Talk:Colony collapse disorder/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

New information

I know nothing about bees and all this stuff but ran across [this article while doing research on fuel cells at the same website. I doubt this link is a WP:RS but though this might be a good starting point for more research by folks who do understand this stuff. 66.97.209.215 (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It is now pretty well established that more than one factor is at work here and even the USDA admits that pesticides most likely are one factor. This study brings a couple of issues up, one is that the pesticides were found in weeds and not the crops that were treated. Another is the fungicide combination. This study will be very useful for the article. Again, thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're Welcome 66.97.209.215 (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The EEA report Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation also contains an interesting chapter on this topic: Seed-dressing systemic insecticides and honeybees -- 129.132.225.23 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Wondering where to place the new info mentioned above, I ended up reviewing the whole article and cleaning it up a bit. Having a limited amount of time, I have yet to find the time to place the new info in the article yet. As new information comes in, it seems that more and more they are finding that sub lethal amounts of pesticides (and fungicides are mentioned above) are harming the bee's immune systems and the already dangerous diseases that have become prevalent are now killing bees rather than being somewhat under control. I came across another new article today: [1] I will continue to work on this article, and of course anyone else that can find time may want to work on it as well. BTW, the info offered by 66 noted that they found that often most of the bees were not foraging in their test plots but rather in the weeds outside of the plot. This reminded me of the early tests done by Bayer on tiny little plots in Canada that were accepted by EPA--who knows how many bees were actually gathering their pollen and nectar from the test plots? Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I came across two relatively recent research studies which I did not find in the reference list. Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae and Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees. Especially the first one seems to imply a much greater role of fungicides (which are generally considered harmless) than previously thought. VeraLeimann (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Opening section undue weight

Fully half of the opening section, which is supposed to be an overview of the topic, is devoted to a discussion of the role of neonicotinoid pesticides in CCD. This would probably be acceptable if there was a general scientific consensus that the neonicotinoids were the cause, but given the uncertainty about the cause at this point, the policy of giving appropriate balance to the various hypotheses demands that I (or someone) edit it to comply with Wikipedia standards. The things mentioned in the paragraph to be edited remain in the article, so that this edit cannot be construed as an attempt to conceal a very plausible explanation for CCD. DoctorEric (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you think a discussion of [2] is appropriate for the introduction? EllenCT (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Fipronil in wrong section?

Isn't fipronil an insecticide? Anyone know why it would be under the "Antibiotics and miticides" section? NickCT (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved. Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There has been some talk of it being used as a miticide, so I could see why it could be thrown into that section at first blush. The content isn't about mites though, so it entirely makes sense to move it since we're talking about it being used as an insecticide. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gandydancer and Kingofaces43: -  Done Thanks for the gut check guys. I've moved it. Glancing over this, the entire Pesticides could be reworked a bit..... NickCT (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The pesticide section is a mishmash of unrelated material about what government agencies have been doing, etc. and less focus about discussing where pesticides are implicated as a potential cause. It's way down there on my to do list for major editing in my spare time, so if you're interested in reworking it, I say be bold and see what other folks think of it afterwards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Bayer's behavior is irrelevant?

@Smartse: why do you say in [3] that Bayer's behavior is irrelevant? Aren't the reports about both pyrethroids and neonics? EllenCT (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one who tagged the addition for a {{POV-check}}. (In fact, I was tempted to remove it without a tag.) Your question practically answers itself – the article is about CCD as a biological event. It is not about the behavior of Bayer. – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been away this week. By 'irrelevant' I meant that I couldn't see the relevance of including information about who created the first neonic in this article. The beekeeping sources you added are specifically referring to pyrethroids which aren't mentioned anywhere else in this article and AFAIK haven't been implicated in CCD. The Independent is the only really solid source and that makes no mention of CCD. That content would be more suited to the Beekeeping in the United Kingdom article. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim that Bayer's payments were only for pyrethroids and not any neonics? EllenCT (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You have brought no reliable source that says that Bayer made payments to british beekeepers for neonics. What is your reliable source for the claim? Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible causes section

New wording has been added to the Possible causes section:

The current scientific consensus is that no single factor is causing CCD, but that some these factors in combination may lead to CCD[35][36][37][38], especially pests and pathogens. [39][40]

I have deleted the wording "especially pests and pathogens" that is tacked on at the end with a couple of references. According to the USDA report, "acute and sublethal effects of pesticides on honey bees have been increasingly documented, and are a primary concern". Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Are a concern, but this is slightly different than saying which concern has the most weight when consensus is mentioned, which is what I was attempting above. I was attributing your quote above to the combination of factors statement since that section of the reference is listing potential combinational causes that are getting the most interest, not particularly which is on the top of the list. However, the two references I included at the end are making a specific statement about scientific consensus, so it would seem like we should be giving additional weight to those ideas:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-013-0870-2:

From the abstract, "In contrast, annual colony losses seem to be driven mainly by the spread of introduced pathogens and pests, and management problems due to a long-term intensification of production and the transition from large numbers of small apiaries to fewer, larger operations. We conclude that, while other causal hypotheses have received substantial interest, the role of pests, pathogens, and management issues requires increased attention."

http://site.xavier.edu/Blairb/sustainable-agriculture-2/honey-bees/honey-bee-pathology-current.pdf:

"Although the phenomenon "decline of honey bees" is far from being finally solved, consensus exists that pests and pathogens are the single most important cause of otherwise inexplicable colony losses."

So basically the approach I'm trying to take is saying there are multiple primary concerns that are being looked at (i.e. neonics, pests, pathogens, etc.), but that specific factors are currently carrying the most weight in that consensus. I didn't mention others since those are being discussed in the main body of the section, and more discussion of individual weight likely should be under each potential cause rather than this intro paragraph. Mainly I'm trying to figure out how to handle specific statements of scientific consensus is the literature here. If that clarifies things, any ideas on what the best approach would be with those sources in mind? Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the reason that you are having trouble reporting "that specific factors are currently carrying the most weight in that consensus" is because there isn't one. The first study you offer doesn't say that, rather it correctly points out that given the inconsistent way that the term is used and the problems with reports makes it hard to point to any smoking guns in the first place. It goes on to say that more study is needed in the areas of: The full examination of losses should include an array of factors including but not limited to: 1)Prevalence of pathogens and pests in the colony over the previous year 2)Environmental and ecological disturbances 3) Pesticide application and misuse in surrounding areas and 4) Management and industry practices such as migration, nutrition, and medical treatments. BTW, keep in mind the fact that several recent studies have suggested that while it seems that while bees may actually die from mites/pathogens, they could have overcome them but for their weakened immune systems due to pesticide exposure.

