Talk:Johann Dzierzon

Translation request/Konopnicka meeting with Dzierzon/

While I am quite able to translate simple sentences into English perhaps somebody more fluent can try to translate this W tym miejscu warto przytoczyć słowa Marii Konopnickiej, która w roku 1895 tak napisała w "Kurierze Warszawskim": "Kto pszczoły hoduje, ten dobry być musi - powiedział kiedyś Dzierżon, i takim też sam być się zdaje. Coś ludowego, coś niespożycie żywotnego jest w tym blisko 90-letnim człowieku (...) na polskie pozdrowienie z szląska odpowiada, w oczy bystro i głęboko patrzy, a gdy pozna żeś swojak z ducha, że się Bożem dziełem zadziwiać umiesz, a przyrodę kochasz, wnet z pamięci to lub owo o pszczołach swoich wyszuka, powie słowo jakieś tak mocne i proste a ważne, że to na samo dno duszy pada, jak złota, ciężka kropla lipcowego miodu". --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it is worth citing the words of Maria Konopnicka, who, in the year 1895, wrote the following in the Kurier Warszawski: "He, who breeds bees, must be a good man", said once Dzierżon, and such he would seem to be. Something popular, something unusually lively can be found in this almost 90 year old man [...] he answers [your] Polish greeting in the Silesian way, he looks in [your] eyes lively and deeply, and when he notices that you're one of us in spirit, that you can wonder at God's works, that you love nature, then he brings back from memory one or the other [anecdote] about his bees, he says some word that's so strong and simple and important, that it falls to the very bottom of [your] soul, like a golden, heavy drop of July honey. Jec (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Johann Dzierzon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://schloss-ellguth.de/dzbiogra.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061222021611/http://www.kluczbork.pl/ver/en/1.php to http://www.kluczbork.pl/ver/en/1.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901012723/http://www.kluczbork.pl/kluczbork/historia/dzierzon.php to http://www.kluczbork.pl/kluczbork/historia/dzierzon.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226093907/http://www.kluczbork.pl/ver/en/6.php to http://www.kluczbork.pl/ver/en/6.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Johann Dzierzon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722081934/http://www.instytutslaski.com/www/index.php to http://www.instytutslaski.com/www/index.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.deutsch-polnischer-journalistenpreis.de/_files/tv/prawda_ponad_wszystko.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/revistaselectronicas/Journal_Apicultural_Research/45_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603095342/http://www.kluczbork.pl/podstrony/omuzeumw.php to http://www.kluczbork.pl/podstrony/omuzeumw.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603095342/http://www.kluczbork.pl/podstrony/omuzeumw.php to http://www.kluczbork.pl/podstrony/omuzeumw.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Dzierzon vs Prokopovyich hive

Hi Richard Keatinge, Hi Richard Keatinge, Good thought, derivative is not duplicate, but more I reviewed the references (links)/originals. There is no mentioned Dzierzon name, so the whole sentence about derivative is somebody makeup, should be removed. Regards, Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aserafin (talk • contribs) 21:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Aserafin (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I set new section in talk to the article Dzierzon. I would like to know how the opponent will know there is some regarding his edition. Let me know. I would like to reduce your trouble to read my notes on yours talk page and delate it. Aserafin (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, this page is the place to discuss the article about Johann Dzierzon, and my talk page usually isn't. At this edit I have removed the references that, as you correctly point out, don't support the point. And I have found and inserted a reference that does directly support the point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

With all the respect Sir, "probably" is a feeble word not adequate for serious research. Also, the review written by Fursov V.N. provided as references are second-hand info. and says: "M L Gornich (Kyiv), in his report titled “Petro Prokopovich and World Beekeeping”, indicated that papers of Prokopovich were translated into German and French in his time and were well known in Europe. He suggested that some experts consider that the movable frame bee hive of Johann Dzierzon was also constructed on the basis of Prokopovich’s invention."

