| Revision as of 00:36, 8 July 2014 editEllenCT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,831 edits →Undiscussed deletion of MEDRS source: sign← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:19, 13 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,279,877 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Chemistry}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Agriculture}}, {{WikiProject Environment}}. | ||
| (226 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Chemistry|class=c|importance=low}} | |||
| {{Calm}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Medicine|class=c|importance=low|toxicology=yes|toxicology-imp=low}} | |||
| {{ITN talk|2 May|2013}} | {{ITN talk|2 May|2013}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
| {{calmtalk}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low|toxicology=yes|toxicology-imp=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Environment|importance=High|sustainability=y}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | ||
| | age=4320 | | age=4320 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 14: | ||
| | maxarchsize=100000 | | maxarchsize=100000 | ||
| | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | ||
| | minkeepthreads= |
| minkeepthreads=5 | ||
| | minarchthreads=1 | | minarchthreads=1 | ||
| | format= %%i | | format= %%i | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| == One-sided? == | |||
| This article makes it seem like there's a scientific consensus that neonics are a/the problem in bee health, since it (at length) spells out the research linking neonics to bee deaths. That doesn't seem to be the case -- for instance, cites plenty of scientific research saying that neonics aren't the problem. I have no stake in this, but I'm suprised a wikipedia article is so one-sided on what seems to be a contentious issue. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I agree. It also seems to suffer from ] issues too in some areas, namely overusing primary sources that are subject to being exploratory studies that can be easily overstated. I'm an entomologist who works with pesticides, but don't have any stake in the bee side of things, so I'll keep this article tagged to see if I can work up some of the scientific consensus end of things if I get some time in the future. ] (]) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The graphs in that article are not consistent with ]. ] (]) 00:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Links to bee population decline == | |||
| I recently removed the Journal of Insectology reference from this section. I noticed other issues with this section as well, but figured I'd mention it here since I won't have time to edit the section more in-depth for a bit. Remember to be mindful of ] where we should try to avoid citing primary scientific literature as those studies have not been replicated. Currently this section reads as a synthesis of primary research, and our job as editors is not to do that, but to summarize the current scientific consensus, which this section doesn't really seem to be addressing so much. We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/full | |||
| With that in mind, any thoughts on how to improve this section? At some point I'd like to rewrite the section according to what the secondary literature actually says so far, but that likely will mean a lot of material being changed in this section, so I figured I'd see if anyone else had points they think should be addressed here before that happens.] (]) 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Gandydancer}} reverted the recent edits, so I'm continuing the conversation in this section. The question was whether ] applies here, or at least its rules on primary literature. I cited MEDRS since that page does a good outline of determining reliable sources in scientific research, but it is generally applicable to most areas of scientific research. However, this same policy is found in ] if you want. The key problem here is that primary research often produces spurious results. That's why we rely on secondary sources to describe scientific consensus instead of just listing a bunch of primary research findings as the section now does (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_%28natural_sciences%29#Summarize_scientific_consensus). In this case the study goes against the current scientific consensus that neonicotinoids aren't the sole cause of CCD and would require a secondary source supporting the study. At the moment I don't see any reason why this study should be included as it conflicts with some of our rules in the careful use of primary scientific literature (at the current time at least). Any thoughts on how you'd like to deal with this issue with those general guidelines in mind or questions specifically on what the issue is? Thanks.] (]) 03:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reverted only one section, the one in which you cited WP:MEDRS in your summary. IMO, it would be best to not bring MEDRS into this discussion. As you know, many new studies have been published recently such as the finding that the talk being used was found to contain surprisingly large amounts of neonics and that it was being blown onto nearby areas, the finding that contanimation was more persistent than previously thought, that there was a cumulative effect not previously considered, etc. I believe that it is important to keep our research up to date and it is my understanding that primary research may be used, if used appropriately. ] (]) 13:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Careful use is why I'm suggesting to not use the source. MEDRS or SCIRS cannot be excluded here because we are specifically citing scientific research. Here's an excerpt from SCIRS that might help: "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it relevant. Many ideas are proposed and disregarded in the context of scientific discourse. If an idea is cited by a small minority of researchers, but rejected or ignored by the majority of researchers in a field, it should receive limited weight according to its acceptance; ideas held by a tiny minority of researchers need not be reported in our articles, except in articles devoted to these ideas. Very new papers should be used sparingly until enough time has passed to make this assessment - there is no deadline." Also, "Editors should be especially leery of citing papers making exceptional claims until the relevant community has evaluated the evidence. If a result is cited only by the research group originating the claim and ignored by the rest of the field, it should probably not be included even if present in a review authored by the group. Blogs by relevant subject matter experts may be useful in talk page evaluation of the relevance of very new results, though they should rarely be cited themselves. . ." We're basically at the point right now where we have a new study that contradicts consensus, and hence has been criticized by informal sources appropriate for a talk page to assess if the source is suitable, but nothing quite yet for a article citable source. These two pages summarize the general response of the entomological community so far, but since this is a rather recent publication, we need to give ample time for a more formal review source if we want to use the study here (http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/study-claims-colony-collapse-disorder-caused-insecticides and http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/). The main criticisms so far have been experimental design issues, and some being serious toxicology design flaws which could be stemming from none of the authors being an entomologist. Until that information makes it to citable sources for us (or information contradicting it), it would appear this source fails the guidelines for using primary literature at this moment in time.] (]) 14:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I read the info at the blogs and it sounds to me that you are correct -- thanks. I'll revert myself. ] (]) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|Kingofaces43}} are you serious? This article and the literature is filled with corroboration, and the only sources arguing otherwise have been repeatedly exposed for abusing astroturf. I am restoring the passage. Also, do you have a conflict of interest because neonics are used against a pest which you eradicate professionally? ] (]) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|EllenCT}}, we've already demonstrated that the article is not suitable for Misplaced Pages at this current time under ]. Are you familiar with the guidelines we use at wikipedia for scientific sources specifically? I find it difficult to keep the source when multiple guidelines aren't fulfilled in this case. Do you have specific comments on the content Gandydancer and I discussed above? Remember we need to address content here, so please address the above conversation if you really think your revert was justified. Otherwise, please don't revert edits already agreed upon in a talk section without discussing them further. On the larger topic of this section being primary literature, our job is to summarize scientific consensus, and we primarily need secondary sources (i.e. reviews). We cannot just list a string of primary sources because if we start trying to string together multiple primary sources into a summary, that constitutes original research. All in all, I'd invite you to address specific content if you have something to add. As for a potential COI, please remember that we address content first here on Misplaced Pages. The things I've mentioned in my conversation with Gandydancer stand regardless of my background and need to be addressed. That being said, I do not work with neonicotinoids, so there isn't any conflict of interest. To the contrary, my current line of work discourages overusing neonics in certain pest systems, and I'm working additionally from a beneficial insect and integrated pest management approach where we tend to recommend limiting the use of insecticides. I work in the toxicology of insecticides, but not marketing or recommending them.] (]) 04:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm the editor who added the paragraph on this study today and got reverted. I thought I had accurately presented what the study said, in a way that did not reject the consensus, although the multi-factorial thesis is not really presented that way in the WP article, either. I had not realized that this study was controversial nor had I read this talk page. If I had, I would have discussed before editing the article. Of note, I added the same material to ]. More broadly, the whole secondary source policy is clearly observed only occasionally across WP. I wonder if some kind of rethink is in order. Many editors display a strong impulse to present the latest info. Is there some way to do so that doesn't mislead the audience? ] (]) 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem, it's sometimes easy to miss discussions when it's relatively new material. This study is actually quite controversial in the entomological world because many entomologists are criticizing the study design and the claims being made. However, it's too early for a formal citable source of article quality to really be available as a review on the study, but that's why ] rather strongly discourages the use of primary sources like this at this point in time. We do have enough information for a talk page though to indicate the study is dubious if you've read the links in my conversation above with Gandydancer. At this point in time, the study conflicts with multiple areas of ], so I don't see any way or reason why it should be included '''at this time'''. Improper use of primary sources is actually a big problem across Misplaced Pages. When coupled with very recent studies, it often gives undue weight to a study that experts have not had a chance to comment on and verify in sources appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Guidelines for scientific sources (] and ]) outline this problem with primary sources rather well, and that's why secondary sources are recommended instead, and primary sources should be used in support of those secondary sources. While we can use primary sources in certain cases, we do need to be mindful of the guidelines that specifically point out when they aren't appropriate, even if we just describe what the study says (recent primary literature can often be incorrect). What a lot of editors run into problems with is not realizing that simply listing a bunch of primary studies in a section like we currently have now goes into original research territory. It's definitely tempting to use primary sources (as a scientist on my part especially too), but it is not our job as editors here to synthesize primary literature, or mention those that run against scientific consensus until we have evidence that consensus has changed.] (]) 01:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} if there are any literature reviews supporting the contention that neonics are not toxic to bees or implicated in CCD, then please cite them. How do you explain the discrepancy between ] and ? ] (]) 05:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|EllenCT}}, one of the more recent reviews that's open access is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/pdf. I've read over other reviews passively without saving them, so when I get a bit more time I'd like to go back and summarize the secondary literature for this section. No one is denying neonics are toxic to bees, but that is very different than saying they are implicated in CCD as well. CCD is a behaviorial response, and not an acute toxicity (i.e. death), so that detail needs to be made distinct first. Right now we're associating neonics alone with the massive bee dieoffs due to CCD in the article, which is problematic as that isn't what's described in the literature. As for the two links you gave, could you tell me what discrepancy you're seeing? Either I missed something or something could be slightly misinterpreted because I'm not seeing anything particularly glaring between the two.] (]) 13:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The first corresponding author and the second of the four authors of are for-hire consultants, and the paper states that it was bought and paid for by the largest neonic manufacturer: "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division." And how is it a systematic literature review? There is no review methodology. Only primary research agreeing with the paid-for conclusions are cited, and the paper refers to as a comprehensive review. That review reaches completely different conclusions: "laboratory studies described lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on the foraging behavior, and learning and memory abilities of bees...." The only thing the authors claimed to have reviewed systematically is "current and proposed methods for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees" but not the conclusions of those methods, likely because then they would not have been paid. They don't even fault the EFSA's methodology which resulted in the European ban. Attempting to present this source as a literature review raises serious questions relative to bias, neutrality, and the insertion of paid advocacy in to Misplaced Pages articles. As for the ''Forbes'' article, counts colonies which died ("Honey producing colonies are the maximum number of colonies from which honey was taken during the year. It is possible to take honey from colonies which did not survive the entire year.") and is apparently sourced to someone's Facebook page. At you explicitly recommend the use of imidacloprid above two other insecticides for a pest with which you are professionally involved. Do you understand how paid advocacy damages the quality of the encyclopedia? ] (]) 01:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Keep in mind we're talking about peer-reviewed journal articles here, not self-published industry statements. Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed. Peer-review works the same whether it's a university or industry person writing the paper. I started with the currently mentioned paper because it's one of the more recent reviews and offers a pretty standard commentary on what other literature is also saying. If you want to dispute the content then do so (we can do that at Misplaced Pages), but we shouldn't be chasing red herrings about funding source. However, your assumption of "paid for conclusions" is only that, an assumption, and it is going into original research territory. As for the Forbes, etc. comments, I see where the issue is now. CCD is leading to increased hive losses per year, but you have to remember that those hives are also being replaced (at much greater expense and difficulty than normal). Those two factors would be combined in a graph like that, so that's likely where your confusion is originating from. As for my sandbox page, if you had looked at the original articles in which I'm working on through the sandbox, you would see that I never recommend imidacloprid for anything. I originally started that sandbox as an attempt to merge two pages where one had too much information by copying each page and doing a rough merge before trying to consolidate information. I've been working on removing a lot of unneeded insecticide information over time on that page that previously made it read like someone was trying to sell the insecticides, so I'd suggest backing down on the pitchfork mentality and trying to manufacture biases on my part. We address content here on Misplaced Pages, not beat around the bush by trying to assume a bias to an editor when the evidence doesn't suggest it. If you want to discuss my professional involvement in EAB or entomology in general (I worked with control methods where insecticide use wasn't an option), I suggest bringing it to my talk page rather than derailing the conversation here. ] (]) 03:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|EllenCT}} Hi, EllenCT! Having read the critique of Yu's study, I think any discussion of it should include well-founded criticisms. I was concerned enough that I reverted my own addition of the material to CCD and support removing it here as well. Let's achieve a consensus here before edit warring the article. Therefore I didn't revert you. This is such a tendentious subject that we should be extra careful what claims we include. ] (]) 06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you think Bayer's history of trying to astroturf and purchase regulatory approval through sponsored research should be included? Do you know of any ] sources which suggest neonics aren't implicated in CCD? ] (]) 06:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just because a corporation pushes bad science doesn't justify using more bad science to refute them. We should be purging WP of all of that and continue stumbling our way towards the light. ] (]) 17:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Would you please answer my questions? ] (]) 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I based my agreement to remove the study based mostly on the fact that, as far as I can tell, the journal is of poor quality--it does not seem to be peer reviewed. Kingoffaces, that you would suggest that we look for sound and unbiased information from a review done by Bayer for its own product really does make me wonder if you are able to make non POV edits to this article. ] (]) 13:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A journal with "Insectology" in the title would have a hard time making it to 67 volumes without peer review. If their hasn't figured out peer review, I bet they have a hard time getting their expenses approved. ] (]) 00:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Gandydancer, if you believe a peer-reviewed literature review is incorrect, then demonstrate how. Funding source is a pretty big red herring when it comes to the validity of peer-reveiwed scientific literature. Validity is based on content, not source. The whole point of peer-review is to fact check other scientists' statements. At our level as Misplaced Pages editors though, we would need to demonstrate that someone has brought up legitimate issues with the content of the study to call it an unreliable source. For more context on the Bulletin of Insectology though, it does state peer-review occurs (http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/Instructions%20for%20authors2.htm). ] (]) 03:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} are there any peer reviewed literature reviews which agree with the Bayer-funded primary source by commercial consultants which you suggested was a literature review? I have read your reply to me above and am unconvinced, but if you can show an actual literature review in agreement with your position, I am willing to reconsider. ] (]) 03:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|12}}{{u|EllenCT}}, first I highly suggest you review ] if you are not familiar with scientific research and sources we use at Misplaced Pages for scientific topics. We are discussing a secondary source here, not a primary one. Other reviews and highly cited primary literature: | |||
| * http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-013-0870-2. Attributes annual losses to pathogens and pests primarily, relatively little evidence presented for pesticides or neonics. | |||
| * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12112/abstract. The multiple stressor approach is given prominence. | |||
| * http://www.intertropi.ufam.edu.br/docs/ecosystem_services.pdf | |||
| * http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006481. Highly cited article explaining how CCD isn't due to a single factor. | |||
| * http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/2010/03/m09176.pdf. "Most scientists agree that there is no single explanation for the extensive colony losses but that interactions between different stresses are involved." | |||
| *http://site.xavier.edu/Blairb/sustainable-agriculture-2/honey-bees/honey-bee-pathology-current.pdf. "Although the phenomenon "decline of honey bees" is far from being finally solved, consensus exists that pests and pathogens are the single most important cause of otherwise inexplicable colony losses." | |||
| We've covered a lot of ground here, so let me just re-clarify that we need to keep the scientific consensus in mind when editing on scientific research related topics. This needs to be kept in mind when referring to neonics and bee losses associated with CCD so that we don't give undue weight to the idea that neonics are the major cause. The second point I brought up was the 2014 Harvard study which you reverted back again without discussing. Currently, you are the only person on the talk page who is objecting to removing the study, but you are not addressing the issues brought up with it specifically at the beginning of this section with my conversation with Gandydancer. The use of primary literature, a very recently published study, and one that goes against current consensus violates multiple aspects of ]. The talk page consensus so far has been to remove it with these reasons in mind. How exactly are you proposing it be included with this in mind? Right now it seems like your edits are ignoring the talk page even though you mention it in your edits. We don't need to go into disruptive editing territory with this, but this is the second time I've asked you to address these issues before reverting. Maybe you were getting caught up in the larger conversation about the state of CCD research, but the largely separate Harvard study issue seems pretty cut and dry even if it is a smaller point. ] (]) 05:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Kingofaces, thanks for the info re peer review--this removes my major objection to including the study in question. It will take me some time to go through the reviews you have included but at a glance I did note that, for instance, in the final one (from 2010) the author claimed that the Israeli acute paralysis virus had been shown to be a marker in all CCD deaths in the US That statement jumped out at me because I have edited the CCD article for several years and was aware that this info was no longer current. Per our article: | |||
| :''In 2004, Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV), was discovered in Israel and at one time it was considered the cause of CCD. It was named after the place it was first identified; its place of origin is unknown. In September 2007, results of a large-scale statistical RNA sequencing study of afflicted and unafflicted colonies were reported. RNA from all organisms in a colony was sequenced and compared with sequence databases to detect the presence of pathogens. All colonies were found to be infected with numerous pathogens, but only the IAPV virus showed a significant association with CCD: the virus was found in 25 of the 30 tested CCD colonies, and only in one of the 21 tested non-CCD colonies.'' | |||
| :''Recent research in 2009 has found that an indicator for an impaired protein production is common among all bees affected by CCD, a pattern consistent with IAPV infection. It is conjectured that Dicistroviridae, like the IAPV, cause degradation of the ribosomes, which are responsible for protein production of cells, and that this reduced ribosomal function weakens the bees, making them more vulnerable to factors that might not otherwise be lethal.[105'' | |||
| :I believe that this well demonstrates how quickly information is being added to our knowledge of the reasons for the dramatic bee decline that we are seeing. Misplaced Pages is for general readers, and I believe that when they read headlines such as "New study proves pesticides responsible...!!!" etc., they should be able to find a reference to the study in our encyclopedia with a more level-headed viewpoint that not only presents the study but also shows that it is one of many, and that its findings may conflict with other fairly well established current thinking that suggests that there seem to be several factors at work. This does not damage the reputation of neonics, but rather helps to keeps our readers current on accurate information. I will look at the other reveiws you have presented, but I, for one, have long believed that there is no one cause for CCD but rather a combination of factors. But the puzzle remains because of the manner in which the bees suddenly abandon the hive, etc., not just that they are dying. ] (]) 11:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I mirror your sentiments on the multifactor potential causes of CCD (which could include neonics even though we don't have good evidence of that quite yet). That is why I'm trying to be especially careful on how an already confusing topic for the general public is presented by avoiding giving weight to claims that it is from a single cause. It's tempting to want to include recent primary literature, but I don't see how we're in a position as editors to include the study in an article. Here are the main issues I'm seeing from SCIRS: | |||
| ::"While articles should be kept up to date by citing current literature, care should be taken to avoid ], focusing too much on new sources that have not yet been evaluated by the relevant community." | |||
| ::"Editors should be especially leery of citing papers making ] until the relevant community has evaluated the evidence. If a result is cited only by the research group originating the claim and ignored by the rest of the field, it should probably not be included even if present in a review authored by the group." | |||
| ::"Misplaced Pages does not apply any special emphasis to breaking news, but seeks an overall survey of the literature as it has been synthesized by the experts in a field." | |||
| ::Basically we're at a point where we cannot attribute weight to the study because it is recent and has yet to be commented on by sources we can use in the article. We can't give special emphasis to a primary source just because it's new. This is one of the hallmarks of when primary literature is not reliable and why we summarize secondary literature instead after the claims have been vetted by other experts in the field. I would entirely be in favor of including the study in a properly weighted statement based on secondary sources '''when''' they are available, but I have not been able to find any as of yet. Until we can satisfy the above guidelines though, I don't see how we could legitimately include the source without undue weight one way or another regardless of popular press attention. Some of those guidelines deal with issues assessing weight, but others are commenting on whether the source should even be used at all. Do you have any ideas on how to address these? ] (]) 16:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Do any reviews from the last four years include any statements which might imply that neonics are not a primary cause of CCD? I looked at all of them that I was able to access, and I don't think so (although the "mini-review" doesn't discuss pesticides at all, oddly enough.) If there are such statements, please quote them. ] (]) 03:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most of the links I provided are in that timeframe, and the last two even have quotes specifically saying there isn't a single primary cause. I couldn't find an open access version of the first link, but all the others should be accessible. The reviews are not putting forth evidence that neonics (or anything else) are the primary cause. Until secondary literature is saying something is a primary cause, we cannot claim that, and must rely on the most recent statements of consensus. After some additional searching, it also turns out there was a workshop recently where bee researchers were summarizing the consensus: "Research into CCD and poor colony health has been unable to identify a unique causative agent but consensus is building that a complex set of stressors and pathogens can result in colony losses." (http://www.usda.gov/documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf). The document is long, but it summarizes what bee researchers are actually looking at for causes. Also from the EPA for additional summarization, "Current scientific consensus suggests that disease-carrying Varroa mites and other factors play more significant roles than do pesticides"(http://pesticides.supportportal.com/link/portal/23002/23008/Article/35119/Why-doesn-t-EPA-ban-the-neonicotinoid-pesticides). | |||
