Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive 2

text added today and being edit warred over
"In June 2014, in the most comprehensive scientific assessment by The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides researchers have concluded that excessive use of neonicotinoids has contaminated the environment across the planet to the extent that global food production is at risk. The team observed that the pesticides harm bees and other pollinators, which fertilise about three-quarters of the world’s crops, and the organisms that create the healthy soils needed to grow crops." Refs: http://www.tfsp.info http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/insecticides-world-food-supplies-risk

First of all, neither source is a reliable source for scientific information. This is website of activist group, not something published in the peer reviewed literature. Second, if you read the content that was added, it doesn't make sense. Additionally what can be made sense of is POV, nonencyclopedic writing.

This doesn't belong in Wikipedia. There are plenty of activist blogs where this kind of stuff can be passed around. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Environment Science and Pollution Research journal is peer reviewed and certainly acceptable to use for science-related articles. To call their research articles "this kind of stuff" fit only for blogs is surprising. Gandydancer (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No such journal was ever cited in the deleted content. There was a website and a news article cited, neither of which are appropriate sources in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly didn't just make it up. "The report is being published as a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research  and was funded by a charitable foundation run by the ethical bank Triodos." Gandydancer (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to echo Jytdog's sentiment below, but are you reading the actual content that was used and deleted? The deleted sources were pretty straightforward as unreliable, but that content doesn't seem to be what you're addressing. Very little of what's been brought up here has been about the actual edits reverted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The deleted sources were not unreliable. Carrington's article in The Guardian is a reliable source for this subject. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting isn't a peer reviewed secondary source? Why have you refrained from responding to the proposal for inclusion which you demanded? EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something here but this "study" was reported on very very widely, in a large number of mainstream reliable sources. Now, I'm not super familiar with MEDRS, but it strikes that something which is so widely reported on in so many secondary sources surely ought to be reasonable material to include.
 * Plus, can anyone explain why this content ought to be covered by MedRS? It doesn't strike me as "biomedical information".
 * And in addition, I'd like to know that Jytdog means by "activist group". Is it the International Union for Conservation of Nature that is an "activist group"? NickCT (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick, if you google "Task Force on Systemic Pesticides" the top hit is this, which makes clear that the TFSP was formed by the "International Union for Conservation of Nature" which describes itself as "the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organisation". The site I linked to describes TFSP as follows:  "In March 2011, an international task force was set up under the IUCN Species Survival Commission and the Commission on Ecosystem Management to bring together the scientific evidence needed to underpin action on neonicotinoid pesticides".  So... formed by an environmentalist group, with a predetermined agenda.  That is what I mean.  The TFSP site itself doesn't say any of that. :(  Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please present actual evidence in the form of actual citations supporting your conspiracy theory. In the real world (such as not in the place inside your head), the "environment" and ecosystems are the subject of serious scientific and academic study.  That does not make people and groups that work on these topics activists with agendas.  Contrary to your indoctrination, public health is not an agenda. I'm sorry, but your explanation is totally unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just the Harper Canadian in me, but when I hear their goal is "to bring together the scientific evidence needed", that's an agenda. Doesn't matter the topic. When it goes on to say pesticides "protect" crops (their scare quotes), it seems pretty clear they've decided which truth they need. That said, I don't think being biased is a reason to exclude a source. They all have theirs. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * nobody is actually reading here. I responded to the actual content and actual sources that were used.Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick, as far as what's actually relevant to the edits and content actually made, this topic falls under MEDRS because this topic falls under toxicology and veterinary medicine (bees are basically livestock). The same issues of reliability of sources or even quality of peer-reviewed sources (e.g. primary vs. secondary literature) come up whether you're dealing with human or animal medicine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy. Nothing "falls" under it, and it doesn't supplant or replace our dominant content policies which take precedence. This continual misuse of MEDRS is concerning.  This topic does not fall under toxicology and veterinary medicine, and that's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First keep in mind that that the "dominant" content policy is to use sources reliable for that specific content. In scientific topics, that has a different meaning than other areas that are more flexible in their sources, which is why I highly suggest reading MEDRS for more info on that. Otherwise, I'm having a little trouble picking out where your confusion is. How exactly do claims that a chemical affecting honeybee health have nothing to do with either toxicology or veterinary medicine? From their respective WP pages:


 * "Toxicology . . . . is a branch of biology, chemistry, and medicine (more specifically pharmacology) concerned with the study of the adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms."