We need to see the original work of M L Gornich. The possible fact that the Prokopoich work was translated to German etc. does not prove Dzierzon used Prokopovich ideas. In fact Dzierzon mentions where he started the research and how. He started by removing a grate from the Christ hive (constructed 1779-1783)- https://warre.biobees.com/christ.htm, and replaced it with movable bars. For spacing the bars he used nails and shortening the nails finally found the correct distance between bars (this was the 1/2 inch between faces of the combs - 1 and 1/2 inch between centers of the bars). What I am saying is on the base of original articles written by Dzierzon in „Eichstädter Bienenzeitung”. Regarding the 1/4 to 3/8 inch space is different story, and was discovered separately by searching for a groove where the movable bars can be sliding.

I do not say Dzierzon was not aware about Prokopovich hive, but I know, and you can know reviewing the graphics of Prokopovich the hive had frames in upper part but the frames looks like the Leaf Hive, invented in Switzerland in 1789 by François Huber. This have nothing to do with functional movable frame or movable bar hive - the "leafs"/frames were spacing with wrong distance.

If M L Gornich "suggested" [sic.], as Fursov V.N say that "some experts consider that the movable frame bee hive of Johann Dzierzon was also constructed on the basis of Prokopovich’s invention" [sic.]; I would like to know what experts on on what base say Dzierzon hive used Prokopovich’s invention and what part of the invention Dzierzon used.

So finally, to tell SOME experts and CONSIDER and SUGESTED is not reliable to say Dzierzon used any part of Procopovich ideas. In simple words Fursov V.N is telling about M L Gornich work which does not seems to be correctly done. Best regards, Aserafin (talk) Aserafin (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

PS.Actually, reading again what you wrote: "In 1838 he devised a movable-comb beehive, which allowed manipulation of individual honeycombs without destroying the structure of the hive – probably using the ideas of Petro Prokopovych's widely-publicized movable frame hive." sounds like Dzierzon committed plagiarism, which is an offense for his memory. Personally, as I did read everything I could find in English, German and Polish about his life, work, and personality; I can tell you he would never commit plagiarism. He was not such personality as some others - you know about whom I am talking. If Dzierzon used anybody's idea in any of his many discoveries he mentioned it in his publications. Best regards.Aserafin (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Publication is an invitation to readers to use the ideas that are published, and Prokopovych published widely. Using other people's published ideas isn't plagiarism, plagiarism is re-presenting other people's ideas as solely your own work. And, while Dzierzon's hives are not identical to Prokopovych's, they do use similar ideas. At this edit I have slightly weakened the claim. I hope that this seems reasonable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No definitely, the hive of Prokopovich was different. And telling that somebody hive was publicized and POSSIBLLY other used his idea in his is not at all correct. Tell me what you think Dzierzon could copy from Procopovich hive which was original Procopovich idea. If you can not since the "reference" you provided does not specify it, and you are not beekeeper or expert in beekeeping history, just stop you obstinacy, please. You can not tell the difference in hives construction that is my conclusion. Aserafin (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC).

Again I remind you: Wikipedia presents the ideas of other people, not our own analyses. We do have a reference for Dzierzon having probably used the published ideas of Prokopovych, indeed it would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that the erudite Dzierzon had not studied and used those ideas. Nobody is saying that specific details were copied or that Dzierzon did not do extensive development work. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If you still have convenient access to Dzierzon's publications, it would be really useful if you could scan and include in the article some diagrams / pictures that do show details of Dzierzon's hive designs. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I will do it for you, but how you can say and stand for that Dzierzon used Procopovich idea if you do not know Dzierzon's design? In particular when I underlined previously/above that the statement in Fursov V.N article is without any concrete actual scientific support. The words SOME experts and CONSIDER and SUGESTED are not a scientific talk. I send to him e-mail few days ago gently telling him so and asking for more info and more explanations. Regards, Aserafin (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually it is good practice to use such words when they are consistent with the strength of the evidence. I look forward to anything that Fursov may wish to say, but I do remind you that on Wikipedia we must use appropriate sources and not our own research. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

"good practice to use such words when they are consistent with the strength of the evidence" - are you referring to the words of Fursov? Well, you are right the strength of evidence is NONE so he used the words. And you obstinately want to keep the propaganda of Fursov's balloon. You bit around the bush and you are exhausting my patience this is not scientific practice and it is unpolite. I am going to report your practices.