| ::Since you didn't respond to the earlier question, I just want to reiterate the comments about the 2014 Harvard study to make sure there aren't edit wars in the future on it. Can you address the guideline issues I mentioned above with the source? You've shown opposition to removing the source, but haven't addressed the justification for removing it yet after multiple requests, so I just want to make sure that gets addressed if you're still in opposition.] (]) 05:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ellen, IMO the most obvious reason to doubt that neonics are solely responsible for CCD is the fact that they are widely used in Australia but they don't have CCD down there. So in that sense, it seems to me that King's assertion that a new primary study should not be used to refute the existing state of information on the causes of CCD (that it appears to be a combination of factors) seems sound to me. Incidentally, in a similar incident of a few years ago a new study came out that was widely (and purposely) splashed across the news headlines with a caption of (something to the effect of) "Military and scientists find the cause of CCD!!!". Some new piece of military technology was used in the study. As I suspected, the researcher was looking for gain from his "new discovery", as was revealed through investigation within a few weeks time. In short, as I'm sure you know, researchers are looking for attention and bold claims can get that. (I'm not saying that this researcher was looking for attention, just that it was one small study that purported to have found the cause of CCD.) ] (]) 11:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That reason is interesting, but most of Australia isn't arable, so the ecology of neonic metabolites and the symbiotic and parasitic organisms are substantially different. I am not opposed to saying that a combination of causes is involved, but I am concerned about the desire to permanently remove a study which is already corroborated in essentially all of the secondary literature other than what Kingofaces43 has produced. ] (]) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} are you implying that there is no secondary literature saying neonics are a primary cause? ] (]) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ellen, that is the current scientific consensus among the secondary literature that there isn't a single primary cause. This has been repeated and demonstrated multiple times, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go at this point. As for your above comment, can you cite this apparent sources corroborating the study? I'm not aware of any secondary literature doing so as the study is so recent, which is why using the source violates the guidelines I mentioned above that you still haven't addressed. There currently aren't any citations to the study in Web of Science, Google Scholar, or Scopus. Since we've established what the scientific consensus is, and shown that the 2014 Harvard study is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages under its guidelines without any direct challenge to those specific issues, is it safe to assume at this point you don't have any additional information to add that would change those points? If not, then cite it so we can discuss it (which should have been done a long time ago instead of blowing up the talk page). ] (]) 02:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Which of the reviews already cited in the article do you consider properly secondary and peer reviewed? ] (]) 04:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|EllenCT}}, again please address the questions I posed above and cite sources so we can move ahead in some direction. Right now you're just asking tangential questions that aren't going in any particular direction. If you don't have anything additional to contribute to the article then just say so. ] (]) 06:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Here are reviews which state that neonics are clearly primary causes of CCD, the first few of which are already cited in the article: , , , ("clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid ... appear the most toxic to bees"), ("Neonicotinoids exhibit a toxicity that can be amplified by various other agrochemicals and they synergistically reinforce infectious agents such as Nosema ceranae which together can produce colony collapse. The limited available data suggest that they are likely to exhibit similar toxicity to virtually all other wild insect pollinators. The worldwide production of neonicotinoids is still increasing. Therefore a transition to pollinator-friendly alternatives to neonicotinoids is urgently needed for the sake of the sustainability of pollinator ecosystem services."), and the very recent article has a relatively lengthy introductory review section, and states, "residues of pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides pose the highest risk by contact exposure of bees with contaminated pollen." | |||
| :::::::{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} do you contend that there are any peer reviewed literature reviews which state that neonics are ''not'' a primary cause of CCD? ] (]) 09:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{u|EllenCT}}, none of the above sources indicate that neonics are a primary cause of CCD, nor do they refute the current scientific consensus mentioned in the other papers. Some even reaffirm that the current consensus is the multiple cause approach without a single primary cause. I'm not sure where you're pulling the idea from that they're saying neonics are the primary cause. Maybe you're misreading the articles? If you've got a particular definitive statement you're basing your assumption off of it could be helpful to post it here so it can be clarified. ] (]) 15:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Asked at ]. ] (]) 07:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Effects on bees === | |||
| For a band-aid approach that avoids the scientific consensus issue (which I'm not sure what's even being argued about anymore after rehashing it so much), I've changed the title of this section to "Effects on bees". This should remove potential confounding of toxicity, sublethal effects, etc. with CCD where it isn't suggested, and fits the content better since the section is discussing the general effects on bees (decreases in population are not particularly addressed by the sources). That should remove my undue weight concerns without much fuss. What's left is to address the use of mostly primary sources when the available secondary literature should do a much better job, but I'll leave that task open to someone else for the time being until I get an inkling to work on this page a bit more. ] (]) 00:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I am copying the discussion back from ] below. ] (]) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding , are the following sources sufficient to establish that ]s are a primary cause of ] in ]s? | |||
| :, , , ("clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid ... appear the most toxic to bees"), ("Neonicotinoids exhibit a toxicity that can be amplified by various other agrochemicals and they synergistically reinforce infectious agents such as Nosema ceranae which together can produce colony collapse. The limited available data suggest that they are likely to exhibit similar toxicity to virtually all other wild insect pollinators. The worldwide production of neonicotinoids is still increasing. Therefore a transition to pollinator-friendly alternatives to neonicotinoids is urgently needed for the sake of the sustainability of pollinator ecosystem services."), and the very recent article has a relatively lengthy introductory review section, and states, "residues of pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides pose the highest risk by contact exposure of bees with contaminated pollen." Attributes annual losses to pathogens and pests primarily, relatively little evidence presented for pesticides or neonics. The multiple stressor approach is given prominence. ; Highly cited article explaining how CCD isn't due to a single factor. "Most scientists agree that there is no single explanation for the extensive colony losses but that interactions between different stresses are involved." "Although the phenomenon "decline of honey bees" is far from being finally solved, consensus exists that pests and pathogens are the single most important cause of otherwise inexplicable colony losses." | |||
| If not, what is the best characterization? ] (]) 07:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tough question to get an answer to. I am sure there are references out there that emphatically argue that they are the main problem or that they are not an important cause, you have to try to take the sum of the literature into account. If it was clear that nicotinoids were the problem they would have been banned by now. If it was clear that they were not a problem, there would be no discussion. So some nuance would seem to be required. | |||
| ::The EFSA review does not seem to make any sweeping statements along these lines, but I really only scanned it. It seems to be more of a review as to whether specific uses are problematic. | |||
| ::abcbirds seems to be an advocacy group. That paper can be used, but I would avoid it as a source for sweeping statements. Again, I just scanned it. | |||
| ::The third and fourth are behind paywalls, and the abstracts don't seem to me to draw sweeping conclusions. Wiping out bee colonies presumably requires both toxicity and exposure, so papers that address both issues should get more weight than those that just say "toxic". | |||
| ::Dunno if my 30 second scans of these papers are really helpful, but my best guess is that there is a lot of suspicion but no smokinig gun yet. This shows the other side of the issue a bit. There's a paragraph in the conclusions that basically says "bad in the lab, no good field studies" whatever that means. Good luck. ] (]) 11:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ellen, it's starting to seem like the main issue here is that you're misunderstanding what colony collapse disorder is and doing inadvertent original research because of the misunderstanding. You're seeing some research into toxicity and maybe implying that means CCD? I can't be sure, but that was what I was trying to figure out on the talk page. I'd gladly continue the conversation there if you need more clarifications. Insecticide toxicity and CCD are two different things that at this point are not connected in the peer-reviewed research (attempting to connect the two at this point would be ]). We need to be careful that we don't make claims not made in the sources, and neonicotinoids being a primary cause is not supported by review articles I've pulled up, or by sources you're providing either. We've discussed multiple secondary peer-reviewed sources that show the scientific consensus with none pointing a finger primarily at neonics, so it's starting to seem like trying to advocate for a single cause is getting into ] territory when discussing scientific consensus. | |||
| :For anyone else reading this, the main issue we've been butting heads on is that no citation has been given in the secondary literature that actually says neonicotinoids are a primary cause of CCD. Ellen had provided some of the sources above, but those sources don't back up the claim that neonics cause CCD. This seems like it should be a cut and dry issue considering we have multiple sources specifically stating that the scientific consensus runs contrary to the view Ellen is attempting to advance. I've been asking for a specific reliable source that refutes the current consensus, but I haven't seen anything that specifically does that yet. ] (]) 14:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Having flipped through several of the papers EllenCT mentions, I aree with Formerly 98 and Kingofaces43. ] (]) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Am I just seeing things, or does devote several paragraphs directly linking neonics with colony collapse? It's open access and a recent review. ] (]) 04:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From the above source, "None of these individual signs is a unique effect of neonicotinoids, other causal factors or other agrochemicals could produce similar signs, which complicates the establishment of a causal link." and especially, '''"Scientific research appears to indicate no single cause explaining the increase in winter colony losses."''' Your source directly contradicts the statement you are trying to make. The article primarily deals in '''toxicity''' to bees, potential pathways of exposure and avenues for further research, not CCD directly, which again is where it seems your confusion is coming in. In the future I suggest carefully reading sources before making claims about what they say. I don't like to bring ] into the conversation usually, but if there is something you don't understand about scientific research/literature in general or this particular topic at hand, I'm definitely willing to explain things further (although we've mostly beaten the horse dead on the article talk page) as it's starting to seem like the main issue here. It'd be better to have those conversations at a relevant talk page though and not on a noticeboard. For the purpose of this noticeboard though, we've pretty soundly determined by discussion here and back at the article talk page that the sources we're discussing are not appropriate for the statements you are trying to make. Is it safe to assume the matter is settled for the purposes of this noticeboard?] (]) 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Absolutely not! Where have I ever suggested that there was only one cause involved? The extent to which you are cherry-picking passages most favorable to your (is it fair to say pro-neonic?) position indicates some serious editing problems to me. Do you believe the following passages from support the assertion that neonics are a primary cause of CCD? | |||
| ::::::"Neonicotinoids exhibit a toxicity that can be amplified by various other agrochemicals and they synergistically reinforce infectious agents such as Nosema ceranae which together can produce colony collapse." | |||
| ::::::"All viruses and other pathogens that have been linked to colony collapse have been found to be present year-round also in healthy colonies . That colonies remain healthy despite the presence of these infectious agents, supports the theory that colony collapse may be caused by factors working in combination. Farooqui has analysed the different hypotheses provided by science '''when searching for an explanation of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Research points in the direction of a combination of reciprocally enhancing causes. Among those, the advance of neonicotinoid insecticides has gained more weight in light of the latest independent scientific results''' ." | |||
| ::::::"There is a linear relation between log daily dose and log time to 50% mortality . In experiments with honeybee colonies, similar long term chronic effects have indeed been found with typical times of 14–23 weeks to collapse 25–100% of the colonies exposed to imidacloprid-contaminated food at 20 μg kg−1 and 80–120 days for 1 mg kg−1 dinotefuran and 400 μg kg−1 clothianidin ." | |||
| ::::::"At low concentrations of neonicotinoids, sublethal effects can occur. Sublethal effects involve modifications of honeybee behaviour and physiology (e.g., immune system). They do not directly cause the death of the individual or the collapse of the colony but may become lethal in time and/or may make the colony more sensitive (e.g., more prone to diseases), which may contribute to its collapse." | |||
