Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 20 August 2016

Chemistry C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Toxicology C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

A news item involving Neonicotinoid was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 May 2013.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 15 sections are present.

Nature: Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations

This was published in the past week. I have not yet read the full text so I don't know the extent of its secondary review intro, which it clearly has based on the citation numbering in the abstract. Can anyone find a public preprint? EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary studies removed

Two primary studies have been removed with a request to use the talk page if there was disagreement. They were used properly according to WP policy (assuming that the news reported study lists the actual study as well). I'd like to see the policy that states that primary studies, when properly used, are never allowed. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue was that they were not properly used. Primary scientific studies are typically unreliable for Misplaced Pages. We need secondary sources citing those papers to determine reliability. We've covered this a few times on this page already on why this is. Essentially, almost any use of a primary source is a form of synthesis on our part, which doesn't bode well under WP:NOR. WP:PRIMARY states, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Because of this WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS are pretty clear about using secondary sources to support a primary study instead of just having a string of unattributed primary sources.

Outside of those issues, both are correlational studies, which are essentially the bottom of the barrel for quality of evidence. I find it difficult to consider the claims notable for Misplaced Pages given that correlation does not imply causation. That makes it very difficult to include such a primary source without some form of original research on our part by implying there actually are effects on birds in this section with the claims those studies are making. It all comes back to reliability, and the general consensus (which are guidelines) has been to stick with secondary sources, especially in topics where reviews are done relatively often. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of our guidelines differs from mine. We have no reviews re invertebrate species and the Dutch study has been presented per guidelines: "A 2013 Dutch study determined that water containing allowable concentrations of neonicotinoids had 50% fewer invertebrate species compared with uncontaminated water." The review article from Nature belongs in this article as well. I edit our encyclopedia for our readers and to see you suggest that the Nature article is "bottom of the barrel" and not appropriate for a WP article that is about the subject of the article is surprising. Gandydancer (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't indiscriminately add information here. If we don't have a reliable source that doesn't mean we can then just lower the bar to include the information, we wait until a reliable secondary source reports on it. These are both primary papers, and correlational ones to boot (a high impact journal doesn't change that). That means that attempting to source that kind of study means you must engage in original research. From WP:OR policy, "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

The problem is that reading content from such a source does require specialized knowledge. These are correlational studies, so a reader would need to be mindful of correlation not equaling causation, that such studies are not designed to make claims on one thing causing another (i.e. neonicotinoids affecting invert or bird species numbers), or that such studies are really meant for scientists to design future studies with appropriate designs for rigorously demonstrating something and not for conveying findings or specific implications to the general public. This is a pretty clear case of overeliance on primary sources and the specific issues of when we shouldn't use them given the above. Use of primary sources typically is an exception rather than the norm in scientific contexts because it is very difficult to assign weight/validity as a Misplaced Pages editor without reliable secondary sources backing them up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, and WP:SCIRS doesn't support your contention. Viriditas (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Only a small fraction of chemicals have even been tested for safety and if Misplaced Pages would adopt a policy like the one now in place to protect human health, we will be unable to write anything about any new findings about their safety. The manufacturers of these chemicals will jump for joy if this should happen but our readers will suffer for it. How ironic it will be if the same editors that have worked so hard to protect scientific integrity related to human health pass new guidelines that a few editors are pushing for that endanger our health. Please see: Gandydancer (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you're describing a notability issue if few sources are available then. Reliability of a source doesn't change because of the amount of information available on a topic. Also keep in mind that recent comments from a couple editors have been made about concerns about what the pesticide companies think or concerns that they essentially may not be portrayed in a bad light by removing content with reliability concerns. If those concerns are the basis for an editors's edits, that is advocacy, which we don't allow at Misplaced Pages. Our job is to describe what the sources say. We've had some borderline comments here that appear to be pushing for advocacy against the pesticide companies. Let's be sure to nip things in the bud to keep advocacy out of this article to prevent any POV issues. Either way, it would appear the primary source issue has been resolved, so there shouldn't be any need to continue this talk section. I'm a little iffy using the commentaries that are published along side of the article, but it'll have to do for now until we get more removed secondary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

it is rank advocacy to choose the only one of 4 recent reviews that calls for urgently moving away from neonics and insert it in the lead

Rank advocacy? It is the accepted, scientific consensus. Are you arguing that the opinion of the pesticide industry trumps scientific consensus? Your position is equivalent to climate change denial documented in the book Merchants of Doubt (2010) or the denialist position of the chemical industry as documented in the book Toms River (2013). The pattern here is clear. No amount of science will change your mind. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in the Discussion of Bayer funded source section under Contrasted with non-sponsored MEDRS-grade literature reviews. That should give a bit more context as to what's been going on. Essentially, we have sources saying this isn't the scientific consensus and that the one currently being cited is being cherry-picked, which is resulting in undue weight. That problem gets multiplied when it is then inserted into the lead as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Environmental persistence section proposed

Some of the new information coming out seems to deal with the environmental fate of these chemicals. For instance, a new section might be:

~Environmental persistence~

Information from the EPA such as...

