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)

Note: Further discussions on notability took place in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network. --Leyo 00:26, 17 October 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)

Removed source

I removed the citation to the Union of International Associations as the website essentially states that this information is self-sourced. PR claims about controversial groups need reliable independent secondary sources, not directories where organizations can submit their own data. It is a directory and there's no evidence the information is independently validated. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

They clearly state that the information is independently kept up to date and not self-sourced (see https://uia.org/about/objectives and https://uia.org/core-activities). That's the whole point of UIA (which has a UN mandate to do so).

I see a similar issue has been raised by @Smartse about https://www.ouronlyhome.eu They definitely do not have a UN mandate, however they do state that all information is verified and reviewed https://www.ouronlyhome.eu/en/en-faq/for-ngos/join-our-only-home/ They look reliable enough to me for basic information like this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, the information was lifted verbatim from PAN's website. That's not what RS do. SmartSE (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

However the text is not "verbatim". Some text is the same but it appears to be a selection/collection of some of the content from the PAN website that they consider more relevant. They also indicate that some text is taken from the website directly on the page "The network states their vision as such, on their website...". I don't see why that should disqualify them as a source. Unless that text is false/inaccurate (which it does not appear to be). It is basic information so of course it may match what is said on the official website. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also exactly the contentious language used here by Leyo in describing them, which is odd. This is a pretty typical directory entry, with no evident oversight beyond verifying the sender. That is what we used to call fact-washing back in the day. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS: The structure of the organization is a factual information that is best known to the organization itself. I see no reason for the organization to provide false information in this matter. I agree that for other matters that are not just factual information (e.g. Activities, Reactions and responses to activities, Criticism), information provided by the organization wouldn't be a reliable source. --Leyo 23:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

After a quick look at sections on the structure of other organizations, it doesn't seem to be a general practice to rely on independent sources (see e.g. California Native Plant Society#Structure, United Nations Environment Programme#Structure, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs#Structure, UK Cleaning Products Industry Association#Structure, Chemical Industries Association#Structure). --Leyo 12:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYCARE states: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@JzG has removed once again all the text sourced to Union of International Associations despite this discussion. I have reverted that edit [13] to preserve the content as there is no support for it here and it is appropriately sourced. Claiming UIA is not independent and not reliable is absurd. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I removed it, it's blatant citeogenesis. You could always provide a provably independent source, but I can't find one, and I suspect you can't either. We are not here to do their PR for them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

I took a second look at the website (was more focused on SMartSE's comments on the other source at the time) and yes, it does very much appear to be a user-submitted database entry. At least for WP:DUE purposes, it wouldn't really be independent (i.e., like a newspaper just using a company press release), but it also runs into WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues since it appears pretty much any organization can write their own profile. If UIA were writing their own profiles of notable organizations, then that could be something possibly usable. With the larger issue of trying to reduce poor-quality source usage on this page though, this really isn't the type of source we should be reaching for or spending much time on.

Also just noting that this is at least the 3rd time an iteration of this has been reinserted into mainspace. If someone wants to include it, WP:ONUS policy is on them to get consensus in addition to 1RR expectations instead of reinserting. A better source for due weight brought here to discuss without such issues would make things easier for everyone. KoA (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What gives you that impression? It is completely unsubstantiated and they state the exact opposite on their website (see https://uia.org/about/objectives and https://uia.org/core-activities): UIA collects, hosts and provides up-to-date, reliable information on global civil society and maintains the most comprehensive source of information on international associations, their activities and concerns, and their meetings activities.. If a 100+ year old UN mandated entity is not a reliable source for such basic information we would have to delete half of Wikipedia. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This makes me agree that UIA is RS and not user generated content. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse? Do you agree the Union of International Associations is an independent and reliable source? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn since you are following the sources of this page do you have any thoughts on those sources and UIA particularly? I would like to preserve this coverage of the structure of this organisation (which is an important aspect of PAN): [14] {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto I'd agree that the fact that PAN has a regional, decrentralised structure is notable, but I don't feel that much text in the body of the article is necessary to convey the information. I've made a bold edit: added a sentence indicating PAN's strucutre in the body of the text and then in the infobox listed the offices. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn that's a good start. However don't you agree we should mention in the article the regional centres and their names? PAN usually operates through PANNA (North America) or PANAF (Africa) etc. see https://pan-international.org/pan-regional/ Most sources usually cover activities of the regional centres rather than just "PAN". It's a pretty important aspect of the organisation. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede

The lede currently states, "Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is an international coalition of around 600 NGOs, citizens' groups, and individuals in about 60 countries which opposes pesticide use, and advocates what it proposes as more ecologically sound alternatives." On its website, they claim more than 90 countries and they work "to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives." Personally, in the lede, I don't have a problem with the use of "what it proposes", however, "opposes pesticide use" is substantially different from "replace the use of hazardous pesticides". Is there a prepondrance of sourcing to indicate PAN "oppposes pesticide use"? There are sources which indicate that PAN will even agree to use of hazardous pesticides in specific circumstances and PAN North America itself affirms the Stockholm Convention provisions which allow for limited DDT use.

References

I propose that the first sentence of the lede read: "Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is an international network of NGOs in more than 90 countries which opposes hazardous pesticide use and campaigns for alternatives which PAN members claim are more ecologically sound." (I think the part about citizen groups and individuals is redundant when NGOs are mentioned already and there's no reason to parrot PAN's text itself). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "opposes hazardous pesticide use and campaigns for alternatives which PAN members claim are more ecologically sound" is definitely more accurate. However the fact that PAN is a network of around 600 NGOs is relevant so I would keep it in the lede to provide the correct context. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

First, we shouldn't be citing PAN, and that's getting a bit into WP:SYNTH territory in this use. They are supporting the phase out of DDT and the book source does detail their firm opposition to it, so that doesn't really run counter. We also do have to be mindful of CEO-speak coming from the organization and how we handle that. The type of language quoted frequently is used to mean opposed to pesticide use in general. KoA (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

After thinking about the comments above, I support the part that is: "Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is an international coalition of around 600 NGOs, citizens' groups, and individuals in about 60 countries...". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That bit looks fine, but I'm not sure "and advocates what it proposes as more ecologically sound alternatives" belongs in the lead, when it is only sourced to PAN and there is no mention of what this actually means in the body of the article. SmartSE (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering also what GtoffolettoGoldsztajn says above, maybe something like ""Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is an international coalition... which opposes pesticide use, and advocates what it proposes as more ecologically sound alternatives which advocates for what it says are less hazardous alternatives to pesticides." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for all the contributions. My concern with the lede is that at present it states that PAN opposes pesiticides, whereas no sources that I can see, and PAN statements themselves, state this. WP:PRIMARY does not indicate we cannot use a primary source, it cautions over *how* it is used. I don't think it's questionable to utilise an organisation's self-description (Greenpeace campaigns to protect the environment, the Republican party supports the free market, Toyota makes cars), however, assessing the veractity or actual effect of those self-descriptions requires a prepondrance of seconday reliable sources. In the absence of secondary reliable sources assessing the veractity or actual effect, then we are dependent on the sources available. So I don't think it is correct to state "less hazardous alternatives to pesticides" - because this retains the original problem (ie stating all pesticides are hazardous) removing the distinction between hazardous and non hazardous pesiticides. What about this: "Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is an international coalition of more than 600 NGOs in over 90 countrues which advocates for alternatives to hazardous pesticides."? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That language has the advantage of being more concise than what I proposed, but I see two issues. First, it's not clear to me whether we should say 60 or 90 countries, and I would prefer to go with the lower number unless we have very solid independent sourcing. Second, I'm ambivalent about calling pesticides "hazardous" in Wikipedia's voice. I realize, of course, that pesticides wouldn't kill pests without having some amount of hazard, at least to the pests, but this is a very loaded assertion (just consider all the discussions at Talk:Glyphosate and its archives). So I'd prefer to attribute that word to PAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the need for attribution. Classifying hazardous and nonhazardous is highly subjective. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the numbers, 60 is what appears in older PAN materials and press reports. 90 is the more recent number.