| :::::What evidence, if any, do you believe exists in the secondary peer reviewed literature supporting the contention that neonics are not a primary cause of CCD? ] (]) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ellen, we had been discussing on the article talk page this whole time that there is not a primary single cause of CCD, but that they're on the list of potential multi-factor causes (but nothing that reproducibly has been shown to actually cause it yet). This has been mentioned multiple times, but you've been in contention with that statement whenever we've discussed it. If you haven't been in contention with that and are somehow thinking something entirely different was being argued, you've severely misinterpreted the scope of the statements being made there and the general direction of the section. This is a highly nuanced topic where the statements you are currently trying to make are quite different than what the sources you cite are actually saying (i.e. confounding toxicity and actual CCD). I highly suggest re-reading the article talk page conversation before posting there because it seems like there's some disconnect about what we were actually discussing. Either way, for the purposes of this noticeboard, the question of reliability of sources seems to have been answered. Let's make to remember the scope of this noticeboard and keep to the reliability of sources. If there are other questions on content or what is being discussed at the article, it's better to post at the article talk page instead. ] (]) 23:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I have copied the discussion back from ] above. Do you believe that a consensus exists that neonics are ''a'' primary cause of CCD? Do you have any evidence that any of the other possible causes are likely more substantial causes? ] (]) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ellen, we have already established in this conversation that the consensus is that there is no primary cause of CCD. The whole point of this conversation was that you cannot attribute a single cause to CCD since the consensus is that there is a combination of factors occurring. All your questions have already been answered in this talk page in the multiple reviews provided. Instead of consistently rehashing questions, I suggest rereading the discussion again. | |||
| :At this point, you're editing in contrary both the information provided on the this talk page and that on the reliable sources noticeboard. This is getting into disruptive editing territory, especially ] and ] by making claims not found in the sources. Please be wary of this when making edits. ] (]) 04:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, what issue is there with changing the name of this section? You said no evidence was provided, yet I clearly stated that the content isn't entirely tied to population declines. "Effects on bees" is a much broader title that encompasses things like sublethal effects, behavior, risk, etc. that may not necessarily be tied to population decreases. I'm not seeing how this would be contentious at all, but instead opens up the section for more information. ] (]) 04:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion of Bayer-funded source == | |||
| This source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/pdf has been disputed by {{u|EllenCT}} above, and by her at ] in the "Questions about deletions" section. Just wanted to give my thoughts. As far as I can tell, no content based on it has actually been proposed, so this is kind of a theoretical discussion. | |||
| * Primary/Secondary? The source is characterized by both and (click on publication types) as a "review", and if you read it, it reviews the problem of colony collapse disorder, the neonic pesticides, studies of their toxicities and relationship to CCD, and what is going on in the regulatory world. It is a review - the journal has this in its "Focus" header; "Focus" is "a regular series intended to sharpen understanding of current and emerging topics of interest to the scientific community." In other words, a series of reviews. | |||
| * Quality of journal? The . Not the highest impact (2.6) (source ) but OK. | |||
| * Currency? This secondary source is very recent, and includes 5 papers and events from 2013. In a hot field like this, that is very valuable. | |||
| * Content wise, the review is a high quality toxicology discussion. That is my opinion and WP still lacks guidance on sources for toxicological content (something I intend to address one day) so the point and my opinion on it, is worth pretty much nothing in a debate about whether to use the source, and how. But I wanted to note it. | |||
| * Funding/Independence? The source says "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division" (to folks who don't know, Bayer CropScience brought neonics to market and has about half the market share) The question of how to use this secondary source in light of the funding the authors (2 consultants and 2 academics) used - the question EllenCT has raised (to say it kindly), is a bit more interesting, as there are arguments based on guidelines and essays, to be made on both sides of the issue. | |||
| ** ] - a guideline - explicitly says "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, '''funding sources''', or conclusions." (emphasis added). | |||
| ** On other hand, the essay (weaker than a guideline), ] says "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example. An interest in a topic may be either positive or negative. ...If Misplaced Pages is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Misplaced Pages, and should be of the standard described in ]. Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources. This requirement for independent sources is so as to determine that the topic can be written about without bias; otherwise the article is likely to fall foul of our vanity guidelines." | |||
| ** With respect to the latter, my sense is that WP:INDY is meant to apply to something that (for example) Bayer produced directly and posted on its website. That would clearly run afoul of WP:INDY. Ditto if this were written by consultants and posted on Bayer's website. Next step down, let's take the case of if the article were directly authored by Bayer scientists, but published in a peer reviewed journal. Someone could make an argument about WP:INDY there, but the peer-review aspect makes that weaker. In this case, we have two consultants and two academics, who were funded by Bayer (not possible to tell if they asked Bayer for funding, or if Bayer solicited them) to do the work of synthesizing the research and writing the manuscript.. and who submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal, which accepted it. There are two layers between Bayer and the article. Questions can still be raised under INDY, but the argument to exclude is very much weaker under WP:INDY; one could make a reasonable argument to give it less weight and to have the content be clear that content sourced from this say that it comes from "a peer reviewed, review article funded by Bayer" .... This is kind of an ugly, fuzzy middle ground where you can have "interested" parties on any side of a given issue - what if it were two consultants and two academics funded by the Pesticide Action Network, let's say, and published in a peer-reviewed journal? Is there a strong argument to exclude that under INDY or to require attribution? And the really really ugly fuzzy middle of 2 academics with a long history of advocacy on one side or another, funded by the NIH? Even harder to apply INDY there, but one could argue it. Fuzzy. | |||
| * When I add all that up, especially this being a hot field with many people thinking about it - right now I ~think~ this is an OK source to use, and should be given equal weight to other reviews that are roughly as recent. I would accept it, if others wanted attribution. (my thinking may change! I am interested in what others have to say on this, grounded in policy/guideline/essay, not just hand waving) Much of what the review says is not controversial. Some of it may be. So it would depend on the specific content that this source would be used to support. As I said above, as far as I can tell, no content based on it has actually been proposed, so this is kind of a theoretical discussion. An actual proposal for content to base on the source would ground the discussion much better. My sense is that there will be plenty more reviews that will come out, and this one will be replaced with other, more current ones, in a reasonable amount of time. That is how things work in WP on hot, science-based topics. I don't know that it is worth making a big fuss over, in light of the analysis above, and in light of the fact that it will soon become outstripped by newer reviews and will be replaced. Happy to discuss. If there are continuing disputes over this, we should take the source and proposed content based on it, to RSN and get community input. ] (]) 08:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Just my two cents, but when a study is funded by a particular group, it is the job of peer-review to look for any issues in the paper that could be due to funding source (i.e. experimental biases, claims being made, etc.) as Jytdog was alluding to. That's why funding source typically isn't used as a strong measure of validity in peer-reviewed literature. However, let's remember the context of how this source came up. Earlier in our Links to bee population decline talk section here, I was providing a recent review that good a gave overview of the topic that would also lead to additional supporting information (like any review should do) to give Ellen some background on where the literature is right now. We never proposed any content based directly off the source, but it was simply intended as one of the most recent reviews in which to start a literature evaluation. This is why I can't figure out for the life me why we're spending so much time discussing this particular source when funding source alone has been the sole criticism when the content of the source hasn't offered anything particularly earth-shattering from other recent reviews. ] (]) 13:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Contrasted with non-sponsored MEDRS-grade literature reviews === | |||
| I am accustomed to literature reviews which explain the methodology they use to select and survey the literature. The Bayer-funded source clearly specifies a review methodology: it says they surveyed guidance on measuring toxicity of pesticides to foraging insects. There is no indication whatsoever on how they selected papers pertaining to the titular topic of the article, the toxicity of neonics to bees, and no indication whatsoever that they performed a systematic review of the subject. The sources they chose to "review" on their titular topic are all pro-Bayer, and stand in ''stark'' contrast to which states, "At field realistic concentrations, '''neonicotinoids cause a wide range of weakening effects on bees. A transition to pollinator-friendly alternatives to neonicotinoids is urgently needed.'''" The Bayer-funded source is filled with impressive graphics (which among other things ignores the roles of irrigation ditches as accumulation reservoirs and dust drift during treated seed planting) but cites only 43 sources. The independent review quoted cites 163 sources and has already been cited six times since it was published nine months ago. In light of Bayer's astroturfing over the past decades, the added scrutiny is warranted and well-founded. I propose that respected interested neutral parties such as ] ask the Bayer-funded study's authors what role, if any, Bayer had in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript. ] (]) 04:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :All I will say about this, is that it is all hand-wavy and is not grounded in policy or guideline. In any case, until someone proposes content based on this source and we can evaluate whether the source is reliable for supporting that content, there is no point in continuing. I won't be commenting further on this issue until that happens. ] (]) 11:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I propose including: "A 2013 peer reviewed literature review concluded that neonicotinoids in the amounts that they are typically used harm bees and that safer alternatives are urgently needed." I strongly disagree that Bayer's long history of astroturfing is "hand-wavy" or irrelevant to the COI and accuracy rules. ] (]) 10:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ellen, ''editors'' may have a COI and their edits may be characterized as displaying advocacy. ''Sources'' are independent or not as per ]. Turning to the proposed content; if you are proposing to support that content with the source you are disputing, would you please describe where you find support for that content in that article? Thanks. ] (]) 13:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The quoted excerpt in bold, four comments above. ] (]) 16:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My comments above are about the Bayer article as a source in WP, and I noted that it is difficult to consider it a source without a proposal for article content that it (the Bayer article) would be used to source. It appears that your content proposal is based on a different source. I don't understand why you are introducing it here. ] (]) 16:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I wanted to show the difference between sponsored advocacy and non-COI scholarship. {{Ping|Jytdog}} Do you agree with my proposal? ] (]) 05:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Two things. You apparently haven't noticed, but the source you brought actually represents the other pole in the debate. The lead author is the same person as the lead author on the review article we are discussing below (the "science by press release" one), was also funded by IUCN, and is published in a journal called "Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability." So their urgent call to ban neonics is as unsurprising as the Bayer-funded study's call for more studies. Second. If you read both articles carefully, they are looking (mostly) at the same set of facts; they each emphasize different aspects and reach different conclusions. They agree that there have been incidents of acute kill-off, that neonics have direct sub-lethal toxicity, and that neonics synergize with other pesticides and with infectious agents/parasites to weaken hives, and that "colony collapse may be caused by factors working in combination". (that quote is from the article you brought) They differ in a few key ways. The IUCN-funded article makes a strong argument that neonics accumulate in the environment; the Bayer-funded says they don't accumulate so much. Why that matters, is that the Bayer-funded article emphasizes that the pattern of use doesn't correlate with neonic use in space (geographically) nor in time (neonics are laid down in spring and one of the key concerns with bees is their failure to survive overwintering). They also differ in their regulatory approach - the IUCN-funded article follows the precautionary principle, emphasizing the risk and calling strongly for a move away from neonics; the Bayer-funded article follows what is called "science-based" risk assessment, where there needs to be clear evidence of direct harm before you restrict. So none of that is very surprising. ] (]) 12:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Are