In a 2014 review study the American Bird Conservancy reported that "neonicotinoid contamination levels in surface and groundwater in the US and around the world are strikingly high, already beyond the threshold found to kill many aquatic invertebrates." They charge that "EPA risk assessments have greatly underestimated this risk, using scientifically unsound, outdated methodology that has more to do with a game of chance than with a rigorous scientific process."

Etc.

Would anyone be interested in working on this? Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like this content would have a better fit in the Other effects section rather than making a whole new one. The above content doesn't really seem to be addressing the actual environmental persistence so much as what the effects are. If we were going to have a dedicated section, it would to better to have it be about the actual chemicals and detail what causes them to break down and how quickly. This article is about a group of chemicals, and it seems like that scope of the article has been getting neglected a little bit. With that in mind, such a section would need to be primarily based in more of a chemistry theme rather than the toxicology or policy standpoint many other sections are currently rooted in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Today we got this: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/guidelines-for-interim-use-and-phase-out-of-neonicotinoid-insecticides-in-refuge-farming-for-wildlife-programs-signed-kf-7914_67415.pdf

Somebody want to write it up? Lfstevens (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 911 NE 11th A venue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 In Reply Refer to: FWS/Rl/NWRS/NCR/BIO Memorandum

To: From: Subject: Refuge Project Leaders, Region 1 Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1 Guidelines regarding the interim use and phase out of neonicotinoid insecticides to grow agricultural crops for wildlife on NWRs in the Pacific Region

The Pacific Region will begin a phased approach to eliminate the use of neonicotinoid insecticides (by any method) to grow agricultural crops for wildlife on National Wildlife Refuge System lands, effectively immediately. By January 2016, Region 1 will no longer use neonicotinoid pesticides in any agricultural activity. Please begin dialogue with cooperators operating under existing multi-year agreements to alert them to the banning of all neonicotinoid insecticides for agricultural purposes by January 2016. Though there will be some flexibility during the transition and we will take into account the availability of non-treated seed, Refuge managers are asked to exhaust all alternatives before allowing the use of neonicotinoids on National Wildlife Refuge System Lands in 2015.

Refuge managers will need to have an approved PUP and completed Section 7 documentation (where applicable) before using neonicotinoid pesticides, including the planting of neonicotinoid-treated seed to grow agricultural crops for wildlife on refuge lands in 2015. The PUP will become part of the official record and should clearly state the need to use treated seed during the transition period. Attachment 1 (New Requirements for the Use of Chemically Treated Seeds on Refuge Lands in Region 1, effective March 28, 2014) describes new mandatory requirements for all chemically treated seeds on refuge lands in the Pacific Region, including guidance on how to prepare a Pesticide Use Proposal for pesticides delivered by seed treatment.

Background and Justification: Neonicotinoids are insecticides that distribute systemically through many stages of plant development, can be effective against targeted pests, but may also adversely impact many non-target insects. The Service's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy (561 FW 1) directs us to use long-standing established IPM practices and methods that pose the lowest risk to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. The prophylactic use of neonicotinoids and the potential broad-spectrum adverse effects to non-target species do not meet the intent of IPM principles or the Service's Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) policy (601 FW 3). Attachment 2, Neonicotinoid Information Sheet, further outlines the scope and scale of the issue and potential non-target impacts as a result ofneonicotinoid use, including as a seed treatment.

Neonicotinoids, applied as a seed treatment, are potentially being used on agricultural crops grown for wildlife within Rl National Wildlife Refuge System Lands. A total of 8, 710 acres of agricultural crops were grown in 2013 (RAPP). At this time, we have not been able to determine how many programs, contracts, or cooperative agreements are using neonicotinoid-treated seeds. Project Leaders are encouraged to work with cooperators to develop innovative ways to meet refuge management objectives by developing agreements that reduce the amount and toxicity of chemical applications, but still maintain a fair return to our farming partners.

Bee pops increasing?

