Talk:Bees and toxic chemicals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orientation of article

This article is well researched and written and thus a good contribution of effort to wikipedia; however, the orientation seems biased toward natural toxins. It would seem that the article needs major expansion to balance the natural toxins discussions. First of all the significance of man-made toxins are much greater than natural toxins. Finally the expansion should address impacts more thoroughly of pesticides upon biodiversity. Covalent 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. However, WP already has a long article on the subject at Pesticide toxicity to bees (which admittedly could be expanded even farther and more articles added). We are a bit thin on this important topic I am afraid. I also note that I did include the following references on exactly this topic:

• How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from Pesticides, D.F. Mayer, C.A. Johansen, C.R. Baird, PNW518, A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Copyright 1999 Washington State University. Includes an extensive list of toxic chemicals such as pesticides that affect bees.
• Protecting Honeybees From Pesticides, Dean K. McBride, 1997 North Dakota State University
• Honey Bees and Pesticides, 1978, Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium
• Protecting Honey Bees From Pesticides, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension, Malcolm T. Sanford, April 1993
• US EPA Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2001-5

--Filll 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I will note in my partial defense, this present title is not my personal choice for a title. I only conceded to that title to avoid AfD. My own title would have been something more like Bees and intoxication but I had several people anxious to put it up for AfD, so I relented and gave it the present title to avoid ruffling feathers and upsetting people. --Filll 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Student feed back.

My students reviewed the bee story:

There were several statements that the students found enormously humorous:

"… has put inebriated bees on running wheels" "If a bee is sufficiently intoxicated, it will just lie on its back and wiggle its legs "…bee bouncers" will chew the offending bee's legs off "Researchers place the bees in tiny harnesses"

Humor, intended or not, is an excellent method of conveying information.

Some questions that arose to which I had no answer:

Details on the interaction of bees with antabuse; How do they know who to bounce?

They wanted pictures, not of bees, but of drunken bees in tiny little harnesses or running on a wheel. Good luck with that!

I was asked to define two words. The first I felt should be known, the second, perhaps not.

Feasibility Chronic

One student noted the extensive documentation when compared to the Evolution article we wrote. I told him we couldn’t document since it was all made up. That made him feel much better?!

I am impressed, just to fire off the article, on a topic I assume is not within field. You should consider employment with the text book companies.

The article needs to be linked; I suggest adding links to the main articles that it relates to, so that it can be found. A “see also” on some of the mainstream pages dealing with bees or intoxication. --Random Replicator 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

I did try to make this slightly humorous on purpose; the reason I wrote this is that I found it funny myself:

"… has put inebriated bees on running wheels"

The image of bees running on a wheel as part of an experiment just seems ridiculous, but this is true apparently. I am reminded of the famous Youtube video of experiments where researchers had shrimp running on a treadmill.

"If a bee is sufficiently intoxicated, it will just lie on its back and wiggle its legs"

Again, this just seems ludicrous, but it is what they do.

"…bee bouncers" will chew the offending bee's legs off"

When I heard this some months ago in a documentary (on NPR or CSPAN), I was amazed, and this lead me to write the article.

"Researchers place the bees in tiny harnesses"

This indicates the effort to which the researches will go to do this work. And it does create a strange image.

Details on the interaction of bees with antabuse; How do they know who to bounce?

I do not know exactly how bees interact with antabuse, but apparently it is not that different from human interaction with antabuse. It is in the references, and I sometimes only read the abstracts. I do not know how they know which bees to bounce. This information is in the references, and I also heard about it in the documentary. It is a good question however.

They wanted pictures, not of bees, but of drunken bees in tiny little harnesses or running on a wheel. Good luck with that!

I admit this would be great, and maybe eventually we will get some pictures to use.

I was asked to define two words. The first I felt should be known, the second, perhaps not.

Feasibility

Chronic

At least it was only two words. I am surprised they did not have a problem with temulent, which I chose on purpose because it is so obscure.

One student noted the extensive documentation when compared to the Evolution article we wrote. I told him we couldn’t document since it was all made up. That made him feel much better?!

That is pretty funny. However, the reason I had to document this so carefully was that I was making such outrageous statements. Most of what we said in the introduction to evolution article is common knowledge, or is readily available in other articles like evolution.

I am impressed, just to fire off the article, on a topic I assume is not within field. You should consider employment with the text book companies.

I know nothing about bees or biology. I never took a class in biology; not even in high school or junior high. I have contemplated writing a textbook from time to time.