Regarding your edition: If you have no evidence probability is equal to ZERO and you can not use the the the word PROBABLY.

I wanted honestly cooperate with you on the base of scientific evidences which you would find, and wished you will accept mine, but I see it is impossible. You stick to you point without evidence and attempt to be superiors with your knowledge of Wikipedia rules.Aserafin (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You can find the Dzierzon's movable comb (comb not frame) hive, and Prokopovych UNMOVABLE frame hive using google. I do not know how to insert images here. If you can not read the old drawings this is not my fault - you are not a beekeeper so you would rather need modern technical drawings to understand what is what. Besides, you are inclined to use my work for yours editions as you did on article Beehive. I did not ask you to cut my edition in pieces and enter where you prefer. But I asked you, as possible friendly fellow editor, to check and improve my piece. Regards,Aserafin (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Now you are talking - in seconds you jump on the explained edition. Read my notes on the Dzierzon talk page, and decide. Remove your unscientific references and stop assuming you are superiors and can strengthen your own ego on Wikipedia, or I will report on you I will not wait long.Aserafin (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You may wish to ask for help at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Meanwhile I strongly recommend that you study Wikipedia's policies on original research, personal attacks, and civility. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I told you to stop advising me. Respond to the point - to science, logic, notes, and facts. Marginally, it is not definitely, civility (polite) to mess with logic and waste the time of other editors and the resolution board. Aserafin (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And what exactly is your definition of a movable frame? A frame is not movable if there is incorrect space between the frames and the hive body. And there is no space between the hive body and Prokopovych frames. This you can check on the drawing of the P. hive and find what spaces if any he applied there. A good book for it is Eva Crane The world history of beekeeping and honey hunting. This book is in reference section. If you want discus the movable frame you need to understand that without discovering the bee space nobody constructed really movable frame. This is what Dzierzon did, nobody else, and multi-words of yours last edition will not help. That is what Dzierzon said paraphrasing German/Prussian anthem "True, true above all , lies and false will pass away but true will stay". Anyway, Dzierzon did not designed the movable frame, he was not interested in frames, until the honey extractor was invented in 1864. The movable frame designed baron August von Berlepsh (May 1852) and in the awkwardly way Langstroth (October 1852). So what? Dzierzon copied Prokopovich frames, are you attempting to be funny? He used movable combs not frames. Or you will tell that Procopovich described bee space as we know today what is absolute rubbish. many before Procopovych attempted to build movable frame hive, but instead see what the bees rules are they rather thought that they can drive the bees as their imagination leads. You should pay me for my info since seems to me you have no idea what so ever about the beekeeping staff and beekeeping history. Aserafin (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see you do not read my notes at all. Well, will you stay with the Prokopovch "probability" or you give me free hand to remove it? Now I will tell, you the "Petro Prokopovich and World Beekeeping" by M L Gornich is nowhere to find, no on Google nor on bookfinder.com. Mr Fursov does not respond either, so.... what you say?

Oh, and Prokopovich frames were no movable - the people at Apimondia do not know what they are talking about - they just wish to have a hero. Prokopovich was good but taking Dzierzon achivments is not fair, lightly speaking. Instead the speakers at Apimondia should read extensively about what it what, and what are the names and definitions. For you, best is to sustain on reputable scientific publications - you have none such in this Prokopovich matter, would you. I guess not, more I am sure. Please respond. Aserafin (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this edit help you at all? It makes more clear that movable frames are not among the ideas that Dzierzon may have derived in part from Prokopovych's publications. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, sorry, this edit just move a sentence about movable comb hive - it does not eliminate the suggestion Dzierzon used Prokopovich idea(s) in; or telling that Dzierzon hive was original having nothing to do with Prokopovich design. This is the fact Dzierzon hive was very simple (no frames but movable bars). Prokopovich's hive was elaborate complicated and the caseates were for sure propolised and blocked by burr combs. This is the original genius of Dzierzon and only he nobody else appointed the correct space between combs and/plus the space presently called "beespace". For the two reasons above 1) Dzierzon's genial simplicity and 2) the exact practical spacing in his hive; Prokopovich hive can not be compared with Dzierzon clever design. If you would study the beekeeping history closely you would see several attempts/designs/hives which pretended to be movable frame hives, for that designs the place is in article 'Beehive' not on the article 'Dzierzon'. Wherein even there, in article 'Beehive', the phrase movable frames (comb) hive should not be used regarding such attempt, since nobody before Dzierzon established the correct space between combs (1/2 inch), and the, so called today, bee space (8 mm) together in one design. This rule is applied in every serious book about beekeeping history (as example Eva Crane books) ie. hive is not named movable comb/frame hive if it has incorrect spacing. More, the rule instead there is the rule of marking the spacing between combs, and frames and hive body to show why the particular design is imperfect.