you seriously suggesting that a sponsored "review" of a body of literature which the stated methodology indicates is disjoint from that described by the title of the article is science-based? It's nothing more than an expensive and embarrassing marketing stunt, almost as far from responsible science as commerce can possibly get. We agree that the poles of the debate are between funding research and development of more sustainable solutions and sweeping the problem under the rug to milk the sales of previously engineered products for all they're worth without regard to sustainability. But when you restrict the debate to actual literature reviews of the risk (instead of literature reviews titled about the risk but surveying ways to measure that risk) then the polarity disappears because all of the legitimate literature reviews about the risk agree that the risk is monumental, as reflected in the cost to obtain healthy pollinators for agriculture. The idea that there might not be clear evidence of harm would be laughable were it not being espoused by an editor for whom I used to have a great deal of respect, but is now apparently reduced to opening paragraphs with personal attacks. I withdraw my suggestion that you would be a reliable choice to ask the Bayer-funded study's authors what role, if any, Bayer had in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of their manuscript. Shame on you! ] (]) 22:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::All sources (including the Bayer one and the two you just brought) that say that neonics are toxic to bees. There is no doubt about that. The questions are how toxic, and what to do about it. Both of those are legitimate debates that you find in the literature. Your source #29 ends with questions: "In the light of growing evidence that pollinators are exposed to pollen and nectar-containing residues in field conditions, the contribution of neo-nicotinoid insecticides to the decline of pollinators warrants additional investigations." Your source #30 ends with questions - it says "Further research on the combined effects of such mixtures is needed to fully understand the reasons behind the collapse of honey bee and bumble bee colonies." Of the four we are discussing, only one of them - the IUCC-funded one, ends in an advocacy-like manner, calling for ''action'': "Therefore a transition to pollinator-friendly alternatives to neonicotinoids is urgently needed for the sake of the sustainability of pollinator ecosystem services. The recent decision by the European Commission to temporary ban the use of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin in crops attractive to bees is a first step in that direction." It very clearly takes a stance on the "ban them" pole of the debate. This is what the sources say. I really don't understand what you are reacting to, and so strongly. ] (]) 22:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{Ping|Jytdog}} do you or do you not agree with the proposal to include "A 2013 peer reviewed literature review concluded that neonicotinoids in the amounts that they are typically used harm bees and that safer alternatives are urgently needed." If not, what changes would you suggest to improve it? ] (]) 23:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Ellen I really don't understand what you are after. Obviously the sentence is not acceptable as it doesn't reflect three of the four sources we are discussing. More importantly, it ~seems like~ you are trying to make a point about sources, rather than working to actually improve the article. Where would you even want to insert such a broad statement - ''how does it fit in the article?'' ] (]) 00:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I find it very difficult to believe that you don't understand the question. It is not a question about four sources, it is a question about the summary of one source. Why do you say that it has to summarize more than one source? Are you implying that we should also include a summary of the source which purports in its title to be a review of bee toxicology but clearly states in its methodology that it is a review of ways to measure toxicity? ] (]) 02:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::the question is plenty clear. i don't understand what your question has to do with improving the article. What you said above that your point is, is: "I wanted to show the difference between sponsored advocacy and non-COI scholarship." This doesn't seem to have much to do with improving the article. I gave you the opportunity to make this relevant to the article... and you have passed on that. So i don't see a point in continuing this discussion. ] (]) 03:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a very known fact that studies done by product makers are more likely to show positive results compared to independent studies. What to include/not include and the way information is presented can make for any number of conclusions. For instance, just a quick glance at the Bayer funded study showed the following in their conclusion: | |||
| :::''While it is undeniable that overwintering losses of commercial honeybee colonies are higher than they were in the recent past, there is no clear indication that pesticides are the root cause of such losses. The USDA survey shed light on the pattern of honeybee losses across the United States and concluded that such losses were unrelated to the patterns of agricultural pesticide use, in general, or neonicotinoid use, in particular. While beekeepers may have difficulty diagnosing a new phenomenon such as colony collapse disorder, they are familiar with other causes of colony loss; and pesticides ranked 8th on the list of possible causes of colony loss in the USDA survey .'' | |||
| :::But the source they offered stated it like this: | |||
| :::''Manageable conditions, such as starvation and a weak condition in the fall were the leading self-identified causes of mortality as reported by all beekeepers. Commercial beekeepers were, however, less likely to list such manageable causes, instead listing poor queens, mites, and pesticides most frequently as the self- identified causes of mortality in their operations.'' | |||
| :::Considering that more honey is produced by commercial beekeepers, why would the Bayer study not mention "however, commercial producers included pesticides in the top three causes of mortality", other than the obvious "ranked 8th" sounds a lot better than "in the top third for commercial operations". ] (]) 13:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because "While it is undeniable that overwintering losses of commercial honeybee colonies are higher than they were in the recent past, there is no clear indication that pesticides are the root cause of such losses." isn't related to what beekeepers simply think. It's equivalent to saying group X thinks Y is the problem, '''therefore''' it is the problem. That's rather unscientific logic to say the least. The quoted sentence above is addressing evidence, while the comments on beekeepers are largely unscientific self-reported attributions, and are addressing two different topics (scientific evidence vs. concerns of beekeepers). That's why it seems like there's a discrepancy between the two points when in reality it's two slightly different things being commented on. There's definitely nuance in this topic that requires careful reading when it comes to the scientific literature as I catch myself sometimes misattributing a statement at first read too. | |||
| :::: For the purposes of this conversation though, it seems consensus has been reached that there isn't anything inherently unreliable about this source (nothing has been provided that violates ] or other related rules we have on scientific sources). Until someone goes about using the source in content, it would seem the purposes of this talk section have been fulfilled. ] (]) 13:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I disagree. The source is inherently biased from cherry-picking, the authors have a clear conflict of interest, and have attempted to obscure the toxicity of neonics to bees and the roles of irrigation ditches as accumulation reservoirs and dust drift during treated seed planting. They ignored several dozen sources which did not support their client's position. Its review methodology clearly states that the review the authors performed does not overlap with the subject of the title of the article. Under no conditions should it be considered a reliable source. ] (]) 10:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: @ Kingofaces, no I don't have any problems with reading or understanding what I read. It appears to me that you are engaging in the same tactics that you used at the CCD article where you attempted to change the current scientific thinking on the causes of CCD by tacking "especially pests and pathogens" to the current scientific thinking in the causes section by using a couple of old reports from 2010 and ignoring more recent information such as the 2012 USDA review that included the wording "acute and sublethal effects of pesticides on honey bees have been increasingly documented, and are a primary concern". That you continue to suggest that I apparently just don't understand the sources because they are too difficult for me (though not for you) is insulting. | |||
| :::::: @ Ellen, it seems to me that Kingofaces is correct when he states that this study, per WP guidelines, can be included. On the other hand, I surely would not agree to include it without the wording, "according to a review funded by". I think that most people take that to mean that the study/review is likely or even most certainly to be biased. BTW, you said that you looked through the sources used in the Bayer review--did they use this one done by Jeffery Pettis of the USDA? ] (]) 13:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Gandydancer, misinterpretation of content is misinterpretation of content. Pointing out such mistakes is the very nature of discussing scientific material, so feeling offended at making a mistake shouldn't be directed at the one pointing it out. I'm pointing out that this is nuanced material that is easy to make mistakes in interpretations and I am not intending any offense by that. As for the CCD comments, those edits were based on distinguishing where the strength of evidence currently lies (one topic), and an entirely different topic of what primary concerns are sources of ongoing research for needs for future research as the USDA review you mentioned is outlining. Concern is not he same as evidence, so maybe that's where this misunderstanding is coming on about me apparently trying to "change" scientific consensus when I was intending nothing of the sort. We've already outlined what I was actually intending back the article, and there's nothing about that which particularly applies over here. | |||
| :::::::Ellen, ] 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.'''" We cannot object to a study being included because of funding source alone or because certain topics were or were not included in the study. Instead, you're engaging in a form of peer-review, which is not something we do here at Misplaced Pages. The kind of questions you are posing are for scientists to pose outside of Misplaced Pages, and then we would come back and use those sources to determine whether specific claims or studies are appropriate for Misplaced Pages. We cannot give undue weight for or against a study simply due to funding source, which is why we don't preface references to content as funded by organization X, Y, or Z. | |||
| ::::::: Either way, it doesn't seem like any content is being proposed at this point (anything used in the article currently is also referenced by other sources, which is another reason why funding source is starting to seem like a red herring for this source currently). Until some new content is proposed that is unique to the source it doesn't seem like there's anything additional to discuss here within the scope of this section. ] (]) 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I wanted to make sure that nobody is saying that the source EllenCT cites above is inappropriate for use in the article or that that evidently broader review might take precedence where it differs from the Bayer-funded piece. The only question is whether the latter is citeable at all, correct? ] (]) 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No one has asked anything about the source EllenCT brought nor as far as I know (I haven't looked) has it been used in the article, nor have we discussed how content based on it vs content based on the Bayer source might be juxtaposed. This whole discussion was somewhat absurdly abstract. ] (]) 21:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Keeping in mind that Kingofaces started this discussion stating, "With that in mind, any thoughts on how to improve this section? At some point I'd like to rewrite the section according to what the secondary literature actually says so far, but that likely will mean a lot of material being changed in this section, so I figured I'd see if anyone else had points they think should be addressed here before that happens.Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)", it hardly seems absurd to me. Kingofaces, I would assume that the USDA's ''concerns'' are based on ''edidence''. Assuming that I remember the Bayer report correctly, they used the beekeeper's report prominently in their conclusion to suggest that pesticides ranked 8th of the list of reasons for loss of hives but failded to mention that both "I don't know" and CCD ranked higher in the list, plus of course the fact that many studies suggest that pests and parasites may more likely kill a hive already weakened by pesticides. Furthermore, the fact that large bee operations listed pesticides as third on the list was not mentioned. I should think that it's just common sense that the very people who make a product attempt to use facts and figures to prove that their product is safe. Anyone that thinks differently is extremely naive. ] (]) 12:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not too sure we're you're going at this point since it doesn't seem like there's any content being proposed right now with this source. This conversation seems to be getting a little forumy and speculative without that basis. As for the USDA source, remember that a concern does not equate to strong evidence of a cause. Concern is what directs where current research is going because a risk has been identified, but good empirical evidence isn't available yet. When it comes to risk-analysis, we're basically pointing out topics or hypotheses that are worth pursuing further. That's why when you see the word concern in this setting, we're typically talking about ideas that need to be explored further, but not saying there is actual strong evidence yet. This is all about the subtle distinction I've been bringing up previously about the differences in preliminary evidence that is used to springboard additional research versus strong conclusive evidence (and everything in between). That's a subtlety that seems to be getting glossed over in this conversation a bit. Again though, unless we have content being proposed it seems like even pursuing this part of the conversation isn't really relevant to the article talk page at this point in time. Is there content being proposed? Otherwise it seems like we're getting outside the scope of this specific talk section. ] (]) 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==text added today and being edit warred over== | |||