Bee-pocolypse a honey trap? Lfstevens (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't read the article since it's paywalled, but the WSJ typically isn't an inherently reliable source on scientific content. From what I can read though, it sounds like it might be addressing some confusion the general public has on the issue as an opinion peice. Some wild bee populations appear to be decreasing, but honeybees are a slightly different case. Annual honeybee mortality is higher than it used to be, but that doesn't mean bee populations would be decreasing because new queens and hives are being reared every year as well as replacements. The problem is that that a lot of time and money goes into losing a hive and having to replace it, and it's increasingly difficult to keep up with that demand. Either way, it doesn't appear to be a reliable source or relevant to this specific article if we're just talking about bee populations in general. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Lfstevens (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an opinion piece then. As an entomologist I can say that Miller has given a decent outline of what's going on given the brevity, but nothing we can use here when I put my editor hat on. It would be acceptable as a primary source summarizing what Miller said, but the opinion of a single person in a newspaper wouldn't be particularly notable for this topic. As I described above though, this is a very nuanced topic that is easy for the general public to get lost in. Our managed honeybee populations may not be decreasing, but what isn't mentioned is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep those population levels up with CCD and the increased annual mortality. Basically we aren't seeing a decrease because we are intervening to try to keep populations propped with even under the increased mortality. People often mistakenly confound the two, which I why I've been pushing for careful wording in this article (and other bee related articles when I get to them). Note that this is only about honeybees, and not about native bee populations, which is a somewhat different beast where it seems like we are seeing population decreases in some cases.

Just as an FYI, it's not alright to copy and paste copyrighted material, especially a whole article. We do have some avenues for such content on a very limited basis, but it would probably be best to remove the quoted content since we don't really have anything to add to the article from it. It might be alright to keep the paragraph starting with "The reality is that honeybee populations are not declining . . ." as long as it's properly attributed just to show what was being discussed here. However, this section could be a good reminder to sniff out areas in the article where it should be specified that at least for honeybees this isn't just a simple matter of total honeybee populations decreasing to address your primary question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. I certainly wouldn't have placed the quote in the article...The part I thought was of interest was the research summary, not any policy-related stuff that flowed from it. Thanks for responding. Lfstevens (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The non-paywalled text can be found here: http://www.hoover.org/research/why-buzz-about-bee-pocalypse-honey-trap It includes insights like this one: If neonics were dangerous, how to explain that in Canada, Saskatchewan's $19 billion canola industry depends on neonics to prevent predation by the ravenous flea beetle—and those neonic-treated canola fields support such thriving honeybee populations that they've been dubbed the "pastures for pollinators.

Summarization

This summary of the most extensive and recent MEDRS-grade source in the article was originally removed because of "previous undue weight concerns. Not the scientific consensus". Now it's supposedly inappropriate for the introduction. Why? Are there any other MEDRS-grade sources with a greater number of sources or published more recently? What is the evidence that it doesn't represent the scientific consensus? The only sources opposed to it are those funded by Bayer. EllenCT (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question have been discussed throughout this talk page, and mostly in conversations you were a part of if you give them a re-read. It shouldn't come as any surprise why the content has been removed multiple times from the undue weight perspective, and the fact that your questions here have already been answered already is crossing the IDHT line (namely the last paragraph). That's as far as I wish to go mentioning editor behavior on an article talkpage, so if that behavior is going to be a source of additional conversation, it will occur in a more appropriate area. As for the actual content in question, let's try one more time to remind you of what was discussed and how that's affecting your reverted content.

First, MEDRS is not a concern here in this particular case, and calling it the "most extensive" source is a form a puffery we don't need here, nor can it be used to dismiss other secondary sources in favor of the one that has currently been cherry-picked. Also keep in mind that we don't dismiss studies because of funding source (as has been repeated to you before). Again, MEDRS specifically states: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." With that in mind, the conversations you've been having here have been about four recent reviews which mainly started here and you have been reminded of here. If you don't remember the entire content of those conversations, give them a re-read like we've suggested multiple times before. Aside from the source you appear rather fond of, the remaining sources are not calling for such action, which makes overemphasis of its call for action undue weight. That means the content that currently remains in the body of the article does need to be reworked to avoid NPOV issues (which I'd rather leave to someone else so this article doesn't become a further time sink). However, up to this point, your questions had already been answered on this talk page. The only new piece of information is how we deal with what goes into leads. Not only does the lead especially have to have a NPOV, but we also keep it as a short summary of the entire article without just adding bits of new content. We already have content in the lead about bans, etc. so there's no need to be redundant. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

American Bird Conservancy review

I have asked about the deleted American Bird Conservancy review book at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is the American Bird Conservancy an advocacy group? EllenCT (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

How to handle adovacy groups "reviews" with this very example was actually already discussed here previously out of my own general curiosity, but no action was taken on my part at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Reliability_of_reviews_of_scientific_literature_put_out_by_advocacy_groups.3F