Now, I accessed right at this moment, the Eva Crane book and find what is there about Prokopovich and Dzierzon 1) Dzierzon knew about Prokopovich work however 2) the Prokopovich distancing (frames in upper chamber) was 44 mm i.e. incorrect 3) no spacing between frames (cassettes) 4) in down chamber Procopovich used no frames or bars (combs were build freely and obviously not movable), 5) only similarities between Prokopovich hive and Dzierzon hive was they were tall, 2-3 or more stories - not much :) is not it? 6) the Dzierzon hive is opened from back, the Procopovich hive on the side (just to say, if this would be important for somebody).

Please remove the insert about Prokopovich. It is nonsense and unjust suggestion Dzierzon had been following of Prokopovich design, even more - that Dzierzon was plagiarist. On the base of evidences it is offensive insert, and more important unscientific edit. The insert was introduced by an anonymous editor (offender of Wikipedia rules) - blocked now. He provided on demand references, which I found irrelevant. The nonsense insert stood until you removed the reference on my suggestion. You, however, found the Fursov unscientific reference, and insist on this insert.

If you want mark Prokopovich in Wikipedia the Dzierzon article is not the place, also any suggestion anywhere that Dzierzon used Prokopovich work without providing real evidence I will treat as incorrect edit, and offensive to Dzierzon's memory. What I heard there are some Russian trolls, who use Wikipedia to anger enemies and set at variance between Ukrainians and other nations - in particular Polish. Aserafin (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a reference (Fursov) supporting the suggestion that Dzierzon was aware of Prokopovych's work and may have used some of his published ideas, and we comment, at present, that Dzierzon "constructed several experimental beehives – possibly using ideas from Petro Prokopovych's widely-publicized developments." I haven't seen any argument from Wikipedia's core content policies that suggests that this formulation is unsuitable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No we do not have Fursov reference supporting suggestion we have talk of Fursov about suggestion. Reference is a p material ie. telling facts not suggestions. You have no prove. GIVE ONE SPECIFIC POINT WHERE DZIERZON USED ORGINAL PROKOPOVICH IDEA. JUST ONE!!! AND WE WILL SEE WHAT THE VALUE OF YOUR CONVICTION IS. Aserafin (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WNo we do not have Fursov reference supporting suggestion we have talk of Fursov about suggestion. Reference is a p material ie. telling facts not suggestions. You have no prove. GIVE ONE SPECIFIC POINT WHERE DZIERZON USED ORGINAL PROKOPOVICH IDEA. JUST ONE!!! AND WE WILL SEE WHAT THE VALUE OF YOUR CONVICTION IS. Aserafin (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, you approach for the science and valid reference is like this: "Mr Fursov told that his colleague suggest some experts consider on Mars an inteligent live exists. Thus I Richard am convinced the inteligent live on Mars possibly exists." You do not want to see the above approach is guessing there are no prove such inteligent live on Mars exists. Guessing are not facts so can not be use as reference and as such be edited on Wikipedia. Aserafin (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The reference has a convenient list of some of Prokopovych's innovations. Would you like to list those that Dzierzon could not plausibly have used? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I think leaving the message is good for both of us. The extended time for accepting facts and being scientific is more annoying for me that moving my messages to other pages for you.