Re the second link you offer, I can't see where one old study (2010) authored by one person should be used to summarize all of the current information on CCD. Incidentally, the USDA did NOT suggest that pesticides have the most weight, but that they are a primary concern. Gandydancer (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to point out a smoking gun. I'm trying to point out what the multiple combinations are that researchers are actively pursuing (we seem to be in agreement there), and then point out which combinations have the strongest case at the moment (within the context that there isn't a definitive answer to the cause yet). Making that kind of distinction in how research works to the general public can be troublesome though, so I'm not entirely against just leaving the beginning of this section without a statement of weight either. The more I think about it, there doesn't seem to me to be a good way to concisely communicate that to a Wikipedia audience without making it inadvertently seem like a smoking gun, so I'd probably say it's best to leave the sentence as you left it to avoid any confusion. That way weight can be inferred by the content of each subsection instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing difficult at all about communicating the present state of scientific consensus to the reader when one has the information to back that statement up. It only gets a little tricky when one attempts to change the consensus by adding "especially pests and pathogens" as you are attempting to do. Gandydancer (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's an important distinction to make sure we're focusing on that there are factors that are a concern (i.e. what research is currently being done and factors being considered) versus what the currently available evidence says. The latter isn't meant to say there may not be evidence for other factors in the future, but simply what to do we currently know now. That's a little different than saying the consensus is something, so maybe a better way to clear things up would be to add an additional sentence after saying, "Currently, most evidence exists for X,Y,Z, but the remaining factors are being actively researched."

That being said, it would take a bit of work to summarize the multiple sources stating what currently has strong evidence, what's been refuted, and what doesn't have strong evidence but needs more research, so the above is just a thought. I’d prefer to leave the sentence as you left it until we go through another review cycle (most are in 2010 which are still pretty recent with a couple 2013 studies). If we get more direct statements of what has the most evidence I think it would be worth adding, but I’m perfectly fine just relying on weighting each factor within its own section as the article is currently set up. In other words, the content is fine as is for now just to keep things simpler, so no additional changes are needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In the future I hope that you will discuss your edits first if they are of major importance, as this one was. Gandydancer (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If I think something going to warrant a major discussion normally I do go to the talk page first. This edit seemed rather straight forward at first, but the more I looked at the supporting sources recently, they mostly aren't directly implicating CCD in their statements of consensus, but rather honeybee health and declines in general with CCD in the mix. That does confound a straightforward attempt at clarifying where the evidence is currently sitting, so that's why I mainly figured it'd be best to let this section be for now. In retrospect I should have separated the consensus sentence from the part you removed and expanded the latter a little more. That way it would not have seemed like a major change or smoking gun statement was intended since my intent was to eventually lead into a quick summary of the evidence to date (e.g. factors with strong evidence, weak or unknowns still being researched, or largely refuted ideas). It still does seem like this introductory part of the section needs a summary like that before jumping into each subsection, but I'll just leave that as an idea for now in case anyone wants to tackle it in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's an interesting editorial on the topic [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Initiatives to ban neonicotinoids in the United States

While tempted to just make an edit without comment, this is ticklish enough that I want to acknowledge it.

The second paragraph of this section on banning neonics contains the following sentences: "The Save America's Pollinators Act was drafted immediately following the largest documented die off of bees in the United States which took place in the parking lot of a department store in June 2013. The neonicotinoid Safari, which had been sprayed on linden trees, was suspected of killing the bees.[102][103] "

Given that this discussion is about colony collapse disorder, a problem of honey bee hives, the above wording suggests a mass die off of honey bees. This was not the case: 50,000 BUMBLEBEES were killed by the off-label application of Safari, (some honeybees and other bees also died, but bumbles were the big casualty). While some bumble species have undergone massive and unexplainable species reductions, as far as I know research has not suggested a corresponding CCD disorder in bumbles. In either case, there is some selective editing I disagree with.

We do know that some of the same problems are found in both honeybees and bumbles, and that includes susceptibility to some poisons, so in this way the event is significant. But I'd like to encourage the writer to somehow rework this section so as to be more precise. As I said, I could probably rework it myself, but want to ask the original author(s) first. I know -- how unWikipedian. I'm asking anyway.

I'd also add that Bachman, mentioned in the third paragraph of this section, is one of many stores across the country that have taken the initiative to stop carrying Neonics. Lincoln Creek Lumber in Western Washington State, (near Olympia) was recently given an award by the Olympia Beekeepers Assosciation following its similar action.

Thanks.GeeBee60 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You may have to wait till Doomsday to get the editor to respond... :) What were you thinking of adding/changing? Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You've hit upon a general issue that the public has issues separating in an already complex topic. I haven't seen any mention of CCD for non-honey bee species yet in the literature, nor should we be discussing bumble bee issues here unless their issues are also described as CCD. Good catch. With that, I removed the section you quoted in the second paragraph since it really isn't discussing CCD for honeybees. There is quite a bit of tangentially related info in this article, so it's always good to have another fresh set of eyes to slowly pick away at some things so we can keep the focus on CCD. As for Bachmans, that section had been bugging me for awhile, but I had left it since there were some spiny discussions going on earlier. I'm sure one could list off stores that don't use neonics in their plants, which in itself the act is fine and dandy, but I'm not sure how it's considered notable for Wikipedia either. More importantly though, such content may be more appropriate for inclusion (or at least discuss whether it should be included) on the Bachmans or neonicotinoid pages, but not here since we're discussing CCD. I removed that content for now as well.

Otherwise, if you have any other changes in mind, feel free to bring specific edits here or try them out and see what others think if you're pretty confident in the edit. Just as an FYI, there is no ownership of articles. So while some folks may contribute most of the content as some point, anyone is free to edit. A lot of the times the person that originally added content can be long gone, so equal responsibility for the article falls on whoever is around at the time (yourself included now), and yet in a way no one is really considered the go to person(s) either. It's just one of the interesting ways that Wikipedia works. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And that got reverted pretty quick. Gandydancer, is there some reason why you thought the edits were not appropriate? It's pretty straightforward on both cases that we're dealing with very tangentially related content at best, so I'm having a little difficulty in seeing any justification for including the content as is. Also, please avoid the spiky comments in edit summaries. We don't need aspersions when we've had relatively straightforward edits and talk page discussion on this topic so far. If there is something to say related to content, then just say so like any normal WP:BRD process. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I hardly see how the Conyer's bill can be called unrelated when it is directly related to concerns over neonics and a possible relationship with CCD. As for Bachman's decision, again directly related. Regarding the linden bee die off, that should go for two reasons: It appears to be suggesting a relationship when there is none, and I agree that it has little to do with CCD. And lastly, I'm surprised that you are instructing me about "aspersions" - you are an experienced editor and you must be aware that it is not in the spirit of collaboration when you go right ahead and delete material that is being discussed rather than allow discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment about editor behavior on your talk page. The bill is only a proposed bill. Normally pending legislation, lawsuits, etc. aren't considered notable for Wikipedia, largely because they are fluidly changing, nor do we have proper sources weighting what the law be (i.e. we have no crystal ball). They're notable after they are finalized, but special care is needed in the rarer instances where such material is used in an article. The main issue though is that the connection to CCD is not particularly strong in the source, and we are also discussing a primary source. As I said before, the source could have a place over in Neonicotinoid since the bill is mainly dealing with how to handle neonics, but the source's relation to CCD isn't particularly strong even when you set aside WP:PRIMARY issues.