Also, I find it surprising that you didn't even bother to open a discussion here on the edit before posting on RSN. I made it clear what the issues were with the source (rather cut and dry ones), and you defaulted to it being a secondary source without discussing the underlying issues I brought up. If you want to keep the content, you'll need to address those issues. If we have issues such as self published, no peer-review, etc., we have serious reliability issues for scientific content that will undermine any source regardless of it being primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. Considering a source not reliable under those conditions is pretty cut and dry, and I'm having difficulty seeing how we could include such content with those issues in mind. What other option is there at this point other than consider the source unreliable as a "review" of scientific content? Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The RSN discussion clearly isn't going the way you want it to, and the majority of the respondents in the earlier RSN discussion you started were also in favor of inclusion. I posted there because the first time you and I interacted, I asked you what you thought an example of a neutral secondary review was, and you cited a one-sided report produced by consultants paid for by Bayer which excluded several dozen pertinent citations showing neonics in a bad light but including about as many which were inconclusive to favorable. Is it an assumption of bad faith on my part that interaction has colored my opinion of your neutrality? In any case, do you have any specific reason to believe the review's authors, Pierre Mineau and Cynthia Palmer (see page 2) are likely to be biased? EllenCT (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

First, keep in mind Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Many of the RSN comments are coming from general reliability of sources background. We're talking about scientific content, which has a slightly different set of standards. Advocacy groups (which RSN is pointing towards this group being), do not get the same treatment for reliability of sources than say the USDA, WHO, etc. would. In order for this source to be reliable, they would need resolve the self-publishing and lack of peer-review by getting published in a peer-reviewed journal. SCIRS outlines this issue pretty well.

I'll also ask you to refrain from your obsession with the review I mentioned many discussions ago and myself. I've made it very clear I was using that as an example of a recent review to start a review (i.e. one of multiple reviews to eventually read), nothing more. This conversation is not related to this talk section, so all I'll do is remind you that you've been asked multiple times to drop the stick here already. Any other responses to this will be on your talk page (and hopefully resolved there), so I expect you to follow the talk page guidelines and do the same. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you please answer my question: Do you have any reason to believe that the review's authors are biased? If you feel the need to disregard the consensus at WP:RSN, including that of the thread you started earlier, then I suggest you escalate the dispute resolution process per the instructions at WP:DR. I am not interested in discussing issues with this article on user talk pages. EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Your question isn't relevant to the issues I brought up. That's why I didn't answer. Reliability is gauged with the qualities of the source itself. We don't go digging into author affiliation or perceived biases for reliability in this case. I've outlined what the actual issues are here, and much more in-depth at RSN. The specific authors in the source were not in question, and doesn't alter the reliable source questions brought up earlier. It's relatively clear over at RSN that the source is not reliable for scientific content (i.e., advocacy group), and we're trying to figure out right now how to handle that with the opinion aspect of the content. Again, I specified exactly why I removed the content and source. You've haven't discussed those things yet, which is exactly what you should have been doing from the start. This should have been any easily discussable thing with all the reliable source guidelines out there, so I'm all ears if you actually want to address why I removed the content.

If you are not willing to resolve your perceived ideas about me on a user talk page, then regardless you still need to refrain from discussing those ideas here as well per WP:TPG. Quite frankly I'm done re the Bayer source and whatever set you off as it's entirely off topic here. If you want to keep hounding on that, I'll just say this is your final warning from me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea that whether there is any reason to suspect bias on the part of authors doesn't bear upon the reliability of their work is completely absurd. You said you were surprised by my posting to RSN -- after you yourself had done the same on the same issue, with the same result, no less! -- so I told you. Note that it was because you claimed authors for which any reasonable person would have abundant reason to suspect bias were the authors of what you considered an example of a neutral review. I strongly object to your implication that I should not refer to that behavior, and I strongly object to your "last warning" threat. I reserve the right to refer to both that issue and your previous comment here whenever the question of your neutrality arises, as I see fit. Others have responded to your issues repeatedly on RSN, and I agree with the unanimous opinion of other editors there. EllenCT (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I already told you my RSN was based on my curiosity on what to do about about content in general from advocacy groups like this (and to confirm what were generally considered advocacy groups rather than generally reputable organizations for science content). I had seen such content in other articles, so I used that source as an example. There were not edits involving that RSN at the time, and there was no discussion going on at the time either here about it. My actual removal of the content was informed by WP:RS and WP:SCIRS some time later. I specifically pointed out why I did it to prevent the equivalency you are trying to draw now. You on the other hand, reverted an edit, and went straight to a noticeboard rather than attempt to discuss what was at issue with the edit on the article talk page. That is what started gumming up the discussion process here and that's the summary of the relevant content related discussion to your reply above so far excluding other off topic material. Again, I'm all ears if you're actually willing to address the specific reliability issues on content I've brought up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, consensus at WP:RSN was that it's reliable for their opinion, but not for any statements of fact, such as it being a "review". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider "concerns about toxicity" to be necessary, as long as it clearly the opinion of the ABC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Relatively ineffective, says Center for Food Safety

"EPA should suspend all existing registrations of neonicotinoid seed treatment products whose costs and benefits have not been adequately weighed.... We have not demonstrated a consistent yield benefit of neonicotinoid seed treatments in either , over many sites and many years.... Because there is no demonstrable benefit in the vast majority of fields/years we have surveyed, it is apparent that seed treatments are dramatically overused in these crops.” Stevens, Sarah and Jenkens, Peter (March 2014) "Heavy Costs: Weighing the Value of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Agriculture" Center for Food Safety.