| "In June 2014, in the most comprehensive scientific assessment by The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides researchers have concluded that excessive use of neonicotinoids has contaminated the environment across the planet to the extent that global food production is at risk. The team observed that the pesticides harm bees and other pollinators, which fertilise about three-quarters of the world’s crops, and the organisms that create the healthy soils needed to grow crops." | |||
| Refs: | |||
| http://www.tfsp.info | |||
| http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/insecticides-world-food-supplies-risk | |||
| First of all, neither source is a reliable source for scientific information. This is website of activist group, not something published in the peer reviewed literature. Second, if you read the content that was added, it doesn't make sense. Additionally what can be made sense of is POV, nonencyclopedic writing. | |||
| This doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. There are plenty of activist blogs where this kind of stuff can be passed around. ] (]) 22:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The Environment Science and Pollution Research journal is peer reviewed and certainly acceptable to use for science-related articles. To call their research articles "this kind of stuff" fit only for blogs is surprising. ] (]) 12:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::No such journal was ever cited in the deleted content. There was a website and a news article cited, neither of which are appropriate sources in this case. ] (]) 15:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well I certainly didn't just make it up. "The report is being published as a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research and was funded by a charitable foundation run by the ethical bank Triodos." ] (]) 11:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm going to echo Jytdog's sentiment below, but are you reading the actual content that was used and deleted? The deleted sources were pretty straightforward as unreliable, but that content doesn't seem to be what you're addressing. Very little of what's been brought up here has been about the actual edits reverted. ] (]) 14:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The deleted sources were not unreliable. Carrington's article in ''The Guardian'' is a reliable source for this subject. ] (]) 05:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you suggesting isn't a peer reviewed secondary source? Why have you refrained from responding to ? ] (]) 03:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe I'm missing something here but this "study" was reported on very very widely, in a large number of mainstream reliable sources. Now, I'm not super familiar with MEDRS, but it strikes that something which is so widely reported on in so many secondary sources surely ought to be reasonable material to include. | |||
| ::Plus, can anyone explain why this content ought to be covered by MedRS? It doesn't strike me as "biomedical information". | |||
| ::And in addition, I'd like to know that ] means by "activist group". Is it the ] that is an "activist group"? ] (]) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nick, if you google "Task Force on Systemic Pesticides" the top hit is , which makes clear that the TFSP was formed by the "International Union for Conservation of Nature" which describes itself as "the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organisation". The site I linked to describes TFSP as follows: "In March 2011, an international task force was set up under the IUCN Species Survival Commission and the Commission on Ecosystem Management to bring together the scientific evidence needed to underpin action on neonicotinoid pesticides". So... formed by an environmentalist group, with a predetermined agenda. That is what I mean. The TFSP site itself doesn't say any of that. :( ] (]) 18:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please present actual evidence in the form of actual citations supporting your conspiracy theory. In the real world (such as not in the place inside your head), the "environment" and ecosystems are the subject of serious scientific and academic study. That does not make people and groups that work on these topics activists with agendas. Contrary to your indoctrination, public health is not an agenda. I'm sorry, but your explanation is totally unacceptable. ] (]) 01:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Maybe it's just the Harper Canadian in me, but when I hear their goal is "to bring together the scientific evidence ''needed''", that's an agenda. Doesn't matter the topic. When it goes on to say pesticides "protect" crops (their scare quotes), it seems pretty clear they've decided which truth they need. That said, I don't think being biased is a reason to exclude a source. They all have theirs. ] ] 04:52, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| :::nobody is actually reading here. I responded to the actual content and actual sources that were used.] (]) 15:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nick, as far as what's actually relevant to the edits and content actually made, this topic falls under MEDRS because this topic falls under toxicology and veterinary medicine (bees are basically livestock). The same issues of reliability of sources or even quality of peer-reviewed sources (e.g. primary vs. secondary literature) come up whether you're dealing with human or animal medicine. ] (]) 15:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy. Nothing "falls" under it, and it doesn't supplant or replace our dominant content policies which take precedence. This continual misuse of MEDRS is concerning. This topic does ''not'' fall under toxicology and veterinary medicine, and that's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. ] (]) 01:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First keep in mind that that the "dominant" content policy is to use sources reliable for that specific content. In scientific topics, that has a different meaning than other areas that are more flexible in their sources, which is why I highly suggest reading MEDRS for more info on that. Otherwise, I'm having a little trouble picking out where your confusion is. How exactly do claims that a chemical affecting honeybee health have nothing to do with either toxicology or veterinary medicine? From their respective WP pages: | |||
| == Human toxicity reviews == | |||
| :::::<blockquote>"Toxicology . . . . is a branch of biology, chemistry, and medicine (more specifically pharmacology) concerned with the study of the adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms." | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| :::::<blockquote>"Veterinary medicine is the branch of science that deals with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease, disorder and injury in animals. The scope of veterinary medicine is wide, covering all animal species, both domesticated and wild, with a wide range of conditions which can affect different species."</blockquote> | |||
| :::::It's rather difficult to say that the toxicology of a livestock animal has nothing to do with either subject . . . ] (]) 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've been here for almost ten years. I have no "confusion" on this matter. I was here before MEDRS existed, I was here while it was being created, and I was here when it was being implemented. It was never intended to be a dominant policy ''anywhere'', so this argument that it is somehow paramount is completely erroneous. The scientific literature on the role of neonicotinoids and pollinator decline is abundantly clear. This attempt to limit the discussion of its role by appealing to MEDRS is contrary to how the guideline is supposed to be used. We do not need to cite peer-reviewed review articles to discuss this. This insistence that we do is plain wrong. ] (]) 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please stop bringing irrelevant details into the conversation like seniority of an editor. I'm an entomologist who specializes toxicology, yet I never use that to justify changes in an article or discussions on a talk page. We just don't do that here at Misplaced Pages. We edit by content. In scientific topics, we require reliable sources for scientific content. That's how we assign ], and avoid things like ]. I've demonstrated ''why'' the source and content were not appropriate, and Jytdog has shown that there isn't any article to cite ''at the moment''. Until a citable source does come out, there isn't anything additional to discuss here relevant to the content of this page. If you wish to discuss how we deal with reliable sources in science, bring it to a user talk page, or bring the questions to a relevant guideline page (we have a a few of them). Otherwise, we're getting off-topic at this point and we don't need to fill this talk page with additional text that makes it look like a forum rather than an article talk page. ] (]) 03:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I haven't brought anything irrelevant here. It is entirely relevant that I've been here for ten years and I'm well versed with policy. I don't need you to tell me I'm confused about the guidelines as I've been working with them since that time. The fact that you are an entomologist who specializes in toxicology ''is'' irrelevant. That you can't see the difference between the two speaks volumes. We have reliable secondary sources on this subject and that's all we need. We do not need to adhere to a MEDRS guideline that is being used for purposes other than for what it was designed. I'm not the one confused here, you are. I know perfectly well how to deal with reliable sources in science, and I know that editors are misusing MEDRS to prevent the discussion of certain topics. I gave you an example of how ''Toms River'', a secondary source about the pollution of a river, is an acceptable source to discuss the health effects of chemical contamination. We have other examples as well. Good sources do not need to ''meet'' MEDRS guidelines because they are already covered by our dominant policies. This attempt to make the policies subservient to MEDRS will be countered at every available opportunity. MEDRS is subservient to our policies, not the other way around. ] (]) 03:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If you want to discuss policy and guidelines, bring it elsewhere to a more appropriate page. I'm not seeing any direct discussion of content at this point. It's starting to seem like you're using this topic as a springboard for something else, so I highly suggest either bringing your policy/guideline concerns elsewhere where they are more appropriate, or get back addressing the removed content like we are supposed to be doing. I for one don't plan to camp out in the middle of this conversation while not getting anything done. ] (]) 05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::A springboard for something else? You're the one who keeps changing the subject. Carrington's article in ''The Guardian'' is a reliable source for this subject. Stop changing the subject. ] (]) 05:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| and are WP:MEDRS reviews which discuss human reproductive toxicity. ] (]) 23:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I've added it back. Are there any objections in the scientific literature? No? Then why was it removed? ] (]) 11:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I see one use of the word "'''neonicontinoids'''". (Note the "n" immediately before the "t".) Is that the correct spelling of something different from "neonicotinoid" or an acceptable alternate spelling of "neonicotinoid" or just a misspelling? I suspect it's just a misspelling, but I'm not sure. So I want to ask before making an edit. This is in 7.1 Toxicity > Bees: "Two studies published in Nature provided further evidence of the deleterious effect of '''neonicontinoids''' on bees..."--] (]) 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The content was removed because the sources used are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages in science related topics. If we want to make claims of the health effects of a chemical, we need a secondary scientific source (i.e. a peer-reviewed review article), which is why we were discussing ]. That and the content was pretty editorialized. ] (]) 15:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This has nothing to do with MEDRS. For example, if I wanted to talk about the health effects of a chemical released into Toms River by ] (now Novartis), I don't have to cite peer-reviewed review articles, I can cite dozens of reliable sources published on the topic, such as the book ''Toms River'' (2012) by Dan Fagin, a book which itself cites the peer-reviewed review literature. MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy, and it is commonly abused. ] (]) 01:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Tertiary sources were never being discussed here, nor was there any contention over them. ] (]) 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How is Fagin a tertiary source on the subject of the chemical pollution and health hazards of Toms River? ] (]) 02:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::From ]: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." Things like textbooks and reputable books typically fall under this category because they summarize mostly secondary sources, whereas peer-reviewed review articles and books are typically secondary literature. If you want to discuss these differences further, bring it to a user talk page as this part of the conversation has strayed from being related to this article. ] (]) 03:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are adept at quoting things you don't understand. The book ''Toms River'' is considered a secondary source, not a tertiary source as you claim. And, on Misplaced Pages, tertiary sources are very contentious, as we tend to not use them in articles. The fact that you cannot evaluate sources correctly tells me there is a bigger problem at work here. ] (]) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Keep ] in mind. We're here on ''this'' article to discuss and edit content, not discuss the suitability of tangential sources because ''you'' believe they secondary and not tertiary. Again, if you're really concerned about whether that book is a secondary or tertiary source, this isn't the place. ] (]) 05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't need to keep FORUM in mind because it has no bearing on this discussion. I gave you an analogy: the book ''Toms River'' is a reliable source for an article on a similar chemical, just as Carrington's article in ''The Guardian'' (as only one example) is a reliable source for this article. Now address it. ] (]) 05:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == for Discussion: Removal of sentence == | |||