In terms of the use of hazardous: of the initial 12 POPs under in The Stockholm Convention, 9 are pesticides. The text of the introdcution to `Annex III Chemicals of the Rotterdam Convention reads: "The chemicals listed in Annex III include pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by two or more Parties and which the Conference of the Parties has decided to subject to the PIC procedure. There are a total of 54 chemicals listed in Annex III, 35 pesticides (including 3 severely hazardous pesticide formulations), 18 industrial chemicals, and 1 chemical in both the pesticide and the industrial chemical categories." Furthermore, the WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard (2019) details five categories of hazard, from extremely, highly, moderately, lightly and unlikely to present acute hazard. I can accept that there will be divergences over whether or not a specific pesticide may or may not be classified as hazardous - but the notion that it is contentious to classify pesticides as hazardous is fringe. To be clear, I'm not stating that I consider all pesticides hazardous, I'm stating that it is not contentious to classify pesticides in toto into categories of hazard. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a source that is independent of PAN that confirms the 90 figure? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Every source is just going to repeat the information from PAN, I don't see it's particularly contentious to take on face-value PAN's self-reported membership. The article presently cites figures that date back more than 20 years. Nevertheless, here's three: Sigrid Rausing Trust, Los Angeles Times (2011) and Parsing “Participation” in Action Research p.706. Regards Goldsztajn (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that – you've convinced me. I'm now fine with us saying 90. I'll explain that by saying that, even if independent sources repeat what PAN says, the fact that they chose to repeat it means that we didn't make the initial choice to repeat it, and that's why Wikipedia wants independent sources. So, getting back to the language for the lead, I'm thinking "Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is an international coalition of more than 600 NGOs in 90 countries which advocates for less hazardous alternatives to pesticides."

I did two things there. I said "90 countries" instead of "over 90 countries", because the LA Times does not say "over". And I moved the word "hazardous" so as to avoid that dispute about using the word to describe pesticides as a whole. By putting it in the part of the sentence that is about what PAN advocates for, that makes it less subjective. It's clear that PAN wants "less hazardous alternatives", and there's nothing wrong with us saying it that way. Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

for me, Regards Goldsztajn (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse@Gtoffoletto@KoA@Invasive Spices@ Pinging other invovled editors - any objections to changing the opening sentence to the following: "Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is an international coalition of more than 600 NGOs in 90 countries which advocates for less hazardous alternatives to pesticides."? Sourced to LA Times. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No problems at all. Excellent work with sourcing this @Goldsztajn. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the lede as discussed here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Vanity press usage

