Talk:Clothianidin

The Germany incident

The inclusion of this incident has been discussed and it has been suggested that it is not appropriate to include it in this article per Wikipedia policy. I feel that it is appropriate, however when one checks the references none appear acceptable per reference guidelines. For that reason I feel it should be deleted. However, the EPA editor has offered an EPA site that explains the incident. Many people have heard of the incident from blogs that made the circuit a few years ago and I feel that it would be better to mention it in the article using the info from the EPA site and put the matter to rest. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had some reliable secondary sources on the matter. My German is a little iffy but I'm digging around. Any big rush? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Gandydancer, for reconsidering your position. Our website does explain what we know about the incident, but as I pointed out above, any insecticide (or chemical, for that matter) that is acutely toxic to pollinators will kill a lot of them if a bunch of it is atomized and blown up into the air on a windy day next to a field of flowering crops. As such, this news item doesn't really constitute an inherently encyclopedic fact of enduring notability about clothianidin itself. As I said before, I would not object to this incident being captured on its own page, where I believe it would still violate WP:NOT#NEWS but at least the clothianidin page would become more neutral as a result and compliant with WP:CHEMMOS#Current_events. See the Bhopal_disaster for an example of an incident with much greater enduring notability, which is only noted (and linked) from Wikipedia's methyl isocyanate page. Aside from your personal feelings, which you have made abundantly clear ;-), would you agree to use the same approach here? --USEPA James (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not agree. The questions on clothianidin are still open. Bhopal was, much the same as the Deepwater Horizon explosion, a simple case of humans not following safety procedures around systems that contain, handle, store, transport, process chemicals and substances with known properties. So I agree with your point, methyl isocyanate just happened to be the one that they let out of the box. What I don't agree with is the comparison and your points about enduring notability, WP:NOTNEWS and encyclopedic fact.

As an aside...Beating up on the EPA is not my goal. IMHO most people don't understand what the EPA does (or rather what the Act mandates and that the Congress is constantly monkeying with it). I understand the simple fact that pesticides are required for the protection of the food supply and that the EPA has the unenviable job of regulating those pesticides. It can't be fun being in the middle of a forty-two year hissie fit thrown by two children that may never grow-up. Ok. Sorry, back on topic. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

James, I have no idea why you seem to think I have changed my position. First you asked me if I had a credible citation for my claim that Germany changed its laws because of the 2008 incident. Where have I said that? Actually I have said quite the opposite, saying that by memory it seemed to me to have been blog-generated information. When I opened this section to discuss the incident I first looked at the refs we have for our article and in my opinion they did not meet our guidelines for acceptable refs. It is for that reason that I felt the information as referenced is not acceptable and the importance of good refs is something I've stressed right from the start of our conversation. It is frustrating for me that you continue to misrepresent my views and my position.

You continue to seem to want to characterize the Germany incident as some sort of disaster that either deserves its own page or is not to be mentioned at all. I can not see it in that manner. In this article which discusses clothianidin we are not so much interested in the event as we are in the fact that it did, or did not, move Germany to ban or restrict this pesticide. This incident is out there on hundreds of blogs and bee keeper's forums. I would think that it would be good for the article to set the record straight and explain exactly how and why the accident occurred rather than to think it was an every-day type of event, and if it did or did not influence a decision by the Germans.

And finally, you mentioned personal "feelings". Yes, it is good to express our opinion on the talk pages - that is what they are for. But every attempt should be made to avoid articles based on personal opinions and if guidelines are followed, that can usually be avoided. That you should imply that I may feel otherwise is insulting. Gandydancer (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We appear to be suffering from a classic case of written word communication breakdown. To avoid unintentional confusion, I think it would be helpful if everybody clearly and concisely states their positions and rationale, sticking to the topic at hand.

To summarize, in response to Gandydancer's and ArtifexMayhem's concerns about my initial proposal to delete content from the clothianidin page, I proposed a compromise: if you feel these issues are so important, create pages for them with all the referenced details you like, then briefly note and link to them from the clothianidin page. This proposal appears reasonably consistent with similar WP content and WP principles, policies and guidelines. It would also resolve my NPOV concerns and challenge the perception that I am attempting to brush the issue from public view. I'm not citing WP policies here since I've repeated them many times above.

ArtifexMayhem, in response to my proposal you wrote "I would not agree. The questions on clothianidin are still open." What questions about the German incident are still open (references?) that logically lead you to reject my proposed compromise?

You also wrote "So I agree with your point" in reference to the separation of Bhopal from methyl isocyanate, which I mentioned as a case in point of a notable incident being placed on its own page and noted and linked from the related chemical's page. I really am trying to follow your logic, so please explain why you "would not agree" to moving the German incident content to a separate page, but "agree with your point" that noteworthy incidents are best put on their own pages that are noted and linked from the related chemical page.

Gandydancer, you wrote "James, I have no idea why you seem to think I have changed my position." I thought you changed your position because, from your first response to me, you've opposed my suggestions to delete the fairly detailed discussion of the German incident or move to its own page. But in the first paragraph of this section, you wrote "...I feel it should be deleted." This indicated to me that you had changed your mind; I apologize if I misunderstood your intended meaning. But please don't feel obligated to follow up on this. Instead, I hope you would respond to the following:

You also said that "I feel that it would be better to mention it in the article using the info from the EPA site." But it's not just "mentioned" in the article (as Bhopal is on the methyl isocyanate page); there is an entire paragraph that extensively discusses it--certainly enough to justify its own page. Please explain concisely why such a noteworthy, complicated incident should not be on its own page and then "mentioned" and linked from the clothianidin page.

Finally, you wrote "I would think that it would be good for the [clothianidin] article to set the record straight and explain exactly how and why the accident [in Germany] occurred rather than to think it was an every-day type of event, and if it did or did not influence a decision by the Germans." Your logic here is contrary to both the CHEMMOS and the Bhopal/methyl isocyanate example but without any rationale to explain why it makes sense beyond "I would think." To paraphrase, you want to use the chemical page to set the record straight on a complicated incident for which equipment and weather played a much larger role than the chemical itself. I really am trying to understand your position, so please provide a concise rationale for why this approach makes sense in spite of being contrary to CHEMMOS and Bhopal/methyl isocyanate example. thx --USEPA James (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi James.

• "...if you feel these issues are so important..." It is not a matter of how important an issues feels it is a matter of weight. We express what the sources present using our best judgement, Wikipedia guidelines and the good faith of other editors. We also break rules.
• "...create pages for them with all the referenced details you like, then briefly note and link..." At some point the artile could follow a summary style but I don't see any size or readability issues right now.
• "...I'm not citing WP policies here since I've repeated them many times above..." Good idea. There is no bureaucracy.
• "...What questions about the German incident are still open..." I was commenting on the topic as a whole (sorry I should have made that clear given the section topic is German specific).
• "...separation of Bhopal from methyl isocyanate..." Methyl isocyanate is not the subject of the Bhopal disaster. Clothianidin is the topic of controversy.

All that being said, the article definitely needs work and I am not suggesting any of the current verbiage or structure be kept intact.

I'd propose we consider using Imidacloprid as a rough template and begin sourcing, adding and writing sections for history, biochemistry, toxicology, applications, etc. There is no deadline. -- ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

James thanks for your response. I will address your questions:

James you quoted me,"I feel it should be deleted" and said, "This indicated to me that you had changed your mind". You are completely skipping the rest of my sentence where I said it should be deleted unless acceptable refs can be provided. That is standard Wikipedia policy. The present refs do not meet guidelines and are not acceptable. Please reread my post because I believe I made that quite clear.

Regarding a separate page for the German incident. The Bhopal disaster would certainly have its own page. I would think that would be obvious to have a page rather than include it on the chemical page. They do correctly link to the page. As for a separate page for the German incident, Wikipedia doesn't have a page for every incident that takes place. It is significant only if it actually did result in a German decision to ban clothianidins use on corn, but still not significant enough for its own article. This article is about that chemical - it belongs here. If others want only one sentence rather than get into the particulars, that is OK with me.

And finally, you feel that I am not correct to suggest that it would be best to mention the incident "to set the record straight". You may be absolutely correct and I would be quite ready to agree to not include it if that were the only reason it is in the article. But you seem to feel that it must be either explained in depth or left out completely while I really do not see where it would take more than few lines with a link to further information. It is common in Wikipedia to use only a line or two with a reference for further information.

James, absolute hell goes on here on the talk pages. One can spend hours and hours arguing about a single word that gets into an article. The argument about what to even name an article can go on for pages and pages with straw poll after straw poll.... In friendship to help build a better encyclopedia, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

ArtifexMayhem, I'm only responding to your on-topic bullets. We'll probably cover the other issues eventually, after we settle the German incident.

On your second point, size of the write up alone has never been a concern. The German incident content is inappropriate here because it violates WP:CHEMMOS, and its presence here wrongly infers the chemical's role in the incident; the size of the write up here compounds that bias.

On your fourth bullet, if I understand what you wrote, there are no open questions about the German incident that logically lead you to reject my proposal to remove the German incident content from this page and put it on its own page.

On your fifth bullet you wrote "Methyl isocyanate is not the subject of the Bhopal disaster. Clothianidin is the topic of controversy." I don't follow you. We are talking about the German incident, which is almost perfectly analogous to the incident in Bhopal. There is no "controversy" about the incident--all of the relevant authorities know exactly what happened and they've taken action to preclude it from happening again. WP:CHEMMOS says to put incidents like this on their own page, AND doing so will help me (us?) clean up a bunch of other pages where this incident is described in varying degrees of (in)accuracy. So unless you come up with a logical justification for ignoring the rule (i.e. how WP:CHEMMOS Current events "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia,") I'm inclined to make my proposed edit consistent with the larger community consensus expressed in WP:CHEMMOS. I look forward to any clarification you might offer.

Regarding "There is no deadline," if you read that page you'll see there are several different interpretations of the meaning of that phrase. Biased Wikipedia content misinforms readers, some of whom write USEPA to demand action based on their mistaken understanding of the facts. Instead of doing other work to protect human health and the environment, USEPA staff spend significant taxpayer-funded time responding individually to correct the misinformation. From my perspective, both as a USEPA staffer and a taxpayer, we are waaaaay past the deadline for ensuring a NPOV on some pesticide chemical pages.

Gandydancer, on your first response, I'm OK with whatever logic you used to determine the German incident should be deleted. I understand that it (or some version of it) might someday be revived (preferably elsewhere) with better references, but from what you wrote it's clear you agree that right now it should be deleted.

With regard to the notability of the incident, your response--basically, it's notable, but not THAT notable--seems contrary to what you wrote earlier in our dialogue. As just one example, you mentioned a couple times here that it was widely discussed in the blogosphere, which all by itself satisfies WP:NOTE. You also previously acknowledged that the incident had many factors and that it was "not at all proof that this chemical is harmful when used as recommended." This comment followed my observation that ANY chemical with similar toxicity to bees would have caused the same result in an otherwise identical situation (ie clothianidin was coincidental to the incident). Couple these things with the fact that ANY discussion of incidents on chemical pages violates WP:CHEMMOS, and you really haven't given me anything to change my conclusion (which appears to be shared by others waaay up the page) that the text on this incident needs to be moved elsewhere.

Finally, I understand your explanation about "setting the record straight," but I don't see a logical explanation for why the record for the incident can't be set straight on its own page, consistent with WP:CHEMMOS. I understand you want it here, but the bias its presence brings to the page misinforms readers and I don't think that "helps build a better encyclopedia."

If either of you are American or in the U.S., have a nice 4th. -USEPA James (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

James, I did not use "logic" for my statement re the German incident. I said that without acceptable refs it should be deleted - I used the wikipedia guidelines for that. I have said this several times. And I have said that if acceptable refs can be found then that will take care of that difficulty.

Here is what I said about the blogs, etc.:

This incident is out there on hundreds of blogs and bee keeper's forums. I would think that it would be good for the article to set the record straight and explain exactly how and why the accident occurred rather than to think it was an every-day type of event, and if it did or did not influence a decision by the Germans.

And this:

And finally, you feel that I am not correct to suggest that it would be best to mention the incident "to set the record straight". You may be absolutely correct and I would be quite ready to agree to not include it if that were the only reason it is in the article.