This anonymously peer-reviewed literature review of 19 peer reviewed primary sources by distinguished expert employees of a neutral public interest nonprofit with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy qualifies as a WP:MEDRS, does it not? EllenCT (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

They even state they are an advocacy group, so that pretty much rules the source out already. Fails WP:SPS, is a topic the advocacy group is politically involved in, and non-profit means nothing when it comes to reliability. Looking at the group in general at least at first glance, it also appears to be involved in some fringy activism involving GMOs and other agricultural topics. Not the hallmarks of a reliable source.

That being said, "insurance" seed treatments are an issue that are indeed described in the scientific literature. Often at extension meetings, one of the main things we're almost always mentioning to soybean growers is that seed treatments aren't going to do a thing for 99% of growers for soybean aphid because the neonics are gone from the plant before the aphids even start coming into fields unless they plant late, or have early-colonized fields. Effectiveness on other pests is even more nuanced, but in general neonic seed treatments are not the norm in integrated pest management recommendations unless someone already knows beforehand they fall into a special case in that given year. There's definitely a mismatch between use and actual recommendation that would be worth describing here, but there's a lot more nuance needed in explaining that than paraphrasing what you quoted above. Once work settles down a little this week I'll pull some of the main review sources together on the topic and summarize them to see how it would sit in the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, they advocate for organic agriculture and increased food safety inspections the same way commercial pesticide manufacturers advocate for increased sales of their products -- and as much as you want me to stop saying it, your very first example of what you considered to be a MEDRS-class source on neonics was sponsored by Bayer. I look forward to your take on it, but I disagree that the source fails SPS because they obtained independent review. EllenCT (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

fails WP:INDY - imagine if Bayer self-published a similar document (in other words, didn't publish it in a third-party journal with its own peer-review process, but produced it and posted it on its own website). I imagine EllenCT would reject that; likewise this should be rejected. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

First, that's an essay, not even a guideline, and second, that is the whole reason they went to the trouble to get independent peer review from external unaffiliated experts. Clearly this is a job for RSN. EllenCT (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, Jytdog pretty much hit it on the head. I sure wouldn't let a Bayer source through that did the same thing as this source. The peer review isn't independent because a self-publisher can choose to ignore recommendations from a reviewer, or just go ahead and publish regardless of what reviewers say. That's a very important detail that shouldn't be lost to anyone familiar with the nature of scientific publishing. That's why we have journals that independently choose reviewers for an article and decide whether the content should be published or not. Also, if you want to disregard WP:INDY and its explanations towards reliability, then your favorite Bayer source would have lost the only thing (albeit in a gray area) that would have bumped down the reliability of the source a bit. However, that source is not related to content here, so there's no reason to discuss it further on this talk page now. Also, running off to RSN for this current source when a very brief discussion here isn't saying things you like is a sort of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by avoiding the current conversation here this early on. The whole point of reaching consensus is to discuss things here first and use RSN as a later resort when needed. Please don't start the very behavior that was the last straw that lead to an ANI post again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just added some info to the Usage section. We've got a lot of good reliable sources on soybean out there with two reviews from journals and an EPA summary. Soybean aphid is our main pest here in the U.S. at least and works as a good example since it gets the most attention in sources, but I wouldn't be against name dropping things like bean leaf beetle if someone thinks it would add anything useful. I'm not aware of similar sources for outside the U.S. I did say neonicotinoid seed treatments often, but it can be ambiguous to just say seed treatments (could be another insecticide or type of pesticide entirely otherwise). Corn is a little trickier since there is some good information in the primary literature, but not good summaries we'd typically want here. Just from a personal take though, there are a lot of similar situations to soybean, but there are some areas where benefits are still being explored (i.e., if there is a benefit, corn would be the most likely candidate).

Either way, soybeans were the original topic here, so I'll just leave the content as is for nowand information on other crops can be filled in later as good sources come in. This is probably the best example we have for now, while other crop examples look like their in the pipeline at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

How about this source? Myers, Clayton; Hill, Elizabeth (October 15, 2014). "Benefits ofNeonicotinoid Seed Treatments to Soybean Production" (PDF). US EPA. EPA. Retrieved December 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Lfstevens (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's actually one source we added in the Usage section with the above mentioned edits. After entomology meetings last fall, it sounds like seed treatment usage might actually be higher near 70% in some areas for soybean, so it might be worthwhile to keep an eye out for new sources documenting updated numbers. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

new content

In this dif, Michael Frind introduced the following content:

However, some neonicotinoids are both persistent and toxic.