@Gtoffoletto, I noticed you added a Nova Science Publishers book to the article space.[15] This was already mentioned at the AfD, but that publisher is generally regarded as a vanity press (see Nova_Science_Publishers#Criticism) and shouldn't have been added to the article. KoA (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The authors are Dr. Helen Kopnina that teaches at Northumbria University [16] and Dr. Hans Keyne that teaches at the University of Antwerp [17]. Looks pretty reliable to me. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are the editors, not the author (see comment by Smartse below). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep thanks for the correction. For the record, the author is Stephen M Zavestoski. Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of San Francisco {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a stretch to call it a vanity press. Of the refs used in that section you link to, the first says Not exactly a self-publishing enterprise, but books do not go through a standard academic peer review process despite their academic focus., the second is only about journals, not books and the third recommends not publishing in them. Looking at RSN archives I note that DGG said that they're a medium grade academic publisher in the social sciences, although of low quality in some of the sciences It's good enough for the purpose of ordinary referencing. It's a bit silly to apply blanket judgements about a whole publisher in any instance and in this case I don't think it is as simple as everything they publish not meeting RS. To me, the source looks fine for basic information about PAN. SmartSE (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this source is cited multiple times throughout the page. Perhaps we should go through each time it is cited, and use it for "ordinary referencing", but remove it anywhere that it might support something that could be promotional or POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Also, worth mentioning that the author of the chapter is definitely an established scholar, having an h-index of 29. SmartSE (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Smartse. I confused the editors with the chapter author. I intend to use that source a couple more times as they extensively cover the subject and in great detail. I am cross checking with existing/new sources as I go. I don't think I've added anything promotional but I'll let others be the judge of that. PAN definitely has had a crucial role in the history of pesticide regulation and there are a lot of sources covering their history. This just requires some research. Some patience is required as I am already spending more time on this than I should. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's an improvement at least. The challenge with vanity press books like this is that they're not at the same standard for assessing WP:DUE as journal articles or books selectively chosen by publishing companies. When it's a pay to get a book situation, you really can write about anything instead of things like a book publisher, journal, or newspaper deciding the material is WP:DUE. There's just a lot more caution needed with books nowadays because of that prevalence, so my main caution here is making sure we aren't consistently reaching for sources with various red flags like that when you look at the totality of the article. KoA (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm hearing different things from different editors. Is this actually a publisher that requires the authors (in this case, the editors) to pay to have it published? If that's actually the case, then it should be completely removed from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to suggest that. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm out for awhile after this, but in the first source from the wiki article, it is listed under "Print on demand publishers". That's where SmartSE mentions the sources highlight Not exactly a self-publishing enterprise, but books do not go through a standard academic peer review process despite their academic focus. I did a little more searching and found this from Bealls list too. At the least, it's included in such lists even if it's in a slightly more gray zone than others on the list. KoA (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important that we get this pinned down exactly, and at this point, not from internal discussions such as WP:RSN. It seems to me from those links that Nova Science is very likely to be a pay-to-publish enterprise. According to the Beall source, it's not on Beall's list of predatory journals, but is listed as a vanity press, and it's worth reading how Beall describes them (not illegal, but unsavory). I also found this: [18], which is a discussion board, but one that is operated by The Chronicle of Higher Education which is a highly respectable organization for journalism about academia, and it paints a pretty much non-RS picture. That doesn't mean that the editors and author of the source are in any way suspect, but it suggests that they may have been misled and taken advantage of, and that the source was never peer-reviewed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be brief as it's bedtime, but 17 year-old forum posts?! This 2014 review of scientific publishers doesn't say anything bad about them. SmartSE (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's actually 14 years old, as opposed to the 9 years old source you recommend – but are you sure that's the right link? I don't see what you refer to there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

For Beall’s list it looks like it was added in 2019 actually. KoA (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The thread was started in 2006. My point is that linking to that is no different from pointing to an academic twitter/mastodon/bluesky thread from today. Yes, definitely the correct source but you'll need the full text, it just mentions them alongside all the major publishers. This is a ranking of academic publishers developed by https://sense.nl/ "a Dutch network of outstanding environmental research institutes and graduate schools from ten Dutch universities and institutes." They rank it as C class meaning "decent international publishers and excellent national publishers" that link is from 2009, but there is a more recent excel here which gives it the same ranking. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that anyone can pay to be published by them. SmartSE (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If anything we should clean up the Nova article. It seems like that paragraph is poorly sourced and generalises a bit too much. We also have the criticism in the lead. That seems undue. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I'm particularly interested in deciding for this page how we should or should not use this source. I feel like editors are taking sides, and I hope that we can just evaluate the information that we have, objectively. We have a page on that Dutch organization, Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment, and it does seem to me to be a reliable academic organization. I see that it lists Nova as C class. It defines C class as "Refereed book publications published by other publishers", where other publishers means not "world top" or "world semi-top" publishers. They don't say whether they determined this refereeing themselves, or based it on self-reporting by the publisher. We also have a page on Beall's List. The list has had controversy, mostly as a result of pushback from publishers it has criticized, but I think that its listing of Nova as a vanity press should not be dismissed out of hand. Beall says in part, "Please be cautious about sending them any of your articles or theses" (which is obviously different than "don't publish with them"), and characterizes what they do as not illegal. Therefore, I think it's within the realm of possibility that SENSE and Beall are both looking at the same thing, and describing it in different ways. For our purposes, I think it's worth knowing whether or not Nova is pay-to-publish, and it's simply false to say that there is zero evidence.