The article needs to be linked; I suggest adding links to the main articles that it relates to, so that it can be found. A “see also” on some of the mainstream pages dealing with bees or intoxication. --Random Replicator 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably should add more links. I was quite cautious at first because of the threat of deletion.--Filll 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Toxic plants for honeybees

List of toxic plants for honeybees in Hive and the Honey Bee. by Joe M. Graham (1992). Dadant & Sans, Hamilton, Illinois, USA.

wrong syntax

should "Morphine containing honey has been reported in areas where opium poppy cultivation is widespread.[37]' be changed to

Honey containing Morphine has been reported...

or

Morphine-containing honey has been... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.190.199 (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I noticed something about the references in this article after using the standard wikipeda template citebook to wikify a citation. The authors here seem to have used a different system for citing sources, as it looks like the titles come before the author for all of the citations. I think that that's not as wiki-ish as using the citebook template, so I recommend using this template filler [1] to redo the references, if you want GA status. Jolb 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire toxicity section is ripped verbatim from here: https://books.google.com/books?id=HGDxCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=drunk+%22honey-intoxicated%22&source=bl&ots=5JcS-wGEVz&sig=3OZhTCYWP_m3Bj_h91lxCXIN_Bg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=leSeVe3GE4bfoASZ9rmgBg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=drunk%20%22honey-intoxicated%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.216.53 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Factual dispute banner in effects of intoxication

I was going to pass this article for GA (unlike the previous commentator I don't see a problem with the form of the references) but while I was reviewing it someone put a disputed fact banner into the effects of intoxication section. I was fairly easily able to verify all the facts in the section (including the one about guard bees keeping intoxicated bees out of the hive), except the part about them chewing the legs off of repeat offenders. There is a citation for that fact, but the source cited is an article in journal about alcoholism and the body of the article was not available online to non subscribers. The abastract of the article, which was available free, did not confirm the fact. Can someone with access to a good research library (I am sure any med school library would do) get access to the cited article and confirm or disconfirm the fact? I think this a great article but I am reluctant to pass it while there is a disputed fact banner on it, and I am reluctant to remove the banner without being able to confirm the fact (or remove a fact with a cited source just because I don't have access to the source). Incidentally, I don't think whomever put the banner up acted correctly. I believe that they should have added a comment to this page indicating exactly what fact(s) they were disputing and why. Rusty Cashman 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Rusty, I agree with and support your thought process and decision. I am going to go one step further. I agree with you that the banner was improperly placed. The person placing the banner needs to explain here on the Talk page exactly what problem they have with the sourcing of the section. If they do not do so in a couple of days, I will remove the banner. I suggest that holding off on the GA is best for now. In a couple of days perhaps either (a) someone will come by to defend the banner or (b) someone will be able to conclusively confirm the information. I suggest we give it two days and see where we stand. Johntex\^talk 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summary, I suspect that someone didn't realise that was a link to an abstract, and so thought that since it wasn't in the abstract, it wasn't in the article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

References to add

• [2]
• [3]
• The latter involves biting of the wings, antennae, legs, and sometimes attempted
• [4]

--Filll 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Huge chunk of text on Colony Collapse Disorder probably not appropiate

I am going to leave a message for the editor who placed all this text in here, but frankly it should be removed, and I will do so; this is a page about TOXIC CHEMICALS. Simply moving it to the CCD article is not appropriate either, because it is unreferenced, unwikified, and not encyclopedic - it does, as noted, sound like an essay, or a news report. If a news report is the goal, then by all means, submit it to Wikinews, but it does not belong here. Dyanega 17:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

GA renom

I am renominating this article for GA and bumping it to the top of the list per the now archived discussion at Good article review and my previous error. My apologies. Hopefully someone will be along shortly.11:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Passed; I converted one jumplink to an inline citation, otherwise the article is fine. Chubbles 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ack, I spoke too soon: Two of the images have tag problems. Could those be taken care of? I'll place on hold until that's done. Chubbles 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask which two? I've looked through and can't see any problems. Clearly I don't really know what I'm looking for. --Stemonitis 09:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bee1web.jpg and Image:Bumblebee closeup cropped.jpg. The first needs the tag updated, the second is a duplicate of another image. Chubbles 17:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

They should both be fixed now. Let me know if there are any further problems. --Stemonitis 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops...I thought I passed this ages ago. Did I forget to update the tags here? Sorry... Chubbles 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Pesticide toxicity to bees echoes a lot of info here regarding pesticides, and this article is more comprehensive, so it makes sense to merge it into this article.Apothecia (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Bees and toxic chemicals/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be a good idea to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pollination management navbox

There's a new navbox {{Pollination management}} that might be appropriate for this article. I didn't just want to slap it down here, because this is a Good Article and thought a second opinion would be sound. — Brianhe (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)