 * "'Veterinary medicine is the branch of science that deals with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease, disorder and injury in animals. The scope of veterinary medicine is wide, covering all animal species, both domesticated and wild, with a wide range of conditions which can affect different species.'"
 * It's rather difficult to say that the toxicology of a livestock animal has nothing to do with either subject . . . Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been here for almost ten years. I have no "confusion" on this matter.  I was here before MEDRS existed, I was here while it was being created, and I was here when it was being implemented.  It was never intended to be a dominant policy anywhere, so this argument that it is somehow paramount is completely erroneous.  The scientific literature on the role of neonicotinoids and pollinator decline is abundantly clear.  This attempt to limit the discussion of its role by appealing to MEDRS is contrary to how the guideline is supposed to be used. We do not need to cite peer-reviewed review articles to discuss this.  This insistence that we do is plain wrong. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop bringing irrelevant details into the conversation like seniority of an editor. I'm an entomologist who specializes toxicology, yet I never use that to justify changes in an article or discussions on a talk page. We just don't do that here at Wikipedia. We edit by content. In scientific topics, we require reliable sources for scientific content. That's how we assign WP:WEIGHT, and avoid things like WP:FRINGE. I've demonstrated why the source and content were not appropriate, and Jytdog has shown that there isn't any article to cite at the moment. Until a citable source does come out, there isn't anything additional to discuss here relevant to the content of this page. If you wish to discuss how we deal with reliable sources in science, bring it to a user talk page, or bring the questions to a relevant guideline page (we have a a few of them). Otherwise, we're getting off-topic at this point and we don't need to fill this talk page with additional text that makes it look like a forum rather than an article talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't brought anything irrelevant here. It is entirely relevant that I've been here for ten years and I'm well versed with policy.  I don't need you to tell me I'm confused about the guidelines as I've been working with them since that time.  The fact that you are an entomologist who specializes in toxicology is irrelevant.  That you can't see the difference between the two speaks volumes.  We have reliable secondary sources on this subject and that's all we need.  We do not need to adhere to a MEDRS guideline that is being used for purposes other than for what it was designed.  I'm not the one confused here, you are. I know perfectly well how to deal with reliable sources in science, and I know that editors are misusing MEDRS to prevent the discussion of certain topics. I gave you an example of how Toms River, a secondary source about the pollution of a river, is an acceptable source to discuss the health effects of chemical contamination.  We have other examples as well.  Good sources do not need to meet MEDRS guidelines because they are already covered by our dominant policies.  This attempt to make the policies subservient to MEDRS will be countered at every available opportunity. MEDRS is subservient to our policies, not the other way around.  Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss policy and guidelines, bring it elsewhere to a more appropriate page. I'm not seeing any direct discussion of content at this point. It's starting to seem like you're using this topic as a springboard for something else, so I highly suggest either bringing your policy/guideline concerns elsewhere where they are more appropriate, or get back addressing the removed content like we are supposed to be doing. I for one don't plan to camp out in the middle of this conversation while not getting anything done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A springboard for something else? You're the one who keeps changing the subject. Carrington's article in The Guardian is a reliable source for this subject. Stop changing the subject. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added it back. Are there any objections in the scientific literature? No? Then why was it removed? Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The content was removed because the sources used are not appropriate for Wikipedia in science related topics. If we want to make claims of the health effects of a chemical, we need a secondary scientific source (i.e. a peer-reviewed review article), which is why we were discussing WP:MEDRS. That and the content was pretty editorialized. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with MEDRS. For example, if I wanted to talk about the health effects of a chemical released into Toms River by Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis), I don't have to cite peer-reviewed review articles, I can cite dozens of reliable sources published on the topic, such as the book Toms River (2012) by Dan Fagin, a book which itself cites the peer-reviewed review literature.  MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy, and it is commonly abused. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tertiary sources were never being discussed here, nor was there any contention over them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How is Fagin a tertiary source on the subject of the chemical pollution and health hazards of Toms River? Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:PRIMARY: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." Things like textbooks and reputable books typically fall under this category because they summarize mostly secondary sources, whereas peer-reviewed review articles and books are typically secondary literature. If you want to discuss these differences further, bring it to a user talk page as this part of the conversation has strayed from being related to this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are adept at quoting things you don't understand. The book Toms River is considered a secondary source, not a tertiary source as you claim.  And, on Wikipedia, tertiary sources are very contentious, as we tend to not use them in articles.  The fact that you cannot evaluate sources correctly tells me there is a bigger problem at work here. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:FORUM in mind. We're here on this article to discuss and edit content, not discuss the suitability of tangential sources because you believe they secondary and not tertiary. Again, if you're really concerned about whether that book is a secondary or tertiary source, this isn't the place. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to keep FORUM in mind because it has no bearing on this discussion. I gave you an analogy: the book Toms River is a reliable source for an article on a similar chemical, just as Carrington's article in The Guardian (as only one example) is a reliable source for this article. Now address it. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been looking for the actual publication that the press release, and press based on the release, is discussing. I can't find it. I did find something related in some ways (pubmed abstract is here and the article abstracted by pubmed is here) but that doesn't seem to match the title, authorship, e-publication date, or content described in the press release and it is about vertebrates, not bees.... Can anybody find it? If we are going to add content to WP on this subject matter, it needs to be based on the actual scientific publication (if it is indeed a review) and not on press releases or reports in the media based on the press release. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just spent another half hour looking for the publication discussed in the press release, and again found nothing. This unfortunately appears to be a case of science by press release.   We need to wait until their article about bees is actually published to do anything. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction, this was definitely science by press release. The press release itself (here) says: "*The full WIA will be published in the Springer Journal within the next few weeks. Date to be confirmed by the Journal".  This is not going to be pretty. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I linked you to it two days ago in my questions, which I repeat: Are you suggesting isn't a peer reviewed secondary source? Why have you refrained from responding to the proposal for inclusion which you demanded? EllenCT (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With regard to the piece you linked to, I would guess that this might be the article referred to in the press release. It has not been published by the journal yet, and until it is, that is a WP:SPS.  With regard to the proposal, I demanded nothing. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * MEDRS doesn't apply here. The discussion of neonicotinoids and the harm to polinators is adequately sourced per the relevant policies.  Nothing here is controversial or representative of a new discovery.  The fact that companies who specialize in GMOs happen to be behind neonicotinoid production while disrupting pollinators is highly disturbing, as these are the same companies who keep telling us that there isn't enough food for everybody so we must all start eating their GMOs.  How convenient it is for these companies to be disrupting the food supply with their neonicotinoids while making these arguments!  This is either the greatest environmental crime in history or a "coincidence". We don't need or require the permission of MEDRS to add this material. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * all we need is the actual publication, which apparently will come out in a few weeks. WP doesn't do science by press release.  We wait. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of reliable sources on the subject that are perfectly acceptable for inclusion. We do not need to wait for anything.  Furthermore, I am increasingly disgusted at the fake skepticism at work in these articles.  Science should be skeptical of the claims made by the companies who produce these products, not skeptical of the 800 peer-reviewed studies that demand an end to the use of neonicotinoids.  Reading these articles and discussions, one would think that the corporations have taken over, and in the process, rewritten the rules for scientific methodology itself.  Of course, that hasn't happened, but this fake skepticism intent on doubting the mountain of evidence against neonicotinoids and other harmful products should not be tolerated. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the reliability of the currently removed content in this talk section (which has nothing to do with the producing companies), not the "plenty of reliable sources" you're mentioning . Stick to the content at hand here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't discussed content. Carrington's article in The Guardian has been deleted due to vocal concerns of "I don't like it" and MEDRS, both of which are inapplicable.  Clearly, the source is reliable and meets our policies.  And contrary to what you and Jytdog keep claiming, it appears the problem here is with your edits, not with the edits of other editors here.  In fact, your very first edit to Wikipedia was to remove any mention of deleterious health effects in this article.  So there is a pattern here, of a group of editors attempting to push a certain POV on this subject, a POV that denies the health effects of this chemical, contrary to the sources.  From where I stand, this looks like another case of denialism. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article was deleted because popular press typically isn't a reliable source for scientific content like this (from WP:SCIRS since you seem to have issues with MEDRS):


 * "Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may rely uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by the public relations department of a university or national laboratory.[3] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk or uncertainty in meaningful terms."


