Talk:Clothianidin/Archive 2

The Germany incident
The inclusion of this incident has been discussed and it has been suggested that it is not appropriate to include it in this article per Wikipedia policy. I feel that it is appropriate, however when one checks the references none appear acceptable per reference guidelines. For that reason I feel it should be deleted. However, the EPA editor has offered an EPA site that explains the incident. Many people have heard of the incident from blogs that made the circuit a few years ago and I feel that it would be better to mention it in the article using the info from the EPA site and put the matter to rest. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we had some reliable secondary sources on the matter. My German is a little iffy but I'm digging around. Any big rush? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * I would not agree. The questions on clothianidin are still open. Bhopal was, much the same as the Deepwater Horizon explosion, a simple case of humans not following safety procedures around systems that contain, handle, store, transport, process chemicals and substances with known properties. So I agree with your point, methyl isocyanate just happened to be the one that they let out of the box. What I don't agree with is the comparison and your points about enduring notability, WP:NOTNEWS and encyclopedic fact.
 * As an aside...Beating up on the EPA is not my goal. IMHO most people don't understand what the EPA does (or rather what the Act mandates and that the Congress is constantly monkeying with it). I understand the simple fact that pesticides are required for the protection of the food supply and that the EPA has the unenviable job of regulating those pesticides. It can't be fun being in the middle of a forty-two year hissie fit thrown by two children that may never grow-up. Ok. Sorry, back on topic. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Finally, you wrote "I would think that it would be good for the [clothianidin] article to set the record straight and explain exactly how and why the accident [in Germany] occurred rather than to think it was an every-day type of event, and if it did or did not influence a decision by the Germans." Your logic here is contrary to both the CHEMMOS and the Bhopal/methyl isocyanate example but without any rationale to explain why it makes sense beyond "I would think." To paraphrase, you want to use the chemical page to set the record straight on a complicated incident for which equipment and weather played a much larger role than the chemical itself. I really am trying to understand your position, so please provide a concise rationale for why this approach makes sense in spite of being contrary to CHEMMOS and Bhopal/methyl isocyanate example. thx --USEPA James (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi James.
 * "...if you feel these issues are so important..." It is not a matter of how important an issues feels it is a matter of weight. We express what the sources present using our best judgement, Wikipedia guidelines and the good faith of other editors. We also break rules.
 * "...create pages for them with all the referenced details you like, then briefly note and link..." At some point the artile could follow a summary style but I don't see any size or readability issues right now.
 * "...I'm not citing WP policies here since I've repeated them many times above..." Good idea. There is no bureaucracy.
 * "...What questions about the German incident are still open..." I was commenting on the topic as a whole (sorry I should have made that clear given the section topic is German specific).
 * "...separation of Bhopal from methyl isocyanate..." Methyl isocyanate is not the subject of the Bhopal disaster. Clothianidin is the topic of controversy.
 * All that being said, the article definitely needs work and I am not suggesting any of the current verbiage or structure be kept intact.
 * I'd propose we consider using Imidacloprid as a rough template and begin sourcing, adding and writing sections for history, biochemistry, toxicology, applications, etc. There is no deadline. -- ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd propose we consider using Imidacloprid as a rough template and begin sourcing, adding and writing sections for history, biochemistry, toxicology, applications, etc. There is no deadline. -- ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Thanks for responding.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Here is what I said about the blogs, etc.:
 * This incident is out there on hundreds of blogs and bee keeper's forums. I would think that it would be good for the article to set the record straight and explain exactly how and why the accident occurred rather than to think it was an every-day type of event, and if it did or did not influence a decision by the Germans.
 * And this:
 * And finally, you feel that I am not correct to suggest that it would be best to mention the incident "to set the record straight". You may be absolutely correct and I would be quite ready to agree to not include it if that were the only reason it is in the article.