| I have been looking for the actual publication that the press release, and press based on the release, is discussing. I can't find it. I did find something related in some ways (pubmed abstract is and the article abstracted by pubmed is ) but that doesn't seem to match the title, authorship, e-publication date, or content described in the press release and it is about vertebrates, not bees.... Can anybody find it? If we are going to add content to WP on this subject matter, it needs to be based on the actual scientific publication (if it is indeed a review) and not on press releases or reports in the media based on the press release. ] (]) 15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I just spent another half hour looking for the publication discussed in the press release, and again found nothing. This unfortunately appears to be a case of ]. We need to wait until their article about bees is actually published to do anything. ] (]) 17:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Correction, this was definitely science by press release. The press release itself () says: "*The full WIA will be published in the Springer Journal within the next few weeks. Date to be confirmed by the Journal". This is not going to be pretty. ] (]) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I linked you to it two days ago in my questions, which I repeat: Are you suggesting isn't a peer reviewed secondary source? Why have you refrained from responding to ? ] (]) 08:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::With regard to the piece you linked to, I would guess that this might be the article referred to in the press release. It has not been published by the journal yet, and until it is, that is a ]. With regard to the proposal, I demanded nothing. ] (]) 12:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::MEDRS doesn't apply here. The discussion of neonicotinoids and the harm to polinators is adequately sourced per the relevant policies. Nothing here is controversial or representative of a new discovery. The fact that companies who specialize in GMOs happen to be behind neonicotinoid production while disrupting pollinators is highly disturbing, as these are the same companies who keep telling us that there isn't enough food for everybody so we must all start eating their GMOs. How convenient it is for these companies to be disrupting the food supply with their neonicotinoids while making these arguments! This is either the greatest environmental crime in history or a "coincidence". We don't need or require the permission of MEDRS to add this material. ] (]) 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::all we need is the actual publication, which apparently will come out in a few weeks. WP doesn't do science by press release. We wait. ] (]) 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We have plenty of reliable sources on the subject that are perfectly acceptable for inclusion. We do not need to wait for anything. Furthermore, I am increasingly disgusted at the fake skepticism at work in these articles. Science should be skeptical of the claims made by the companies who produce these products, not skeptical of the 800 peer-reviewed studies that demand an end to the use of neonicotinoids. Reading these articles and discussions, one would think that the corporations have taken over, and in the process, rewritten the rules for scientific methodology itself. Of course, that hasn't happened, but this fake skepticism intent on doubting the mountain of evidence against neonicotinoids and other harmful products should not be tolerated. ] (]) 03:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We're discussing the reliability of the currently removed content in this talk section (which has nothing to do with the producing companies), not the "plenty of reliable sources" you're mentioning . Stick to the content at hand here. ] (]) 05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I haven't discussed content. Carrington's article in ''The Guardian'' has been deleted due to vocal concerns of "I don't like it" and MEDRS, both of which are inapplicable. Clearly, the source ''is'' reliable and meets our policies. And contrary to what you and Jytdog keep claiming, it appears the problem here is with ''your'' edits, not with the edits of other editors here. In fact, your very first edit to Misplaced Pages was to remove any mention of deleterious health effects in this article. So there is a pattern here, of a group of editors attempting to push a certain POV on this subject, a POV that denies the health effects of this chemical, contrary to the sources. From where I stand, this looks like another case of denialism. ] (]) 05:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The Guardian article was deleted because popular press typically isn't a reliable source for scientific content like this (from ] since you seem to have issues with MEDRS): | |||
| I plan to remove this sentence currently in the section on "bees": | |||
| ::::::::::"Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may rely uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by the public relations department of a university or national laboratory. News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk or uncertainty in meaningful terms." | |||
| "In general, however, despite the fact that many laboratory studies have shown the potential for neonicotinoid toxicity, the majority of field studies have found only limited or no effects on honey bees." ]] | |||
| ::::::::::"A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure, nor should they be considered when describing what aspects of a field the relevant experts consider interesting, surprising, or controversial. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story; good quality science news articles will indicate their sources. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source. . ." | |||
| While in 2015, perhaps this may have been a reasonable citation and sentence, nearing 2022, this generalization ("In general") now seems to take on an overly editorial ("however", "found only limited or no effects") tone on this controversial subject under great public scrutiny and very active research since then. | |||
| ::::::::::That is the issue we're dealing with right now for this particular source pairing of a yet unpublished article and a news article. That issue can easily be addressed by waiting for for the article to come out. Until then, it's just not verifiable. Guideline, essay or otherwise, that is a concern of editors that needs to be addressed. We've had a relatively straightforward solution proposed, so I don't see any reason to go against it. ] (]) 05:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| For example, the citation's latest reference was 2015 and was too early to include later research and review such as this 2017 article in Science () or others. | |||
| :::::::::::''The Guardian'' ''reports'' on the subject of ] , a topic that does not fall under MEDRS, so you can throw that right out your pretty little window. ''The Guardian'' is evaluated as a reliable secondary reporting on this subject in an authoritative, timely manner. We already use it in this and many other articles, and it is supported by our ] guideline. The opinions refer to those found in the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on Systemic Pesticide, a report that evaluates ''all'' of the literature on neonicotinoids. It is the largest study of its kind. Even if it wasn't being published by the ''Journal Environment Science and Pollution Research'', it would still be a reliable source. You can't use a guideline to filter out POV you don't like. ] (]) 11:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Commentary not related to article improvement}} | |||
| {{od}} Viriditas, please comment on content, not contributors. I will post a notice on RSN on the content that was originally added and reverted. ] (]) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You posted a biased notice that unfairly framed this dispute. I'm commenting on your content. ] (]) 12:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: You have been commenting on contributors. I would bring this to your Talk page but you have asked me not to post there. You did it and and , etc. You know this is problematic so please stop. Thanks. ] (]) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not been commenting on contributors, and your diffs show nothing of the kind. The first diff shows me commenting on your wacky conspiracy theory that anti-pesticide activists are behind the source. The second diff shows me commenting on the failure of a source evaluation. The third diff shows me purposefully avoiding discussing a contributor. So you offered three diffs which don't say what you claim. I asked you not to post to my talk page because I have expressed concern with your repeated inaccurate claims and non-neutral "requests" for input. Is this clear? ] (]) 13:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ===Posting on RSN=== | |||
| I posted to RSN, ]. ] (]) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And posted notice of the RSN at Talk:MEDRS, ] and Talk:SCIRS ] and at Project Biology ]. ] (]) 12:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is this a joke? Do you expect me to take you seriously after you posted ''two'' biased reports indicating your opinion that this is "Science by press release"? Do you even know what the word "neutrality" means? Why would I even consider such an unfair framed request as valid? MEDRS has nothing to do with this at all so you can stop bringing it up now. ] (]) 12:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is what it is. Putting out splashy press releases about scientific work before the actual science publishes, is the definition of "science by press release." ] (]) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What's the purpose of a noticeboard request for neutral input if all you do is skew and frame the request? Like an RFC, a noticeboard request should be neutral. You don't seem the least bit interested in neutrality, which is the problem. ] (]) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Respectfully, | |||
| == How should Bayer's efforts to pay for silence be characterized? == | |||
| ] (]) 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :This is only a single study, and I don't see anything we could use to contradict the statement about the majority of studies. They would require a review or meta-analysis type approach. ] (]) 02:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah yes. Apologies for not being more clear and providing more. Good point. I was just providing a single prominent study as a characteristic example. | |||
| Bayer has a long and well-documented history of unrepentant, blatant, and persistent attempts at graft by subversion of the scientific publishing process in order to defend their product marketing mythologies. Is this because the lawyers at Bayer started to outnumber the engineers? Which sources best document the pertinent events, and where are they best summarized? Has any study of Bayer's corporate behavior been undertaken? ] (]) 05:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The companies appear to be pushing ] theories. Ironically, the fake skeptics here are telling us that we should get on board with their FRINGE theories because a paper from 1990 implicates ''Varroa destructor'' not neonicotinoids, or that "pesticides play a negligible role in the decline in bee health". Let's all get on board the FRINGE train that we're told we must ride, or else. ] (]) 12:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::umm as per our discussion above about commenting on content not contributors... "fake skeptics". You can be a valuable contributor but you let your emotions get the best of you. ] (]) 13:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Umm right back at you. I've used the term "fake skepticism" and "fake skeptics" to refer to denialism and denialist arguments specifically, not any particular contributor. Please stop making distracting accusations and stick to the topic. ] (]) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"fake skeptics here" is quite clearly commenting on contributors. But as you will. ] (]) 13:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::So, here's at least one more updated review that does point to how the Cornell's previous review seems out of date and does not include an updated understanding coming from a more extensive body of research than existed at the time. In particular, it compiles a far amount of more current research (to 2019): https://www.mass.gov/doc/neonics-scientific-literature-review-december-2019/download | |||
| Please see http://britishbeekeeping.com/ for the most recent details and some background information. ] (]) 03:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps I can cite this document as an update and reword this sentence all together? | |||
| :To be fair, ''any'' company that destroys the planet, breaks laws and puts money first is going to have a damage control team. If they didn't they'd have no money. Consumers actually ''do'' value the security of a stable ecosystem and government. It's up to these teams to convince them otherwise (or at least deny the company is part of the problem, or that the problem exists). They play a vital role in maintaining a lush and resourceful financial umbrella, but their deeds naturally go unthanked when they're doing their job properly. Suppresion of information is inherently a hard thing to source. | |||
| ::I'll see if I can find something even more recent than 2019. | |||
| :If and when you do find stuff, try to keep the ubiquity of this shit (and WP:NPOV) in mind, and not unduly frame Bayer as exceptionally disreputable/evil/whatever by it. I'm going to miss bees as much as the next guy, but there are many factors (and factories) in play on that field. Not trying to be apologetic, just hoping everyone keeps a level head. There is no ] on Misplaced Pages. Except there. ] ] 04:45, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| ::In particular, my main objection to the existing sentence is that it seems to mischaracterize current state of understanding and has a "voice" that speaks as if current; not the citation it uses. | |||
| {{outdent}} - Sorry to interrupt here, but could someone fill me in on what the controversy is here? Is there reliable source I could turn to for some background? ] (]) 17:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Away up above, an editor mentioned a source as an example of a recent review. EllenCT noted that said source was funded by Bayer and ever since has been talking about how the source runs afoul of ] and ]; and she has continued stating throughout this Talk page and elsewhere, things about Bayer and the source along the lines of her statement that opens this section. None of it makes much sense to me (I have told her several times that ''editors'' can have a COI and an editor's behavior can demonstrate Advocacy, and that ''sources'' can run afoul of ] or not, but COI/Advocacy have nothing to say with whether sources or reliable/usable or not) but she keeps right on. Also she hasn't brought any sources for the claims about Bayer... and indeed this section seems to be a request for other people to bring sources about Bayer. The sideline thing between Viriditas and me is separate from EllenCT's issues. Confusing, I know. Hope that is helpful to explain the above,at least from my perspective. ] (]) 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Simply, it is misleading to the reader. | |||
| ::I haven't "brought" any sources? Do you consider , , and reliable? You have yet to answer yes or no as to whether you agree with my proposed summary of the MEDRS-grade source. ] (]) 08:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your comment. | |||