I've found three more sources that seem affiliated with legitimate institutions, that raise concerns about Nova Science: [19], a list of vanity publishers, compiled by someone at a Nepalese institution (small nation, but looks legitimate to me), [20], a blog listing, but by a professor at Uppsala University, see the listing for International Journal of Ethics, although it cites us, it also cites reviews elsewhere, and [21], an opinion piece in a Seattle news site. None is definitive, but there is enough there that we cannot say there is zero evidence.

Looking at the WP:SCHOLARSHIP section of WP:RS, it's clear that simply being published in a source that is identified as "academic" does not make the source reliable for our purposes; it's important for us to determine whether there has been proper peer-review. When there is not adequate peer-review, we are supposed to treat the source as self-published, and the WP:SPS section of WP:V indicates that self-published books should usually not be treated as reliable sources. We don't have to include the material on this page cited to Nova. Some of it is also cited to other sources, and the Nova source can simply be left out. Where something is cited only to the Nova source, we should look carefully at whether it involves any sort of subjectivity, and if it does, we should probably remove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have already expressed their views on this (both here and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network). There is absolutely no reason to doubt that this source is reliable. The editors are top notch, the author is top notch. The evidence that the entirety of Nova's published materials should be disqualified is extremely flimsy. We are uselessly wasting a lot of editor time in those discussions. WP:DROPTHESTICK {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I know perfectly well when someone should drop the stick (and, indeed, have recently told you to do so, elsewhere), but this is not it. Just saying "absolutely no reason", "top notch", and "extremely flimsy", without backing it up with evidence, is, well, extremely flimsy. I've given detailed evidence and analysis, and I've asked editors to stop treating this as "taking sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the sourcing regarding the status of Nova Science, there's a great deal of recycling in the materials above (some of which clearly has origins in Wikipedia). We're not going to satisfy ourselves about the overall status of Nova Science; I think we simply need to be agnostic on that question for the purposes of this article. However, it's perfecly legitimate to ask specific questions about the source. The questions we need to focus on are: first, is there any reason to suggest that Zavestoski lacks qualifications to write on this subject (eg are they writing from a lay perspective, as a journalist, as an academic specialist), second is there any reason to suggest that the editors of the book the chapter appears in were unqualified to review/edit Zavestoski's chapter? If an editor can reasonably provide justifications for a yes to those questions, then I have no problem discounting it as a reliable source. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel the need to give a nuanced answer to that. The author, and the two editors, have solid academic credentials. Academics write opinion pieces all the time, and it's fine for us to cite those, with attribution, as being the opinions of the academic who wrote them. When academics write articles or chapters that are to be treated, in a scholarly sense, as proper sources of factual information, it is expected that there will be academic peer review (not just a review by the editors of the publication). Wikipedia reflects that expectation in WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:SPS. Here, we have significant reason to be uncertain as to whether there was such peer review. What I draw from that is that (1) there is no reason for us to entirely discount it as an RS, but (2) we should use it with some caution. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving on and focussing on whether or not specific elements from the source need to be considered contentious or require precise attribution/qualification. I'd suggest editors propose elements they wish to use here for discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

New sources

Including "Anwar Fazal" in my searches has led to some new RS from solid publishers:

