paste from 00:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"...still waiting for your Source to back up your original claim,... what a "gift" is and what value it needs to be above... so until you give me that Link I can't continue this conversation"

Bibby (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Edits made on the March 30th 2022 by 2A02:4F00:500:1C01:BC4D:ABBE:C9C9:E7AF

Due to the increasing number of Edits which appear to mainly be deletions, which also seem to include deletions of actual Sources needed for the Sections, I am starting up a new Section here in the Talk Page to discuss the matters being raised, so that a consensus can be reached without an Edit War beginning.Bibby (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

18:01, March 30, 2022‎ This has been reverted because the sentence that you deleted is presenting an opinion not making an assertion which you seem to be saying, here at Wikipedia we need to present a balanced point of view. Also you have deleted a Source needed for that Section.Bibby (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

18:08, March 30, 2022‎ Here you have just deleted an entire Sub-Section, of a Section dedicated to the Bee Research in Ireland, as opposed to putting a suggestion for correction in the Talk Page here first. It's been a long time since I've read that Section, but I do recall that Caucasica was included in the Study, but not relevant to the Sub-Section you have just deleted, so I think you have looked at the wrong graph in that Studies Paper? But this would need to be discussed. Bibby (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

18:11, March 30, 2022 The only way your statement could be true "that they were descended from pure A.m.m." is if DNA samples were taken and analyzed from the Skeps when they arrived in Port!? Therefore I have manually Reverted it. Bibby (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

18:16, March 30, 2022 The author appears to try and describe the term Haplogroup without using the actual word - I'm guessing because he doesn't want to confuse the readers any further - the original Wikipedia Editor has clearly chosen to do the same and tried to explain what the author of the Study is trying to convey. We can discuss this further here if you want, I have already invited other Editors to join in when/if you reply to these Postings. In short I've reverted this as well. Bibby (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

18:25, March 30, 2022 The author in his Paper names three locations, and from looking at what you have deleted, well it's basically a condensed quote from a paragraph, Wikipedia pages are based on Sources, these peer reviewed Scientific Papers are ideal, you will need to get another Paper to refute these findings. Therefore I am reverting this as well. Bibby (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

18:30, March 30, 2022 Read the Sources (both) being cited, and you will understand why this too is being manually Reverted. Bibby (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

18:46, March 30, 2022 You're going to have to literally give us the page number or actually quote from the Paper to support your claims here, this appears to be original research, we must stick to the Sources in Wikipedia, therefore I am manually reverting it. Bibby (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

19:02, March 30, 2022 You have deleted actual "quotes" from the paper, I do not see how the paragraph was misleading in any way, we can discuss it here with the rest of the members, until then it is manually reverted. Bibby (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

20:27, March 30, 2022 You have made four-ish Edits here, I will deal with them each: 1. You have deleted the phrase "claiming to have been", please read the book cited. I have manually reverted this. 2. Thank you for fixing the dead link and updating the name change in their Event. 3. Thank you for the Wiki Links, but you cannot delete Sources for previous statements, also I am sure FIBKA is a member of Apimondia, but if you are going to state they are a member you need a Source, therefore I have partially reverted this. 4. You have added a paragraph making a claim without a Source, please add a Source. Thank you. Also you have actually removed the Source at the end of the paragraph, so I have manually reverted this part. Bibby (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

FIKBA is a memebr of Apimondia, https://www.ikmib.org.tr/files/downloads/RFEK%20(1).pdf Please see attached PDF of members of Apimondia from list of the members of Apimondia International Federation of Beekeepers’ Associations, accessed 31 March 2022. Would it be better to check for the facts and sources yourself before deleting everyone else's edits with nothing to back up your own revisions and deletions. Thor909 (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thor909, thank you for your information, don't be shy go ahead and add the info. but may I suggest you use a different Source, as the one you have cited, 1. is not Apimondia itself, I'm not sure how that file was accessed from the www.ikmib.org.tr website, and 2. link to a up to date List, the one you have provided is I believe dated 2020.

20:30, March 30, 2022 I'm not sure what you objection was here, I don't believe the original Editor was being sarcastic, he seems sincere, and you did actually delete "quotes", you don't seem to like Quotations, I have noticed that a lot for this page, that and deleting Sources. I've manually reverted this as well. Bibby (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Title change of "Possible survivors of the IoWD" to "Native bee controversy" plus text.

I'm hesitant to make major changes to a wiki page without reaching out to those parties involved or to give fellow Wiki Editors a chance to have their say, but I see on 14:41, Nov. 3, 2022, a major change was made to this section. It is somewhat perplexing because the new title is "Native bee controversy" and yet the paragraph added doesn't even seem to address this subject? There has been prior discussion here on adding a subject dealing with the Native bee controversy, but none of us have been brave enough to grasp that nettle - but maybe it is now overdue?

Also claims are made which are clearly incorrect whenever one reads the Sources cited, such as the claim "that the population was heavily hybridised", this has been dis-proven by all DNA research tat I am aware of in Ireland.

The original Section was put together by several Wiki Editors over some time (I was present when it was assembled and edited), based on this and that the new Section seems somewhat unclear, and also that the previous Section included a lot of relevant information I am going to restore it as it was.