As for Bachman's, I pointed out the issue in my edit summary. The main issue is that we don't list random companies because they do or don't use a product. It's undue weight even in strongly related articles. This article is about CCD, not neonicotinoids. That source is more about "saving the bees" in general, not about CCD specifically. We already have a page dedicated to neonics. We need to keep this page on topic and concise, and part of that is going to include moving or removing tangential content that doesn't really have a strong home here. These would have been pretty standard removals in most any other article for that type of content, so what exactly is so vital to the CCD article that these two pieces remain? We'd need a pretty good reason to keep the content at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces said: "The main issue though is that the connection to CCD is not particularly strong in the source, and we are also discussing a primary source." Reading the bill, I don't see how much stronger the wording can be. Re "primary source" problems, perhaps if it were from Conyer's site it could be called a primary source, but when the US government published it, it was secondary.

Sec. 2. Findings

(1) Pollination services are a vital part of agricultural production, valued at over $125,000,000,000 globally and worth $20,000,000,000 to $30,000,000,000 in agricultural production annually in the United States.

(2) One-third of food produced in North America depends on pollination by honey bees, including nearly 95 varieties of fruits such as almonds, avocados, cranberries, and apples.

(3) Over the past several years, documented incidents of colony collapse disorder have been at a record high, with some beekeepers repeatedly losing 100 percent of their operations.

(4) During the winter beginning in 2012 and ending in 2013, United States beekeepers, on average, lost 45.1 percent of the colonies they operate.

(5) According to scientists of the Department of Agriculture, current estimates of the survivorship of honey bee colonies show they are too low to be able to meet the pollination demands of United States agricultural crops.

(6) Scientists have linked the use of systemic neonicotinoid insecticides to the rapid decline of pollinators and to the deterioration of pollinator health.

(7) Neonicotinoids cause sublethal effects including impaired foraging and feeding behavior, disorientation, weakened immunity, delayed larval development, and increased susceptibility to viruses, diseases, and parasites and numerous studies have also demonstrated acute, lethal effects from the application of neonicotinoid insecticides.

(8) Recent science has demonstrated that a single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid is toxic enough to kill a songbird.

(9) In June 2013, over 50,000 bumblebees were killed as a direct result of exposure to a neonicotinoid applied to Linden trees for cosmetic purposes.

(10) In January 2013, the European Food Safety Authority determined that the most widely used neonicotinoids pose unacceptable hazards to bees, prompting the European Union to suspend their use on agricultural crops. [5]

Regarding the copy re Bachman's, Kingofaces said: "This article is about CCD, not neonicotinoids". Let's not pretend that CCD related to neonics is not at the heart of the Bachman decision. If anything, the section discussing this should be expanded, not deleted. There is a growing belief that neonics are an important part of the picture, and if nurseries begin to respond to pressure from their customers, that is important to include in our article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Repository sites are not secondary sources, they are primary sources. Secondary sources are what establish weight. Pending legislation is equivalent to current events, which we don't do that at Wikipedia. Pending legislation tends to either go nowhere, or is revised multiple times if it does pass, and we aren't in a position to weight such material until it does pass. Again, it's relatively standard practice not use material like this in articles for those reasons. As I said before, the bill already has the same mention on the neonicotinoid page, and the bill is ultimately about banning neonics under multiple assumptions. Someone can wrestle with the weight issue over there where the topic of the bill at least is quite relevant, but we don't need the content here unless neonics become a known cause of CCD. As of now, there is no smoking gun for any one thing and combinations are currently being researched as we've discussed earlier. We're not in a position as editors to start tying those topics together that much yet.

The issue we run into on starting to deal with actions or thought in the public venue is that we can easily get into WP:FRINGE territory where public or politicians' perspectives are not in line with what scientific reliable sources are saying about a scientific topic. We 'can' document such perceptions about CCD (i.e. folks that are convinced that neonics must be the cause and why that kind of thinking is wrong), but carefully crafted wording is required for such fringe topics. I don't think that would be feasible on this page at this time. That's the door we start opening if we were going to get into what's behind Bachman's decision even if if it was acceptable to use such content. The main problem is that we don't list that company X bans a certain product unless it has somehow significantly contributed to the topic. In this case, we aren't mentioning all the other companies that discontinued use for whatever reason, and we aren't in a position to say that only some of those companies get listed. Normally a content issue like that means there's not enough weight for the content to be included.

I hope you understand these are all very general content issues that are rooted in WP:NPOV and WP:RS for weighting content. One hardly needs to be versed in CCD and related topics to examine those issues. When content like this is removed in other general articles, it's typically considered normal and appropriate. Why the difference here? Try not thinking about CCD for a moment and focus on the general issues with weighting content I'm bringing up if it helps in answering that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add here, for perspective (if nothing else), and as an authority on bee biology, that (1) there is no firm connection yet established between neonics and CCD, regardless of whether or not neonics harm bees - CCD is NOT a synonym for "anything that kills bees"; it has its own definition and its own symptoms, which are NOT consistent with the harm done by neonics. Yes, neonics are bad for bees, but they don't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with CCD. (2) one reason I can say the latter without fear of contradiction is that, as is pointed out in sources ALREADY in this article, CCD dates back to the 1960's and 1970's (if not earlier), and CANNOT be blamed on neonics, which weren't even invented when CCD first appeared as a major problem for beekeepers. People keep falling into this trap of thinking of CCD as if it first appeared in 2006, and it did NOT. Read the paper that coined the term, and it is stated explicitly that they RE-NAMED an existing and fairly well-documented ailment because they didn't like the name "fall dwindle disease". Dyanega (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Re the Conyers bill, I believe that the source is perfectly acceptable to show that he did indeed file a bill. Furthermore, I am not attempting to tie his bill to CCD, Conyer did that and that is what we are saying in the article. As to whether its appropriate for this article, I think that people that read our article would be interested to know that a very well known congressman has submitted a bill re CCD.

I'm quite surprised to see you pull the suggestion of Fringe into your position. You make this statement: The issue we run into on starting to deal with actions or thought in the public venue is that we can easily get into WP:FRINGE territory where public or politicians' perspectives are not in line with what scientific reliable sources are saying about a scientific topic. We 'can' document such perceptions about CCD (i.e. folks that are convinced that neonics must be the cause and why that kind of thinking is wrong), but carefully crafted wording is required for such fringe topics. In the first place, most current thinking is that pesticides are one of the mix of factors that are involved in CCD. As for the weight issue, we are not a scientific journal here, we are WP editors that put articles together that include information that we believe would be of interest to most of our readers. The Bachman issue is noteworthy because it tells our readers that a large Twin Cities nursery has decided not to use some pesticides due to the large amount of feedback from their customers.