References

1. Rahman MM, Weber R, Tennekes HA, and Sanchez-Bayo F. Substitutes of Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) Pesticides in Bangladesh and the Need for a Sustainable Substitution Process. Organohalogen Compounds Vol. 74, 1178-1181 (2012) 1178. Online at http://www.dioxin20xx.org/pdfs/2012/1302.pdf

This source, Organohalogen Compounds, according to its publisher, as near as I can tell, publishes "short papers presented at the annual Dioxin Symposia since 1990" So the paper is not peer-reviewed, as far as I can see. I cannot find an impact factor for this journal. We should be reaching for really great sources on a controversial topic like this. So i removed it. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The reference refers to imidacloprid, for which the statement is correct. It would be easy to cite better sources if such an information about a specific substance should be in the article. --Leyo 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy on data interpretation

What about including the conclusion on the controversy on the interpretation of a bumblebee study in the article?

Dave Goulson: Neonicotinoids impact bumblebee colony fitness in the field; a reanalysis of the UK’s Food & Environment Research Agency 2012 experiment. In: PeerJ. 3, 2015, p. e854, DOI:10.7717/peerj.854, PMID 25825679.

--Leyo 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We can potentially use expert statements where other researchers criticize either study, but I'd really look for a peer-reviewed literature review to give us some context on the study. This field has reviews pretty often, so if there is anything to document about a specific study, a review will essentially do that for us. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

reversal of Nature refs

Citronrose added references to the April 2015 Nature paper here and was promptly reverted by jytdog with the reason "remove content based on WP:PRIMARY sources". However, that is not categorically forbidden, per wp:primary. Also, citronrose should be welcomed as a newbie.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to keep it. They are primary studies in a topic where we get plenty of reviews. If it's something consider both valid and notable by other scientists, they'll make it known to us in not too long of time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What is your assessment of the current state of the secondary sources with respect to those primary sources? EllenCT (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No such source has cited those studies yet from what I've seen at a quick glance. I'll have access to more in the morning when I'm not on my phone though. There is some interesting stuff being discussed in these sources though, so it'll surprise me if they don't get picked up sooner rather than later. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

We do not want to be that much behind science. There is no problem in providing the key findings as such (not as facts) of high quality studies (taken the quality of the journal as a metric). --Leyo 08:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree - one sentence from Nature is certainly reasonable. I have returned it. Gandydancer (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no deadline here and our goal is not to be up to date with the most recent research that is published, but up to date with what any given field defines as its current state of knowledge... especially in something controversial like this. We find the latter in reviews. if we cite PRIMARY literature there is a) no end to what we can or would use here (new research is published all the time - in 2014 and 2015 there were 30 papers indexed in Pubmed alone, on "neonicotinoids bees". There were 2 reviews during that time. Those are what we should be citing, and we should be updating as new reviews come out, not as new basic research is published. We don't cite either of those two reviews, so we clearly have some updating to do. I will do that this weekend if someone doesn't get to it before me.Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick update, but I checked other databases (Web of Science, Scopus, etc.) for good measure and found no citations yet. Since they were published last week, it's just too early for any publications to comment on them. I'd consider it WP:RECENTISM to focus on these studies right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

But you don't consider the article as a whole as being unbalanced? At least is has a history section, but as the topic has gained more attention in recent years, many of the study are from the 2010s. --Leyo 21:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

sorry i don't understand - unbalanced in what way? Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Old and new (recent) “stuff”. --Leyo 09:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of a primary source seemed fine here, per WP: PRIMARY, per prior discussions on this page and others particularly including Wikiproject medicine member MastCell. Citronrose, Leyo, Gandydancer and myself have shown support. We include it to inform our readers, who do not subscribe to Nature. Since there are no secondary reviews yet, this is what we should be citing, and we should be updating the article accordingly. Furthermore, the history of this article shows a strong WP:POV regarding critical reviews since at least 2010. We find that the 2 reverting parties wp:IDONTHEAR, and have been interpreting WP: PRIMARY to wikilawyer in the exact same vein as above (no deadline, WP:Recentism etc pp) to diffuse and delay what they WP:IDONTLIKE. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry where did MastCell weigh in on this edit? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

whew. Well I guess if I wanted to pointy, i could follow suite and add content on all thirty articles published in 2014 and 2015. in light of this and the personalization of this dispute by Wuerzele... this is not a rational conversation about content. I am walking away. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Macro-invertebrate studies

There's been a recent string of reverts on this. content One issue seems to be with the use of the word co-occurring with part of an edit summary saying "insecticides are not co-occurring." I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but the term is taken directly from the source, so there shouldn't be any reason for removing it unless someone is going to propose similar yet concise terminology. If it's just simple confusion about what co-occurring means in this instance (multiple insecticides in the same environment and their interactions), I'm happy to explain further.