You have the next clarification on the Dzierzon talk page.

"Plausibly"? Here is no place for plausibly. You have to list those which were used. Below I discuss two points that plausibly COULD start a claim to be transferred from Prokopovych. But I explained it in past and repeat that the claims are unfounded.

First, above all,  do not enter "several experimental hives" and tell "possibly used P. ideas". We have to be specific about what hive and what ideas were used. I do not care about minor inventions and hive designs that have no particular use in modern times. The paragraph "Scientific career" needs only tell about the most important - the predecessor of MOVABLE frame hive and finding so call now bee space. You enter plural hives and use "possibly used P. ideas" in effect there is the unclear suggestion that Dzierzon was not the discoverer of bee space. Encyclopedic editions have to be clear as math and logic NO propaganda and unclear suggestions.

1) Sleeved hive, well the term is not used, at least commonly. What I can imagine is a synonym for side or back opened the hive. (Maybe you can tell me what that is? I met the term the first time and I search beekeeping history at least for 30 years. Google search leads you to nothing...)

Assuming that term "sleeve hive" is regarding back or side open hives; Abbot della Rocca's hive (1790) would be the first from side/back open hive - this is not a big invention anyway just a human wish to have bees in the cubic package :).

Prokopovych's hive was a side open hive anyway, which would give you big trouble - this is since several combs are glued to the opening board. Thus when you go in (in this case to the lower chamber where no frames) you destroy uncontrollably several combs - a big mess and a lot of angry bees. This is not what Dzierzon copied in his BACK opening hives from.

2) Frames. First, the frame's idea seems to be described by J.A. in England (1683), next was Hubber in Scotland (1792) and Playfair in Scotland in 1804. But the hives were not movable frame hives, the same as Prokopovych frames/cassette were NOT MOVABLE. To be movable the frame/combs have to be properly distanced, if not the bees will disregard the will of the constructor and build according to their design. They will do so even if you will provide a wax guide for combs. I told you already that Prokopovych cassette/frames were not movable since the distancing was planned 44 mm - what is INCORRECT. The Prokopovych frames were NOT MOVABLE, absolutely not - you have no basic beekeeping knowledge telling the opposite way!!! Read some good beekeeping history books like by Eva Crane, and most above all start practicing beekeeping. You start pressing on me to explain to you what is what because you have no idea how bees are working. Moreover, when I tell you facts about beekeeping you question my knowledge of basic things. You need to make effort to study facts in the real world by yourself.

Besides, Dzierzon did not aim for frames, as I told you before. He was happy with his BACK opening hive and movable combs, - frames did not have for him big appeal until the discovery of the honey extractor (1864). The 8 mm groove to move bars was discovered without frames in Dzierzon's mind. It was obvious to him that bees have the standard passage which they neither build up with wax nor propolis (what is now named bee space), but he did not plan to use it for building frames in a bee hive, possibly because it would cost a lot, and he had hundreds of hives well operating already. Why and what Dzierzon did in the sequence is an interesting story, but this was step by step process and needed such a brilliant man like he was to make this and other discoveries.

That is all - points 1) and 2) of your list. I see no more points which possibly can have a claim to Dzierzon's movable comb hive. Obviously, no innovative or important ideas were transferred from Prokopovich's work to Dzierzon's movable comb hive. AND above ALL absolutely no way to claim that Prokopovych had anything to do with finding the "bee space". I will describe step-by-step Dzierzon's findings of it in the future. To find the "bee space" is considered easy for beekeeping untrained men, but it is not. Now we know that bees use their body size to build combs and distance them in the brood chamber but in the 1830's most people took into consideration rather God's will in it. Bees also extended the standard length of the cell where they store the honey so the bee space and comb spacing look uncertain on prompted a man (also Prokopovych) to get wrong conclusions about comb distancing.