Re your note on my talk page, you state that "it's relatively par the course for someone to make an edit at that point in time". Right in the middle of a discussion re the issues that a new editor brought up? You say "Nothing was under contest then", as your rationale that it was OK to just go right ahead and delete everything that was under discussion? I really just cannot see that you would come to my talk page to give me instructions on WP guidelines because I made an edit note stating, "There is an ongoing discussion - please try to be more [aware] that we work best when we [work] with others." Your quick delete was rude and unacceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the issue isn't documenting that the bill was filed. The issue is that it is pending, and that we cannot assign weight (e.g., likelihood of success) at this time. Something being verifiable is not alone grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia. Weight is the next crucial step that determines the if and how of inclusion. Without that, we don't have grounds for including the source with WP:NPOV in mind. Wikipedia is always behind the ball in current events. In other words, we wait until the event is in a relatively finished form before reporting it here. Pending legislation is still very fluid (likely to change or fail) so we don't have a good threshold for weight until after passage in this kind of article. The focus of the bill is also neonicotinoids in general. It's quite fine to say it's out of concern for general bee health partially, but singling out CCD is expressing one of the reasons listed a bit too far beyond the source as it wasn't just for one reason, but many.

My fringe comment seems to be quite misinterpreted. I specifically was commenting on how "folks that are convinced that neonics must be the cause' would have to described under WP:FRINGE". I wasn't commenting on whether neonics could be in the mix or not. Those are two very different perspectives to deal with. We run into the former if we want to start talking about public perception here, and that's something that's probably better to avoid at this point. That's why I mentioned it to note we're going to have more trouble if we want to include even more as you mentioned. As for the Bachman's issue I was mainly focusing on, we're still at the point of us deciding that one company's action gets mention while others don't as GeeBee's comment brought to light. Listing as many as we could would not be an option either. This is another weight or notability issue that needs to be addressed.

Honestly, I'm to the point of repeating myself without direct answers, so unless the issues I've brought up are going to be addressed, we're at a point where we've reached consensus that there's no good way to address them without removing the content. I'm betting you're not going to like that (assuming good faith), so what we need instead are to address are the issues I've brought up if the content is to be kept in some fashion (otherwise we fail Wikipedia's core content policies). If you're going to respond to anything, focus on these:

1. How can we include pending legislation when we normally don't consider such material to be notable or weightable for Wikipedia for the reasons I outlined.
2. How can we include the Bachman's content when we seem to have what appears to be an indiscriminate information issue (i.e., we could list any number of companies).
3. If we resolve 1 & 2, the content has a much stronger home at Neonicotinoid, and a relatively weaker one here. This article is about CCD, and both pages already have a lot of information (often redundant) on neonics, so that puts this discussed content as prime for the chopping block on this article to avoid coatrack issues from the large amount information out there. The strength of sources dealing primarily with neonics being banned for a CCD article take a backseat to this for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Whence protein?

According to the article here, "larvae consume only a small percent of their protein from pollen". So whence do they get their protein? JRSpriggs (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's specifically referencing the larvae in that case. The protein is mainly produced by the worker bees themselves (i.e., royal jelly) and fed to the larvae. They do get some pollen, but it's not the most accessible form of proteinm so I imagine that's why the source says they get a low % of protein from it. There's a lot of scattered honeybee content across articles, so it may be worth consolidating someday. I don't think there's a specific question for this page though is there? Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mites ruled out

"researchers monitored 18 bee colonies — six in each location — from October 2012 through April 2013. A third of the colonies were exposed to low doses of the pesticide imidacloprid, while another third were exposed to the pesticide clothianidin. Both pesticides belong to the neonicotinoid class and are commonly used in agriculture. The remainder of the colonies were left untreated.... In January, however, while the control colony populations began to increase as expected, the number of bees in the treated colonies continued to decline. By April, 50 percent of the treated colonies had been wiped out, showing the hive abandonment pattern typical of CCD.... Researchers noted that one of the control colonies also was lost, but its thousands of dead bees were found inside their hive, showing symptoms of Nosema ceranae, an intestinal parasite. When CCD first emerged in honeybee colonies in the mid 2000s, N. ceranae was put forward as a possible cause. Subsequent research in Europe, however, has suggested N. ceranae was widespread in many areas before CCD and is not associated with the phenomenon."

-- Tarlach, Gemma (May 9, 2014). "Pesticides, Not Mites, Cause Honeybee Colony Collapse". Discover. Retrieved 3 January 2015. Reporting on Lu, Chensheng (Alex); Warchol, Kenneth M.; Callahan, Richard A. (2014). "Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder" (PDF). Bulletin of Insectology. 67 (1): 125–130.

Note that this confirms the authors' earlier results in [6]. Have there been any contradictory studies? EllenCT (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just getting back to work, so I'll go back and see what sources had mentioned about the study in a bit in the past, but as I recall there were plenty of methodology concerns from other scientists, and this news article is making pretty sweeping claims that we'd need a review article for. Overall, we're dealing with a primary source that would need commentary from other experts in the field to establish weight. This is a topic where there are always publications coming out, so we shouldn't have any problem waiting for literature reviews to discuss the study's validity or lack thereof. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's one: Simon-Delso, N.; et al. (January 2015). "Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 22 (1): 5–34. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3470-y. Retrieved 6 January 2015. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help) It says: "persistent, low concentrations of these insecticides pose serious risks of undesirable environmental impacts.... their broad spectrum leads to undesirable effects on non-target insects" [citing Lu et al 2012 and 2014.] EllenCT (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for additional opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Have mites been ruled out as a cause of colony collapse disorder? EllenCT (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

we wait to see how that PRIMARY study is treated in reviews. we are WP:NOTNEWS. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Their broad spectrum leads to undesirable effects on non-target insects" as characterized in the Simon-Delso et al review is confirmatory. There are no caveats. EllenCT (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As usual I have no idea what you talking about. The subject of this section is about ruling out mites. This is a primary study that claims to rule out mites. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That says they are a broad spectrum insecticide. I don't believe that has ever been disputed. That doesn't say anything about CCD though. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary studies were controlled experiments to test whether neonics cause CCD. The results were affirmative, and indicated not only that N. ceranae was not a cause, but also that those colonies in the neonic control group which succumbed to N. ceranae died mostly inside the hive, instead of almost all outside the hive like the experimental neonic groups, as is one of the distinguishing symptoms of CCD. The MEDRS-grade secondary source cites both of the primary sources approvingly and without caveat. Correct? EllenCT (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The quoted part of the review is not claiming anything that you just mentioned. Simply being cited doesn't mean a primary source can be used as if it were a secondary source. We stick to what the secondary sources actually say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that is absolutely not longstanding Wikipedia practice. When the secondary sources cite primary sources approvingly, we include what those primary sources say when they are noteworthy, just not necessarily in Wikipedia's voice if they are controversial. I am aware of the primary studies which claimed the mites were a cause prior to the publication of [7]. This is exactly why I went straight to RSN. EllenCT (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I've seen that practice in scientific articles or other ones for that matter. Either way, from WP:PSTS, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". In this case, we'd say what the review actually says if we did use it and not the primary source. In scientific publishing, citing a paper does not mean everything in the cited paper has merit. Important details are mentioned in the review directly. Something like the causes of CCD would be directly mentioned in a review if the claim was valid. Claims within a paper that are unimportant or don't appear to have sufficient evidence are just simply not mentioned at all in most cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you opposed to a purely descriptive report on the Lu et al 2012 and 2014 experiments, such as Tarlach's, without any interpretive claims? EllenCT (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, we generally don't do that with primary studies because the weight of the study's specific claims hasn't been established. That's why we rely on review articles to point out what's relevant about the study specifically, and cite the review instead of the primary study when a review comes up. It's really simple. We just wait for a review to comment on the CCD aspect of the study before adding content on it. If a review never does so, the claims made within the study aren't considered to have sufficient acceptance in the scientific community for sufficient weight here. That happens a lot in science, which is why we tend to be especially wary of primary sources on Wikipedia in science. I'm pretty sure we had this conversation back in the Neonicotinoid article last summer on this very topic, and in general about primary sources many times. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So the policy you've cited excludes interpretation, analysis, and synthetic claims not present in the secondary source, but your authority for excluding a faithful paraphrase of the primary source findings is some discussion we had last summer? WP:NPOV requires that we provide the reader enough information to understand controversies. What policy or guideline do you think excludes a simple description of an experiment which clearly showed that bees not exposed to neonics die inside the hive when they sucumb to mites, instead of outside from CCD? EllenCT (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