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


 * Gandydancer, you wrote "I said that without acceptable refs it should be deleted," and you've already explained that the refs are not acceptable. That pretty much ends the discussion, since you haven't explained why poorly referenced text ought to remain. Your opinion about what constitutes noteworthy seems arbitrary and inconsistent with WP:NOTE. Your statement about the incident "being in the blogs for a few weeks" is startling. I'm not going to help promote misinformation so I won't provide a link, but a search of the internet indicates that the 2008 incident is still (ie within the last month) a hot topic among the anti-chemical crowd. Finally, you still have not explained why your opinion or wishes should suffice as a reason to violate the community consensus expressed in WP:CHEMMOS about not going into details about chemical accidents on chemical pages. With regard to the bias this content brings to the article, it implies that clothianidin per se was the (or a) primary factor in this incident when, in fact, the primary factors were equipment, the weather and no sticker. Regardless of the bias issue, which I suspect we might never agree on, providing details about the incident here violates WP:CHEMMOS so the point is more or less moot. I have no idea why you think I "want to forget that this chemical is an insecticide;" please don't feel obligated to better explain your belief. I'll let this simmer over the weekend so you or others have a chance to respond. If by next week you still haven't given a reasonable justification for violating WP:CHEMMOS or why your opinion should outweigh WP:NOTE, I'll be bold and delete the 2008 incident. You (or some other editor) can always copy the old text and references from the history page if you decide to create a new page, consistent with WP:CHEMMOS and WP:NOTE. --USEPA James (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Updates and sources have been added. Looks like some of the blog sources had much better WP:RS behind them. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * The ref you provided has a lot of good information. What do you think about combining my edit and yours as is done in the link you provided?  We could still keep my refs since the EPA does state that indeed the restriction on corn was not lifted. Gandydancer (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can tell my prose is not so good. Please edit as you see fit. I can always complain:) - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


 * And this:


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


 * And this:


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


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


 * Again, EPAJames remains silent.  My concerns regarding what appears to be a welcome to  a government agency to make dramatic changes in Wikipedia articles have only been increased as I attempt to communicate my viewpoint on this talk page.  Considering that each elected administration maintains direct control over the EPA, and that its enforcements are subject to the political agenda of those in power, I can easily imagine Wikipedia being used as a political spokesperson for whatever administration that happens to be in charge.  However, wikipedia edits are done through consensus, and except for a brief period of interest by one other editor, consensus appears to favor EPAJames edit plans.  With no support for my viewpoint, I will no longer post my objections.  I regret this decision because the many hours that I have spent editing always seemed well-spent to me because I have thought of Wikipedia as "the people's encyclopedia". Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, as promised, I've been working on the draft replacement text for the clothianidin page; you're confusing silence with my attempt to be thorough. To close out this discussion, I've posted the German incident page and will begin linking to it shortly (i.e. as my schedule allows).--USEPA James (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


 * is the only secondary source shown for a search on (clothiandian and bees) on PubMed, and in its abstract it says, "the nitro-substituted compounds (clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid and its metabolites, thiamethoxam, nitenpyram) appear the most toxic to bees." It seems that all of the text supported by that that secondary source has recently been deleted from the article. My understanding is that WP:RS does not require that we rely solely on secondary sources, but it does instruct us to prefer them when they are available or when primary sources are not in agreement. So I have these questions for you:
 * Are there any peer reviewed secondary sources which claim that clothiandian is not toxic to bees?
 * Are there any peer reviewed primary sources which claim that clothiandian is not toxic to bees?
 * Are there any peer reviewed sources which claim that clothiandian is not associated with colony collapse disorder?
 * Have you made any edits to the article which include text citing sources which claim that colony collapse disorder is associated with any neonicotinoids? If not, how do you explain your representation of only one minority point of view?
 * The vast majority of your edits since you started editing appear to downplay the association between insecticides and bee problems. Are there any of your edits which can show that is not your single purpose for editing here?
 * You claim to be editing from a position of authority, as an authorized representative of the USEPA. How can other editors verify that this is indeed the case?
 * How many lawsuits has the USEPA been involved with concerning neonicotinoids and bees, and where can editors learn more about them? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * The editor failed to point out that clothianidin is not even mentioned in the cited USDA CCD report, which is one of only two sources listed that qualifies as reliable, authoritative and secondary. The San Francisco Chronicle source is disallowed by WP:RSMED; please do not belabor this point. The USDA report explicitly names two miticides, and the same section on p5 makes pretty clear the uncertainty about potential effects from other pesticides:
 * "Findings currently suggest an association of sub-lethal effects of pesticides with CCD. Two common miticides in particular, coumaphos and fluvalinate, which are pesticides registered for use in bee colonies to control varroa mites, are suspect, either acting individually or in combination (e.g., synergistically, where the combination of the two compounds is more toxic than either compound alone). The emerging evidence of pesticide exposure to pollinators and potential interactive effects indicates the need to further study pesticides for their potential interactions with CCD. Studies have also confirmed suspected links between CCD and poor colony health, inadequate diet, and long-distance transportation."
 * Decourtye and Devillers (2010) are also cited, but as I explained previously, their conclusions are completely at odds with the text I am deleting. Finally, it is inappropriate to add primary research references that allegedly support one of many hypotheses when authoritative secondary sources have looked at the big picture and concluded that we simply don't know yet. To remind everyone of Gandydancer's quote above, "What you particularly want to avoid is using a primary source to de-bunk a secondary."