If you see others in your 10 points list to clarify for you, tell me. Until a person has questions not persistent claims to know everything better I am easy and willing to explain. In fact, questions often prompt me to clarification of my pictures and find more details. Obviously the "challenging" man is burden if his goal is to prove he is smart. Aserafin (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Again I suggest that you check the fundamentals of Wikipedia, and ask for other more experienced editors to help you. Possibly, the dispute resolution noticeboard may be of use. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, since any logic reaches you, I have no option, I have to write a report on you Aserafin (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Did Petro Prokopovych influence Johann Dzierzon?

Petro Prokopovych was an Ukrainian beekeeper, who developed and published many advances in beekeeping when Johann Dzierzon was young. Much of Prokopovych's work was published in German, Dzierzon's academic language, and we have a reference suggesting that Dzierzon used some of Prokopovych's ideas in his own remarkable developments. Indeed, I suggest that to claim that Dzierzon made no use of Prokopovych's ideas would require strong evidence.

After the discussions in the previous section, at this diff, the reference, and the comment "– possibly using ideas from Petro Prokopovych's widely-publicized developments" were removed. I have reinstated them, pending the development of a consensus on the best version of this page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What about in opposite provide evidence from Prokopovych publications which could link to Dzierzon discoveries. This is much easier and to the point. You prove the case, but no, you want sit conveniently and put somebody to work, more you will always tell this is not enough and a probability still exists. Viola!! Aserafin (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

At this diff I have reinstated the reference and the comment. Again I suggest that you ask for help at dispute resolution noticeboard. And again I strongly recommend that you study Wikipedia's policies on original research, personal attacks, and civility. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I asked for resolution board over one week ago, and left your note about it on your talk page - You removed it!!

I asked you for facts many many times and you disregarded it. I explained you that Prokopovych hive have nothing to do with Dzierzon hives. You disregarded logic and the rule of providing scientific knowledge instead suppositions/propaganda. The reference you provided is a propaganda planted on non scientific gathering - no facts just SOME, POSSIBLY etc. I give you the chance to analyze but you DEMAND!! from me a proves instead it is you obligation to prove you point. Man you are not serious. Believe me you attitude will have consequences, you are not serious at all. You annoy people instead cooperate honestly and scientifically. Aserafin (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

We have a source that supports the text. That’s how Wikipedia works. Brunton (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

We? You working as a team? Did you read the whole section "Dzierzon vs Prokopovyich hive" above? What is your definition of Valid reference? SOME experts, and CONSIDER, and SUGESTED ...? Wikipedia is not a place to spread such unfounded suggestions. When I say Langhsthoth did not discovered beespace I can prove on the base of original historical texts and facts that I am right. If I am telling you Prokopovych hive has nothing to do with Dzierzon hive I proved it on the base of the hive description and historical figures I am right. That are the references. What you name reference is a PROPAGANDA planted on non scientific gathering. (Beside Mr. Fursov did not answer to my e-mail for clariffications, for more than month)

I was assuming your revert ( 21:14, 4 August 2022‎) was plane corrections according to Wikipedia rule. Now I see it was plane cronyism, since you never had been edited the Dzierzon article before and beekeeping was never in your interest. Is it correct and polite to attack someone just because your friend is attacking that someone? Aserafin (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I came to this article because someone posted about it on a noticeboard that I keep an eye on (I don’t really see anything “fringe” here, by the way). I don’t think I’d encountered either you or the other editor involved here before that. I suppose I ought to advise you to read WP:AGF.

When I said, “we” I meant Wikipedia, not particular editors. You say that you are “telling [us] Prokopovych hive has nothing to do with Dzierzon hive”; do you have a source that says this? The reference we (including you) have wouldn’t support a flat statement that Dzierzon’s hive was based on Prokopovyich’s, but it’s good enough for “possibly”. It might need attribution, but in the absence of a source rebutting it I don’t see a reason to remove it. Brunton (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This is strange way to tell about Wikipedia by "We". I would use the impersonal form: "There are reference suporting..."

I really hate editors which advice me to study wikipedia's complicated rules, and beehive accordingly instead to answer to simple questions straight forward. SO:

1) Did you read whole the section "Dzierzon vs Prokopovyich hive" above? (you opinion is no value if you did not - simply you do not know what is going on, and what is what.)