the reason for not discussing PRIMARY sources, especially in controversial subjects, is that we want to provide reliable information to the public. We wait to see how the primary studies are treated in reviews. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We know that the review approved of both of the experiments. How is it fair to the reader to suggest that mites may be a cause when there is evidence to the contrary? How is that compatible with explaining the most scientifically accurate point of view? EllenCT (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We know only what the review says about the experiment. To say there is actually legitimate evidence from those experiments outside of that scope is original research on our part as Wikipedia editors. To determine what there is evidence for in such a study not only requires a sufficient background in experimental design, statistics, etc., but also in bee biology that relates back to what issues can occur in the experimental design. Even if someone does have all that background here, they don't get any authority in that as in editor. As has been said before, if mites were indeed ruled out, we'll need a review specifically stating that given how strong of a claim that is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research? I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly which policy or guideline excludes a simple description of the experiments and their results. There is no need for you to explain your personal opinion about it for an eighth time. The article has abundant equivocation that mites might have something to do with CCD, but the only hard evidence is that they don't. What statistics do you think might support the equivocation? EllenCT (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained to you many times before about scientific publishing, it's largely a question of WP:WEIGHT in addition to WP:OR. Once you get into the results of an experiment, you are being asked to analyze the data. We are in no position as Wikipedia editors to determine the weight of those claims. That's why we wait for reviews to do that for us. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, so in the absence of any factual dispute, you claim there is some provision of WP:WEIGHT which requires a conclusive study considered accurate in reviews to be suppressed in favor of inconclusive equivocation? Which provision? EllenCT (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

it ~appears~ that the content you want to add is something about mites being ruled out (based on the header - you haven't actually proposed any content) and it is remarkable that the secondary source that you brought doesn't say anything about that. It is this kind of conclusion-drawing that we look for secondary sources to do. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought something seemed off until a took a second look, but none of the sources/content here are even discussing mites. Nosema ceranae is mentioned (which I missed earlier), but that isn't a mite. Varroa destructor is the mite. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tarlach popular treatment incorrectly refers to mites in its title as shown above. I have proposed including a description of the Lu et al 2012 and 2014 experiments, along with their outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

you have provided no good reason to not use the secondary source that cites the 2014 Lu paper, nor have you said what content you propose based on it. what is the point of this thread? since it all seems based on a misunderstanding, how about we just all walk away? Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no objection to reporting that the Simon-Delso et al (2015) review states that low concentrations of neonics pose serious risks of undesirable environmental impacts including effects on non-target insects, then I am happy to include that here and in the appropriate neonic articles. Is there any objection to including a factual description of the Lu et al 2012 and 2014 experiments including the outcome of their October 2012 to April 2013 experiment? EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking about mites here or not? Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking to include anything about mites, just a factual description that the bees sucumbing to N. ceranae without neonic treatment died inside the hive in the Lu et al experiments, and the bees sucumbing to sublethal levels of neonics died outside their hives. EllenCT (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In my reading of the secondary source, that information is not there. Where do you find it? Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Lu et al (2014) includes the factual description of the experiment they performed and its outcome. I am not proposing inclusion of any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" per WP:PSTS. EllenCT (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to rely on primary sources in a field that is as well-reviewed as this. That the secondary source that mentions the Lu study doesn't bring the conclusion you want, is a good sign that those experts didn't consider that conclusion warranted at this time. This is a WP:WEIGHT thing is exactly why we rely on secondary sources - to help us see what results experts field give weight to. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The only source that is generally useable is the review. However, the quoted section of the secondary source also does not mention CCD (the scope of this article). With that, this seems like this would be a good place to end the conversation on that source in this article. That the neonicotinoid class has non-target effects isn't exactly disputed, and relevant articles already mention this, so I don't really see where an addition of new content would be coming in over at Neonicotinoid either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

An image for "Possible Causes" Section

I would like to add an image that gives an overview of all the possible causes at a glance, and that explains that "some these factors in combination may lead to CCD"--Giuliade (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

i guess you mean this? What are the sources for the content of that image? thx Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The image I created is completely based on what is written in this wikipedia article. I simply tried to translate the content of the section in a scheme. The sources are the same of the article then.--Giuliade (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

please see WP:VERIFY, thanks, Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That the image is based on the article is actually a bit of the problem. What you've basically done is a novel synthesis not only of the subject matter, but we also should not be using Wikipedia as a source (WP:CIRC). If we were going to have such an image, it would need to have been published somewhere as Jytdog alluded to so we could verify it came from a source with expertise to review this topic. The effort is definitely appreciated though as I'm sure some time went into making the image. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The WP:OI policy says "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments".

The WP:CIRC policy mentions one special case where the content from a Wikipedia article is considered reliable. As far as I can tell this image uses that special case.

Is there some way to tweak that image to emphasize that these factors are well-informed initial guesses at what might be the problem, and not an exhaustive list of "all the possible causes"?

However, even though I think that Giuliade's first rough draft of the image is imperfect, I think it should go into the article, until we have a better replacement.

My understanding is that the WP:IMPERFECT policy allows imperfect things in the articles.

I am mystified as to where Kingofaces43 got the idea that images "need to have been published somewhere" before we can use them on Wikipedia. --DavidCary (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are a few things there. That policy you mention applies much more to articles that we can easily improve over time. That spirit relates more to starting with something sub-standard, but acceptable that can be improved over time. When a flaw is pointed out from the beginning though, we don't need to automatically accept that. The other problem is that images cannot be easily edited like text in an article. You need access to GIS software for this.