IF you disagree with this then here on the Talk page would be the best place to discuss it without further Page Edits to avoid us getting into a WP:EW. Thanks. Bibby (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, after thinking about this (ref. the above recent attempt to introduce a "Native" section) I do now think we need a Sub-Section for the "Native" topic - basically it's emotional but factually relatively easy in Ireland due to a lack of a landbridge, but I think we need to try and present it in a way that is not going to offend present beekeepers but make it clear factually that there are no Native honey bees in Ireland and that the name is used as a nick name. I'm thinking to start the Sub-Section of we should just change the Footnotes section into a new Section called something like, "Native honey bee..", maybe adding at the end the word "naming" or "designation" ... "Taxonomy" is my preferred choice but maybe a bit too scientific-y sounding, maybe a synonym for it??? Bibby (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

cire perdue (Lost-wax casting) and edits on 3rd Feb. 2023

Hi Richard (and anyone else) you have made a few changes here and I would like to take the opportunity to discuss them:

1. The sentence "Some beekeepers have claimed that honey bees could have arrived across.." has been changed to "Some beekeepers have suggested that honey bees, with other fauna and flora, could have arrived across.."

A) Only beekeepers express opinions on the subject of migration of bees to Ireland, so I think "beekeepers" should be added back: Even persons that make claims about fauna and flora coming across a frozen tundra landbridge would dismiss the idea that bees could have flown across such a landscape! Re-enforcing the point, that only beeKeepers have expressed opinions on this subject.

B) The word "claimed" is better as it is to state a new fact, typically without providing evidence to prove it is true which is exactly what is being said by beekeepers making such err claims, while "suggest" is to imply but stop short of saying explicitly which is clearly not what is being said. Source https://wikidiff.com/claimed/suggested

As for the phrase "with other fauna and flora", this is getting off-topic as some fauna and flora could have arrived across an icebridge, ie: the Irish elk (maybe), and I think we just start to muddy the waters as people get land and ice bridges mixed up, etc. which is why I think we should stay focused on just bees.

2. The use of the word "unlikely" in this sentence "and marine geological evidence, is that this is unlikely" is inaccurate, and should be replaced with something clearer, the photos of the core samples in the source are easy to discern even for the non academic, so I would suggest replacing "unlikely" with "not possible".

3. Lost-wax casting: This paragraph is suggesting that Lost-wax casting was occurring in Bronze Age Ireland, which then dismisses the possibility of importation of beeswax, lets look at the Sources:

A) Aran Islands - Google Image them - without trees there are no honey bees (unless there are beekeepers), so IF lost wax casting was occurring on these islands beeswax would have had to be imported (most things there are still imported!) = No evidence of bees.

B) Antrim - refering to the Dunaverney flesh-hook - one unique highly ornate ceremonial object of great financial worth, such an item is more likely to be imported, otherwise if the technology was practiced by the Irish there would be more samples of lost wax casting, whether or not they had beeswax locally available or not. IF you can find a source which is claiming that it was manufactured locally as opposed to imported I would be interested in reading it; I have heard this item referenced whenever bronze age European trade is being discussed = probable evidence of international trade, not of the presence of local beeswax.

C) Kilkenny - two objects which are cast, maybe through the lost wax casting process OR a cast made of two stones, BUT their casting was crude, with detail most likely added AFTER initial casting. This does not remove the possibility they were imported as it is believed they were ceremonial and of high value. IF beeswax was used (research tallow vs. beeswax casting) then it would have been much easier to add the details BEFORE the casting process, if Tallow was used (it doesn't give as fine detailed results) then you would expect the detail to be added AFTER the casting, which is what we are likely seeing here with the Axe and Spear heads. In other words no evidence of beeswax being used in this casting: Also they're expensive, likely ceremonial, and therefore candidates again from trade = meaning this is not evidence of the presence of bees in Ireland = ambiguous conclusions, made from Loast Wax casting or Stone casting? Made from Beeswax or Tallow casting? Imported or locally made? From imported Beeswax or local... in the end one still has to explain how did local beeswax end up in Ireland without honey bees..?...

Oh wait... you do know that bumble bees produce wax which can be used for Lost Wax Casting as well? A single mated Bumble Bee Queen could be blown over to Ireland, and started an Irish population (only a single queen is required, unlike honey bees and near or in breeding doesn't cause colony death, again unlike honey bees).

You can see that the three sources cited are not good enough to come to the conclusion that there were honey bees in Bronze Age Ireland, also if there were, then how did they arrive, there was no landbridge, so beekeepers had to have brought them, we know from the linguistic construction of the Bee-Judgements in the Brehon Laws, to give one example, the writers were struggling with incorporating bees in relation to beekeeping into the Law, in a similar fashion to how legislators initially (and still are) struggled to incorporate the Internet into existing Laws, suggesting that beekeeping was not long established in Ireland.

Also finally IF you are going to claim that the scant evidence of (the imported?) Lost wax casting in Ireland is evidence of a local supply of beeswax then how do you explain that there is a lack of beeswax lipids in pottery from Ireland? Suggesting that the local Irish did not have access to honey (which is in beeswax comb), reference this Source (I communicated with the authors just to be clear on their findings and research).

Bottom Line: IF you feel the page should have a mention of Lost Wax Casting objects then we can keep it in, but there should be a clear caveat that this does not prove that Lost Wax Casting was being practiced in Ireland nor that there was a local source of Beeswax (could be imported, private communication with Alan Outram from Source), AND this still has the hurdle of explaining how did the bees get to Ireland (beekeeping didn't arrive in northern Europe until the Romans, and most likely then the Monks in Ireland), that reminds me I should update the Wiki page on Bee Swarms with recent research that shows swarms upper limit is around 800m.

Finally, bumble bee wax (in Ireland) is still an alternative, if you're going to make the suggestion that Lost Wax Casted objects in Ireland suggest the presence of honey bees (and not bumble bees) then a source(s) needs to be provided.Bibby (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you for your cogent points and useful reference. At these edits I have tried to weave all of these into a coherent and clear encyclopedic narrative. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice and to the point. Bibby (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

References