2) What is your definition of Valid reference? : SOME experts, and CONSIDER, and SUGESTED ... is this for you valid scientific reference?

3) Now tell me why you assuming I HAVE TO provide the refence saying the Dzierzon hive has nothing to do with Prokopovich hive? (The next point will explain you why the burden does not falls on my shoulders).

[You are right nobody will take care about something, which is so unimportant and works much worst than planed, like Prokopovich hive. So, nobody evaluatde and compared hive of P. with Dzierzon. Nowbody will and say what I am telling. That would be not worth of a time of scientist writing serious book.]

I, however, provided the description of P. hive on the base of respectable beekeeping historian above. (If you are not beekeeper you cannot evaluate the hives anyway. Honestly taking you part in the fight is inappropriate).

The same is regarding Richard Keatinge, who could not tell he is beekeeper and can understand the technicality.

The Polish proverb says: "Everyone can see what kind of horse is." It is simplest thing under the Sun for experienced beekeeper to judge the hive. On the base of original figure and the some description he can easly say: the P. hive is wrong and a died branch of evolution, it has nothing to do with Dzierzon hive.

4) The discussion and any prove would be not necessary if somebody would not put up ungrounded suggestion (in fact false claims). But Mr. Fusov did, and Richard Keatinge stuck to the false claims like Velcro.

Most important according to the holly and first rule of the court of justice: THIS IS NOT THE ACCUSED PERSON WHO HAVE TO PROVE HE IS INNOCENT. I advocate for Dzierzon, and suggesting that he used somebody ideas in his conclusion/achievement is accursing him for plagiarism. And honestly, I do not care what the intentions of Mr. Fusov and Richard maybe; they are just attaching P. name to Dzierzon fame and they think it is harmless doing. However, a lie is a lie, whatever small seems it for them. So finally THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY NOT LAYING telling that Dzierzon used P. ideas. They can not say that Dzierzon DID SO, so they say "possiblly". No judge will accept a witness statement with the word possibly. The judge and the justice will accept only the word "YES" Dzierzon did make a plagiarism. Somebody saying "possibly" in court or science without PROVIDING evidence on top of it, for judge consideration, will be "kicked out from the court or scientific community".

5) Thus finally tell me why you see it is OK to attach up to the fame of somebody by telling "possibly he used my (or sombody) idea"? If you would think about yourself in the position of Dr. Dzierzon or his heirs you would tell: "PROVE me I used yours idea - you are lier." ....PROVE ME on base of facts you a honest and truthful person.

Moreover, Richard demands from me to prove that Prokopovych did not use the idea of Dzierzon. When I provided him with the reference and description of the hive P. and D he told me: "but Dzierzon constructed several experimental hives". - What does it mean? - He demands and multiplies the task taking easiest most comfortable possition, without any actual work on his part. No facts, just annoying, stubborn claim - he has a worthwhile reference.

Civilized person do not use an opportunity to attach to somebody fame, and above all do not disturb society order by repeating his false claim.

That is all, what is according to the moral and civilized rules. If you are honest for sure you will understand that and stop supporting false claim of Richard Keatinge. Aserafin (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It is simplest thing under the Sun for experienced beekeeper to judge the hive. On the base of original figure and the some description he can easly say: the P. hive is wrong and a died branch of evolution, it has nothing to do with Dzierzon hive. All you need to do, then, is find a published source in which they say this. Brunton (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this Bruton account can be a second account of Richard Keatinge. This is the same attitude:

1) Not reading of other's comments

2) No answer to asked questions

3) Preferred activity to annoy somebody with "good" advice, which has nothing to do with science.

The Wikipedia rules are not so important knowledge, and knowledge of the rules is not issue of Wikipedia. Honest scientific effort is.

If the annoying attitude will be continued, although I am very busy with real life, real work and real scientific efforts, I will do all necessary reports on your both accounts up to the end, and to the end results.

Wikipedia has global reception, has some respect and can not be a sandbox for individuals who play frivolous games. Aserafin (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)