The other is the addition of “An author funded by Bayer” to the text. The COI declaration statement makes it clear this is no competing interest in the study for their particular findings, and was accepted by the editor and peer-reviewers. To add the proposed text, we would be engaging in original research to try to claim other affiliations of an author actually did have a role in the study that would warrant such a qualifier. If someone wants to challenge the study, we’d have to pull from other sources citing it as we’re currently doing by using this study in reference to the previous one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Honey bee queens highly vulnerable to two neonicotinoid insecticides

Newly published in Nature:

• Williams, G.R., Troxler, A., Retschnig, G., Roth, K., Shutler, D., Yañez, O., Neumann, P., Gauthier, L. 2015. Neonicotinoid insecticides severely affect honey bee queens. Scientific Reports 5, 14621; doi: 10.1038/srep14621 =>

193.5.216.100 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a primary study, and a brand new one at that which is just starting to be discussed among scientists. It's best to wait for a secondary source to cite it and put it into context before we start thinking about content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed sentence

"The study found that the exhausted talc showed up to about 700,000 times the lethal insecticide dose for a bee." There is probably something useful to do with the number 700,000 in the paper that the source is reporting, but this isn't it. How much talc contained this? A spec? A field full? All that has ever been used?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC).

Not sure the problem you see here... OK, so a seed is coated with insecticide mixed in a sticky substance (so that it will stick) but to keep all the seeds from sticking together and to the spreading equipment it is then coated with talc. In the process of planting some of the talc (which contains a small amount of the seed coating) is released...on say weeds in the neighboring fields...which contain flowers that bees forage on. Lab studies have shown exactly how much of this insecticide is needed to kill a bee. When researchers analyze the talc they find that it has been contaminated with not 10, or 100, but 700,000 times the amount needed to kill a bee. Does that make sense? Gandydancer (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

English study

Just a note that I removed content based on a recently published primary study here. As is typical per WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS, we generally wait for secondary scientific sources (i.e. not news articles, but rather reviews) to comment on the publication to gauge the scientific community's acceptance of the paper. That's especially the case for freshly published studies since we want to avoid a breaking news approach to scientific content. Some conversation has already occurred on this topic at my talk page, so I'm just summarizing this for clarity if anyone else sees the edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As this is an animal study, WP:MEDRS is not relevant here. WP:SCIRS is an essay and as such does not dictate content. If there is local consensus that the source is important, it should be included.Dialectric (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This topic related to bee health often straddles SCIRS and MEDRS (and they are complementary anyways), hence mentioning both of them. SCIRS is in the tier of guideline-like essays for science articles in terms of how editors rely on it, so we can't say it's only an essay to dismiss it. It explains why we have this sourcing schematic. You're also very well aware from past interactions that there's an expectation for higher sourcing requirements in these articles, especially due to their controversial nature.

If someone wants to mention this particular study, they only need to bring up literature reviews, etc. citing it and giving us context. As always, we avoid WP:RECENTISM by following the same schematic science does. We generally stay behind the ball and wait for corroboration from secondary reliable sources, which are both policies in this case. Even in the rare case a primary study is cited (usually for the introduction if reviews aren't available), we generally wait until some time has passed to avoid those recentism issues. There's no rush to not wait for secondary sources, just as it would be for any other study in this topic regardless of what it says. This is however, a correlational study, so that's only another red flag that that strengthens the need for additional scientific commentary. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dialectric that WP:MEDRS is not applicable to this article. --Leyo 07:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

And I do as well...and I will add that I have grown very tired of hearing about how "we" do things around here from a few editors who have been attempting to group all science articles with medical science to impose standards that meet their approval. Gandydancer (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The community has generally endorsed both MEDRS and SCIRS, especially amongst science editors, hence the "we". The point isn't whether MEDRS specifically applies here (though vet med straddles both), but that regardless of which one you pick, we have a situation where both caution against this very use of primary sources in science. Primary sources are the exception rather than the standard in scientific articles, so the burden is on those wanting to include it. Correlational studies are especially pretty far from being an exception.

At this point, I don't see anything that would gain consensus while following our policies and guidelines on the subject aside from waiting for a scientific secondary source. That is our guard against the tendency of primary studies and associated news releases to overstate claims while the scientific community takes some time to evaluate the paper. We don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know how the scientific community will react to it, and with WP:NOTJOURNAL in mind, we as editors are not able to put the primary study into proper context on our own. The simplest solution is to wait like we would for any other claim in the bee world whether it's pesticides, disease, nutrition, etc. Directly citing a new primary study is going to be undue weight until that time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS has no role here. This is not a medical article.