I've said quite a few times that I do not believe that this incident was notable enough for its own article. Just being in the blogs for a few weeks is not noteworthy enough for an article. You said, "the bias it brings to the page misinforms readers". I do not understand how you can claim that it brings bias to the article. It is not up to editors to decide what to include based on our belief that an incident was misunderstood or blown out of proportion. If our references say the ban was the result of the incident what you or I may think is meaningless. And as far as including it in this article, it seems that you want to forget that this chemical is an insecticide as well, and as such this article would include this information. Gandydancer (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you wrote "I said that without acceptable refs it should be deleted," and you've already explained that the refs are not acceptable. That pretty much ends the discussion, since you haven't explained why poorly referenced text ought to remain. Your opinion about what constitutes noteworthy seems arbitrary and inconsistent with WP:NOTE. Your statement about the incident "being in the blogs for a few weeks" is startling. I'm not going to help promote misinformation so I won't provide a link, but a search of the internet indicates that the 2008 incident is still (ie within the last month) a hot topic among the anti-chemical crowd. Finally, you still have not explained why your opinion or wishes should suffice as a reason to violate the community consensus expressed in WP:CHEMMOS about not going into details about chemical accidents on chemical pages. With regard to the bias this content brings to the article, it implies that clothianidin per se was the (or a) primary factor in this incident when, in fact, the primary factors were equipment, the weather and no sticker. Regardless of the bias issue, which I suspect we might never agree on, providing details about the incident here violates WP:CHEMMOS so the point is more or less moot. I have no idea why you think I "want to forget that this chemical is an insecticide;" please don't feel obligated to better explain your belief. I'll let this simmer over the weekend so you or others have a chance to respond. If by next week you still haven't given a reasonable justification for violating WP:CHEMMOS or why your opinion should outweigh WP:NOTE, I'll be bold and delete the 2008 incident. You (or some other editor) can always copy the old text and references from the history page if you decide to create a new page, consistent with WP:CHEMMOS and WP:NOTE. --USEPA James (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Updates and sources have been added. Looks like some of the blog sources had much better WP:RS behind them. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Golly! You sure went a lot farther with that info on the rapeseed than I would have. Do you think it might be a little too much? Also, do you think it should start with a statement that it was briefly banned since I believe you said the ban was lifted?Gandydancer (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The ref you provided has a lot of good information. What do you think about combining my edit and yours as is done in the link you provided? We could still keep my refs since the EPA does state that indeed the restriction on corn was not lifted. Gandydancer (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can tell my prose is not so good. Please edit as you see fit. I can always complain:) - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, see what you think. I may have messed the refs up and I have not checked them yet but I will. The Slovenia, France, etc. info needs to be checked too. Gandydancer (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added some toxicity info from the EPA but it needs a fair amount of work to make it more understandable - perhaps James can help? I added EPA info to the lede as well. Art, I see they have used Grist in the lede - do you know if it's an acceptable source? Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been over a week and James does not seem to be interested in helping so I did find the EPA page that gives information about Toxicity III and added that ref - I would have done it as a clickable ref but I don't know how to do that. Anyway, that section seems easy enough to understand and perhaps we can move forward to work on the Bayer study section. Gandydancer (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not for a lack of interest that I haven't been trying to improve this content recently. I've been stunned, frankly, to see that you boldly retitled the section "Criticisms" to "Environmental impact" when very little of the content there can be considered from a NPOV to be environmental impacts per se. With your latest additions, you appear to be confusing hazards determined from intentional dosing studies in labs with expected outcomes in the environment from legal uses. You're also copying text from USEPA documents that are clearly identified as risk assessments and science summaries and pasting them under your new "Environmental impact" section; the distinction there is neither subtle nor neutral. You're also selectively quoting from USEPA documents but not identifying the quotes as quotes. You might want to read through WP:Plagiarism to learn how you can avoid giving the impression that you personally wrote the text that's actually been (selectively) copied and pasted from a source. The list goes on. I suspect you would not take kindly to me rewriting this page as I see fit without discussion, so I ask that you revert all of your recent changes until consensus is attained and that you not edit this or other content without discussion.

But to rein this particular discussion back on topic (i.e. the German incident), while you two were editing this page I prepared a draft article in my sandbox about it and requested comments from members of the Wiki Chemical Project. Thus far, everybody thinks it’s a well balanced write-up. I invite your comments on it before I post it and begin linking to it from this and other Wikipedia articles. I will respond to comments next week. --USEPA James (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

James, I'm going to make one last attempt to work with you in editing this article. Again and again I find myself spending time correcting your statements about what I have said - it is time-wasting and does nothing to contribute to writing a better article. I will again review your statements and point out what I actually said:

"Gandydancer, you wrote "I said that without acceptable refs it should be deleted," and you've already explained that the refs are not acceptable. That pretty much ends the discussion, since you haven't explained why poorly referenced text ought to remain."

Why would I need to explain why poorly referenced text ought to remain when I never said that in the first place? I had just said: "James, I did not use "logic" for my statement re the German incident. I said that without acceptable refs it should be deleted - I used the wikipedia guidelines for that. I have said this several times. And I have said that if acceptable refs can be found then that will take care of that difficulty."

"Your opinion about what constitutes noteworthy seems arbitrary and inconsistent with WP:NOTE."

You are certainly welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. As I have said several times, IMO the German incident is significant only in that it influenced a German decision to ban the use of clothianidin on corn. This incident, while well-covered in the blogs and beekeeper's forums, never did produce much in the way of secondary sources - which is hardly surprising. I believe that WP:NOTE tends to support my POV.

"Your statement about the incident "being in the blogs for a few weeks" is startling. I'm not going to help promote misinformation so I won't provide a link, but a search of the internet indicates that the 2008 incident is still (ie within the last month) a hot topic among the anti-chemical crowd."

Startling? What I actually said was: "I do not have the time to again research the incident, but it seems to me that my concern was that the news hit the blogs and was widely circulated among the "anti-pesticide" (etc.) people as being factual as the way it was presented by them. I found that it did not pass the smell test but I was unable to confirm anything since I don't speak German. Since it is your job to know what is going on, could you please help with some information re the incident? Did Germany ban or restrict the use as a result of the incident?"

"Finally, you still have not explained why your opinion or wishes should suffice as a reason to violate the community consensus expressed in WP:CHEMMOS about not going into details about chemical accidents on chemical pages."

As I have stated, I feel that it is proper to view this article as not only a chemical, but an insecticide as well (Categories: Insecticides | Thiazoles | Guanidines | Nitroamines). If WP:CHEMMOS does not presently allow a short report of an accident (as is presently in the article) that directly affected a decision to ban a chemical/insecticide, perhaps WP:CHEMMOS needs to be reviewed. But, as you just said, CHEMMOS suggessts that we not go into details. I do not feel that the present inclusion in the article goes into details and I do feel that it meets the CHEMMOS policy standards.

"With regard to the bias this content brings to the article, it implies that clothianidin per se was the (or a) primary factor in this incident when, in fact, the primary factors were equipment, the weather and no sticker."

As I said very early in our conversation, "If I remember correctly from the research I did some time ago, the incident was the result of a perfect storm of mistakes and not at all proof that this chemical is harmful when used as recommended." I also believe that I was careful to present this information, in fact using the EPA as a source, in the article. Where's the bias that you continue to insist I want to include?

"If by next week you still haven't given a reasonable justification for violating WP:CHEMMOS or why your opinion should outweigh WP:NOTE, I'll be bold and delete the 2008 incident. You (or some other editor) can always copy the old text and references from the history page if you decide to create a new page, consistent with WP:CHEMMOS and WP:NOTE. --USEPA James (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)"

On July 9 another editor and I did some edits and I stated: "I have added some toxicity info from the EPA but it needs a fair amount of work to make it more understandable - perhaps James can help?" However, you did not post again till July 21, almost 2 weeks and you came back saying:

"It is not for a lack of interest that I haven't been trying to improve this content recently. I've been stunned, frankly, to see that you boldly retitled the section "Criticisms" to "Environmental impact" when very little of the content there can be considered from a NPOV to be environmental impacts per se. With your latest additions, you appear to be confusing hazards determined from intentional dosing studies in labs with expected outcomes in the environment from legal uses."

James, you have previously said you would let things "simmer" or "cook" awhile before your next posts and now you return after 2 weeks saying that you are "stunned" with the edits I have made. This is hardly the way to work together to improve this article. As for changing the heading, I felt that "Criticism" was not correct; I looked at several other articles and used "Environmental impact". I did and I do have questions about deciding on proper headings, but considering that no one was making any posts on the talk page it hardly made sense for me to go on talking to myself. You go on to say:

"You're also copying text from USEPA documents that are clearly identified as risk assessments and science summaries and pasting them under your new "Environmental impact" section; the distinction there is neither subtle nor neutral. You're also selectively quoting from USEPA documents but not identifying the quotes as quotes. You might want to read through WP:Plagiarism to learn how you can avoid giving the impression that you personally wrote the text that's actually been (selectively) copied and pasted from a source."

James, I am an experienced editor. I am among the top 10 editors of the 2009 Flu pandemic, the Haiti earthquake, and the BP oil spill, and as such am very well aware of the importance of avoiding plagiarism. On the other hand, I am, admittedly, not always knowledgeable of a lot of the finer points when it comes to policy. However, it is my understanding that the EPA government sites are copyright-free works. Perhaps I am wrong. At any rate, I believe that my edits should be changed to make it clear that the info is copied from the sites. But more importantly, why do you want to be such a dick about this? Surely you must be aware that it does not promote a spirit of cooperation when you call my edits "amusing", suggest I am attempting to have my "wishes" met, suggesting that I am attempting to bias even this talk page and suggesting on my talk page that I apparently am so uninformed that I don't know the difference in and Act of Congress and a regulatory decision ("Changing the law" requires an Act of Congress (ie a REALLY REALLY big thing). While approving, suspending, or cancelling a pesticide use isn't small potatoes, it's generally not even in the same order of magnitude as an act of congress. It is my understanding that German laws and pesticide regulatory decisions use roughly the same processes as we do in the U.S.). And finally you say:

"The list goes on. I suspect you would not take kindly to me rewriting this page as I see fit without discussion, so I ask that you revert all of your recent changes until consensus is attained and that you not edit this or other content without discussion."

Without discussion? It would appear to me, after all this discussion, that what you really expect is that everything except agreement with your point of view is obviously biased, perhaps intentionally biased or perhaps just due to lack of knowledge, and hence not real discussion. You state, " I'll let this simmer over the weekend so you or others have a chance to respond. If by next week you still haven't given a reasonable justification for violating WP:CHEMMOS or why your opinion should outweigh WP:NOTE, I'll be bold and delete the 2008 incident." And then you disappear for 2 weeks coming back and telling me that I need to revert all my recent edits to not only this article but the Neonicotinoid article as well until consensus is attained. It seems to me that for someone that only recently joined Wikipedia and has yet to make his first edit you are being awfully bossy in your expectations about what I should or should not do. I collaborated with another editor in my edits and they were not done without a great deal of prior discussion. Can they be improved? Absolutely - there is no question about that. To move forward, I would suggest that for starters you produce the rest of your problems from your "list", let's settle them and not continue to bring them up again and again. I would also suggest that you cannot expect all the other editors to accept your timetable as though you have some special standing around here. To stand aside watching the article and then to come back after two weeks "stunned" with what's been going on and demand others revert edits they made in your absence is arrogant, though IMO I could use much stronger language and it would be appropriate. I'd also suggest that you quit looking for "gotchas" as you did when I accidentally used the word law rather than regulation. I have realized for some time that early on in this discussion I accidentally called the NRDC a government agency - I keep feeling that it would be petty to correct myself, but one the other hand I keep waiting for you to pounce on that mistake as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't respond to your recap of this long interaction because I can't find much in it that's related to my proposal for the German incident. I will post the draft content I prepared on the German incident and then link to it from the clothianidin content using the subtopics I'm proposing below and any others that are consistent with WP:CHEMMOS. To avoid being accused of censorship, even temporarily, I will hold off on removing the German incident content from here until the full article on the incident is posted and the content on the clothianidin page is rewritten to appropriately link to it. --USEPA James (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

James, while you state that "everybody thinks it is a well balanced write-up", all I find is this post by Dicklyon:

And you misunderstand me, too. I'm not arguing against CHEMMOS, just noting that it doesn't apply here, as the event is not "current" and appears in many RSs; if someone wants to make an article on it, that's fine, though I think its notability is marginal. I still don't see a reason to not summarize it in the article. The POV that simply explains the reasons based on user error is one; another POV would be to say something about how toxic the chemical is; another is how much reaction there has been against it, based on it's possible implication in bee problems. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And this:

No problem. But I don't think the incident in question is a current event. It's just that the current events section of the MOS is being used as a reason to not mention the incident. It was a 2008 incident that resulted in a government banning the chemical, and is now reported in many books. I think someone should work on reporting it from these newer sources, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And this:

So now you're saying it's notable enough to have its own article. Did I misunderstand that you wanted it not talked about in the article on the pesticide because it was too minor? Anyway, your draft article does a good job of representing the U.S. government POV on it, but some non-government secondary sources should be consulted as well, so a more balanced article can be written. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And I see no comments in the discussion section at your sandbox, so I am wondering which editors you are speaking of that think it is a well balanced write-up? As you know, I have felt all along that the incident is not worthy of its own article and I feel it is best covered in the article as it now is. Your sandbox article contains 5 primary sources and only 1 secondary source and I find that problematic. Perhaps it would be best to first attempt to add your new article covering the Germany incident before you do a complete re-write of this article? In my experience it is always best to work in slow steps when editing rather than attempt to completely re-write an article. In fact, thinking about it, I've seldom seen it done and when it is done it is done by editors who have a very long history of working with a particular article and even then, they tend to ask for help and support from one or more other editors. Gandydancer (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, EPAJames remains silent. My concerns regarding what appears to be a welcome to a government agency to make dramatic changes in Wikipedia articles have only been increased as I attempt to communicate my viewpoint on this talk page. Considering that each elected administration maintains direct control over the EPA, and that its enforcements are subject to the political agenda of those in power, I can easily imagine Wikipedia being used as a political spokesperson for whatever administration that happens to be in charge. However, wikipedia edits are done through consensus, and except for a brief period of interest by one other editor, consensus appears to favor EPAJames edit plans. With no support for my viewpoint, I will no longer post my objections. I regret this decision because the many hours that I have spent editing always seemed well-spent to me because I have thought of Wikipedia as "the people's encyclopedia". Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, as promised, I've been working on the draft replacement text for the clothianidin page; you're confusing silence with my attempt to be thorough. To close out this discussion, I've posted the German incident page and will begin linking to it shortly (i.e. as my schedule allows).--USEPA James (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the references for the German incident; one of them is from the BVL (The Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety) in Germany so it should be acceptable. I agree with Gandydancer that it is of historical importance and should be included on the wikipedia page irrespective of whether some people think it was an accident or not.

http://www.bvl.bund.de/EN/08_PresseInfothek_engl/01_Presse_und_Hintergrundinformationen/2008_05_16_pi_ruhen_saatgutzulassung_en.html?nn=1414138 http://www.cbgnetwork.org/2821.html http://www.moraybeedinosaurs.co.uk/archives/bee_die_offs.htm http://pcela.rs/interview_henryEn.htm

There also were similar incidents with seed-treated clothianidin in Slovenia and Austria, but these incidents did not get much press attention, and it is difficult to find these incidents on the regulatory sites. Thus, I am not advocating including them yet. If anyone reading this talk page has information about these incidents, please join the conversation.

For the Purdue study, I'm not quite clear why this peer-reviewed journal article should not be included on the wikipedia page. You mentioned that the study infers connections to clothianidin that are not supported? and it should not be mentioned until there is a critical review of the study, possibly by the Scientific Advisory Panel. Does this mean every peer-reviewed published article on pesticides has to be reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Panel before it can be posted on wikipedia? Who and what is involved in a critical review of published articles?

James, Thanks for the French Minister of Agriculture website address. This website states that clothianidin is not permitted for use in France; however clothianidine (whatever that is) is registered as a dispersible granule for apples. If clothianidine is actually clothianidin and is only being used on one crop, then it is not fair to give the impression that this pesticide is widely used in France. If you want to say that this pesticide is used in France, then you need to find an acceptable reference that states clothianidine is clothianidin and you need to say that the use is limited to a dispersible granule application for apples. It would also be interesting to know how widely clothianidin is used in the other countries that have approved its use and whether it is a restricted use or general use pesticide. JSimpson55 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that James explains (below) that both terms, clothianidine and clothianidin, are used for the same chemical. Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

JSimpson55, I recommend you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus. You and one or two other editors might disagree with the larger and long-established policies on sources, accidents, undue weight, Original Research, etc, but that doesn't give you the right to disregard them.

I have no idea where you get your information on the French registrations. As I have indicated a couple of times, the UK reference says "France has had restrictions on use of certain neonicotinoid pesticides since the 1990’s, but does authorise their use on a number of arable crops, fruits and vegetables." USEPA James (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As you recommended, I went to the French regulatory agency website to determine if clothianidn is registered in France and for what uses:http://e-phy.agriculture.gouv.fr/. This website may be more reliable than the UK one for products registered in France. JSimpson55 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

JSimpson55, it would help if you could do your due diligence and learn the various policies and guidelines we're all supposed to be following at Wikipedia. As I said elsewhere on this page at least once, I didn't use the French source because this is the English Wikipedia and English sources are preferred. Since there was a reliable English language source for information about registrations in France (and since maintaining a current list of all authorized uses around the globe would be an impossible task), I felt it sufficed to neutrally summarize the more general information provided by the source. USEPA James (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

James, While the rules say English references are preferred, they are not mandatory. The UK reference you provided does not specifically discuss the registration of clothianidin in France. It only says that "France has had restrictions on use of certain neonicotinoid pesticides since the 1990's, but does authorise their use on a number of arable crops, fruits, and vegetables." In this case, the French source would be more reliable since it specifically mentions clothianidin and states the one use. If you have questions about "whether the non-English original actually supports the information," I would be happy to translate relevant portions for readers as the guidelines suggest.

I also wonder if it is a good idea to list all the countries where clothianidin is registered "since maintaining a current list of all authorized uses around the globe would be an impossible task."

Under the authorized use section, it's difficult to tell if only one use is registered in a particular country or many uses are registered. If it is important for the reader to know every country where clothianidin is registered, then we should also state whether the use is limited or for many different crops and formulations. In the case of France, only one use on apples is approved. This is far different than the U.S. where there are many registered uses of clothianidin. It doesn't seem to make sense to lump all these countries together and give the impression that they all have similar registered uses of clothianidin. JSimpson55 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with this section title, but here goes. I see what you mean about the UK source not mentioning multiple uses of clothianidin in France. My bad. I had to stare at it for a few minutes to see what you meant. I'll delete that reference in a forthcoming revision to the page. However, USEPA's website has for years provided general information about clothiandin's registration status around the globe, including France. The USEPA citation has the added benefit of not needing a translation AND it can be linked to...the French database pages are dynamically generated and don't appear to have static URLs. The Authorised Uses section of this article cites that USEPA source, so I think we're still OK.

I feel it is both encyclopedic and enduring to note that this chemical is registered for use around the globe. I was warned by Wikipedians early on (in a friendly fashion) about making edits overly focused on the US. That's why I generally try to take a global perspective with my edits. I've already done the work to find English language sources that identify the various authorized uses and some (but far from all) of the countries where it can be used; it really didn't take much effort to do so. To ramp that up to a list of all uses in each country would require a level of dedication I simply don't have. Despite your inference, it's not just the US that has many registered uses--just off the top of my head I know that Canada, Australia and the UK have many as well (630 MRLs are listed in the UK database alone). It made sense to include suspended uses, but focusing on individual registered uses in one country, like France, begs the question why? USEPA James (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to basics: appropriate section titles

The WP:CHEMMOS provides guidance for the basic structure of pages covered under the Wikipedia:Chemical Project, of which this clothianidin page is one. The recommended sections in WP:CHEMMOS are: compounds, reactions, methods of analysis, instrumentation/apparatus, techniques, significant chemists, branches of chemistry, and theories and principles. These recommended section titles might appeal to chemists in laboratories, but I would like to suggest additional, neutral subsections to better represent the fact that chemicals sometimes leave the lab and end up in use in the outside world. To kick off the discussion, I recommend the following:

Toxicity: This section would cover secondary source analyses of lab or field toxicity testing results.

Human Health Effects: This section would cover secondary source analyses of human health effects determined in lab or field testing or from reported incidents that are discussed in proper secondary sources.

Environmental Fate: This section would cover secondary source analyses of lab or field testing showing what happens to this chemical in the ground, air, and water.

These three sections constitute the lab- or field-study determined “hazards” associated with the chemical. But hazards don’t actually exist without exposure, and exposure results from Uses, which I suggest as the next section.

But if you use a pesticide according to the label (as required by law in many if not most countries), exposure is limited because authorized uses result from risk assessments that balance hazards through Risk Mitigation, which I propose as an additional section.

I believe that using these headings (or something like them) would help reduce the tabloid scandal sheet odor of the page as-is, and focus it instead on the chemical per se. I believe it is possible to present NPOV information, including accidents and other current events in an appropriately limited fashion (per the WP:CHEMMOS ), under these topic headings.

I would recommend against "Environmental impact" as a section because it is already practically a term of art with a very particular meaning that is not relevant to chemicals or their use (see Environmental impact statements and assessments. It implies normal or expected outcomes even when examples given are the result of accidents, off-label uses, and other issues having nothing to do with the environment.

Thoughts? --USEPA James (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment from a chemist's POV, however from the POV of one that makes health/environmental edits, it seems like a great improvement to what we're using, which is pretty much make-it-up-as-you-go-along. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use the proposed subtopics above to rewrite the page. If anyone comes up with other suggestions, please leave a note on my talk page It will take a week or two develop the content. I'll respond here with a notification when it's ready to review in my sandbox. --USEPA James (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Good proposal. Something more on uses would be appropriate too. For example, currently the article mentions seed treatment, but neither summarizes what seed treatment is (from the context, I imagine it is added to seed by the farmer during sowing), nor mentions other permitted, recommended or prohibited uses. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, InfantGorilla. I'm adjusting the text accordingly and will have something ready for the group's review most likely early next week. --USEPA James (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay updating this page. I got pulled into a project at work and wasn't able to devote any time to Wikipedia. Per the consensus reached in August 2011, I'm updating the page now to the text that everyone concurred on in my sandbox. --USEPA James (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments on 1) chemical accidents (again) and 2) citing primary research

Two new sections were added to the clothianidin page on January 17, 2012. The first focuses on the most sensational aspects of the 2008 German beekill incident, which consensus in the Chemical Project MOS WP:CHEMMOS#Current_events and community concensus here in August 2011 said should be on its own page. The 2008_German_Beekill_Incident page has been published on Wikipedia since August 12 and describes the incident from a NPOV. All of the previous arguments against having this accident highlighted on the clothianidin page, which are documented above, remain unchanged. I propose to delete this content (again) since it is already appropriately mentioned and the main artcle covering that topic is linked from within the clothianidin article.

The second new section from January 17 similarly focuses on the most sensational aspects of recently published original research out of Purdue University involving multiple routes of exposure to pesticides for honey bees. Its inclusion here exemplifies why Wikipedia encourages reliance "on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." Reliable_sources#Scholarship The cited article (in a Purdue University publication) simply introduces the new study from Purdue researchers (as do all similar articles in the mass media); it does not critically examine the research; the scientific community at large has yet to weigh in. Including this section on the clothianidin page also incorrectly associates the results of the study with this particular chemical even though the study authors themselves are quoted in the source news report (and in the new section) as saying "Whatever was on the seed was being exhausted into the environment." In other words ANY pesticide or other chemicals used for seed treatments might be expected in the talc emissions. The new section also fails to mention a solution suggested by on of the study authors: "efforts could be made to limit or eliminate talc emissions during planting."

I propose to delete both new sections. Thoughts? I'll check back on 1/24/12. USEPA James (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read your post. I will reply ASAP - I am busy with other articles, but hopefully I can make a post before about 1/26/12. Gandydancer (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I support User:USEPA James's suggested deletions. The reliance on WP:SECONDARY should trump sensational claims, regardless of the good intentions that led to their inclusion in the first place. With regards to the first paragraph being deleted because the material is already covered elsewhere. In my humble view, we want Wikipedia to be very sober source and the articles focused, not sprawling. There is a tendency for non-technical editors to "pile on" Googleable safety-health-environomental info in their quest to 'save the world" (an approach that I am sympathetic too, but try to resist to improve Wikipedia's reliability). Those are only my views of course. Nice to see editors be consultative about changes.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I will reply to Jame's post. First, the German bee-kill incident. 1) While you are calling it "the most sensational aspects", at the article you wrote you called the same information the "Basic information". When we split an article, we do provide our readers with the basic information with a link to the main article. While you are encouraged to improve the information, it is not policy to remove it. 2) Re a "consensus" reached about including information about the incident in this article. You have misrepresented the previous talk page discussion. I hope that you will read the discussion and correct your statement unless it is your intention to misinform new editors who may be attempting to form an opinion on these edits. No consensus was reached. 3) You continue to use the fact that the Bhopal Disaster has its own article to justify a separate German bee-kill article, and continue to insist that Wikipedia policy would apply to that chemical page in the same way that it would apply to this article. I find your reasoning...flawed. As I have previously said, and you have ignored, clothianidin is both a chemical and an insecticide. As an insecticide the article needs to include information on health, etc., implications - unless we want to start writing two articles for all the other chemicals that carry health risks. See, for instance, the DDT article for a much better comparison than the Methyl isocyanate / Bhopal Disaster article.

But at any rate, you did go ahead and write the German incident article, suggesting that the incident was notable enough for its own article, and said that you would appropriately link to it when you did your rewrite here. But as a matter of fact, that is not what you did at all. The incident is barely mentioned here and none of the references are actually related to the German incident, but rather to France and Canada:

Honeybees and other pollinators are particularly sensitive to clothianidin, as evidenced by the results of laboratory and field toxicity testing and demonstrated in acute poisoning incidents in France and Germany in 2008, and in Canada in 2010 associated with the planting of corn seeds treated with clothianidin.[39][40][41][42]

As for your problems with the Purdue University study -- the information presented, the references, and the study itself. For comparison to other chemical articles, perhaps it would help if you would take some time to read other articles such as the Bisphenol A article. You will see that many studies are presented to back up information at that article. While you may not agree with the inclusion of health risks other than those listed by the EPA, it appears to be a well-established Wikipedia policy. I will try to find more time today to discuss my references and other concerns you have mentioned. Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: Bisphenol A is a weak article in my analysis. The weight allocated to the perceived problems reinforces the perception that many Wikipedia articles are often soapboxes for socially-conscientious editors of modest technical ability. BPA has had huge technological impact, yet the article is mainly one-sided list of grievances. We should probably create an article on Bisphenol A Controversy, as we have done with Water fluoridation controversy. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment that the inclusion of health issues in chemical articles are "the perceived problems [that] reinforces the perception that many Wikipedia articles are often soapboxes for socially-conscientious editors of modest technical ability". If it your belief that the chemical articles be cleared of health and environmental issues, it will keep you busy for some time - see for instance, vinyl chloride, phthalates, organophosphates, PCBs, and many others. While as a chemist I can believe that you may think of the chemical properties of PCBs (for instance), I'd bet that 99% of the people that look that word up here are more interested in the environmental/health effects. Gandydancer (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that the articles should not have any health/safety content, but the overall content should be balanced. When the safety aspects are much longer than the description of the item itself, then one has to be concerned about balance (or it is time to spin off an article about "health concerns of..." etc. A challenge facing Wiki-Chem is that health-safety content often overwhelms articles. Such material is contributed by well-intentioned editors who, by my assessment are incapable of adding any other sort of content (they don't know what they are talking about really - they are not toxicologists or environmental health professionals or MD's). Such editors may think that they are doing good, when in fact they are often doing damage. My concern is not just that the information conveyed is distorted, but the conversion of Wikipedia from a sober NPOV source of information to a muddle-headed soapbox. My guess is that most such editors are adding safety content, just to make themselves feel good, which is unfortunate but understandable. So again, as a chemist, I do not believe "that the chemical articles be cleared of health and environmental issues", but I do worry that the content in Wikipedia be balanced and that the health aspects follow very high standard for referencing. Otherwise we jeopardize the credibility of Wikipedia. I say these harsh words because I feel so strongly about the environmental-health issues, not because I want to suppress good people doing what they think good deeds (again, by conveying info they do not understand). --Smokefoot (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding your opinion of "balance". IMO, if a chemical article has "safety aspects [which] are much longer than the description of the item itself", to omit some of the concerns for "balance" makes no sense at all. As for your concerns about non-professionals adding information, yes most of Wikipedia is written by non-professionals. In the very early attempts at a Wikipedia the information was all checked for accuracy by professionals and after a year hardly more than a handful of articles were completed, so they decided to let editors edit each other and it has worked fairly well. As for concerns about "high standards for referencing", the section I added uses a peer-reviewed study (as is common for medical articles) with corresponding media reports of the study. Finally, please take a look at the Atrazine article which is approved by the EPA and yet about half of the article is devoted to hazards - do you find that article appropriate? Gandydancer (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing this conversation. here are my views:

• "some of the concerns for "balance" makes no sense at all." The statement might make no sense to you, but maybe it has merit for others - that is kinda why we are having this conversation. It's just my opinion, but an article should --Smokefoot (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)mainly be about the topic subject, not the bad things that can happen with the topic. The article on automobile or hammer or sodium chloride should mainly be a description of automobiles, trees, hammers, and sodium chloride. In my opinion, we would be giving undue weight if these article were mainly about automobile accidents, people hitting their thumbs and other people with hammers or people who ingest too much NaCl, respectively. If the tangential aspects grow, then we start an side article on automobile accidents. Similarly with BPA and most chemical compounds.
• A lot of people add chemical content, and I spend a lot of time correcting it. So I am extrapolating to toxicology and environmental themes, which I think are more nuanced (trickier). On the chemical themes, most editors just lack much perspective and make a lot of little mistakes. So I worry about how common such problems are with the tox and health aspects. Fortunately the formidable technical barrier prevents a lot of editors from contributing to chem articles, but no such barrier prevents them from adding potential cruft on health topics. So this is a difficult problem. The tox and environmental warnings accrete and accrete because do-gooder editors want to add the latest google bit because they think they are being socially conscientious and helping to save the world (good motives) but they might be discrediting Wikipedia. Maybe we should enforce WP:MEDRS more stringently. I just don't know. Difficult problem. Nice talking to you, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that our talk page statements are a personal point of view and we are all encouraged to present our opinion here. Since the EPA spokesperson James finds your opinions on balance correct, I will reply to both of you in this post. You believe that to maintain balance in an article it should "mainly be about the topic subject, not the bad things that can happen with the topic". You give several examples including automobiles and hammers, which James calls "spot on" as examples. Certainly we all use Wikipedia for perhaps varied reasons, but I can't imagine anyone looking up "hammer" expecting to find out how often one hits their thumb or attacks someone with a hammer; not surprisingly there is no hazard section at the hammer article. However, I can imagine that one might be interested in automobile hazard/health issues. Interestingly, looking back a few years I found that at one time these issues compromised about 1/3 of the article but as the article grew longer, more and more sections were split off to their own pages. But it's not a process of splitting off the "bad things" to their own articles, it's just that an article gets too long and needs to be split. You also brought up sodium chloride; I'm not sure why... As you know, it has its own article and table salt has a separate article which covers the "bad things" that can result from too much NaCl in the diet. Perhaps you are suggesting that the chemicals that are used as pesticides should have separate articles as well?

As for your mention of the need to watch the chem posts for misinformation, I can imagine that it is quite a job to keep up with the mistakes that non-professionals make. We are lucky to have somebody around that knows what the hell they are doing! On the other hand, (IMO) even professionals can make mistakes about what we include. For instance, see the talk page re Exercise at the Pregnancy article. I had deleted the section saying that it was confusing and contradicting, and I could not locate the references. A physician hunted down the references and returned the section. I've had my talk page note up for about a week with no response, so I hope to find time today to again delete the section and rewrite it.

It is always good to talk to you Smokefoot - we don't always agree but I believe you are reasonable and fair and it is good to work with you. I will get back to the references issues as soon as I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the discussion. Smokefoot, you raise valid points.

gandydancer, on August 5, after weeks of debate you wrote the following: "However, wikipedia edits are done through consensus, and except for a brief period of interest by one other editor, consensus appears to favor EPAJames edit plans. With no support for my viewpoint, I will no longer post my objections." Clearly, you acquiesced to the consensus. I did exactly as I promised, and I gave everybody MONTHS to comment on the updated text before finally posting it. But you've not kept your part of the bargain. Your arguments for putting it back in now (unannounced) are no more compelling than they were six months ago, and your editing is more than a bit disturbing. The facts you leave out are, to my reading, more indicative of bias than the facts you put in. When no less than three regulatory agencies on two continents all basically say that a large quantity of ANY powerful insecticide sprayed into the air in conditions like the German incident would result in lots of dead bees, how is it good for Wikipedia to have its editors disregard such a significant point and infer a connection to a particular chemical the authorities have repeatedly dismissed? Where are the published expert opinions refuting the regulatory agencies' conclusions?

We have a similar situation with your inclusion of the Purdue study, which examines multiple exposure routes associated with pesticide dust from seeding equipment used to plant treated seeds. The study authors in the article you referenced make it clear that the study is about seeding equipment-related exposure; as with the German incident, they make it perfectly clear that clothianidin is coincidental. It is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia to omit critical points like this from cited sources and focus instead on the parts of the article that fit your particular POV. The results of this study simply do not represent encyclopedic knowledge about clothianidin. Smokefoot's point about automobile or hammer or sodium chloride-related accidents/health issues was spot-on.

You are right, gandydancer, that there are many pages where advocates have posted newly published original research to support their beliefs since Wikipedia relaxed its rules; while this has no doubt increased the number of articles published, I believe I am not alone in feeling the quality has suffered. Reiterating yet another of Smokefoot's points, some pages are so overwhelmingly loaded with advocate messaging it negatively affects the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information. But instead of challenging the inappropriate use of original research by advocates consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, other Wikipedians tend to pile on still more original research supporting the opposing view. This is not NPOV -- it's haphazardly balanced biases. The benefit of adhering to Wikipedia's WP:SECONDARY is that all sorts of peer-reviewed work gets the boot once it's subjected to scrutiny by the scientific community. If it doesn't get the boot after a robust analysis, THEN it's reasonable to include references to the analysis it in an appropriate Wikipedia article. You jumped the gun by posting a reference to this Purdue study based on an announcement in Purdue's newspaper, in addition to the inappropriateness of putting the section on the clothianidin page in the first place. To second Smokefoot once more, perhaps you could start a new page on Agricultural Seeding Equipment Controversies and reference it there once a secondary analysis has been published.

As to the atrazine page being "approved by the EPA," you completely misconstrue what I actually wrote. I said some of the section titles were more appropriate to a chemical page than what was previously on the clothianidin page, which read like a scandal sheet from the blogosphere. Frankly, the atrazine article is a mess of references to original research too, but it's a case of balanced biases. It lacks neutrality and, therefore, credibility, and is absolutely not "approved by the EPA." For the clothianidin article, I feel it is best to avoid biases to the extent possible and shoot for a truly NPOV.

Ironically, the Purdue study was funded by two partners of USEPA in our efforts to better protect pollinators: the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign. We've been telling them for years the sorts of studies we need for regulatory purposes; even with its faults, we're happy to see this work out of Purdue. For more than six months we've also included a requirement for residue data on seeding equipment exhaust in our work plan for the neonicotinoid registration review that's currently under way. The publication of this Purdue study is timely from our perspective (though it has been entirely blown out of proportion by certain media outlets and other advocates who simply don't demonstrate a good grasp of the facts of the matter). But in spite of all that, until it undergoes critical review (which it likely will at the independent FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel meeting we are convening later this year), it is inappropriate to be referenced anywhere on Wikipedia.

Please delete the sections you added, gandydancer, or come up with logical, NPOV justifications to not honor WP:SECONDARY and to break your part of the bargain from August. USEPA James (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did not see a good reason to split the German incident off to a separate article as you did. As you know, at the time you wrote the article you stated it was so important that it warranted its own article - it should be obvious that you can't now turn around and now say that its not important enough to mention in this article. At any rate, it seems that you incorrectly believed that splitting an article suggests that all mention of the split information is deleted from the main article. Please look at other articles and you will see that that is not how Wikipedia works. That is why I returned the section that you called basic information to this article. As I said, you are welcome (and in fact I encourage you) to improve the lede to the German incident article since that is what would be appropriate to include in this article. I agree, as I have all along, that the German incident was caused by a perfect storm of application mistakes and was not a reason to fault the insecticide itself.

Next you say that I did not include the fact that it was the machinery used that was found to be at fault in the Purdue study. You are certainly welcome to include that information if it is sourced properly. From my reading it seemed that the insecticide was found to be on the talc being used as part of standard planting practices. As for my references, a government-funded, peer reviewed study done by a university, published in PlosOne, with three secondary sources, is certainly considered adequate. You can argue this, but this is the norm on all the other insecticide articles, so it would seem that you will need to argue against it at a higher level than on this article alone.

You state, We have a similar situation with your inclusion of the Purdue study, which examines multiple exposure routes associated with pesticide dust from seeding equipment used to plant treated seeds. The study authors in the article you referenced make it clear that the study is about seeding equipment-related exposure; as with the German incident, they make it perfectly clear that clothianidin is coincidental. I don't agree with your reading of this study. The German incident was the result of a perfect storm of planting errors [1], but the present study/finding was related to general planting practice and it was found that clothianidin, known to be extremely toxic even in very small amounts, was detected...I will quote from the study:

During spring, extremely high levels of clothianidin and thiamethoxam were found in planter exhaust material produced during the planting of treated maize seed. We also found neonicotinoids in the soil of each field we sampled, including unplanted fields. Plants visited by foraging bees (dandelions) growing near these fields were found to contain neonicotinoids as well. This indicates deposition of neonicotinoids on the flowers, uptake by the root system, or both. Dead bees collected near hive entrances during the spring sampling period were found to contain clothianidin as well, although whether exposure was oral (consuming pollen) or by contact (soil/planter dust) is unclear. We also detected the insecticide clothianidin in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive. When maize plants in our field reached anthesis, maize pollen from treated seed was found to contain clothianidin and other pesticides; and honey bees in our study readily collected maize pollen. These findings clarify some of the mechanisms by which honey bees may be exposed to agricultural pesticides throughout the growing season. These results have implications for a wide range of large-scale annual cropping systems that utilize neonicotinoid seed treatments. It is interesting to note that the German incident was related to the fact that suggested practice of using a sticker was not used which (along with other factors) resulting in a massive bee kill. But you have frequently said that in the U.S. a sticker is always used, hence we would not have this same problem here. But in this study we learn that it is common practice to use talc because the "stickered" seeds need to be treated to pass through the planting machinery properly, and they are finding insecticide residue on the exhausted talc. Gandydancer (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, your analysis of this research almost perfectly exemplifies why Wikipedia emphasizes that great care should be taken when relying on primary sources. Did you notice, as just one minor example from what you highlighted above, that the claim in the PlosOne article that talc use is "typical" has no citation? Typical where? Says who? And when did it become typical? These are the sorts of questions the scientific community resolves when they have time to do a secondary analysis of original research. You are preempting that by rushing to promote science that has yet to survive the scrutiny of the true peer review that happens only after initial publication. This negatively affects Wikipedia's credibility. I am asking you once again to delete all of the text you have added that relies on primary research. USEPA James (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood my "typical" comment. I am not suggesting that using talc is a typical planting practice, only that talc was typically used in this two year study. And, I am not rushing to promote anything. Individual peer reviewed studies are frequently used in Wikipedia. Look for instance at the Phthalate article. As you know, most science today tends towards thinking that CCD is most likely a combination of factors, including pesticides. And it is agreed that clothianidin is very highly toxic to bees. This study does not claim that clothianidin is the chemical that is killing the bees, but it does show that high levels of it were found that were apparently being spread by the talc used during planting. As you know, what with bee keepers continuing to lose hives at a rate of 1/3 and even more than that a year since around 2006, the fear that we may lose our pollinators has a lot of people very worried. It is not at all out of place to include this study in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, this is beyond ridiculous. I was not quoting you. I assumed you read the article in its entirety and were conversant in it since you obviously feel qualified to summarize it here. I quoted the word "typically" from the article itself (PDF).

I will repeat this just this once more: the fact that Wikipedia policies are broken on other pages does not justify breaking them here. I recommend that you seriously consider your recent edits relative to WP:consensus:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

You have no business blatantly violating the Wikipedia and WikiProject Chemistry policies and guidelines Smokefoot and I have brought up in this discussion, especially since you make no effort to convince the larger community (or even those of us watching this particular page) why it benefits Wikipedia's credibility to break the rules. "Because we do it elsewhere" is not convincing and neither is op-ed commentary sans credible secondary sources.

I will not respond to any further discussion here since it's taking place in the middle of a discussion that has long since moved on. But I will be following up on a related note with a new discussion topic shortly. USEPA James (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very short on time but will find time to respond this weekend. Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(Followup note) Of course I have read the article. I will save my responses for the followup section you say you plan to post. Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Many issues have been brought up and I will go through them as quickly as possible and reply. Gandydancer (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

gandydancer, your 13:56, 29 January 2012 response above does not provide a logical, NPOV justification not to honor WP:SECONDARY with regard to the Purdue study, nor does it justify breaking your part of the bargain from August on the German incident. I am deleting the section on the Purdue study because it violates WP:SECONDARY and Reliable_sources#Scholarship and might encourage a flood of other original research references to support biased POV like we see on so many other advocate-dominated pages. I am deleting the German incident section because it violates WP:CHEMMOS#Current_events and for all of the other reasons discussed above and agreed upon by the group in August. In both the Purdue study and the German incident, the cited sources make it clear that the connection to clothianidin is coincidental. Having them on the clothianidin page infers inherent connections to this chemical that are not supported by the cited refs. This crosses the line into original thought or personal belief, which is, of course, a no-no. If in the future you would like to add new sections or make significant edits such as these, please talk it over here first and give some time before being bold. Because pollinator protection is a hot topic at USEPA, I may be able to provide context or background for you that sensational media articles frequently seem to lack. Thx USEPA James (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am doing my best to keep up with edits but I work on many other articles, so time is sometimes hard to find. I will continue to attempt to deal with these issues as time permits. James, please keep in mind that in the past you have frequently gone for days and even weeks without posting and your posts seldom reply to any of the issues I have raised. Furthermore, of course, I do my work here for free, while you are being paid for your time here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gandydancer. Since you wrote "I will reply to both of you in this post" in your 13:56, 29 January 2012 response, I understood that to mean you were responding to the concerns raised and presenting your case for keeping the two new sections. You didn't respond to the specific concerns as far as I could tell, so I felt justified in deleting the sections. To me, the fact that advocates have been violating policies and guidelines to push their agendas on other pages is a completely unconvincing reason to do it here; it detracts from Wikipedia's credibility and (worse, to my way of thinking) misleads many thousands of people every month.

I appreciate the time it takes to write articles. You assume I get paid for being here, but having invested many tens of hours off-the-clock researching and rewriting the clothianidin article, I'd rather not have to keep coming back to revisit issues that were already settled. Let's not forget that Wikipedia has guidelines and policies and the Chemical Project has its own set of standards that, if adhered to, would have precluded the need for me to even be here in the first place. I also see there are many other related articles that have similarly inappropriate content, but for now my focus is on keeping this one article NPOV. Please talk it over here before making significant edits to this page in the future. I'm not opposed to new content that is written from a neutral perspective and consistent with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and consensus. I'd be happy to work with you to develop new content that meets the criteria.

If there are specific issues you feel I have ignored, let me say it's not intentional. Smokefoot mentioned above issues making sense to some people but making no sense to others. It could be that I simply didn't understand the relevance of the issue you raised or the way you describe it. If you want to discuss these issues more, why not start a new section here if it pertains specifically to clothianidin or on my talk page if it's of a more general nature? USEPA James (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless I devote all of my wikipedia time to this article it will be difficult to keep up with your edits. Never the less, I will do my best. Do I understand you correctly when you say that you represent the EPA in your edits and work both on company time and your own (unpaid) personal time? Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My user page explains why I became a Wikipedian on behalf of USEPA, and Wikipedia's approval of me being here in that capacity. But since that topic and how I spend my time on and off the clock have little to do with clothianidin, if you want to pursue those topics please post your follow-ups on my talk page. USEPA James (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have again added information from the article split that was removed. As I have already stated, this is per common Wikipedia policy. When information is removed to its own page, we commonly write a short summary of the material with a link to the new article. Since editor James believes that the incident is so important that it deserves it own article, he can hardly now state that it is so unimportant that it not be mentioned in this article. Note that I called the incident an "accident" to note the fact that failure to use proper planting policy may have been the underlying reason for the incident. Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, the German incident was a chemical accident. Having a section on it here violates the WP:CHEMMOS and, by extention, the Chemical Project community consensus. I will follow up accordingly ASAP.USEPA James (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you are correct. The Methyl isocyanate article does not have a separate section. I will include the info in a manner similar to the way that that article included an accident. They use this wording: The toxic effect of the compound was apparent in the Bhopal disaster, when around 42,000 kilograms (93,000 lb) of methyl isocyanate and other gases were released from the underground reservoirs of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) factory, over a populated area on December 3, 1984, immediately killing thousands and leading to the deaths of tens of thousands in subsequent weeks and months. Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer reviewed secondary sources?

Does anyone know of a more recent peer reviewed secondary source on this topic than PMID 20737791 (full text)? I ask because, "the nitro-substituted compounds (clothianidin, ...) appear the most toxic to bees.... the extensive use of pesticides against pest insects for crop protection has contributed to the loss of many pollinators.... neonicotinoid insecticides were recently implicated by beekeepers ... due to a progressive disease in the hive populations, until a complete loss of the colonies," does not appear at all inconsistent with the contentious material which has recently been deleted here. I would also like to caution editors that news stories from reliable sources with editorial supervision and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy are in fact WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary sources as they have been referred to above. However, peer reviewed secondary sources are always preferred to news stories from any source. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! First, you might want to review WP:SECONDARY: "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Newspaper articles introducing original research and interviews with the authors of the research cannot be considered secondary sources because there is no critical analysis of the data or conclusions involved. We've all read sensational media articles about NEW RESEARCH!!! that sometimes gets the boot or gets put in its proper place once the scientific community has an opportunity to review. I believe Wikipedia wants to avoid documenting the sensational journalism because it negatively affects its credibility.

Your specific question was about more recent sources than the ones you linked to, but both of them are from 2010 which is recent enough I think. I'm just not sure what additional information they bring to the table.

Your books.google citation above isn't opening for me in Firefox or IE and appears to be a different article than the one at PMID 20737791. The google book appears to be entitled Insect Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors (Thany, Steeve Hervé, 2010), but from online summaries I'm not sure what new information it provides that isn't covered in the clothianidin article already. Toxicity to bees is already there, both from lab analysis and from practical use in the fields. The intro covers clothianidin's effects on insect acetylcholine receptors... What does the book explain that isn't covered already?

Your PMID 20737791 link goes to Ecotoxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to bees {Decourtye A, Devillers J., 2010}, but I can't see the entire article there. It appears to be a secondary review, but from the pubmed article summary it appears as if they are comparing relative toxicity to bees of the various neonics, and that clothianidin is more toxic than some (but not all) of the others. But the clothianidin article already cites the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority as saying 'that clothianidin ranks "among the most highly acutely toxic insecticides to bees" through contact and oral exposure.' I'm a little concerned about the value added to Wikipedia by basically repeating over and over again that it's very toxic to bees that come into contact with residues. Do you want to add something like "It is relatively more toxic to bees than some (but not all) other neonicotinoid pesticides?" and cite Decourtye and Devillers? USEPA James (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you can find that chapter somehow, read it, confirm whether or not there are any more recent peer reviewed secondary sources, and then consider whether the passages I quoted from it above should be included in the article. I would also like your opinion, please, on these recent stories from Grist and The Economist. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to have me read an article, please provide a useful link. But even without the link, it would be helpful if you could explain how Wikipedia benefits from repeating over and over again toxicity to bees when it's already clearly (and neutrally) stated in the text.

The point in the Grist article that is best supported by the available data is "...CCD — a still somewhat mysterious phenomenon...," though I feel the use of the word "somewhat" reflects creative license and/or beliefs of the author. The statement "research increasingly points to pesticides as the primary culprit" does not reflect the consensus of the top scientific and regulatory experts from around the globe. I don't see any evidence of critical analysis in the Grist article. Did you notice, for example, that they didn't bother to interview toxicologists, entomologists, regulatory risk assessors or anybody else that's looking at this from a stone-cold scientific standpoint? Is that not a concern for you?

The Economist article's take home message is "Whether [the study findings are] actually the reason for colonies collapsing remains to be determined." The study, which was done by one of USEPA's partners in trying to advance pollinator science, adds incrementally to one of many hypotheses about CCD, but none of the new research is a "smoking gun." USEPA James (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Google Books link works for me. I was just informed by the EPA Headquarters Reference Librarian that all EPA employees have access to SpringerLink, so you should be able to read the chapter at [2] on your EPA computer. What evidence do you have that Grist "didn't bother to interview toxicologists, entomologists, regulatory risk assessors or anybody else that's looking at this from a stone-cold scientific standpoint"? Do you mean merely that no such people were cited in the article, and you actually have no idea whether such people were interviewed? Although your personal opinions about what portions of those stories are most important and what is or is not a "smoking gun" are interesting to me, I am much more interested in whether you are aware of any more recent peer reviewed secondary sources than the Decourtye and Devillers (2010) chapter, whether you object to the inclusion of the excerpts of it above, and if so on what grounds. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The snippets you've chosen for your proposed excerpts seem to...how shall I put it...lean a certain way. I believe an objective, informed reviewer of the entire chapter--and I do mean the whole thing--would not come to the same conclusions you captured in your snippets. When the authors acknowledge throughout the chapter (but especially in the Conclusion) that "The causes of decline among pollinators vary from a species to another and are generally difficult to assign," they are not making an insignificant point. They're saying exactly what regulatory authorities and academics around the globe have been saying for years, which is still valid today. Also, the authors' use throughout the chapter of words like "could" and "is possible" with regard to neonicotinoid risks are consistent with the state of the science as USEPA understands it (i.e. there are lots of theories but not lots of good, consistent data to support any of them). Time and again the authors note challenges with available data (e.g. "these data are often inadequate to demonstrate causation unambiguously."); again, this is not an insignificant point (though it makes for lousy headlines). The bottom line is that your snippets infer far greater certainty of a link between clothianidin and bee declines than do the authors, which I feel harms Wikipeda's credibility.