Otherwise, the main issue is that the image is trying to synthesize too much information (which can make it look sloppy), but mainly is drifting into too much original research beyond the spirit of what we're given for images. You really need a review (or at least an individual source) saying how and why the things chosen to be on the map are important. Generally, we focus on text, and images are optional. When we use images, we keep things very simple in either purpose or any amalgamation of statistics. The flaw is not only in stretching a bit too far in synthesis, but also choosing what to present as I mentioned above and below . Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

CCD map

I was recently asked about removing this image [8] and wanted to give an explanation besides what at the user's talk page. [9] This image had a few errors in it, but the main issue is that this image was created for a class and appears to be a single summary map with multiple things going on besides the map. Being multi-purpose is great for maps in some cases if done right, but it can lead to issues in many cases too. That's where it's getting to be a bit too much synthesis. The possible causes and signs text boxes are already described in text, and if those ever change in some fashion, we'd need to remove the image. Honey production is interesting, but not really needed in terms of CCD, especially since the number of commercial hives is already shown. The second source leads to a broken link. The first source is for Fall 2007 to Spring 2008, yet for some reason this is represented as two years when it's describing just a single winter (didn't catch this detail when talking to the editor). It's also not clear that those overwintering losses in the sources are actually due to CCD and not combined with other factors and I don't believe the authors are claiming it would only be just CCD too. Basically the map tries to bite off a bit too much information and there are multiple minor issues that would be somewhat ok on their own, but accumulate when you have them all together. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the map. We do not delete maps because they synthesize reliable sources, per WP:OI. Are there some facts which you think the map gets wrong? EllenCT (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I explained the issues above, but we were ok within WP:OI at least. The problem was that it tries to synthesize too much information at once and is too busy. That's ok for a student presentation in these kind of map design classes, but an ecyclopedic image isn't quite the same. Think of the telephone game. The more information you try to synthesize in an image, the more easily that information can be misinterpreted. The main reason for removing the image for now is the above and the spelling errors in the causes textbox that stick out like a sore thumb. Those aren't spelling errors we can fix unless the image is replaced. Addressing these things would improve it to the point we'd have a useable image for this article:

1. Removing the Causes and Signs textboxes would keep it from becoming dated if/when that information changes. Also leaves more room for the actual map as it's redundant with the text already.
2. Why are only some states labeled as having CCD losses? Is there none in those states, just not recorded (sampling bias), etc.? Are those losses actually CCD or is there unspecified overwintering loss?
3. Does 2007-2008 mean just one winter, a full calendar year, two full calendar years? Also, why should we be showcasing 2007-2008 on Wikipedia? I get the feeling this is just Fall 2007-Spring 2008 at first glance, but this isn't clear from the image.
4. The symbols for commercial colonies clutter the map, are difficult to gauge, and are somewhat redundant with honey production. Would be best to drop the symbols, and replace honey production with colonies instead to be represented by color.

When dealing with scientific content, images should be relatively standalone. We can't expect readers to have read the actual sources, so some of the things I listed above need to be made clear within the image. If for instance mites were no longer a cause, we'd have an outdated image. If we keep it to just number of hives and % losses (specified as general overwintering losses or as actual CCD) we'd have a good image with a few of the text changes. I haven't heard from the author recently, so Mallonna and Zachac, I'm tagging you so that you're aware of this conversation. I have access to ArcGIS, so feel free to email me or stop by my talk page if you just want to send the files to me as I could do some edits pretty quickly myself too. If not, I can probably build it from scratch (just would take a bit longer). Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've decided to leave a map out. CCD does not imply overwintering mortality, and such mortality can be due to other factors associated with general bee decline. I did find an interesting source that continues this train of thought though: http://beeinformed.org/2015/03/the-colony-loss-map-is-up-and-running/. It's a survey of bee-keepers though, so it's a very, very primary source with various caveats. Probably best over at Pollinator decline if it is going to be used though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Initiatives to ban neonicotinoids in the United States

This section was written by Worthywords (talk · contribs) and consequently may be the result of paid advocacy. (see here): e.g. [10] [11]. It would be good if could be reviewed in light of this. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

In 2015, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that U.S. honeybee colony numbers were at a 20 year high, and U.S. honey production was at a 10 year high.

I just added this to the intro, but someone else deleted it:

Thanks to the efforts of beekeepers, the problem had been largely solved by 2015, when data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that U.S. honeybee colony numbers were at a 20 year high, and U.S. honey production was at a 10 year high.

References

71.182.248.162 (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

this is scientific information, and needs to be sourced from the scientific literature, not from a pundit. See WP:SCIRS. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I wonder what we should do about this: Property and Environment Research Center? :P Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The US stats could be sourced to that, but saying that CCD is "largely solved" would most certainly need a better source. Oh and that other article is was a copyvio... "dedicated" always sets of alarm bells for me. SmartSE (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like misunderstanding from the general public again on what CCD is. In this case, people are assuming CCD isn't a problem, but they don't know about the high hive losses being masked be the extremely ramped up (and expensive) replacement of hives. Doesn't look like there's anything to add at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

New research on neonicotinoids

Please see this. Is it relevant enough to include here? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The first issue for us here is that this source isn't addressing CCD. The main problem beyond that is that it's a news piece reporting on two primary studies, so it's not reliable for scientific content. We'd need reviews for the latter to indicate the findings are considered noteworthy, the study findings weren't unreliable due to design issues, etc. This is a field where reviews come out pretty often, so there shouldn't be issues once we have that if some content was to be added over at neonicotinoid or more related articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Since neonicotinoids are banned in Europe, I think there's more than just theoretical association with CCD. The Bayer piece reads like a Bayer PR handout also, I know bee keepers who all know what's responsible, as in the real world rather than the theoretical, fully referenced world. This reads like a brush off of any idea neonics could be implicated, it's partial to Bayer, when erring on the side of caution should always be the preferred option, and not just in agriculture. Or do we wait for the last bee colony to collapse and the final definitive trial results to be published so Wikipedia can staick resolutely to impartiality. If you all aren't aliens you really ought to care what's going down.PetePassword (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the research isn't showing a smoking gun for neonics being the cause. If it were so simple, we'd have a much easier to write article. Otherwise, we don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox or place for advocacy and rather wait for reliable sources to state what the current case is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There are abundant secondary sources implicating neonics as a primary cause, and zero ruling them out. [12] is an example of a WP:MEDRS-grade review article (according to PubMed) which implicates neonicotinoids as the sole cause of CCD. Amazingly it is three years old but has not yet been incorporated into the article. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

um no. that article is advancing a hypothesis, as its title, abstract, and discussion section all make clear. Reviews don't advance new hypotheses. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

PubMed shows it as a review, and the hypothesis it advances is, contrary to the title, hardly unique. Maybe it was when it was written, but not by the time it was published. The article already cites work reaching the same conclusions. EllenCT (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: do you have any evidence that the Farooqui paper is not a bona fide literature review? Or that Farooqui's hypothesis was not already confirmed in other secondary sources when the Farooqui paper was submitted for publication? That explains the title. EllenCT (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

as already mentioned, the title includes the phrase, "A unique hypothesis" (the author wrote that, the reviewers accepted it) and he writes: According to my hypothesis, chronic exposure of biogenic amines-based-pesticides to honeybee foragers in hives and agricultural fields can disrupt neural cholinergic and octopaminergic signaling. ... This overview is an attempt to discuss a hypothetical link among biogenic amines-based pesticides, olfactory learning and memory, and CCD." That is the whole point of the paper. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar enough with the literature to answer my question about whether the "unique" hypothesis wasn't already confirmed when the article was under review? Are the reviewers or editors under any obligation to request a title change if it was clear that they hypothesis was arrived at independently? You have repeatedly deferred to MEDLINE as the authority as to what is and what is not a literature review. Did they get it wrong this time? EllenCT (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Several countries have banned these pesticides. I believe this ban has been effect for a few years. Once these pesticides are removed, does the rate of colony collapse decrease? I suppose if the soil has been overloaded with the pesticides this could take some time but they should at least show some amount. ( I am currently watching "Vanishing of the Bees". The narrator has just said that European countries that banned the pesticides had an improvement in one year - questioned answered I guess. Answered while I was typing!) 73.149.116.253 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. - I stopped raising a couple of hives because of this problem. Dairy farms inn my area raise mostly corn and my bees died within months of purchasing them. Of course varroa mites didn't help. Receiving a package of half-breed killer bees also really scared the h** out of me and the neighbors - luckily they died off quickly also. 73.149.116.253 (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is, of course, the definitive question in the neonic-CCD debate. In my opinion, the evidence has conclusively disproven that link.

1. Several studies have strongly suggested that what we now call CCD has occurred several time in the past including times that were decades before the invention of neonics.
2. As the anon user notes, several European countries have banned neonics. Contrary to that one video, subsequent research has not shown that the rate of CCD changed any differently than it did in countries that continued to allow neonics.
3. Even within countries that allow neonics, there are geographies and crops which are preferentially treated with more less neonics. See, for example, the canola fields in Canada. The known patterns of CCD do not correlate well with the known patterns of neonic usage.

No one thread in that analysis conclusively disproves the hypothesis but taken together, they make it highly unlikely that neonics are more than a tangential contributor (if even that). Rossami (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Geomagnetism

about this and this and this

There is growing evidence that interference of the honeybee's geomagnetic sense can result in disruptions to their orientation. Evidence indicates that their homing ability is interfered with by induced static or oscillating magnetic fields, or natural disturbances in the Earth’s geomagnetic field. The loss of bees increases as the intensity of exposure to altered magnetic fields and release distances increase. This has been named as "magneto reception disorder". Further work shows that bee losses are highly correlated with days when severe geomagnetic storm activity occurs in Earth’s magnetosphere and with the intensity of extraterrestrial protons that impacted Earth’s outer atmosphere.

References

This is a brand new primary source. Please wait for a review in the scientific literature to discuss these findings. Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in my ES, the first part of this paragraph is paraphrasing of the "Introduction" section of the cited research paper. It is reviewing previous work and is therefore a secondary source - see heredoi:10.4172/2332-2519.1000134. The removal of material with suitable sourcing is highly disruptive.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree very strongly with this removal. [www.esciencecentral.org/journals/astrobiology-and-outreach.php The Journal] it was published in is edited by Chandra Wickramasinghe who is well-known for linking astrological events to earthly phenomena using very flakey evidence. See for example this about how aliens were supposedly on 67P. There is no way, whatsoever that this study should be included in the article per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. SmartSE (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The paraphrased section reviews articles published in the Journal of Apicultural Research (2014), J. Comp. Physiol. A (1985) and J. Exp. Biol. (1986). These are all RS journals so the original sources of the information are robust.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps better to just cite the original sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was planning to do once this supposed edit warring 24 hrs has expired. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusation of OR was then thrown at me!DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Smartse, are you suggesting that because of the identity of this editor, WP should not use any articles published in this journal?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

the issue I raised each time was that in general WP should be based on secondary sources, not brand new primary ones. The secondary literature is where we find out if some primary source is crackpot. or actually worth something. I didn't want to make things worse by writing what Smartse did but yes, that source is the kind of thing you find published sometimes in the literature, that is most likely to get ignored in reviews. But it is not for us as WP editors to judge if some primary source is worthwhile or not - we let experts in the field tell us in review articles published in high quality journals. Also, DrChrissy, what you wrote here is an intention to edit war - gaming the 24 hour limit is explicitly discussed in WP:3RR so I suggest you work toward consensus on this content, instead of continuing to try to force this content into WP via edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit-warring warning, I suggest you remember it takes 2 to edit-war. You are now deflecting from the issue by saying "published in high quality journals". Your original contention in this thread was that I was using a primary source. I was not. I was paraphrasing the Introduction of a scientific paper which is almost always a review of the pertinent literature. WP:RS defines secondary sources as "i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." What part of the first section of the paragraph was not a secondary source?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

the review sections of primary sources are very poor "reviews" - they are generally written to fit whatever hypothesis the authors of the paper are working to prove in the original part; they are not independent of that effort. Review articles are what we should be using as sources in science-based WP articles - every policy and emphasizes that in general. This is not about what one ~can~ do, it is about what we ~should~ do in writing high quality content. Will you please wait to see if this gets picked up in any reviews? Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are admitting it is a secondary source, albeit in your opinion, a poor one?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No it is a primary source that has a review section. This is not about who is right about X or wrong about Y, it is just about trying to make sure that what is added to WP is based on great sources. Will you please wait until this is discussed in a secondary source - in a review article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that depends on whether you are thinking about the article as a whole or the source of the material I included and you deleted. The paraphrasing was definitely reflecting a review of pertinent literature and is therefore secondary.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant though when this is such a fringe theory that there isn't even a single paper linking CCD and geomagnetism listed in google scholar: [13]. SmartSE (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to only the second part of the material removed. Who is calling that "Fringe"? But more importantly, why was the first part that of the section disruptively deleted?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a paper linking CCD and geomagnetism....the article we are discussing...I found it on google scholar!DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No I'm referring to all of it. It's fringe because nobody else has cited the paper and as Jytdog's explained the introduction is unlikely to be reliable either. Fair point about there being one paper... but other than that there isn't anything: [14]. If anyone can access it, this would be worth looking at - it cites the author's 2014 paper. SmartSE (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate, Jytdog, that generally review articles are preferred reliable sources, and in general should be used where medical claims are involved. But can you point to the Wikipedia policy or policies that you are using as your rationale for removing primary sources in non-medical science articles? --Epipelagic (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Every policy and guideline says we should use secondary sources. CCD is a controversial topic and the useful essay on controversial articles advises editors to raise source quality - to be even more careful to do what we should be doing. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, where in policy is it stated that primary sources may not be used in non-medical scientific articles? Smartse points out above and below compelling reasons why this particular primary source shouldn't be used, but those were not reasons you gave when you removed the source. You seem to implying it is policy. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I never cited WP:MEDRS and I have responded to the point; it is not about what we can do but what we should do. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been making statements as if they are policy when they are not, something you have been accused of very recently elsewhere.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You have not responded to my question. I never said you cited WP:MEDRS. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog responded to this with a chilling and threatening post on my talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't spelled out in policy because it depends on the subject. If you're writing about an obscure topic where there are few sources available then it is probably ok to use primary sources. For an article like this though where there are plenty of secondary sources and many dodgy primary sources we should stick to only using the bext reviews. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that because a policy does not exist, editors are free to make up their own policies and use these to harass other editors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not even close to what I said. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as that - they might have a function in an astrobiology article for example, but the views espoused are extremely WP:FRINGE. Jytdog's right that we rely on what others ciet to guide what sources to include, but that doesn't exclude us from using common sense either and in this specific example it should be very obvious that this is a wacky theory. Also, note that the 2014 paper is by the same author as this one, and the others were written before CCD was even really a thing so it wouldn't be a good idea to cite them here. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure we all know that RS of a journal depends on context. Could you please offer evidence that this journal is non-RS compliant in respect of the effects of magnetism on Honey bee behaviour.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you're asking this and no I can't "offer evidence" beyond what I've written above about the editor, but if you want to gain consensus to include it, I suggest you visit WP:RSN. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have searched the journal for other articles on the behaviour of bees. I can not find any. Therefore, there is no evidence that it is an unreliable source in this context. I repeat User:Smartse, do you have any evidence this source is RS non-compliant in this context?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer this politely so will ask the folks at RSN to explain it to you. SmartSE (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you could not answer politely, however, I look forward to hearing from RSN.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Here it is. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the source and content are not appropriate here. This is a topic where plenty of recent reviews are available, so scraping the barrel for primary sources is not needed here. Even ignoring that, the introductions of primary sources can sometimes be ok for basic facts, but the caution against them is always that they are not comprehensive literature reviews, but rather reviews set up to support the research being done instead. Essentially, the introduction of such an article here is not independent. Considering that actual reviews aren't giving this idea significant weight either, we're dealing with an extreme minority opinion at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please would you be willing to supply a citation of one of the plenty of recent reviews on this topic? My thanks in advance.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

These are all highly cited secondary sources on CCD, but they don't mention magnetism: [15] [16] [17]. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The title of this thread is "geomagnetism" so I have assumed when Kingofaces said there were plenty of reviews on this topic, he meant geomagnetism.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Use your brain Doc. If it doesn't mention magnetism ... Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Roxy! I thought you would have shown up earlier! I note you have not ever edited this article before, but of course, everyone is welcome - regardless of their motivations. I'm afraid that at this late hour in the UK, the subtlety of your post is lost on me - perhaps you would like to expand?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You aren't that important Doc, that I should follow you around. No, I saw you were up to your usual stuff via WP:RSN and couldn't resist. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 23:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you believe my "usual stuff" to be, but you are probably mistakenly referring to a thread raised by Smartsme. Do you not realise this followed a discussion on a Talk page about the reliability of a source. Smartsme (not me) decided to take this discussion to RSN because s/he was unable to articulate why the source was not RS. All that has happened is that "the process" of dispute has occurred. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way - nice ES!DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Strange assumption considering this is an article about CCD. General reading comprehension should lead any editor to realize we're talking about CCD related articles here, so there shouldn't be any question that we're looking for CCD related reviews. If you feel strongly about including the content, the burden is on you to find secondary sources that discuss it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's also just the tip of the iceberg for literature too. I've had it on the back-burner for awhile, but this article really does need an update with what the current scientific thinking is using more reviews. I might start tinkering with that idea again when I'm back online more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Outdated information

Honey bees continue to have difficulties in the United States; annual losses are higher than normal. However CCD hasn't been the cause in recent years. Beekeepers don't report this kind of losses anymore. See Bee Survey: Lower Winter Losses, Higher Summer Losses, Increased Total Annual Losses --Polinizador (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Naïve question about European bee colonies

Since neonics have been banned in Europe, what has the result been? Is the rate of CCD declining? DonPMitchell (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• There was never any definitive evidence that CCD occurred anywhere in Europe to begin with. If you read [this section] carefully, you'll see how ambiguous the claims were. Lots of honeybees were dying in Europe, certainly, but no one ever proved it was due to CCD. Bees dying from pesticides is a different phenomenon, with different symptomology, but often conflated with CCD by non-scientists. Dyanega (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colony collapse disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120302145015/http://www.api-culture.com/1/elevage.php?lang=en to http://www.api-culture.com/1/elevage.php?lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Colony collapse

Colony collapse is a more general phenomena. Is there any article that covers it, or should it just be added here? Examples are white flight from Detroit, and Wikipedia. In 2007 Wikipedia suddenly went from attracting twice as many editors each year to having 6% leave each year. What one event caused the collapse?

Growth in the other wikipedias (blue line) and other projects (yellow line) stagnated but did not experience colony collapse.

Apteva (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Review

Colony collapse disorder is a strong article due to the inclusion of the key elements which are necessary for a quality article. The lead section is clear and concise with its introduction into what colony collapse disorder(CCD) is, where it occurs, and why it is gaining public notice. Following this section, the article branches off into a well-structured range of topics that encompass CCD such as: history, symptoms, and causes. The majority of the article is dedicated to the causes of CCD, as there is no singular cause but multiple factors to be addressed. Although this causes the article to be unbalanced in how much information is available in each section, the article's focus on the causes of CCD is appropriate due to the causes being the most significant aspect of CCD currently. The coverage of information within this article is neutral, with no apparent bias. The article includes a total of 205 references. Some of these come from magazines or news stations; however, the majority are from research articles and scientific journals. Although there are edits which can be made to improve this article, it currently stands as a quality overview of CCD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms130714 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colony collapse disorder. 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/20120701114055/http://www.beeologics.com/health.asp to http://solutionsforyourlife.ufl.edu/hot_topics/agriculture/colony_collapse_disorder.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colony collapse disorder. 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/20100112092243/http://revistagloborural.globo.com/GloboRural/0%2C6993%2CEEC1707683-5809%2C00.html to http://revistagloborural.globo.com/GloboRural/0%2C6993%2CEEC1707683-5809%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510190721/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4963510/National-Bee-Database-to-be-set-up-to-monitor-colony-collapse.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4963510/National-Bee-Database-to-be-set-up-to-monitor-colony-collapse.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120630175925/http://vanishingbees.co.uk/ to http://vanishingbees.co.uk/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colony collapse disorder. 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/20100131164804/http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051%2Fapido%2F2009076 to http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051%2Fapido%2F2009076

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

How big is this problem?

I see lots of numbers here about how much damage could be caused by CCD (crop production, etc.), but I cannot really see a clear overview of how CCD is affecting bees. I see a lot of numbers about the winter losses in different places and in different years, but not comparing those to normal winter losses. In the paragraph starting, "Losses had remained stable...," there is the best information in the whole article addressing my issue. But, it seems to say that the winter losses of the most recent year's data (23% in the winter of 2012/2013) was essentially in line with "normal" losses of 17%-20%. This makes it sound like CCD is maybe not a major problem anymore. Oddly, the next line, which starts the next paragraph, says that the 23% drop in the winter of 2012/2013 was the motivation for the US DOA & EPA to form a new task force to look into CCD. What!?

Twice, a reference is made to The Guardian article that states that in the six years leading up to 2013, 10 million hives were lost to CCD, and that this is twice the normal amount. The article does say that 10 million were lost, but it never says what the normal amount would be.

I am not trying to debate whether CCD is a serious problem. I am instead asking if there is any actual data that shows simply what the actual impact is of CCD (i.e. losses per year due to CCD relative to normal losses).

Bt1159 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)