 * "A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure, nor should they be considered when describing what aspects of a field the relevant experts consider interesting, surprising, or controversial. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story; good quality science news articles will indicate their sources. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source. . ."


 * That is the issue we're dealing with right now for this particular source pairing of a yet unpublished article and a news article. That issue can easily be addressed by waiting for for the article to come out. Until then, it's just not verifiable. Guideline, essay or otherwise, that is a concern of editors that needs to be addressed. We've had a relatively straightforward solution proposed, so I don't see any reason to go against it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Guardian reports on the subject of ecosystem services, a topic that does not fall under MEDRS, so you can throw that right out your pretty little window. The Guardian is evaluated as a reliable secondary source reporting on this subject in an authoritative, timely manner.  We already use it in this and many other articles, and it is supported by our WP:RS guideline. The opinions refer to those found in the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on Systemic Pesticide, a report that evaluates all of the literature on neonicotinoids.  It is the largest study of its kind.  Even if it wasn't being published by the Journal Environment Science and Pollution Research, it would still be a reliable source. You can't use a guideline to filter out POV you don't like. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, please comment on content, not contributors. I will post a notice on RSN on the content that was originally added and reverted. Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You posted a biased notice that unfairly framed this dispute. I'm commenting on your content. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been commenting on contributors. I would bring this to your Talk page but you have asked me not to post there.  You did it |here and |here and |here, etc.  You know this is problematic so please stop.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not been commenting on contributors, and your diffs show nothing of the kind. The first diff shows me commenting on your wacky conspiracy theory that anti-pesticide activists are behind the source.  The second diff shows me commenting on the failure of a source evaluation.  The third diff shows me purposefully avoiding discussing a contributor.  So you offered three diffs which don't say what you claim. I asked you not to post to my talk page because I have expressed concern with your repeated inaccurate claims and non-neutral "requests" for input.  Is this clear? Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Posting on RSN
I posted to RSN, here. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And posted notice of the RSN at Talk:MEDRS, here and Talk:SCIRS here and at Project Biology here. Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? Do you expect me to take you seriously after you posted two biased reports indicating your opinion that this is "Science by press release"?  Do you even know what the word "neutrality" means?  Why would I even consider such an unfair framed request as valid? MEDRS has nothing to do with this at all so you can stop bringing it up now. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is what it is. Putting out splashy press releases about scientific work before the actual science publishes, is the definition of "science by press release." Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose of a noticeboard request for neutral input if all you do is skew and frame the request? Like an RFC, a noticeboard request should be neutral.  You don't seem the least bit interested in neutrality, which is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, all articles of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment of the Impact of Systemic Pesticides on Biodiversity and Ecosystems (WIA) have been published, so there should be no reason anymore to exclude this source from Wikipedia. ‎82.127.184.216 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2014

Further discussion regarding Bayer corporate behavior
Was: How should Bayer's efforts to pay for silence be characterized?

Bayer has a long and well-documented history of unrepentant, blatant, and persistent attempts at graft by subversion of the scientific publishing process in order to defend their product marketing mythologies. Is this because the lawyers at Bayer started to outnumber the engineers? Which sources best document the pertinent events, and where are they best summarized? Has any study of Bayer's corporate behavior been undertaken? EllenCT (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The companies appear to be pushing WP:FRINGE theories. Ironically, the fake skeptics here are telling us that we should get on board with their FRINGE theories because a paper from 1990 implicates Varroa destructor not neonicotinoids, or that "pesticides play a negligible role in the decline in bee health".  Let's all get on board the FRINGE train that we're told we must ride, or else. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * umm as per our discussion above about commenting on content not contributors... "fake skeptics".  You can be a valuable contributor but you let your emotions get the best of you. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm right back at you. I've used the term "fake skepticism" and "fake skeptics" to refer to denialism and denialist arguments specifically, not any particular contributor.  Please stop making distracting accusations and stick to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "fake skeptics here" is quite clearly commenting on contributors. But as you will. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see http://britishbeekeeping.com/ for the most recent details and some background information. EllenCT (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To be fair, any company that destroys the planet, breaks laws and puts money first is going to have a damage control team. If they didn't they'd have no money. Consumers actually do value the security of a stable ecosystem and government. It's up to these teams to convince them otherwise (or at least deny the company is part of the problem, or that the problem exists). They play a vital role in maintaining a lush and resourceful financial umbrella, but their deeds naturally go unthanked when they're doing their job properly. Suppresion of information is inherently a hard thing to source.


 * If and when you do find stuff, try to keep the ubiquity of this shit (and WP:NPOV) in mind, and not unduly frame Bayer as exceptionally disreputable/evil/whatever by it. I'm going to miss bees as much as the next guy, but there are many factors (and factories) in play on that field. Not trying to be apologetic, just hoping everyone keeps a level head. There is no good and evil on Wikipedia. Except there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

- Sorry to interrupt here, but could someone fill me in on what the controversy is here? Is there reliable source I could turn to for some background? NickCT (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Away up above, an editor mentioned a source as an example of a recent review. EllenCT noted that said source was funded by Bayer and ever since has been talking about how the source runs afoul of WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY;  and she has continued stating throughout this Talk page and elsewhere, things about Bayer and the source along the lines of her statement that opens this section.  None of it makes much sense to me (I have told her several times that editors can have a COI and an editor's behavior can demonstrate Advocacy, and that sources can run afoul of WP:INDY or not, but COI/Advocacy have nothing to say with whether sources or reliable/usable or not) but she keeps right on. Also she hasn't brought any sources for the claims about Bayer... and indeed this section seems to be a request for other people to bring sources about Bayer.  The sideline thing between Viriditas and me is separate from EllenCT's issues.  Confusing, I know. Hope that is helpful to explain the above,at least from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't "brought" any sources? Do you consider, , and reliable? You have yet to answer yes or no as to whether you agree with my proposed summary of the MEDRS-grade source. EllenCT (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the open letter is a reliable source. The Independent is reliable, and also says that the Executive Committee didn't concur with the accusations of the open letter, and doesn't go anywhere near scientific publishing, nor is it a study of "Bayer's corporate behavior".  I replied to your proposal. Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And the other two? EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view they are both WP:SPS so not reliable. Addtionally, your #38 doesn't criticize Bayer or discuss "astroturfing" or the like; it describes where the endorsements are found, what instructions were given, whether those are good instructions, and whether those instructions are followed and whether following of them is audited. (as an aside, with respect to your larger point about the relationship of neonics to CCD, it says "This report should not be taken as evidence that insecticide poisoning of bees is a major cause of colony loss.")  Your #39 is focused on internal governance matters of BBKA and is not about Bayer's activities.  So I don't see what either of them has to do with the subject of this section. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And further, I don't see how this has anything to do with the content of this article, so I don't plan to discuss further as per WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

neglected to mention that the bayer pesticide that is mentioned in the Independent article is Decis, aka deltamethrin. not a neonic. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've changed the title, again, per WP:NPOVN. Although I'm involved with the person who created it, in that she has added clearly irrelevant material to a number of economics articles, it would be inappropriate for me to issue an official warning.  Still, there is no doubt that the title could be considered libelous, and little doubt it has nothing to do with potential content of this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

July 7th edits
So once again we have supposedly experienced editors suddenly claiming that paid advocacy is superior to press releases for important scientific claims from established MEDRS authors' follow-on claims, because the follow-on conclusions offend monied corporate interests. I strongly object to the anti-R&D effect of these opinions, because they are false. Science does not turn its back on progress just because some product produced decades ago is a cash cow. I strongly object to this series of edits except for the paragraph explaining why no ethical editor should want to be associated with the inclusion of paid advocacy and the POV-check template. I strongly suggest that anyone who doesn't want me to revert the balance take the matter up with WP:COIN immediately. EllenCT (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ellen, I'm a little confused here. Are you accusing an editor of a conflict of interest? As has been pointed out to you before, COIN is not for content, but for editors. We've been pretty straightforward in demonstrating why some sources aren't reliable for certain content on Wikipedia. Multiple editors have demonstrated that to you for different content on this talk page, but there have been multiple occasions where you have re-added the same content with no changes while ignoring the talk page discussion (i.e. recent revert to the unpublished Task Force on Systemic Pesticides study content you added again). In that case we said wait until the actual study is published before going further. That behavior has gotten a bit of your content reverted multiple times because adding the same content back in contrary to the talk discussion is WP:EDITWARRING. Threatening to revert the changes you outlined at this point without reaching a consensus in the talk page (which is getting pretty bloated lately) would also be edit warring and goes against Wikipedia policies. This is all starting to move into behavior territory (that is affecting content here), so all I'll say for future edits to to be especially mindful of WP:BRD, especially the discussion part of the process that determines what content actually gets through. I'd highly suggest re-reading the talk page discussions here, as many of the reasons for your content being removed are addressed here and are based in content and reliable sourcing concerns rather than what light a particular company is portrayed in.Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - Not looking at the WP:COI issues at the moment, what's the justification for removing the Bayer endorsements info? The edit summary doesn't seem to be applicable to that content. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and restored some of the information per WP:BRD. I think we may need to find a better place for the material. NickCT (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That question has been addressed mainly by Jytdog in the above talk sections in scattered areas, and we have a string of edit summaries with additional details. I haven't particularly been involved in that section yet, but from what I've seen so far I do agree that the British Beekeeping website is not a reliable source since those contents are self published. The main summary of reliability issues is . The Independent article also states that this apparent deal was not for neonics, but for pyrethroids and . Some discussions have been getting a little scattered across this talk page lately, so hopefully that summarizes where the discussion and edits have been on that particular content so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - Ah yes. Somehow I missed the fact that the Independent article was not dealing with neonics. After rereading I agree the Independent piece is not an appropriate reference for this page. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim that the independent British beekeeping reports describe only payments concerning deltamethrin and no neonics? EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comments have been focused on Bayer. You now apparently seek to broaden the scope.   All four of the pesticides named in the Independent are Pyrethroids:
 * Bayer's Decis which is Deltamethrin
 * BASF's Contest (also known as Fastac), as per this source is Cypermethrin, a
 * Syngenta's Hallmark which as per this source is lambda-Cyhalothrin and Benzisothiazolinone (the latter is neither a pyrethroid nor a neonic)
 * Belchim's Fury which as per this source is also cypermethrin
 * Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the problem, I was calling the "independent" sources the beekeepers' reports, not the Independent news article. EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * you have brought no other reliable source than the Independent. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and by the way, the header of this section is offensive. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC) (strike since header was changed. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Referring only to the first sentence, "paid advocacy" and "press releases" are virtually synonymous. Actual articles would be superior to both.  Most of the references (both deleted, and added) in the series of edits are essentially self-published.
 * As I have a doctor's appointment in 40 minutes, and it's at least 15 minutes away in the absence of traffic (which is never absent in the Los Angeles area, I may not have time to read the rest of the comments. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Independent article seems to be quoting beekeepers, with no attempt at verification. Not self-published, but requires attribution.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Primary studies removed
Two primary studies have been removed with a request to use the talk page if there was disagreement. They were used properly according to WP policy (assuming that the news reported study lists the actual study as well). I'd like to see the policy that states that primary studies, when properly used, are never allowed. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue was that they were not properly used. Primary scientific studies are typically unreliable for Wikipedia. We need secondary sources citing those papers to determine reliability. We've covered this a few times on this page already on why this is. Essentially, almost any use of a primary source is a form of synthesis on our part, which doesn't bode well under WP:NOR. WP:PRIMARY states, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Because of this WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS are pretty clear about using secondary sources to support a primary study instead of just having a string of unattributed primary sources.


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


 * Your interpretation of our guidelines differs from mine. We have no reviews re invertebrate species and the Dutch study has been presented per guidelines: "A 2013 Dutch study determined that water containing allowable concentrations of neonicotinoids had 50% fewer invertebrate species compared with uncontaminated water.[60]"  The review article from Nature belongs in this article as well.  I edit our encyclopedia for our readers and to see you suggest that the Nature article is "bottom of the barrel" and not appropriate for a WP article that is about the subject of the article is surprising.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

Recent edits

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

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


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

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

~Environmental persistence~

Information from the EPA such as...[ http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/memo_nov2010_clothianidin.pdf]

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

Etc.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background and Justification: Neonicotinoids are insecticides that distribute systemically through many stages of plant development, can be effective against targeted pests, but may also adversely impact many non-target insects. The Service's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy (561 FW 1) directs us to use long-standing established IPM practices and methods that pose the lowest risk to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. The prophylactic use of neonicotinoids and the potential broad-spectrum adverse effects to non-target species do not meet the intent of IPM principles or the Service's Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) policy (601 FW 3). Attachment 2, Neonicotinoid Information Sheet, further outlines the scope and scale of the issue and potential non-target impacts as a result ofneonicotinoid use, including as a seed treatment. Neonicotinoids, applied as a seed treatment, are potentially being used on agricultural crops grown for wildlife within Rl National Wildlife Refuge System Lands. A total of 8, 710 acres of agricultural crops were grown in 2013 (RAPP). At this time, we have not been able to determine how many programs, contracts, or cooperative agreements are using neonicotinoid-treated seeds. Project Leaders are encouraged to work with cooperators to develop innovative ways to meet refuge management objectives by developing agreements that reduce the amount and toxicity of chemical applications, but still maintain a fair return to our farming partners.

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


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

On June 20 the White House issued a presidential memorandum creating a Pollinator Health Task Force and ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to "assess the effect of pesticides, including neonicotinoids, on bee and other pollinator health and take action, as appropriate." Why the fuss over bees? Is the U.S. in the midst of a bee-pocalypse? The science says no. Bee populations in the U.S. and Europe remain at healthy levels for reproduction and the critical pollination of food crops and trees. But during much of the past decade we have seen higher-than-average overwinter bee-colony losses in the Northern Hemisphere, as well as cases of bees abruptly abandoning their hives, a phenomenon known as "colony collapse disorder." Lfstevens (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Just as an FYI, it's not alright to copy and paste copyrighted material, especially a whole article. We do have some avenues for such content on a very limited basis, but it would probably be best to remove the quoted content since we don't really have anything to add to the article from it. It might be alright to keep the paragraph starting with "The reality is that honeybee populations are not declining . . ." as long as it's properly attributed just to show what was being discussed here. However, this section could be a good reminder to sniff out areas in the article where it should be specified that at least for honeybees this isn't just a simple matter of total honeybee populations decreasing to address your primary question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected. I certainly wouldn't have placed the quote in the article...The part I thought was of interest was the research summary, not any policy-related stuff that flowed from it. Thanks for responding. Lfstevens (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

American Bird Conservancy review
I have asked about the deleted American Bird Conservancy review book at Reliable sources/Noticeboard EllenCT (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * , consensus at WP:RSN was that it's reliable for their opinion, but not for any statements of fact, such as it being a "review". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't consider " concerns about toxicity" to be necessary, as long as it clearly the opinion of the ABC. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

How about this source? Lfstevens (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


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

new content
In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neonicotinoid&diff=652011157&oldid=651709247 this dif], introduced the following content:

However, some neonicotinoids are both persistent and toxic.

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


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

Controversy on data interpretation
What about including the conclusion on the controversy on the interpretation of a bumblebee study in the article?
 * Dave Goulson: Neonicotinoids impact bumblebee colony fitness in the field; a reanalysis of the UK’s Food & Environment Research Agency 2012 experiment. In: PeerJ. 3, 2015, p. e854, 10.7717/peerj.854,.

--Leyo 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We can potentially use expert statements where other researchers criticize either study, but I'd really look for a peer-reviewed literature review to give us some context on the study. This field has reviews pretty often, so if there is anything to document about a specific study, a review will essentially do that for us. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

reversal of Nature refs
added references to the April 2015 Nature paper here and was promptly reverted by jytdog with the reason "remove content based on WP:PRIMARY sources". However, that is not categorically forbidden, per wp:primary. Also, citronrose should be welcomed as a newbie.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any reason to keep it. They are primary studies in a topic where we get plenty of reviews. If it's something consider both valid and notable by other scientists, they'll make it known to us in not too long of time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your assessment of the current state of the secondary sources with respect to those primary sources? EllenCT (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No such source has cited those studies yet from what I've seen at a quick glance. I'll have access to more in the morning when I'm not on my phone though. There is some interesting stuff being discussed in these sources though, so it'll surprise me if they don't get picked up sooner rather than later. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not want to be that much behind science. There is no problem in providing the key findings as such (not as facts) of high quality studies (taken the quality of the journal as a metric). --Leyo 08:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree - one sentence from Nature is certainly reasonable. I have returned it. Gandydancer (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline here and our goal is not to be up to date with the most recent research that is published, but up to date with what any given field defines as its current state of knowledge... especially in something controversial like this. We find the latter in reviews. if we cite PRIMARY literature there is a) no end to what we can or would use here (new research is published all the time - in 2014 and 2015 there were 30 papers indexed in Pubmed alone, on "neonicotinoids bees".   There were 2 reviews during that time.  Those are what we should be citing, and we should be updating as new reviews come out, not as new basic research is published.  We don't cite either of those two reviews, so we clearly have some updating to do. I will do that this weekend if someone doesn't get to it before me.Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick update, but I checked other databases (Web of Science, Scopus, etc.) for good measure and found no citations yet. Since they were published last week, it's just too early for any publications to comment on them. I'd consider it WP:RECENTISM to focus on these studies right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But you don't consider the article as a whole as being unbalanced? At least is has a history section, but as the topic has gained more attention in recent years, many of the study are from the 2010s. --Leyo 21:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry i don't understand - unbalanced in what way? Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Old and new (recent) “stuff”. --Leyo 09:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of a primary source seemed fine here, per WP: PRIMARY, per prior discussions on this page and others particularly including Wikiproject medicine member. , Leyo, Gandydancer and myself have shown support. We include it to inform our readers, who do not subscribe to Nature. Since there are no secondary reviews yet, this is what we should be citing, and we should be updating the article accordingly. Furthermore, the history of this article shows a strong WP:POV regarding critical reviews since at least 2010. We find that the 2 reverting parties wp:IDONTHEAR, and have been interpreting WP: PRIMARY to wikilawyer in the exact same vein as above (no deadline, WP:Recentism etc pp) to diffuse and delay what they WP:IDONTLIKE. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry where did MastCell weigh in on this edit? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * whew. Well I guess if I wanted to pointy, i could follow suite and add content on all thirty articles published in 2014 and 2015. in light of this and the personalization of this dispute by Wuerzele...   this is not a rational conversation about content.  I am walking away. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Honey bee queens highly vulnerable to two neonicotinoid insecticides
Newly published in Nature: 193.5.216.100 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Williams, G.R., Troxler, A., Retschnig, G., Roth, K., Shutler, D., Yañez, O., Neumann, P., Gauthier, L. 2015. Neonicotinoid insecticides severely affect honey bee queens. Scientific Reports 5, 14621; 10.1038/srep14621 =>
 * It's a primary study, and a brand new one at that which is just starting to be discussed among scientists. It's best to wait for a secondary source to cite it and put it into context before we start thinking about content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This paper has been cited several times now. --Leyo 20:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Did a quick Web of Science check and there are only a handful of citations mostly by other primary studies. Only one review currently exists citing this paper, but it's a self-citation by the same authors. Even with that, the actual citation is for a very broad sentence saying queens get exposed to various stressors over time. It doesn't look like this particular study has risen to the level of weight that we'd include commentary of its findings in an encyclopedic article quite yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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

English study
Just a note that I removed content based on a recently published primary study [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neonicotinoid&diff=734847292&oldid=734846480 here]. As is typical per WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS, we generally wait for secondary scientific sources (i.e. not news articles, but rather reviews) to comment on the publication to gauge the scientific community's acceptance of the paper. That's especially the case for freshly published studies since we want to avoid a breaking news approach to scientific content. Some conversation has already occurred on this topic at my talk page, so I'm just summarizing this for clarity if anyone else sees the edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As this is an animal study, WP:MEDRS is not relevant here. WP:SCIRS is an essay and as such does not dictate content. If there is local consensus that the source is important, it should be included.Dialectric (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This topic related to bee health often straddles SCIRS and MEDRS (and they are complementary anyways), hence mentioning both of them. SCIRS is in the tier of guideline-like essays for science articles in terms of how editors rely on it, so we can't say it's only an essay to dismiss it. It explains why we have this sourcing schematic. You're also very well aware from past interactions that there's an expectation for higher sourcing requirements in these articles, especially due to their controversial nature.


 * If someone wants to mention this particular study, they only need to bring up literature reviews, etc. citing it and giving us context. As always, we avoid WP:RECENTISM by following the same schematic science does. We generally stay behind the ball and wait for corroboration from secondary reliable sources, which are both policies in this case. Even in the rare case a primary study is cited (usually for the introduction if reviews aren't available), we generally wait until some time has passed to avoid those recentism issues. There's no rush to not wait for secondary sources, just as it would be for any other study in this topic regardless of what it says. This is however, a correlational study, so that's only another red flag that that strengthens the need for additional scientific commentary. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dialectric that WP:MEDRS is not applicable to this article. --Leyo 07:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * The one-sentence mention of the English study Peaceray provides is neutral and a reasonable inclusion in this article, and is in no way original research. If we cannot agree on whether this or a similar sentence should be included, an rfc would be the next logical step.Dialectric (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't read any valid argument against mentioning this study (result as is, i.e. not as "the (only) truth"). The single user opposing it by stressing non-applicable guideline/essay might have some kind of agenda. --Leyo 20:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the direct personal attack, WP:CONSENSUS is not determined by vote counting. It's instead determined by which arguments are grounded in policy, guideline, and essays that have strong community support. In this case, I've cited ample guidance at the policy, guideline, and essay level. WP:PSTS and WP:WPNOTRS policy give plenty of guidance on this saying that we should be using reliable secondary sources and generally avoiding primary sources because in the rare cases when they can be considered, it is easy to misuse them (even moreso for science topics). This section of SCIRS gives supplemental guidance on why that is for those that aren't familiar with scientific publishing.


 * As mentioned already, it's an uphill battle for those wanting to use a primary source. Simply having a number of editors saying they want to use it is not good enough. Not one person has yet addressed the various issues I've brought up cited in our guidance on primary sources. What is the urgency in pushing this primary source into the article when policy highly cautions against it? What's so special about this particular primary source that indicates it goes above the bar of avoiding primary sources? Based on the discussion so far, nothing answering those questions has been provided. Not to mention that even saying there is a link is technically inaccurate. Correlational studies are very difficult to accurately convey findings for a lay audience because correlation does not imply causation. Those studies are prime candidates for misinterpretation by media and the general public as well as spurious correlation (often a problem with temporal correlation), so that's why it's best to wait for future commentary and additional research this early on in the research process. We're just not dealing with a tier of evidence that justifies using a bare primary source, and it's not something that can be put in proper context by us editors either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Kingofaces appears to be blurring the sharp and longstanding distinction between essay and policy. Rather than rehash the same challenges others have already raised against his novel interpretation of the weight of essays above, I have opened an rfc to establish whether a sentence mentioning the 18 year English study discussed here should be included in this article.Dialectric (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from antagonizing an already tense topic area by personalizing disputes and blatantly misrepresenting what I've said. I've already made it clear that the actual policy has a lot to say on this strongly cautioning against this usage, and further guidance like MEDRS and SCIRS give more real-world context for scientific topics behind that policy that need to be dealt with even if "it's only an essay" arguments are used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of a sentence on a primary study
There is consensus that the information should be included, but no consensus on how it should be included. Foe example, concerns about WP:UNDUE, and a question of whether the type of source in this case will be understandable to the casual reader, and whether secondary sources regarding the study should be included. The information shouldn't be added until this are addressed. Feel free to start a follow-up discussion regarding these, of course. - jc37 18:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Should this page include a single sentence about the study ‘Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England’ which was published in August 2016 in the journal Nature Communications? Dialectric (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - This study is significant for its focus on large-scale and long-term (18 years) changes in wild bee distributions in an area where much of the literature covers short term effects. This study was peer reviewed and published in a high-impact journal, Nature Communications (2015 impact factor of11.329). It has been covered in RS news sources including the BBC. A brief mention of the study and its findings would be in accord with wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and would not shift the weight away from quality review articles already used in the article. A matter-of-fact restatement or quoting of the study's findings, described as such, would avoid the dangers of misinterpretation.Dialectric (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - In my mind this sort of paper would be akin to a medical trial and we usually cite those. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Two issues there. First, this would not be akin to a medical trial because it is a purely correlational study, which is a pretty big step below purposely designed studies with controls, etc. (see Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). The other is that we generally do not cite even formal medical trials as primary sources in WP:MEDRS topics. Part of that is due to increased scrutiny for human health claims, but also underlying issues with us as editors using primary sources that apply outside of just human medicine whether you are reading WP:MEDRS or WP:SCIRS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In my experience trials are cited quite frequently for pharma compounds. Admittedly this is not a trail; but I would be surprised to see a trial run on bees at the same scale and rigor as is done in humans. We do frequently cite this sort of correlational population-study in medical articles, even contentious ones (see: Water fluoridation). It's a big data-set and reviews will obviously cite it in time but studies on this scale tend to be small in number, so this will probably always be regarded as an important paper and hence its worth citing.--Project Osprey (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Such studies are usually removed per WP:MEDRS, but focusing on the topic at hand, bees are a hot topic in the entomological world. One only needs to look at honey bees and all the equivalent health trials done for them already whether it's pesticides or other environmental stressors. That's not really for us to WP:CRYSTALBALL though, but what you've said is a good indicator for why we usually wait for commentary from scientific secondary sources. That's especially considering how many scientifically controversial claims/studies have come up in the bee literature already (i.e., my smoking gun comment below). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Having read your arguments I'm somewhat swayed. I still think theres a place in medical articles for these sorts of large studies but for the time being I'm going to withdraw my vote.--Project Osprey (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - The only concern I would have is that Nature Communications publishes communications, not full articles, and the distinction is one that most outside the scientific community won't be familiar with. The standard for review is different, but often the standard for impact is higher. (A communication is intended to present preliminary results of important research.) The article does not need to discuss this difference. However, update this article when the full article is published. Roches (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I offer the minor correction that Nature Communications publishes full articles of complete results (and reviews). Its primary distinction from Nature by being open access and online only. While the distinction between article and communication is generally correct, in this case the title of the journal does not properly reflect the content. Dbsseven (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose and wait for review to put in context per policy. This RfC seems a bit premature considering the lack of discussion attempting to justifying inclusion of the source in a WP:CONSENSUS fashion. Either way, let's summarize the litany of problems here:


 * Secondary vs. primary sources policy and additional guidance


 * Bee health related articles have been having an issue where recently published WP:PRIMARY studies are added to the articles against policy without waiting for secondary sources from the scientific community. Each time a new study comes up, there’s a trend to ignore recentism issues and say that because primary sources aren’t explicitly disallowed in all cases, they should be included by default. It’s a science topic similar to health articles where recent studies hit the popular news with smoking gun claims that X causes bee declines while the larger scientific community later tends to take much more measured views or often find serious flaws or overstatements in the primary studies. The policy issue is that content should be based on secondary sources (i.e., review articles in this case as a scientific topic, not news articles and press releases) per WP:WPNOTRS. Further policy says that primary sources can on occasion be used, but strongly, strongly cautions against it for various reasons. That means there is a pretty high bar for justifying the use a primary source, so there needs to be more of an argument than it exists in a journal. The trend we're seeing here is at odds with these polices.


 * We have two main sources of guidance on science topics strongly supported by the community WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. Both point out broad issues with using primary studies that apply to science in general whether you are only looking at MEDRS or SCIRS topics. SCIRS specifically discusses the need for appropriate secondary sources with respect to primary studies, especially due to popular-press news articles and press releases touting the latest experiments. Issues with WP:RECENTISM are also explained at Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences) on why we want to avoid sources that have not yet been evaluated by the larger scientific community. SCIRS overall applies more here, but there have been some inappropriate arguments that because SCIRS is an essay that those real world issues related with the use of primary sources can be ignored.


 * Difficulty actually using this study correctly


 * So far, we have quite a lot of guidance at the policy, guideline, and essay level discussing general scientific sources stating we want to avoid using primary scientific sources like this. Ignoring recentism for a bit, we would need to meet a high bar for inclusion of a primary study in this environment. Length of the study gets into WP:OR territory as the 18-year bit requires a lot of clarification on the quality of the data (it wasn't a 18-year long study, but rather different datasets from different researchers over those 18 years). We’re dealing with a correlational study here, which is considered a very low tier of evidence quality (MEDRS explains this general issue more than SCIRS). Correlation does not imply causation, which means we are running into issues with WP:OR by even saying there is a link. That is partly because you can correlate almost anything over time as this study did (this really illustrates the issues with correlational comparisons over time for those not familiar. Correlational studies are basically extremely preliminary evidence in the scientific world used to inform scientists that it could be an area to look into for properly designed studies. They are not of sufficient WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in an article even saying there is a link, and we can't as editors go into the journal article to engage in peer-review to justify inclusion through dataset size, study design, etc. to say it's an important study worth including. Even if one was going to say there was a link, you would somehow need to explain to a lay audience how weak correlational studies are in terms of evidence and how this specific study stands in terms of rigor there. This just doesn’t come close to a candidate for a standalone primary source.


 * Tl;dr


 * Given all the issues above with recentism and how we could even actually use a primary source of this evidence quality, there’s not really a way to move ahead with using the source alone (or with related news articles) while addressing all these issues above to result in actual WP:CONSENSUS for use. Those issues have not been addressed in conversation before this RfC either. The simplest solution is to just wait for a review to put this primary study into context that we can then cite. This topic has very frequent reviews, so there should be no rush to put yet another primary source into the article. It’s an extremely basic way to comply with policy on focusing on secondary sources and avoiding the problem of breaking-news primary sources that haven’t been commented on by the larger scientific community yet. A recent example in this same article of why we do this is here where reviews actually don't give that study much weight yet after almost a year. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have started a new section for discussion, let's please keep this !vote section clean. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per Dialectric – having read Kingofaces43's lengthy mantra-like argumentation. --Leyo 20:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Support, probably best to cite both the research paper and some of the press coverage of the findings, so as to sort of buffer the primary source with secondary sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - To me, it would depend somewhat on what exactly the sentence said. After all, in the conclusion of the paper we have When individual species occupancy from 1994 to 2010 was compared with occupancy predicted under the model where neonicotinoids were not used, it is clear that the detected loss of species occupancy was typically small (Figs 3 and 4).). If you look at Figure 4, you can see what they mean. It would be interesting to see what someone else could do with the data, since there were clearly a lot of assumptions and theoretical models involved. And then there's whether or not the moratorium on neonicitinoid use has had any effect on these numbers. --tronvillain (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Before more individual studies are added, we need to cite the available review articles. And then find a more systematic method for deciding when and when not to include a primary study. Please read the next discussion section. --Neonico (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Neonico (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support per Dialectric – and BTW, will we never see an end to pretending that non-humans are covered by the WP:MEDRS topics sections?  Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This argument of not using the paper because "it's a communication paper not a full paper" and WP:RECENTISM are completely uncompelling, as is the red herring of MEDRS. Honestly those lines of reasoning are coming close to concern trolling in my opinion. The study in question is indeed a full research article in a very highly ranked journal, and bees are not humans. Neonicotinoids and concern over their use are also not recent, not even concern over bees in particular. E.g. here is an article from 1978 that discusses some negative effects of neonicotinoids in bees. Finally "correlation is not causation" is a complete bs waste of time. I'm pretty sure the fine editors of Nature Communications are well familiar with that. We have plenty of direct evidence of that this insecticide kills bees, and we know precisely how. A controlled study on precisely how these compounds have affected the bee population in England cannot be performed, unless you happen to have another copy of England where these chemicals were never used. This is starting to feel like an argument with a proponent of global warming denial, because fully controlled experiments are also unavailable.  We have hundreds of good research papers on neonicotinoids and their negative impacts on bees, spanning at least 40 years. This one just happens to be a high-profile paper in a good journal with a good data set. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd take a student aside in a stats course if they ever advocating for ignoring the cautions of correlation no being causation by invoking global warning denial as it shows a complete misunderstanding of the topic. We don't throw out a basic underpinning of science because some group abused the process.


 * In reality, the situation is nothing like global warming. In that example you have papers that use complex models that account for many known processes that affect climate. It's never a simple CO2 on one axis and temperature on the other analysis. Even though they are dealing in uncontrolled correlation studies, they instead account for basically everything they can in a well understood system with a lot of backtesting. This study however, is early-stage exploratory data rather than that degree of modeling. In the case of honey bees, you have tons of other pesticides (Table 1) present in the system often used that are also going to be spatially and temporally correlated with neonicotinoid use, diseases that have been ramping up in the same time period, habitat degradation,, climate change, etc. I don't think you're going to find anyone saying insecticides aren't an important consideration with respect to bees, but it's not a neonic only picture even when you drill down to just the pesticide aspect. Give confounding a read if you're aren't familiar with the concept.


 * At the end of the day, reviews tend to spend a lot of time discussing the complex web of stressors for multiple bee species, with the primary factors getting first mention being diseases, pests, and habitat change (e.g., plant availability, level of disturbance, weather/climate). From a WP:WEIGHT perspective, not accounting for these factors in addition to all the other insecticides wild bees get exposed to makes the evidence from this study extremely weak, not to mention conflicting with those reviews with those omissions. That's why we wait for comprehensive review articles in this topic because the literature is quite vast (that includes plenty of controlled studies on bee health). Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Neonics and bees- inclusion of primary studies selective, missing review articles
The section cites a dozen or so individual/isolated/primary studies. However, during 1992-2012 over 100 studies on "neonics" and "bees" have been published, that is to say a number much larger than found here. While there may be a justification for citing or not citing a primary study, the mismatch ~12 vs. >100 strikes me as suspect. If one would screen all available individual studies systematically for inclusion, I would expect a much larger number of studies to be discussed here. In addition, a handful of review articles on the topic have been published but they are mostly missing here. I suggest to revise the selection of individual studies included in this section, and include and put much more emphasis on review articles that summarize many individual studies: (2011),  (2012),  (2012),  (2014),  (2015),  (2015). The rules are pretty clear here. --Neonico (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly, any review articles in reputable journals should be included in the article, and given more weight than primary studies. However, your finding the primary studies mentioned vaguely 'suspect' is not sufficient justification for their removal en masse.Dialectric (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I wrote "the mismatch ~12 vs. >100 strikes me as suspect". I did not call any study suspect nor did I suggest to remove them all. I called for a reflection on the fact that only a few individual studies are included while the vast majority are not. --Neonico (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are not calling for a removal of the individual studies, then calling for a moratorium on adding new studies as you have done in the above rfc is arbitrary. Improvements can be made to the coverage of review articles independent of whether primary sources are included.Dialectric (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does "nicotinoid" redirect here?
What is a "nicotinoid" (without the neo- prefix)? Equinox ◑ 09:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an older term that was generally used to refer to nicotine and closely related compounds that were used as insecticides before the new neonicotinoids came about. It's a finicky piece of terminology, so I'll check out some sources when I get to it if someone else doesn't beat me to it. This may be the best home for the redirect for now, but I could see an argument for piping it elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Super finicky! I'd be interested to see if we can track down the answer here.
 * Just glancing at PubMed, this reference from 1996 is the earliest mention I can see to "neo-nicotinoids". Not really clear to me what if any real separation there is between nicotinoids and neo-nicotinoids.... NickCT (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nicotine is an old pesticide poisonous to insects AND mammals, birds, etc. I worked for an old English nurseryman who'd soak his cigar stubs in water and make that liquid into a homemade insecticidal spray.  Worked, but... .  Liquid nicotine is still sometimes marketed as an acceptable "organic" pesticide (but less frequently now); it is a naturally occurring botanical -- but with some unhealthy drawbacks.  Anyway nicotine would be a nicotinoid.
 * :Neonicotinoids mimic nicotine, but are less toxic to vertebrates (including people), and at the same time more long-lasting in the environment. For every neonic that has made it to market there are probably dozens of rejected synthesized neonic chemicals and formulations.
 * GeeBee60 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead could use updating
It seems to me that the lead could be expanded to more accurately summarize the article. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)