• Armiero, Marco; Sedrez, Lise (31 July 2014). A History of Environmentalism: Local Struggles, Global Histories. A&C Black. p. 131-134. ISBN 978-1-4411-7051-4. (already added)
• Zachmann, Karin; Bondio, Mariacarla Gadebusch; Jukola, Saana; Sparschuh, Olga (21 February 2023). Evidence Contestation: Dealing with Dissent in Knowledge Societies. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-83991-3.
• Schors, Arvid; Klose, Fabian (17 May 2023). Wie schreibt man Internationale Geschichte?: Empirische Vermessungen zum 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (in German). Campus Verlag. ISBN 978-3-593-45210-4. (auf Deutsch, so harder for me to tell how useful it would be)

SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And a couple of articles in Christian Science Monitor soon after the founding (access via WP:TWL): [22] [23] SmartSE (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This one in New Internationalist is less reliable, but has a nice table of the pesticides comprising their "dirty dozen" which I haven't seen elsewhere and it can't be too controversial for that? SmartSE (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I also found the "Anwar Fazal" angle opens up a whole lot of new sources for this article (as well as others, there definitely is a lack of coverage in many of the related pages e.g. Anwar Fazal, I didn't know him but he is a Right Livelihood Award recipient that has had a significant impact on many institutions and deserves a better article). Help adding those sources to the articles would be appreciated! I think we should also consider linking back to the PAN page from some of the pages such as Rotterdam Convention and Stockholm Convention given the impact that PAN has had on them. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This looks to be quite an extensive, analytical reflection on PAN methodologies.

• Harrison, Jill Lindsey (July 2011). "Parsing "Participation" in Action Research: Navigating the Challenges of Lay Involvement in Technically Complex Participatory Science Projects". Society & Natural Resources. 24 (7): 702–716. doi:10.1080/08941920903403115.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Two sources on the status of PAN: the first text is authored by an Associate Professor with the Institute of Zoology at BOKU, Vienna and the second's primary author is Professor of Law, Peking University School of Transnational Law:

• Zaller, Johann G. (2020). Daily Poison. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. p. 69. ISBN 978-3-030-50529-5. The most influential NGO in the field of pesticides is the Pesticide Action Network (PAN)
• Snyder, Francis; Ni, Lili (September 2017). "A Tale of Eight Pesticides: Risk Regulation and Public Health in China". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 8 (3): 473. doi:10.1017/err.2017.38. The most extensive, most prominent and most influential NGO in the field is the Pesticide Action Network

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Great work. I think we need to say something in the lead such as "PAN has been linked to the origins of the global movement to regulate pesticides. It is considered one of the most influential NGOs in the field of pesticides." Sourced to the two sources above. Thoughts? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Referencing

I've converted the referencing system to short footnotes, I feel this gives us more accuracy and adds to clarity. There's some problems with some of the citations, I'm working on those today (mostly pages needed), I'll add details below within the next 24 hours for any I cannot resolve. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Gtoffoletto - I believe you were the first editor to add the reference to the piece by Andrew Yoder ... I cannot find specific page references for the two attributions ... can you specify, please? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, finished, Yoder's the only citation I couldn't pinpoint. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Goldsztajn, much clearer with the page numbers although I cannot edit it with the visual editor. It seems this style is not supported by it. Is there any way to keep the page numbers in a way that is compatible with the usual citation method of the visual editor? It would help most users (such as me) that do not have the skills/time to deal with the code. With regards to the Yoder reference I think the most relevant pages are 125-16 (for the role of IFCS and INC) and 133 (for the funding of IPEN and the role of NGOs). We might need to fix the copy a bit and change the order of the sentences maybe to keep the attribution more precise. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto thanks for adding the page numbers. In terms of visual editor - you can add and amend citations in visual editor using this footnoting system. To add, just type two curly brackets {{ and the insert template popup will appear, type in "sfnp" which will insert the {{sfnp}} template. You can put in the parameters before inserting. To edit an existing citation, just double click it. The only thing which cannot be done simply is adding texts to the bibliography. But am happy to assist with that, feel free to ping me if needed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN

There is a discussion at WP:RSN#PesticideInfo for non-BMI that may be of interest to the watchers of this page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)