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


 * The idea that Decourtye and Devillers' specific statements about clothianidin and bees in their peer reviewed secondary source are "completely at odds" with their general statement about all species of pollinators is wrong. That you are insisting it is true strongly suggests to me that you have no professional expertise on the subject. Since you have ignored them above, I repeat my questions to you:
 * Are there any peer reviewed secondary sources which claim that clothiandian is not toxic to bees?
 * Are there any peer reviewed primary sources which claim that clothiandian is not toxic to bees?
 * Are there any peer reviewed sources which claim that clothiandian is not associated with colony collapse disorder?
 * Have you made any edits to the article which include text citing sources which claim that colony collapse disorder is associated with any neonicotinoids? If not, how do you explain your representation of only one minority point of view?
 * The vast majority of your edits since you started editing appear to downplay the association between insecticides and bee problems. Are there any of your edits which can show that is not your single purpose for editing here?
 * You claim to be editing from a position of authority, as an authorized representative of the USEPA. How can other editors verify that this is indeed the case?
 * How many lawsuits has the USEPA been involved with concerning neonicotinoids and bees, and where can editors learn more about them? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Great, another sockpuppet to report...


 * Gandydancer, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR. "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." USEPA's web page on CCD makes it explicit that "To date, we’re aware of no data demonstrating that an EPA-registered pesticide used according to the label instructions has caused CCD." That is an explicit refutation of the link you are trying to WP:synthesize with that quote, which a neutral editor would have noticed says absolutely nothing about CCD. Also, if you are going to cite USEPA on anything, it's probably best if you link to the actual document at USEPA. All of our cleared science reviews for clothianidin are online. USEPA James (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The EPA reports are all WP:PRIMARY and are only WP:RS for the opinions of the EPA. Your use of them to draw conclusions is WP:OR. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

If there is no further debate I believe that the present bee info in the lede should be replaced. It is too long and there are several problems with the sources. One source for instance does not even mention clothianidin but rather speaks of the neonicotinoids, specifically imidacloprid. While some studies seem to show they are very similar in their effect on bees or that clothianidin is even more toxic, to include that info in the lede with no mention of clothianidin in the source does not seem appropriate. The lede states, "...have linked to CCD", and I believe that James is correct when he states that in fact there has been no proven link to CDC. Also, for instance, looking at this statement, "detrimental sub-lethal effects resulting in honey bees failing to return to their colony.[11]"--that is not exactly what this study demonstrated. The "Germany incident" is mentioned, which gives it much more importance than is really appropriate. If there is no further discussion I will replace the present info with the suggestion that I provided. Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which source doesn't mention clothianidin? I believe that the discussion from Perdue Germany of sub-lethal detrimental effects specifically mentions bees failing to return to their hives ("Bees disappeared at the level of 1 ng for clothianidin"), which is also described as the unique characteristic of CCD in the Congressional Research Service report you recently added ("losses in recent years differ from past situations in that colony losses are occurring mostly because bees are failing to return to the hive (which is largely uncharacteristic of bee behavior); bee colony losses have been rapid; colony losses are occurring in large numbers".) I am not sure why you think this huge controversy should be minimized in the lead section. Both the Tapparo et al (2012) study from Italy and the Pettis et al (2012) study from the USDA specifically say that the entire magnitude of CCD losses can now be explained by neonicotinoid exposure. 71.212.231.71 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * You ask which secondary research says that the cause of CDC remains unknown. The EPA says, "To date, we’re aware of no data demonstrating that an EPA-registered pesticide used according to the label instructions has caused CCD."  As for the other studies you mention, note that they use the words, "could be a major contributor" and "can produce high exposure levels".  They do not state that they have found the cause of CDC, and even if they did you can't refute secondary research (the EPA) with primary research.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which EPA report are you referring to? There is some question to whether government secondary sources are anonymously peer reviewed. In general, if reviewers don't have the opportunity to provide anonymous comments to the authors and editors, accuracy will suffer. On controversial topics this can be very substantial. Npmay (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that you appear to be new to this topic. You ask, "Which EPA report are you referring to?"  Have you read the article and the sources?  I don't mean to be rude, but you can't expect other editors to do your homework for you and supply answers that are already in the text here.  As for your other comments, I believe that they are too broad for this section which is to come to an agreement on information to be presented in the lede. Gandydancer (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, there are a couple dozen EPA references, and none of them seem to be reviews. I don't want to offend you. Npmay (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for being so harsh. There is information here:, here: , and here:  But this is not the place to discuss it... Gandydancer (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gandydancer. I appreciate your approach.