WP:SCIRS is a guidance essay that "is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, although it may be consulted for assistance". Even the criteria that Kingofaces43 has given on various talk pages is at odds with the essay, which states "News reports are also secondary sources,, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise." I note that I cited bbc.com that is generally accepted, IMHO, as a trusted news source. Furthermore, the essay states: "A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy." I do not believe the following edit constitutes WP:PRIMARY.

An eighteen year English study linked neonicotinoid use on oilseed rape to the "large-scale, long-term decline in wild bees".

1. McGrath, Matt (2016-08-16). "Neonic pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline". bbc.com.
2. Woodcock, Ben A.; Isaac, Nicholas J. B.; Bullock, James M.; Roy, David B.; Garthwaite, David G.; Crowe, Andrew; Pywell, Richard F. (2016-08-16). "Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England". Nature Communications. 7. doi:10.1038/ncomms12459. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

I often defer to editors with more edits, & Kingogaces43 has about 22% more edits than I do across Wikimedia projects. However, I am sensing from discussion here that others feel differently about aptness of the sources that I used. I will state in the absence of an applicable guideline or policy, consensus on the talk page generally governs the article.

Peaceray (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This topic often deals with the health of bees, which in part is a medical (i.e. veterinary) topic. The main point in mentioning MEDRS though is that it's a sister guidance written alongside SCIRS. It is the type of essay heavily vetted by the community as opposed to essays that generally don't carry much weight. On the BBC, it is a trusted news source, but news sources are generally not considered reliable for scientific content per WP:NEWSORG in addition to MEDRS and SCIRS (that aspect doesn't magically change if you suddenly move outside say human medicine). As for SCIRS's guidance on primary sources, it is explicitly written that way (i.e., may) to make the use of primary sources an exception rather than an expectation, and that comes up in discussion when guidance like MEDRS and SCIRS have been worked on in the past. That is to bring it in line with WP:WPNOTRS policy that also says we generally avoid primary sources and that the ability to on occasion use them does not permit carte blanche use.

In the rare case of using a primary source, someone needs to demonstrate a reason other than it simply existing to use it. Are we in a topic where we don't have many literature reviews where the introduction of the article would be a good proxy? Nope. Is this a pivotal experiment? No one has cited it yet to indicate we should give space to explaining what was done in this experiment. Are we in a position as editors to put the study in context of the scientific literature in terms of WP:DUE? No as well as we cannot engage in peer-review of publications as is expected of the target audience of primary publications. To boot, we're dealing with a weak tier of evidence with a correlational study where caveats need to used in even saying there is a link, which again requires a secondary source. Data was pooled together from different sources, so is that even reliable? Are there issues with the analysis that the scientific community will comment on, or will it be cited and built upon further in further commentary? Those are all reasons why policies say it's difficult to use primary sources in science because it's very easy to run aground of original research in trying to craft content based solely on them even in this case of saying there is a link. At the end of the day, this is pretty far from the rare exceptional case where we'd consider outright using a primary source in large part due to study quality and how recently it came out. What justification are you or anyone else seeing that this primary study is the exception justifying use without engaging in peer-review yourself? That's why such use of a primary source is not such a simple matter, but that's the hurdle someone would need to cross to get consensus for use of a primary source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of anything about veterinary topics at WP:MEDRS & to suggest that it applies to insecticides is essentially pulling a rabbit out of a hat. MEDRS is limited to WikiProject Medicine articles.

As I mentioned previously, the the SCIRS essay states: "A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy" and "News reports are also secondary sources,, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise." I find it inconsistent that someone would only choose the portions of SCIRS that she or he thinks to be worthwhile & to ignore the rest.

Peaceray (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that quoted piece details exactly why we avoid primary research in this manner and news articles as I already mentioned about it above. As I already stated, news articles are generally secondary sources, but they are generally not reliable secondary sources for these scientific topics. That is why we include that caution in SCIRS. As an aside, vet med is a branch of medicine. Again though, regardless of whether you pick MEDRS or SCIRS, the underlying issues with primary sources are the same as detailed by both. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The one-sentence mention of the English study Peaceray provides is neutral and a reasonable inclusion in this article, and is in no way original research. If we cannot agree on whether this or a similar sentence should be included, an rfc would be the next logical step.Dialectric (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read any valid argument against mentioning this study result (as is, i.e. not as "the (only) truth"). The single user opposing it by stressing non-applicable guideline/essay might have some kind of agenda. --Leyo 20:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• C-Class Chemistry articles
• Low-importance Chemistry articles
• WikiProject Chemistry articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• C-Class toxicology articles
• Low-importance toxicology articles
• Toxicology task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles