Talk:Pesticide Action Network

Hang on

Don't speedy this stub. The PAN is obviously notable, as book refs and news refs show. I'll work on expanding it shortly to include the required sourced evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Large revert

This massive and poorly justified revert by @KoA has been challenged by @Yilloslime. I don't see any possible justification for removing this basic information intended to expand this stub. I really can't imagine any potential issues with such basic information, but you mention "a few major issues to hammer out" so let's hear them out? (It would be nice for you to point those issues out directly next time you perform such an aggressive revert - at least in the edit summary). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS policy is very clear here. It is on you to get consensus for those edits, so the framing here really isn't appropriate. @JzG was also involved in the removal of the related content a few years ago if you want more background on the issues with WP:DUE for this group, and the article has been pretty stable since.

In this edit, I already said I was removing fluff. Most of it was unsourced, but the strategic objectives is where the fluff really came in. That is getting into promotional territory and not something we'd normally want to include in organization articles, especially due to WP:WEASEL words when we get into fringe organizations like this. Instead, it's best to use what independent sources say and summarize what the fringe organization does. In this case, we already have content stating they are opposed to GMOs that could maybe be fleshed out more to cover anti-consensus advocacy there. It's kind of similar to how we wouldn't give a climate change denial org carte blanche statements on their goals. If you're following WP:FRINGE, then you're letting other sources that give you that context do the describing. Nothing too crazy there.

As for this one, I already explained it had reliable sourcing issues and coatrack issues. The first line didn't have MEDRS sourcing where it gets into human related issues, but was also trying to claim the chemical caused CCD. The latter is a huge red flag in terms of WP:DUE. The rest of the text though didn't have anything to do with PAN. I mentioned WP:COATRACK because that has been a recurrent problem in your edits. KoA (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree we can reduce the size of the "goals section".

As for the second part:

• the fact that they publicised the leaked memo is quite notable and covered by several WP:RS. That is not a scientific claim at all.
• In general there are no Wikipedia:Biomedical information claims in that text so WP:MEDRS does not apply.
• The claim that clothianidin causes harm to bees is amply supported by high level regulatory agencies such as the EFSA that performed large reviews so it is indisputable [1].
• You call that WP:COATRACK but I think it is important context for any reader. It seems Yillowslime agrees.

How about we reintroduce the text removing the goals section? If you have more specific edits for the second part they would be very welcome. We can add the EFSA source for example. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's time to drop the WP:STICK. Trying to say it's not making a scientific claim is doublespeak, especially while trying to cite a newspaper using PAN's direct press release, etc. That's not reliable for scientific sourcing.

As for the EFSA, that says nothing about CCD. Instead of pushing ahead with personal opinion, please familiarize yourself with these subjects like the primary causes of CCD instead of asserting them. Please remember that WP:SYNTH is policy, and that is in part why I have been mentioning coatrack issues lately. KoA (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You are the entomology WP:EXPERT here so your help in cleaning up the edit is greatly appreciated. The source for the "leaked memo" statement is broken so I couldn't verify it. We should fix it with [2] that does not in fact mention CCD but just toxicity to bees. So we can fix the source and remove mention of CCD.

Here is the proposed fixed edit:

In November 2010, PAN publicized a leaked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memo that showed that the EPA suspected the crop spray clothianidin, a neonicotinoid, manufactured by German agrochemical company Bayer, was harmful to bees but still approved it.[3] In 2018, a report from the European Food Safety Authority based on more than 1500 studies concluded that neonicotinoids pose a high risk to both honeybees and wild bees by contaminating soil and water and appearing in wildflowers or succeeding crops.[4] This pesticide has a conditional approval in the U.S., where it is widely used on sugar beets, canola, soy, sunflowers, wheat, and corn, but has been since banned in the entire European Union.[5]

Any other issues with the rest if we just remove the "Goals" section? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether Grist is a reliable source. More importantly though, PAN is only mentioned extremely briefly in that article, not at all in the EFSA link and again only mentioned in the Guardian through a quote. Altogether that is pretty inconsequential and I therefore have doubts about WP:WEIGHT. I've been looking around for sources myself this morning and to be honest, I have doubts that the organisation meets WP:ORG as I can't find anything providing any independent, in depth coverage. SmartSE (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I could see a case for deletion if you reach a point of making a nomination. If you try a Google search but exclude PAN websites, it's pretty sparse for any in-depth coverage needed for ORG. The group often seems to be involved in court case filings in the US, but now that you mention it, I don't think I've seen coverage needed for notability, and it may just be name recognition on my part outside of some WP:PARITY level sources. KoA (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, there are 74 mentions in Chemical & Engineering News alone.[6] Lots of hits on Google scholar, too. While some are not independent of PAN, many of them appear to be; clearly, there's plenty of material to work with. W/R/T KoA's revert, I guess one man's fluff is another man's basic info. Their structure, programs, stances--this sounds like the kind of stuff we generally include in articles about organizations and companies. And while I agree we always need to be careful to not WP:SOAPBOX, I don't think that's happening here. We can and should talk about their major stances and even they are fringe or non-mainstream. It's not a violation of WP:MEDRS; it's something we do in 1000's of articles across a variety of topics. Yilloslime (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with @Yilloslime.

@Smartse let's add other sources for that sentence to remove that doubt, it has been widely reported. For example:

- https://www.sej.org/headlines/leaked-memo-shows-epa-ignored-own-scientists-ok-bee-toxic-pesticide

- https://www.wired.com/2010/12/epa-clothianidin-controversy/

- https://www.fastcompany.com/1709815/timeline-bee-massacre-epa-still-allowing-hive-killing-pesticide

Do we have any other issues with that proposed text? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Still none of them provide any more than a mention of PAN. It is relevant information to the clothianidin article, but not to this one. SmartSE (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The mentions make it clear that PAN was the one to "publicise" the leak. So I think it is pretty relevant as an "highlight" of the activity of this NGO so that we can start building some content. For sure we can include that part in the clothianidin article at least but I think it makes sense here as well.

A part from this do you have any issues with the rest of the reverted content? (structure etc.) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability

As SmartSE mentioned, WP:NORG rules the roost there rather than just looking at Google hits. The problem is WP:SIGCOV of the group itself rather than namedrops.

Most of that stuff you describe about structure though either wasn't sourced or was something that needs to be summarized by sources instead as it already done rather than plunking in mission statement-type bullets. Summarizing is usually preferred to avoid problems like giving their talking points an amplifier, but also differentiates what is fluff vs. what sources really consider important. KoA (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for introducing the notability aspect to this thread and making it hard to follow! @Yilloslime: Thousands of mentions are of no use for determining notability - what's needed is three sources which actually describe what the organisation does, has achieved etc. I also looked on gscholar but struggled to see anything independent. I've looked for more on Proquest (via WP:TWL) but again, it is all just mentions of reports they've published or them being quoted. SmartSE (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse: I totally agree that mentions != notability. (As a side note, I've been making the same argument over at WP:DSBILATERAL forever, and you might might wanna take a look at some of those discussions if you believe that hits != significant coverage...) I'm just saying that where there is smoke, there is probably fire. There's no shortage of hits, so it seems likely to me that some of those must constitute WP:SIGCOV. Am I volunteering to dig through them? No--I just don't have the time. At any rate, this is not a deletion discussion, so should we save notability arguments for an AFD, if there even is one. For now, the article exists, so it's probably best to focus the discussion on what it should say, not whether it should exist. To that end, there is this [7], which discusses in some depth some of PAN's work. Yilloslime (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Watch out: this is decentralised organisation. Their activities are always attributed to the regional centres rather than just to "PAN". {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

ECHA EFSA

We could also add to the article that the European subsection (PAN Europe) is an accredited stakeholder to the European Chemicals Agency and to the European Food Safety Authority (and even a member of the Stakeholder Bureau): https://echa.europa.eu/about-us/partners-and-networks/stakeholders/echas-accredited-stakeholder-organisations https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/stakeholders-registered-list.pdf https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-12/List-of-Bureau-Members-And-Alternate-Members.pdf {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, that looks pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Do you know what an accredited stakeholder is in this situation? It's not exactly something we'd go adding to every org article in the that source. KoA (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ECHA [8] makes it clear that it isn't easy to become an accredited stakeholder organisation. You need to fulfill the following criteria:

• It is legally established within the EU/EEA and has activities at an EU level.
• It has a legitimate interest in ECHA's areas of work.
• It is representative in the field of its competence.
• It is non-profit making and does not exclusively represent individual companies.
• It is registered in the Transparency Register maintained by the EU.

Out of ECHA's 155 accredited stakeholder organisations, only a dozen are environmental NGOs according to [9] so the fact they are accredited is quite significant. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's more personal opinion and what appears to be unfamiliarity with the subject. For these types of assessment organizations like ECHA, your list is pretty run of the WP:MILL stuff and a pretty low bar. If a source makes as huge of a deal as you are about being a "stakeholder" there, then that can be discussed, but otherwise we have to follow WP:DUE and not puff up the organization with minor things like this. KoA (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The source is the European Chemical Agency (ECHA). Nothing minor about it. Are you sure you know what they do in the EU? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

p.s. the same exact criteria above are used by the European Food Safety Authority to select stakeholders. And PAN is even the representative for "NGOs and Advocacy Groups" in the stakeholder bureau [10] (out of 22 other registered stakeholder NGOs [11]) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I attempted an edit but it was reverted with a rather accusatory edit summary by KoA: Part of ongoing undue promotion issues[12]. You didn't reply for a while so I assumed you didn't have any issues with my explanation. Please avoid those accusatory edit summaries WP:SUMMARYNO and explain what the issues with the edit are properly WP:REVTALK. What seems to be the problem here? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As we've discussed many times already elsewhere, not getting consensus on something and just waiting awhile to insert an edit is not appropriate. You had guidance on your talk page already about that.

I already discussed undue promotion of the organization above. When it is rather indiscriminate lists (we've also talked about this), we don't go picking out a single organization out of 160 like that to add to an article. Again, if a source makes major mention of stakeholder status related to this subject, that can be discussed. KoA (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

“ Do you know what an accredited stakeholder is in this situation?” → At least what concerns me, I don’t know what you aim to state here. AFAIK, only few NGOs are invited to participate as accredited stakeholder organizations. 95.214.66.65 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)