 * No time to add much, but USDA has the federal lead in the US for investigating CCD. The USDA's most recent report to Congress has been online for more than a year. The report states, among other things, that "the cause of CCD is still unknown." Decourtye and Devillers (2010) is a non-governmental secondary review that concludes exactly the same thing as government sources from around the globe--the cause of CCD remains unknown, the data is scant, and where there is data it is contradictory or inapplicable to real-life scenarios. Isolated statements in disparate primary sources should not be used to debunk authoritative secondary sources.


 * One thing I recommend all editors avoid is searching sources for a single sentence or clause that fits a particular belief. Wikipedia requires editors to capture the *conclusions* of authoritative sources. The approach I use is to try to forget everything I think I know about the issue, then read the secondary sources from cover to cover and allow them to inform me. I encourage editors to not just read the intro or the abstract...do Wikipedia a favor and read the entire source from a neutral point of view, then propose edits that are equally WP:NPOV.


 * Regarding Npmay's quotes attributed to the Pettis study, I assume you realize that this talk page is about clothianidin, which is not even mentioned in the Pettis report. Please be careful to avoid synthesizing your own original research by inferring conclusions not explicitly stated in the source.


 * Lastly, regarding 71.212.231.71's claim that "the Pettis et al (2012) study from the USDA specifically say that the entire magnitude of CCD losses can now be explained by neonicotinoid exposure," please provide a citation, including page number. I'm looking at the study right now. What you've written is simply not there. Gotta run. USEPA James (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Where in Decourtye and Devillers does it say that the cause of CCD remains unknown? Npmay (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the entire report from a neutral perspective you will find that point repeated throughout, though I would characterize their focus more on the broader topic of pollinator health than CCD specifically. In any event, I second Gandydancer's observation that the input you've provided here have no place in the intro. If you find a reliable, secondary source declaring that clothianidin causes CCD, by all means tell us about it and we'll figure out how to incorporate it into the article. USEPA James (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It would help if you could please point out the specific phrases you think say this. The term is only mentioned on page 85, where the statement that putative causes are still analyzed while insecticides are admitted as contributing to the loss is considerably at odds with the idea that the cause remains unknown. And there are much stronger statements on page 86. Are you suggesting that the beekeepers' attribution on page 86 sourced to Maus et al (2003) is being conveyed without implicit endorsement in the review? I see no language which would suggest that. Npmay (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

James, you continue to point out to me that as yet there is no proof that the neonicotinoids are the cause of CCD. I don't know why you keep doing that because I have never said that there is proof. In my first attempt at a lede edit I used the wording, "Some authorities have linked the neonicotinoid insecticides to colony collapse disorder...". You argued that there was no proof of a link. I believe that I could make a pretty good argument that in fact many authorities have suggested a link, but instead I changed the wording and did not mention CCD but rather said, "suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects". But you continue to warn me that I am incorrect to state that there is proof of a cause for CCD. Then you warn me, "Isolated statements in disparate primary sources should not be used to debunk authoritative secondary sources." In the first place I had just said the same thing myself in my previous post, and secondly, the source I used was the most recent information from the EPA.

As for your "do Wikipedia a favor" advice about how you do your NPOV edits and you suggest others should do the same. Please keep in mind...oh never mind...

It has been almost a week since I proposed my second lede suggestion. Npmay has made no further objections and James has not commented but rather continues to respond to my first suggestion, which I dropped. I will go ahead and place the wording in the lede. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to include the summaries of the research published just this year. Some of it seems to be very substantial in clearing up earlier questions about exposure routes, sublethal toxicity resulting in bees failing to return, and of course Tapparo et al's confirmation of "lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by beekeepers." It would seem to be doing a service to readers to include the latest peer reviewed studies in the lead, not just government sources which may not have been subject to an actual anonymous peer review. Npmay (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the recent 2012 studies are appropriate in the body of the article because the EPA secondary review is almost ten years old, but they fall far short of any overwhelming evidence that would warrant a summary in the lede - at least to my way of thinking. If you feel strongly about it, perhaps you could compose something and put it up for discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Gandydancer, once again, my posts are not directed only at you. I apologize for not communicating that more clearly. Also, I am not absent for a lack of interest. I am focused on the follow up to the edit warring and other policy violations that have been taking place on the article for entirely too long. Finally, I'm rather concerned about the level of dedication demonstrated by several editors who are apparently attempting to debunk reliable secondary sources with primary ones. This is only adding fuel to the fire. USEPA James (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)