| :::I don't believe the open letter is a reliable source. The Independent is reliable, and also says that the Executive Committee didn't concur with the accusations of the open letter, and doesn't go anywhere near scientific publishing, nor is it a study of "Bayer's corporate behavior". I replied to your proposal. ] (]) 10:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::] (]) 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::First, please ] your comments. You were already aware that removal didn't have consensus here, so you should not have gone and removed it anyways. | |||
| :::::In my view they are both ] so not reliable. Addtionally, your #38 doesn't criticize Bayer or discuss "astroturfing" or the like; it describes where the endorsements are found, what instructions were given, whether those are good instructions, and whether those instructions are followed and whether following of them is audited. (as an aside, with respect to your larger point about the relationship of neonics to CCD, it says "This report should not be taken as evidence that insecticide poisoning of bees is a major cause of colony loss.") Your #39 is focused on internal governance matters of BBKA and is not about Bayer's activities. So I don't see what either of them has to do with the subject of this section. ] (]) 16:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And further, I don't see how this has anything to do with the content of this article, so I don't plan to discuss further as per ]. ] (]) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} neglected to mention that the bayer pesticide that is mentioned in the Independent article is Decis, aka ]. not a neonic. ] (]) 12:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Secondly, a letter from Industrial Economics, Inc. isn't exactly a reliable source, and it doesn't really contradict the 2015 source anyways. Usually we want peer-reviewed sources, but at the least, a university source like the Cornell one is decent here. If there are sources that actually do contradict the actual text, then those should be discussed here. In general though, honeybees are fairly resistant to neonicotinoids overall (in the relative sense), so much of the focus nowadays is on wild pollinators that do have higher susceptibility and risk. | |||
| == Undiscussed deletion of MEDRS source == | |||
| :::Overall, the field hasn't developed such a smoking gun for honeybees at least. There's still plenty of recent review articles that talk about issues in study design with many of these studies: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00218839.2018.1484055. If there is a sea-change in the literature, then the reviews will reflect that if/when that happens. ] (]) 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|Jytdog}} for what reason do you claim there was no consensus for ? What are likely to succeed without selectivity allowing the survival of pollinators? ] (]) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{bullet}} | |||
| :see discussion above. there are four recent reviews, three of which you surely are fine with, and you chose the most extreme of them] (]) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Kshih: I think you will want this: | |||
| :::I certainly will not agree with the other editor that your source is ''entirely'' unreliable and does not contradict the 2015. It is not peer reviewed however and so we should prefer something else. It was commissioned by a political body and so could be written to pander to their bias. López-Uribe is much better. (89) in probably supports toxicity also. You will have to read carefully here if you want to talk about ''A. mellifera'': A lot of what I find is about wild bees instead. | |||
| :::I haven't read all of this I have just looked quickly so I have no conclusions. Overall I find only a few pieces of evidence for actual toxicity and a few for ''A. mellifera'' having effective CYPs for neonics (for another example ). This is a politically pressured subject and seems to be moving rapidly, recently. ] (]) 27 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology== | |||
| ::On the contrary, I chose the most representative. If you truly believe what you are writing, then why did you delete instead of add? ] (]) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Georgia_Southern_University/Toxicology_(Fall_2022) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-08-10 | end_date = 2022-12-08 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == Undiscussed replacement of COI paid advocacy == | |||
| == Article for creation == | |||
| {{Ping|Gandydancer}} why did you revert without discussion? I don't think it conforms to ]. ] (]) 00:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Article for creation: ]. ] (]) 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :So sorry Ellen, I just noted that my edit note did not show up through some sort of glitch--the page did jump ahead to the article and I had to move it back but at the time I thought nothing of it. So I came here to explain and see you have brought it up already. My reason was that I just can't imagine why that section would be considered "crystal ball". While I'm certain that I would not agree with everything they came up with, and certainly would be concerned about what they left out, the report seems ok to include to me. ] (]) 00:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT CONFLICT PS see your added note--I will read crystal ball to see if my mind changes--but not tonight--I'm done for now. Revert me if you feel it important. :) ] (]) 00:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Effects on more complex animals == | |||
| ::I did read the link you suggested and IMO the info seems appropriate for the article. I did, however, correct the info and added a para that included some criticism of the study. Thoughts? ] (]) 11:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I added the following section, which seems quite germane but it was deleted in its entirety. | |||
| :Rodents exposed chronically or acutely to neonicotinoids suffer major damage to their nervous systems, likely due to impairment of their ] mechanisms. Laboratory studies showed that such major neurological damage resulted both when the exposure occurred during the ]nic period and when the exposure occurred during adulthood. Impairments to cognitive ability and to memory were observed. Neonicotinoid exposure at an early age was shown to impair neuronal development, with decreases in ] and induced ]. Adult exposure induced neurobehavioral toxicity and resulting changes in ]s.<ref>Carmen Costas-Ferreira and Lilian R. F. Faro, International Journal of Molecular Science, , 2021 Aug 22(16): 8413, Published online 2021 Aug 5</ref>] (]) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that removing this is unjustified. I don't understand what Nangaf meant by <code>Needs better integration with existing sections</code>. ] (]) 24 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will restore this section unless Nagraf or someone else responds soon with a substantive reason for wholesale deletion.] (]) 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for bringing it to talk. I can't remember exactly what my original objection was, but on second glance I don't have any problem with the material or where it was in the article. ] (]) 06:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Will do.] (]) 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :Ellen, "COI" and "advocacy" apply to ''editors'' and do not apply to sources. The criteria for "conflicted" sources is described in ] - the question is whether a source is independent or not, and INDY describes that. ] (]) 22:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:19, 13 January 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neonicotinoid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | 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. |
 | A news item involving Neonicotinoid was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 May 2013. |  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Human toxicity reviews
and are WP:MEDRS reviews which discuss human reproductive toxicity. EllenCT (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I see one use of the word "neonicontinoids". (Note the "n" immediately before the "t".) Is that the correct spelling of something different from "neonicotinoid" or an acceptable alternate spelling of "neonicotinoid" or just a misspelling? I suspect it's just a misspelling, but I'm not sure. So I want to ask before making an edit. This is in 7.1 Toxicity > Bees: "Two studies published in Nature provided further evidence of the deleterious effect of neonicontinoids on bees..."--Kjs04032 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
for Discussion: Removal of sentence
I plan to remove this sentence currently in the section on "bees":
"In general, however, despite the fact that many laboratory studies have shown the potential for neonicotinoid toxicity, the majority of field studies have found only limited or no effects on honey bees." ]
While in 2015, perhaps this may have been a reasonable citation and sentence, nearing 2022, this generalization ("In general") now seems to take on an overly editorial ("however", "found only limited or no effects") tone on this controversial subject under great public scrutiny and very active research since then.
For example, the citation's latest reference was 2015 and was too early to include later research and review such as this 2017 article in Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.aam7470) or others.
Respectfully, Kshih (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is only a single study, and I don't see anything we could use to contradict the statement about the majority of studies. They would require a review or meta-analysis type approach. KoA (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah yes. Apologies for not being more clear and providing more. Good point. I was just providing a single prominent study as a characteristic example.
- So, here's at least one more updated review that does point to how the Cornell's previous review seems out of date and does not include an updated understanding coming from a more extensive body of research than existed at the time. In particular, it compiles a far amount of more current research (to 2019): https://www.mass.gov/doc/neonics-scientific-literature-review-december-2019/download
- Perhaps I can cite this document as an update and reword this sentence all together?
- I'll see if I can find something even more recent than 2019.
- In particular, my main objection to the existing sentence is that it seems to mischaracterize current state of understanding and has a "voice" that speaks as if current; not the citation it uses.
- Simply, it is misleading to the reader.
- Thanks for your comment.
- Kshih (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- First, please WP:THREAD your comments. You were already aware that removal didn't have consensus here, so you should not have gone and removed it anyways.
- Kshih (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Secondly, a letter from Industrial Economics, Inc. isn't exactly a reliable source, and it doesn't really contradict the 2015 source anyways. Usually we want peer-reviewed sources, but at the least, a university source like the Cornell one is decent here. If there are sources that actually do contradict the actual text, then those should be discussed here. In general though, honeybees are fairly resistant to neonicotinoids overall (in the relative sense), so much of the focus nowadays is on wild pollinators that do have higher susceptibility and risk.
- Overall, the field hasn't developed such a smoking gun for honeybees at least. There's still plenty of recent review articles that talk about issues in study design with many of these studies: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00218839.2018.1484055. If there is a sea-change in the literature, then the reviews will reflect that if/when that happens. KoA (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- •
- Kshih: I think you will want this: López-Uribe et al 2020
- I certainly will not agree with the other editor that your source is entirely unreliable and does not contradict the 2015. It is not peer reviewed however and so we should prefer something else. It was commissioned by a political body and so could be written to pander to their bias. López-Uribe is much better. (89) in Berenbaum & Calla 2021 probably supports toxicity also. You will have to read carefully here if you want to talk about A. mellifera: A lot of what I find is about wild bees instead.
- I haven't read all of this I have just looked quickly so I have no conclusions. Overall I find only a few pieces of evidence for actual toxicity and a few for A. mellifera having effective CYPs for neonics (for another example Matsuda et al 2020). This is a politically pressured subject and seems to be moving rapidly, recently. Invasive Spices (talk) 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spmg98 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by HL02378 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Article for creation
Article for creation: Flupyrimin. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Effects on more complex animals
I added the following section, which seems quite germane but it was deleted in its entirety.
- Rodents exposed chronically or acutely to neonicotinoids suffer major damage to their nervous systems, likely due to impairment of their neurotransmitter mechanisms. Laboratory studies showed that such major neurological damage resulted both when the exposure occurred during the embryonic period and when the exposure occurred during adulthood. Impairments to cognitive ability and to memory were observed. Neonicotinoid exposure at an early age was shown to impair neuronal development, with decreases in neurogenesis and induced neuroinflammation. Adult exposure induced neurobehavioral toxicity and resulting changes in neurochemicals.NYCJosh (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that removing this is unjustified. I don't understand what Nangaf meant by
Needs better integration with existing sections. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2022 (UTC)- I will restore this section unless Nagraf or someone else responds soon with a substantive reason for wholesale deletion.NYCJosh (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it to talk. I can't remember exactly what my original objection was, but on second glance I don't have any problem with the material or where it was in the article. Nangaf (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Will do.NYCJosh (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- Carmen Costas-Ferreira and Lilian R. F. Faro, International Journal of Molecular Science, "Neurotoxic Effects of Neonicotinoids on Mammals: What Is There beyond the Activation of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors?—A Systematic Review", 2021 Aug 22(16): 8413, Published online 2021 Aug 5
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- 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
- C-Class Agriculture articles
- Low-importance Agriculture articles
- WikiProject Agriculture articles
- C-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- Sustainability task force articles