For this clothianidin article, I don't see anything in the chapter you referenced that isn't covered from a NPOV in the version of the article I published on January 9. Since "redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum," I think it would not be in Wikipedia's best interest to repeat the same basic information over and over again.

You asked for more recent, peer reviewed, secondary sources. My recommendation is to wait and see what the independent Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel has to say. It is my understanding that the global pesticide regulatory and scientific communities are looking forward to a FIFRA SAP meeting that will be looking at USEPA's proposed risk assessment for pollinators in fall 2012. USEPA James (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, User 67.6.175.184, please refrain from including personal details about me (e.g. my employment etc) on this chemical talk page or elsewhere on Wikipedia, since doing so does not help improve this article and it expressly violates acceptable behavior policies USEPA James (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have made this same demand to another editor. I think you are going to have to clear this up with with a statement of some sort. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede

About 2/3 of the lede is devoted to a discussion of a comparison of neonicotinoids to nictine, which is then not even mentioned in the article. See copy below:

Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that are chemically similar to nicotine, which has been used as a pesticide since the late 1700s. As with nicotine, clothianidin and other neonicotinoids act on the central nervous system of insects. Although nicotine has been used as a pesticide for over 200 years it degraded too rapidly in the environment and lacked the selectivity to be very useful in large-scale agricultural situations. However, in order to address this problem, the neonicotinoids (chloronicotinyl insecticides) were developed as a substitute of nicotine, targeting the same receptor site (AChR) and activating post-synaptic acetylcholine receptors but not inhibiting AChE. Clothianidin, like other neonicotinoids, is an agonist of acetylcholine, the neurotransmitter that stimulates the nAChR. The advantage of clothianidin and other neonicotinoids over nicotine is that they are less likely to break down in the environment.

I can imagine that we might have one line of comparison, but 2/3 of the lede? To use the lede to devote so much copy to nicotine, which may be considered for use as a pesticide choice in organic farming, makes me wonder if there has not been an attempt to suggest that chemicals such as neonicotinoids are no more harmful than "natural" pesticides such as nicotine. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with your suggestion that this and related articles have been edited in a pathetic attempt to obfuscate, and I hope you can delete the extraneous material and replace the summaries which have been deleted for the wholly unconvincing reasons above which are clearly contrary to the plain language of the conclusions of the secondary peer reviewed sources. I think what has been going on here is repugnant example of regulatory capture and I am considering discussing this matter with my congressional representation. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So, in addition to tossing out Wikipedia:CHEMMOS, does this mean you are also disregarding WP:AGF? This is absurd. The cited source is a fact sheet that made those points. I thought they were interesting and encyclopedic. Given the toxicity of nicotine to humans (at the very least), it would not have occured to me try and infer comparable safety. If you feel the intro is overly focused on nicotine, why not just suggest deleting some of the text? Then again, since I invited comment on the updated text back in August and had it posted for months prior to the actual update, why didn't you mention your concerns back then??? sheesh USEPA James (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:LEAD. The lead section is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, not be overwhelmed with large volumes of tangental information about different subjects. The assumption of good faith is subject to the lack of subsequent evidence of behavior to the contrary. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I missed that suggested updated text from last August. The last I heard was:

Excellent suggestion, InfantGorilla. I'm adjusting the text accordingly and will have something ready for the group's review most likely early next week. --USEPA James (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay updating this page. I got pulled into a project at work and wasn't able to devote any time to Wikipedia. Per the consensus reached in August 2011, I'm updating the page now to the text that everyone concurred on in my sandbox. --USEPA James (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what text are you talking about? The only text I ever saw in your sandbox was the German incident article, which nobody commented on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought I had invited comment here. On closer review, it appears I only said I was working on the rewrite a few times and had indicated several times that I use my sandbox for drafts; I should have explicitly announced it when the draft was complete. I also misunderstood Gandydancer acquiescing to consensus on the German incident as concurrence with the overarching topic of the page rewrite. USEPA James (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, even with the disputed material removed from the article, more than half the text discusses honeybees so they should certainly be summarized in the introduction per WP:LEAD. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the lede should mention bees, but where do you see that "more than 1/2 of the text" discusses bees? I see about 1 1/2 bees to 5 screens of other. If more than half of the text talked about bees I'd strongly suggest it be cut back! Gandydancer (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was counting all the paragraphs after the Table of Contents which mention bees, including "Authorized uses," material directly under "Toxicity", "Data gaps", "Risk mitigation", and "See also". 67.6.175.184 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Authorized use section

James, you have grouped all the refs for this section into seven refs. Could you please supply the France ref. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As indicated in ref. 10 (bold added), "Background Information On Use Of Neonicotinoid Pesticides And Their Effects On Bees, see Action in other Member States". U.K. Chemicals Regulation Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive. Retrieved 16 August 2011. USEPA James (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In 2008, the registration of clothiandin was denied in France. Has it been approved lately for all uses, James? Also Italy, Germany, and Slovenia suspended seed treatment uses for clothianidin for certain crops in 2008. http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/221213-italy-germany-slovenia-france-ban-bayers-bee-killing-insecticides/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/dec/02/pesticides-bees?INTCMP=SRCH http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-2011.10.20.08.48.archive.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7396/is_321/ai_n54955094/?tag=content;col1 http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators/Backgrounder.pdf http://www.youris.com/Environment/Bees/list.aspx

You may also want to mention that the state of New York has not registered clothianidin: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/insect-mite/cadusafos-cyromazine/clothianidin/clothianidin_den_0707.pdf They are concerned about the persistence of clothianidin in soil and water and the potential of clothianidin to impact surface water and groundwater as well as fish and wildlife. Also the state of New York is concerned about the numerous data gaps and unanswered questions for clothianidin. I have heard that the state of Washington has not allowed the use of clothianidin, but this may need to be confirmed. JSimpson55 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

JSimpson55, you appear to be right on the NY registration status, since clothianidin is not on the NYEPA's February 2012 list of products registered in the state (PDF). The data gaps NYEPA cites in the letter you linked to are similar to ones I identified on a previous version of the clothianidin article.

But there is a lot of confusion reflected in the media on domestic and international pesticide registration issues. On your list of blog and other citations from non-regulatory sources, I have a hard time understanding how a blog entry by the editor of a newspaper's Society section (who is also apparently an amateur beekeeper and recent author of a book on bee health) is a credible source or recognized authority on par with the regulatory agencies themselves. I know these sorts of citations are used a lot by some editors, but I am concerned about the effect these sources have on Wikipedia's credibility.

I believe the only trusted, knowledgeable and globally acknowledged experts on this topic are the regulatory agencies themselves, since they are the only ones who seem to know what pesticides and uses are approved in their respective countries (or states, as in NYEPA linked above). The statement "In 2008, the registration of clothiandin was denied in France" is commonly repeated in the media but incorrect, as I understand it. I encourage you to go to the regulatory agencies' websites and look them up yourself. The challenge I found was in finding credible sources in English since most regulatory agencies write in their own country's language. USEPA James (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

James, If there is a factual error with these statements, please cite credible sources of information that backs your claim that the registration of clothianidin, especially seed-treatment use, was approved in France and that Germany, Slovenia, and Italy have approved all seed-treatment uses of clothianidin. You may be able to find this information by calling or emailing your contacts in these countries. Since you are a government worker, you should be able to find this information easier than I can. JSimpson55 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

JSimpson55, please refrain from including personal details about me (e.g. my employment) on this chemical talk page or elsewhere on Wikipedia, since doing so does not help improve this article and it expressly violates acceptable behavior policies. Along the same lines, please indicate the time and date where I made the "claim that the registration of clothianidin, especially seed-treatment use, was approved in France and that Germany, Slovenia, and Italy have approved all seed-treatment uses of clothianidin." In the Authorized Uses section from January 9, 2012, my focus was on current, accurate, well-sourced information, which I believe people hope to find at Wikipedia. I also included an appropriate amount of information and context about cancelled uses. If you read French or can guess your way through the French government's database of registered pesticides, you'll see the product Dantop 50 WG (using the alternate spelling clothianidine for the active ingredient) is registered in France on many crops. This information was accurately reflected and cited (using English language sources) in the January 9, 2012 revision. USEPA James (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

James, I'm not sure how these rules apply since you have been open about where you work and even your name has USEPA in it. Please see my other comments under the German incident section. JSimpson55 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I found it extremely odd that he would think that he can be a COI editor and yet expect us to not mention that... Anyway, as far as I can tell, Dantop 50 WG is for use on fruit trees (and recently potatoes), to be used as a spray no more than once a year well after bloom time rather than for many crops, as James states. I have yet to find a source that states that France uses Clothianidine "on many crops". By the way, I note that the article does not mention that this insecticide is used both as a seed treatment and as a spray - I wonder if this should be mentioned? Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussions about my employment have nothing to do with improving the clothianidin article, which Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines indicate ought to be the only discussions taking place here. This has been going on long enough. Similarly, discussions about policies don't belong on this chemical page; if you want to talk about those things, they have their own talk pages where that sort of discussion is appropriate; user talk pages are also appropriate for this sort of discussion (maybe). Let's keep this discussion on topic, concise etc please. USEPA James (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't the EPA been involved in lawsuits regarding this chemical? It doesn't look like you disclosed that (please correct me if I'm mistaken.) Do you think an editor who had been involved in a lawsuit over some topic can edit the corresponding article, and not have a significant conflict of interest? I understand that you disclosed that you worked for the EPA, but how were other editors supposed to know that the EPA had been involved in relevant litigation? Unless you are sure that your edits are entirely uncontroversial, you should propose them on the talk page with the {{request edit}} template and ask others to make them for you. 70.59.31.70 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, deleting others' comments is a violation of WP:TALK#Others' comments, especially when they are raising questions about your behavior. I hereby request the name of your supervisor in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (United States). 70.59.31.70 (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If you review the history of my proposed rewrite, you'll find that members of the WikiProject Chemicals community encouraged me to proceed, taking care to follow Wikipedia's principles and guidelines. I did that and wish that all editors would do the same. If you read WP:TALK in its entirety, you will find there are exceptions to the rule you feel I violated. I believe it was warranted in this case for the reasons I noted when I made the deletions. User Edgar181 seems to have agreed that the topic was inappropriate. Given the tendency of advocate editors to not propose edits they make, some of which are laughably biased and blatantly violate WP:MEDMOS and WP:CHEMMOS, it's interesting that you would demand I adhere to etiquette rules. "What's good for the goose is good for gandydancer et al"??? I am following up on your other points in more appropriate places. USEPA James (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to close out this discussion, it appears user 70.59.31.70 was blocked for three months after posting the messages above. USEPA James (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to archive

This page might be easier to follow if sections that have not advanced in a long time were archived. Any objections to the use of one of the bots for autoarchiving? I'm thinking a 90-day no activity cutoff would be reasonable. USEPA James (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. It appears somebody bypassed the whole proposal part and just turned on the archive bot. Thanks to whomever it was! USEPA James (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

References from 2012

I am familiar with Moreno Greatti's experience in Italy with bees and the neonicotinoids, which I though had settled the question. But reading this article talk page that I see there is still a controversy. So I did a literature search for references from 2012 on ((clothianidin or neonicotinoid*) and bees) and found these articles:

• "Experimental results show that the environmental release of particles containing neonicotinoids can produce high exposure levels for bees, with lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by beekeepers." (Tapparo et al (2012) "Assessment of the Environmental Exposure of Honeybees to Particulate Matter Containing Neonicotinoid Insecticides Coming from Corn Coated Seeds" Environmental Science and Technology)

• "Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are widely used and highly toxic to honey bees, have been found in previous analyses of honey bee pollen and comb material. However, the routes of exposure have remained largely undefined. We used LC/MS-MS to analyze samples of honey bees, pollen stored in the hive and several potential exposure routes associated with plantings of neonicotinoid treated maize. Our results demonstrate that bees are exposed to these compounds and several other agricultural pesticides in several ways throughout the foraging period." (Krupke et al (2012) "Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields" PLoS ONE)

• "The finding that individual bees with undetectable levels of the target pesticide, after being reared in a sub-lethal pesticide environment within the colony, had higher Nosema is significant. Interactions between pesticides and pathogens could be a major contributor to increased mortality of honey bee colonies, including colony collapse disorder, and other pollinator declines worldwide" (Pettis et al (2012) "Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema" Naturwissenschaften)

• "Clothianidin elicited detrimental sub-lethal effects at somewhat lower doses (0.5 ng/bee) than imidacloprid (1.5 ng/bee). Bees disappeared at the level of 1 ng for clothianidin, while we could register the first bee losses for imidacloprid at doses exceeding 3 ng." (Schneider et al (2012) "RFID Tracking of Sublethal Effects of Two Neonicotinoid Insecticides on the Foraging Behavior of Apis mellifera" PLoS ONE)

49.50.8.85 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The manuals of style that cover this article, WP:MEDMOS and WP:CHEMMOS as well as Wikipedia's overarching policies on primary, secondary and tertiary sources, generally discourage the use of primary sources of the sort you have listed. I realize that some articles here have become a battleground over competing scientific theories expressed in primary research, but none of those articles comply with these policies that represent the larger consensus. I am unaware of any recognized authority on the topic publishing a secondary review that affirms specific links between labeled clothianidin use and actual pollinator health problems manifesting in real life. Your Greatti interview represents the researcher's view alone (i.e. a primary source), and even his opinion reflects the complete uncertainty of the issue (e.g. "It is very difficult to tell how big the impact of pesticides is"). Text supported only by primary sources does not improve Wikipedia's credibility and should be avoided unless the editor proposing to include it can explain how its inclusion helps Wikipedia. USEPA James (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[3] is the only secondary source shown for a search on (clothiandian and bees) on PubMed, and in its abstract it says, "the nitro-substituted compounds (clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid and its metabolites, thiamethoxam, nitenpyram) appear the most toxic to bees." It seems that all of the text supported by that that secondary source has recently been deleted from the article. My understanding is that WP:RS does not require that we rely solely on secondary sources, but it does instruct us to prefer them when they are available or when primary sources are not in agreement. So I have these questions for you:

1. Are there any peer reviewed secondary sources which claim that clothiandian is not toxic to bees?
2. Are there any peer reviewed primary sources which claim that clothiandian is not toxic to bees?
3. Are there any peer reviewed sources which claim that clothiandian is not associated with colony collapse disorder?
4. Have you made any edits to the article which include text citing sources which claim that colony collapse disorder is associated with any neonicotinoids? If not, how do you explain your representation of only one minority point of view?
5. The vast majority of your edits since you started editing appear to downplay the association between insecticides and bee problems. Are there any of your edits which can show that is not your single purpose for editing here?
6. You claim to be editing from a position of authority, as an authorized representative of the USEPA. How can other editors verify that this is indeed the case?
7. How many lawsuits has the USEPA been involved with concerning neonicotinoids and bees, and where can editors learn more about them? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with primary citations, as I'm sure you know, is that they can easily be used to push a certain POV that is inconsistent with actual scientific consensus. Bee toxicity is covered rather extensively in the article, to the extent covered by reliable secondary sources reflecting the global scientific community. What we need to avoid here is having Wikipedia appear like its editors are recognized authorities who have already decided the facts of the matter. I am not downplaying anything--I simply have respect for the process by which primary research is reviewed and incorporated into scientific consensus, and Wikipedia's policies (and and WikiProject Chemistry members) quite explicitly support the approach I have been advocating.USEPA James (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If the primary peer reviewed sources are all in agreement, there is no problem because they represent the consensus view. In this case, not only are there abundant primary sources, but they are clearly in agreement with the available secondary source. If that is not the case, please produce a counter-example. I would appreciate it if you would answer the other questions too. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not actually serious when you say this, I hope: "If the primary peer reviewed sources are all in agreement, there is no problem because they represent the consensus view." Where are "all" of these primary peer reviewed sources? Do you realize there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of articles on this topic in the open literature? To satisfy your curiosity about just one reasonable secondary source that challenges your position, all you have to do is scroll up the page and read my 20:37, 14 February 2012, response to another IP editor's preferred secondary source. Just make sure you read all the way to the Conclusion section of that source rather than just stopping at the Introduction, otherwise you might miss the main conclusions of the report. USEPA James (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How does this specific statement from that secondary source: "the nitro-substituted compounds (clothianidin, ...) appear the most toxic to bees.... the extensive use of pesticides against pest insects for crop protection has contributed to the loss of many pollinators.... neonicotinoid insecticides were recently implicated by beekeepers ... due to a progressive disease in the hive populations, until a complete loss of the colonies" contradicted by the statement you point out from the article's conclusions section: "The causes of decline among pollinators vary from a species to another and are generally difficult to assign" (emphasis added)? The first are very specific statements about bees in particular, while the other is a general statement about all species of pollinators. Trying to claim that the latter invalidates the former is absurd. Again, I ask that you respond to the specific questions, the first of which are about bees in particular, not all species of pollinators. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article again

There have been many edits to the clothianidin article since I posted the major revision on 1/9/12. When writing that draft, I endeavored to focus on the NPOV global perspective (per the recommendations of a WikiProject Chemistry member), and tried to make sure it was consistent with WP:MEDMOS, WP:CHEMMOS, WP:RSMED and other policies supported by the larger Wikipedia community, WikiProject Chemicals etc. The 1/9/12 version incorporated all comments received here, and included controversial issues without giving them undue weight in the article. The Section titles were approved by the community without reservation. I did the research, wrote up the article and left it for review in my sandbox after indicating that's where I was working on it. But I failed to make an explicit announcement here inviting comments on my draft prior to publication. A small group of editors/commenters have indicated their belief this was intentional and, subsequently, that my employment at USEPA is a conflict of interest of such magnitude that my edits cannot be trusted. Edits to the page since 1/9/12, virtually none of which were discussed here, reflect what appear to be their collective beliefs in spite of the fact that none of the complaints have garnered support by Wikipedian authorities (see COI complaint, USEPA_James username complaint). But enough about me... I feel the quality of the article has suffered from many of their edits since 1/9/12 and propose to nudge it back toward a neutral, global perspective.

For starters, I will delete the second paragraph of the intro because of:

• text linking clothianidin to colony collapse disorder is not supported by the conclusions of the legitimate cited source (Decourtye and Devillers). Though common on Wikipedia, this sort of text suggests original thought/research and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:OR
• The San Francisco Chronicle is not a recognized authority on bees, pesticides or this chemical; WP:MEDMOS strongly discourages citing non-technical media articles. See WP:RSMED

Anyone opposed to this edit should express how the text I am deleting complies with Wikipedia's policies or why it makes sense to break the rules from a WP:NPOV. Thanks USEPA James (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You have now removed all mention of bees from the article's introduction. WP:LEAD states that the introduction should include "any prominent controversies" therefore I intend to replace text concerning bees in the introduction summarizing the secondary and recent primary sources. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm deleting the first paragraph of the Bees and other insect pollinators section for the same reasons given above and also because of a disallowed citation to primary research. We need to be careful and remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; journalists might hype the latest research, but it harms Wikipedia's credibility to fall into that trap here. Anyone opposed to this edit should express here on the talk page how the text I am deleting complies with Wikipedia's policies or why it makes sense to break the rules from a WP:NPOV. Thanks USEPA James (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer that you state what change you intend to make here on the talk page first, as the paragraph to which you refer is sourced to the only peer reviewed secondary source currently in the article (although the text sourced from it has already been deleted.) 222.165.255.198 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I've done is basically the Revert part of the Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Somebody got BOLD already and made changes that are inconsistent with established policies without trying to establish consensus here. After doing my due diligence to make sure I understand Wikipedia's policies and the rationale behind them, I've reverted to remove those boldly posted (and inappropriate) sections. Now we get to discuss the edits if anyone chooses to defend them, but the onus is on the defenders to explain how it benefits Wikipedia to violate the policies. It is inappropriate to engage in edit warring at this point; I really hope you didn't go that way.

On your objection to me deleting the CCD text from the intro, you need to couch your objections in terms of established policies that clearly discourage this sort of thing. The CCD "controversy" only exists in the minds of the uninformed. Recognized authorities have announced that they're looking into CCD; not one has declared that clothiandin causes the disorder. When primary sources conclude by saying that the research doesn't establish proof of a connection between a chemical and an effect, it's absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to summarize it as if there is a solid link. Weasel words inferring a link are hardly NPOV. So rather than replacing text that represents original thought/research or sythesis, I think it's better to closely follow WP:LEAD. The intro should talk about what's covered in the article, which should also not consist of inappropriate content. I was actually going to put together some text for discussion that hits on all of the top heading points rather than giving undue weight to fabricated controversies. Does that sound acceptable? USEPA James (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Where is the evidence that "The CCD 'controversy' only exists in the minds of the uninformed"? You have not produced a single source, here or in the archives, which would support such a statement at all. All of the primary sources and the secondary source which express an equivocal statement on the subject link the neonicotinoids and clothiandin to bees' colony collapse disorder. It is extremely troubling that you claim to have official support for this effort to remove mention of the connection between the two. Where is the consensus you claim? Where has a single editor agreed with you that this is not a controversy, let alone a peer reviewed source? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User 222.165.255.198, there are enough reports on CCD and pollinator health issues that the word "controversy" simply doesn't apply except perhaps for bloggers and the popular media. Regulatory authorities and researchers have for years been discussing uncertainties, unknowns and contradictory data, and I am aware of no authoritative secondary analysis that has concluded otherwise. It would be controversial if a respected authority declared for a fact that pesticide X is the ultimate cause of CCD, but I am unaware of any such claim. I've given you a source that confirms what global regulatory agencies and researchers have been saying for years (Decourtye and Devillers). It's on you to read it and, hopefully, adjust your beliefs. USEPA James (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

James, please point out the instances of "Weasel words inferring a link" so we can address them. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It has repeatedly been said that this article must not allow any primary sources as references per Wikipedia policy. Here are some policy guidelines from the Noticeboard:

You may use primary sources (particularly high-quality primary sources). Even MEDRS agrees that primary sources are (at least occasionally) useful and appropriate, particularly for recent information and for subjects for which proper reviews are rare. "Primary" is not an alternative spelling for "unreliable". What you particularly want to avoid is using a primary source to de-bunk a secondary. "According to this newly reported experiment, ___" is okay; "All the reviews say X, but this little primary source proves them wrong" is not. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, surely you are not arguing that this is a subject "for which proper reviews are rare." Do you really not know about the reviews that are currently available (e.g. Decourtye and Devillers (2010)) or the extensive reviews going on by regulatory agencies around the globe? I know I have explained the global SETAC conference and EPA's forthcoming presentation to the independent FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. It might help you understand the true state of the science if you could put in the time and read the secondary sources we've been discussing.

It is interesting how certain editors make highly biased edits with little or no discussion or complaint from editors who share their beliefs, but when an editor cites policy and deletes the overtly biased text there are demands for a comprehensive explanation. Well, here it is:

I am deleting again this boldly written paragraph that begins the bee section (I've added bold to indicate weasel words): "Honeybees pollinate crops responsible for about a third of the human diet; about $15 billion worth of U.S. crops. Beginning in 2006, beekeepers began to report unexplained losses of hives — 30 percent and upward — leading to a phenomenon called colony collapse disorder (CCD). The cause of CCD remains under debate but recent studies have shown that bees are exposed to a wide range of pesticides and that some pesticides have interactive effects with other pesticides, with bee pests, or with viruses. Taken together, these studies support the hypothesis that CCD is a syndrome of stress, caused by many different factors working individually, but more likely in combination.[19] [20][21][22] "

The first sentence is irrelevant to clothianidin and is overly focused on the US, something I have been warned against by a WikiProject Chemistry member. The first sentence does, however, serve as the "hook" for the forthcoming original thought/research. The second sentence builds the drama and introduces the editor's hypothesis. The third sentence begins the synthesis of original thought and uses weasel words to infer a link to clothianidin. The fourth sentence completes the synthesis of original research from the previous sentence. This is completely inappropriate on Wikipedia.

The editor failed to point out that clothianidin is not even mentioned in the cited USDA CCD report, which is one of only two sources listed that qualifies as reliable, authoritative and secondary. The San Francisco Chronicle source is disallowed by WP:RSMED; please do not belabor this point. The USDA report explicitly names two miticides, and the same section on p5 makes pretty clear the uncertainty about potential effects from other pesticides:

Findings currently suggest an association of sub-lethal effects of pesticides with CCD. Two common miticides in particular, coumaphos and fluvalinate, which are pesticides registered for use in bee colonies to control varroa mites, are suspect, either acting individually or in combination (e.g., synergistically, where the combination of the two compounds is more toxic than either compound alone). The emerging evidence of pesticide exposure to pollinators and potential interactive effects indicates the need to further study pesticides for their potential interactions with CCD. Studies have also confirmed suspected links between CCD and poor colony health, inadequate diet, and long-distance transportation.

Decourtye and Devillers (2010) are also cited, but as I explained previously, their conclusions are completely at odds with the text I am deleting. Finally, it is inappropriate to add primary research references that allegedly support one of many hypotheses when authoritative secondary sources have looked at the big picture and concluded that we simply don't know yet. To remind everyone of Gandydancer's quote above, "What you particularly want to avoid is using a primary source to de-bunk a secondary."

I am deleting that paragraph for the reasons given above, but this should not be interpreted as if I am trying to "hide a controversy." What I'm trying to do is make sure this Wikipedia article doesn't appear to have decided on the matter when none of the actual authorities and experts have made that claim. The gross misrepresentation of secondary source conclusions in the text (and on other Wikipedia pages) ought to be offensive to anyone who respects WP:NPOV. I am open to discussing how pollinator health issues might be expanded upon here, perhaps with some additional information of appropriate weight in the data gaps section. But let's talk about it first and agree on what's best for the article. USEPA James (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea that Decourtye and Devillers' specific statements about clothianidin and bees in their peer reviewed secondary source are "completely at odds" with their general statement about all species of pollinators is wrong. That you are insisting it is true strongly suggests to me that you have no professional expertise on the subject. Since you have ignored them above, I repeat my questions to you:

1. Are there any peer reviewed secondary sources which claim that clothiandian is not toxic to bees?
2. Are there any peer reviewed primary sources which claim that clothiandian is not toxic to bees?
3. Are there any peer reviewed sources which claim that clothiandian is not associated with colony collapse disorder?
4. Have you made any edits to the article which include text citing sources which claim that colony collapse disorder is associated with any neonicotinoids? If not, how do you explain your representation of only one minority point of view?
5. The vast majority of your edits since you started editing appear to downplay the association between insecticides and bee problems. Are there any of your edits which can show that is not your single purpose for editing here?
6. You claim to be editing from a position of authority, as an authorized representative of the USEPA. How can other editors verify that this is indeed the case?
7. How many lawsuits has the USEPA been involved with concerning neonicotinoids and bees, and where can editors learn more about them? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

With sockpuppet 222.165.255.198 blocked and no editors successfully defending the inappropriate second paragraph in the intro, I am once again deleting it. Please note that the insertion of the offending text was BOLD and my original deletion was the REVERT, before which I DISCUSSED at the top of this section why I was deleting it. ArtifexMayhem reverted my deletion without discussion, incorrectly invoking the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Incidentally, ArtifexMayhem swooping in and deleting the text was perhaps not entirely coincidental, since Gandydancer "poked" that user (who was not watching this article) with a reminder about this topic and associated issues a few days before. Subsequent to ArtifexMayhem's revert, I explained in more detail how the text violates policies and deleted it once again, only to have it reverted by sockpuppet 222.165.255.198. This behavior exemplifies WP:EDITWARRING.

I will interpret any further reverts of this inappropriate text without discussion here as edit warring and will file a report accordingly. Wikipedia:BRD#Edit_warring Also, I fully intend to cite Decourtye and Devillers (2010) elsewhere in the article, since their conclusions perfectly support what the global regulatory authorities have been saying for years. But first I need to get past some silly distractions that have been wasting entirely too much time. USEPA James (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, following up on another inappropriately reverted deletion, I am once again deleting the first paragraph of the Bees and other insect pollinators section for the reasons I explained above.USEPA James (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting inappropriate imidacloprid text

The Bees section also includes the following inappropriate sentence: "A large number of published studies have shown that low levels of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide chemically similar to clothianidin, produces sublethal and behavioral effects in bees, including disorientation and effects on foraging, learning performance, motor coordination, and food consumption.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]"

I am deleting it because it represents WP:OR. The editor is synthesizing a link between primary research on one chemical and extending it to another. Please, let's use authoritative, secondary sources that discuss clothianidin rather than fabricating links not supported by secondary sources. If there are secondary sources that make the claim above, by all means let's add text that accurately summarizes the conclusions. USEPA James (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why have you repeatedly deleted Decourtye and Devillers (2010), the only peer reviewed secondary source in the article? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User 222.165.255.198, the text previously associated with that source badly mischaracterized Decourtye's and Devillers' CONCLUSIONS, which are briefly reflected in the following quotes from the CONCLUSIONS section of the article itself: "The causes of decline among pollinators vary from a species to another and are generally difficult to assign," and also "these data are often inadequate to demonstrate causation unambiguously." If you disagree, please provide quotes from their CONCLUSION section to support your position. Your bullets above appear only to be argumentative. I do not intend to respond to them. USEPA James (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should anyone think that a general statement about all species of pollinators has any bearing on earlier specific statements about bees? Or that a general statement that data are often inadequate has any bearing on an earlier statement about conclusive data? Secondary literature reviews summarize the aggregate conclusions of the reliable sources they survey throughout their text, not just in one section. By refusing to answer my questions, are you saying that you can not produce a single peer reviewed source which says clothianidin is not toxic to bees or is not linked to colony collapse disorder? Or that you are unable to produce a single edit of yours which would tend to show that you have not been POV-pushing the idea that they are not linked? Do you understand why I am skeptical that you have official authority for your editing here? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

With sockpuppet 222.165.255.198 blocked and no editors successfully defending this inappropriate text and citations, I am once again deleting it. I will interpret any further restoration of this inappropriate text without discussion here as edit warring and will file a report accordingly. USEPA James (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Working for consensus in the lede

I wonder if we could come to a consensus on the lede. IMO it currently has way too much information on a possible link to CCD. At least one editor believes that bee toxicity should not be mentioned and some editors believe that more info in appropriate. I'd suggest something like:

Several of the neonicotinoid insecticides, including clothianidin, are highly toxic to bees. Some authorities have linked the neonicotinoid insecticides to colony collapse disorder which has caused a sharp decline in honey bees over the last few years, but the exact cause or causes of the syndrome remain uncertain and are presently under investigation.[4]

Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you see as the disadvantage of a full paragraph on the subject, summarizing the most recent four studies as it does now? WP:LEAD says, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic," for what that's worth. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your point is moot, User 222.165.255.198, without proper secondary sources that are accurately represented in the text.

Gandydancer, you mischaracterize my position. The entire article, including the intro, should be written consistent with established policies and principles. The 1/9/12 version included well cited bee toxicity info, and that should absolutely be covered briefly and neutrally in the intro along with other intro-grade stuff. It's the poorly cited advocate messaging and pet theories that don't belong anywhere on the page, including the intro. I believe the best approach would be to start with the 1/9/12 version and move forward from there. There have been excellent suggestions that could be incorporated into that version (e.g. remove the excessive nicotine info, not registered in NY state, not all countries allow all uses etc). The citations in that version were almost perfectly consistent with established policies, too (another editor did note one error that should be corrected though).

On the text you are suggesting, it is inappropriate now for the same reasons I pointed out before. The text misrepresents the new source just like it did the old sources, and that is disallowed. Specifically:

• "Other CVM offices are following this problem closely and are ready to assist the country’s beekeepers however they can when the causative agent of this syndrome is identified." The part in bold means no "link" has been identified.
• "Differences of opinion abound in bee circles, and a direct causal link between the chemical and bee mortality has not been made." This statement was in reference to imidacloprid; clothianidin isn't even mentioned in the source. The text once again synthesizes WP:OR and that is prohibited. But putting that aside, "a direct causal link...has not been made" means that "a link has not been made."
• "Such things as genetically modified foods, mites, pathogens, pesticides, and electromagnetic radiation from cell phones have all been suggested as possible causes of the bees’ demise, but the actual causes remain a mystery." This also does not constitute a "link;" in fact, the use of the word "mystery" strongly challenges the notion that a link is known to exist.

Furthermore, the newsletter article itself explains that FDA is an expert on honey purity and animal medicine. It does not claim that FDA or the newsletter article author are recognized authorities on CCD, pesticides in general or clothianidin specifically. In other words, FDA and this author are hardly "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject." WP:RELIABLE

Also, the text violates WP:OR when it is focused on only one of the factors discussed in the FDA newsletter. By this I do not mean to suggest it would suddenly be acceptable if the text included cell phone radiation and GMOs as other possible causes. This whole angle is simply inappropriate.

Finally, to reiterate a point from above, this Wikipedia article is about clothianidin, so why does the text cite a source that doesn't even mention the chemical? Again, it violates WP:OR by synthesizing a connection not made in the source.

Because of the time it takes to actively review proposed sources and discuss draft text, please try to ensure that text posted for discussion actually and neutrally reflects the conclusions of acceptable, authoritative, secondary sources. Otherwise, it's just a huge waste of time. USEPA James (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The FDA source Gandydancer suggests is from 2007. Are there any peer reviewed sources from the past year which do not conclusively link neonicotinoids to CCD? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems sockpuppets 222.165.255.198 and 49.50.8.85 have been blocked for a period of two weeks. Hopefully, they can use that time to find sources for whatever point 222.165.255.198 was trying to make with that question. I suspect there are tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed sources from the past year which do not conclusively link neonicotinoids to CCD. USEPA James (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK then, let's just stick with the latest info from the EPA.

According to the EPA, clothianidin’s major risk concern is to nontarget insects (honey bees). Although EPAs Environmental Fate and Effects Division does not conduct risk assessments on non-target insects, information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoid insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.[5] Gandydancer (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how I feel about that. There are peer reviewed sources which do establish the connection between neonicitinoids and bee kill-offs listed above. So what would be interesting aren't peer reviewed sources which don't link the two (any peer reviewed astronomy paper would fit that description, for example.) So, are there any recent peer reviewed sources which rule out the possibility, since, say 2009? The WP:NPOV policy suggests that if there are any, they need to be included. But if there aren't any, then .... 199.19.104.182 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, another sockpuppet to report...

Gandydancer, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR. "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." USEPA's web page on CCD makes it explicit that "To date, we’re aware of no data demonstrating that an EPA-registered pesticide used according to the label instructions has caused CCD." That is an explicit refutation of the link you are trying to WP:synthesize with that quote, which a neutral editor would have noticed says absolutely nothing about CCD. Also, if you are going to cite USEPA on anything, it's probably best if you link to the actual document at USEPA. All of our cleared science reviews for clothianidin are online. USEPA James (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The EPA reports are all WP:PRIMARY and are only WP:RS for the opinions of the EPA. Your use of them to draw conclusions is WP:OR. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken. When USEPA is summarizing its review of primary research, USEPA is a globally recognized authority doing a secondary review. It is by definition a secondary source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primary.2Fsecondary_source_questions. USEPA James (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

When you produce such a review, is it peer reviewed anonymously like an academic journal publication? Also, to what extent would you defer to the opinions of, for example, the USDA's Bee Research Laboratory? 173.255.224.36 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

James, please quit calling me "gandydancer et al". You state, "...which a neutral editor would have noticed says absolutely nothing about CCD." Read my suggestion and note that I made no mention of CCD. Also, it would help the discussion if you quit referring to me as a POV editor, an advocate editor, and environmentalist editor, and so on. Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am busy following up on some related issues and will respond as soon as possible. USEPA James (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is no further debate I believe that the present bee info in the lede should be replaced. It is too long and there are several problems with the sources. One source for instance does not even mention clothianidin but rather speaks of the neonicotinoids, specifically imidacloprid. While some studies seem to show they are very similar in their effect on bees or that clothianidin is even more toxic, to include that info in the lede with no mention of clothianidin in the source does not seem appropriate. The lede states, "...have linked to CCD", and I believe that James is correct when he states that in fact there has been no proven link to CDC. Also, for instance, looking at this statement, "detrimental sub-lethal effects resulting in honey bees failing to return to their colony.[11]"--that is not exactly what this study demonstrated. The "Germany incident" is mentioned, which gives it much more importance than is really appropriate. If there is no further discussion I will replace the present info with the suggestion that I provided. Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Which source doesn't mention clothianidin? I believe that the discussion from Perdue Germany of sub-lethal detrimental effects specifically mentions bees failing to return to their hives ("Bees disappeared at the level of 1 ng for clothianidin"[6]), which is also described as the unique characteristic of CCD in the Congressional Research Service report you recently added ("losses in recent years differ from past situations in that colony losses are occurring mostly because bees are failing to return to the hive (which is largely uncharacteristic of bee behavior); bee colony losses have been rapid; colony losses are occurring in large numbers"[7].) I am not sure why you think this huge controversy should be minimized in the lead section. Both the Tapparo et al (2012) study from Italy and the Pettis et al (2012) study from the USDA specifically say that the entire magnitude of CCD losses can now be explained by neonicotinoid exposure. 71.212.231.71 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have minimized it at all. Even if there were primary studies that claim to have identified the cause of CCD (and I don't believe there are), it would be primary research refuting secondary research which states that the cause of CDC remains unknown for certain. You say, "...study from the USDA specifically say that the entire magnitude of CCD losses can now be explained by neonicotinoid exposure." Which study are speaking of? Gandydancer (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Pettis et al (2012) is the United States Department of Agriculture Bee Research Laboratory study, which says, "Interactions between pesticides and pathogens could be a major contributor to increased mortality of honey bee colonies, including colony collapse disorder." The Italian Tapparo et al (2012) is somewhat stronger, claiming, "release of particles containing neonicotinoids can produce high exposure levels for bees, with lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by beekeepers." Which secondary research says that the cause remains unknown? Npmay (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)