This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Beekeeping in Ireland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 Jjgetty (NIHBS Northern Irish representative)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
2. Can you give me the citation for your statement "finding a broad diversity of wing detail".
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).
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?
5. The last sentence of the first paragraph refers to varroa resistance, which has nothing to do with the old IoW disease.
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.
Also did you intend to finish the section "Varroa" with a comma and what appears to be mid sentence?
(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)
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'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. [1]
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 [2])
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; [3] [4] [5]
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
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This Section can be used for all things Legal relating to Honey Bees
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)
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)
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".
Bibby ( talk) 22:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1] (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)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Beekeeping in Ireland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 Jjgetty (NIHBS Northern Irish representative)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
2. Can you give me the citation for your statement "finding a broad diversity of wing detail".
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).
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?
5. The last sentence of the first paragraph refers to varroa resistance, which has nothing to do with the old IoW disease.
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.
Also did you intend to finish the section "Varroa" with a comma and what appears to be mid sentence?
(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)
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'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. [1]
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 [2])
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; [3] [4] [5]
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
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This Section can be used for all things Legal relating to Honey Bees
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)
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)
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".
Bibby ( talk) 22:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1] (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)
References